POLL SHOCK: BERNIE TAKES LEAD!

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 11.35.13 AM

A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.

Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”

Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 11.36.40 AM

If Joe Biden decides not to run, Bernie Sanders looks to be the early beneficiary, picking up 31% of Bidens’ voters. Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets 17% of the Biden vote, followed by Beto O’Rourke at 13%.

President Trump has seen his approval numbers nationally stay consistent in 2019 and is currently at 43% approval and 49% disapproval among voters (n=914, +/-3.2%), similar to last month’s numbers (43% to 50%). However, among Republican primary voters, Trump remains very popular and leads potential challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, 85% to 15% (n=324, +/-5.4%).

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 11.37.44 AM

In a head to head ballot test, Joe Biden appears the strongest opponent against Trump of the major Democratic candidates with a 53% to 47% advantage. This result is down 4 points from Emerson’s March poll, where Biden led Trump 55% to 45%. This general tightening is seen in the other head-to heads against other potential opponents: (n=914, +/-3.2%)

  • Biden 53%, Trump 47%
  • Sanders 51%, Trump 48%
  • O’Rourke 51%, Trump 49%
  • Harris 50%, Trump 50%
  • Buttigieg 49%, Trump 51%
  • Warren 48%, Trump 52%

Taxes

As of April 14, 2019, 73% of voters said they had filed their federal income tax returns, 17% plan to get them in on time and 4% have asked for an extension. 6% do not plan on filing returns.

36% of those who have filed their taxes say they are paying more compared to last year, with 29% saying they are paying less, and 35% saying they are paying about the same.

Of those who said they were receiving a tax return this year, 41% said they plan to use it to pay off debt, 31% plan to save it, and 13% will spend the money on enjoyment.

Campaign Issues

  • 47% of voters support building a wall on the US-Mexico Border, 45% oppose, 8% are undecided.
  • 41% of voters do not think large tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google should be broken up, 29% think they should be broken up, and 31% are undecided.
  • 43% of voters do not support American intervention in Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro Regime, 27% do support American intervention, 31% were unsure.
  • 55% of voters do not think individuals currently incarcerated should have the right to vote, 30% believe those incarcerated should be able to vote , and 15% are undecided on this issue.
  • 65% of voters think that felons who completed their prison sentences should have the right to vote, 23% do not, and 12% are undecided.

Unlikely Voter

Voters who did not plan to vote in either party primary/caucus were asked why they were not planning on voting, 16% said lack of interest, 12% said they don’t like any of the candidates, 11% said it was too hard to vote, 6% said a lack of time, and 55% responded that it was for some other reason that they do not plan to vote in the primaries.

Caller ID

The national Emerson College poll was conducted April 11-14, 2019 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of registered voters, n=914, with a Credibility Interval (CI) similar to a poll’s margin of error (MOE) of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The data was weighted based on a 2016 voter model of gender, age, party affiliation, region and ethnicity. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only (n=599) and an online panel provided by Amazon Turk (n=315). Visit our website at ​www.emersonpolling.com​.

Follow us on Twitter ​@EmersonPolling

Bernie Sanders Rejects Call for Open Borders, Savaged by Left

Sanders surprised some by rejecting a platform of open borders.

By Richard Moorhead

Bernie Sanders made himself an unlikely target for criticism among his detractors in the Democrat Party on Sunday, after rejecting an assertion from a questioner that he supported open borders.

A man asked how Bernie intended to sustain his vision of enlarged governmental social programs while supporting open borders. The Vermont Senator and Presidential candidate clarified that he did not support open borders, going into brief detail as to why he did not. Watch here:

Video Player

“My point is that if you open the borders, you’re going to have people from all over the world. That is not my position.”

As milquetoast and basic as Sanders’ argument against a policy of open borders was, it became a target for derision among some on the progressive left unwilling to accept anything less. Some expressed indignation that Sanders would so much as even take a stance on the subject, stating that any conversation about the notion of open borders- a commonly suggested policy proposal in corporate media- was nothing more than cleverly disguised Republican propaganda.

The Koch brothers-funded corporate libertarian outlet Reason Foundation also published a piece criticizing Sanders for taking the most elementary stance possible in support of American workers by rejecting open migration to the United States. Increasingly centrists and liberals on both the left and “right” find themselves in league with one another in support of radical globalist policies that would import millions of new low-wage workers and voters into American society. If such an open borders vision were to be executed, it’s likely the American middle and working class would be crushed by an onslaught of cheap-labor competition, eventually resulting in the creation of a new Brazilian or Russian-style class system in the United States in which a small contingent of wealthy oligarchs have complete leverage over the vast impoverished masses.

Sanders still advocates for a massive amnesty of up to twelve million illegal immigrants and the drastic neutering of immigration law enforcement agencies such as ICE in the United States. However, one can’t help but notice the irony that his immigration policy views are probably well on the right of what’s commonly proposed by Democratic Party presidential candidates and legislators. Julian Castro, another Democratic Presidential candidate, potentially represents the left wing of Democratic Party opinion migration. Castro has called for the full decriminalization of illegal migration, potentially opening the southern border up to unprecedented waves of crossings that could make the caravans appear no greater than small formations in comparison.

Democrat Presidential Candidate Julián Castro: Open the Borders

By Neil Munro

The Associated Press

Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro is hoping to win primary voters by urging an open-borders policy, even though his plan would likely shrink wages and spike rents for the party’s base of lower-income voters.

Castro, a former housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, announced his innovative promise to cut voters’ wages via a friendly interview in the Washington Post:

Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro offered a far-reaching plan to remake the nation’s immigration policy Tuesday with a new call to end criminal penalties for migrants entering the country without permission and a plan to remove detention as a tool for most immigration enforcement.

By repealing the criminal code that allows the Trump administration to prosecute people who enter the country, Castro would remove the mechanism that previously allowed the administration to separate asylum-seeking parents and children after detention. Trump has since stopped those prosecutions, though single adults continue to face criminal penalties. Castro said he would impose a civil legal process for sorting out refu­gee applications and deportations, with an emphasis on jailing and removing those with criminal records.

Castro also wants to amnesty the population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States, to accelerate the chain-migration of foreigners into the United States, to boost the inflow of refugees, and to end construction of a border barrier. He would also block the power of ICE to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, so further reducing the already small threat of repatriation for the growing population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States.

Overall, Castro’s policy would explode the population of non-Americans in the United States and so further expand opportunities for Latino politicians and power-brokers. In February 2019, Breitbart reported Castro’s political roots in Latino identity politics:

Castro’s mother, Maria del Rosario Castro, or Rosie Castro, was a major leftist organizer who co-founded La Raza Unida, an extremist third party separatist group in the 1970s. La Raza Unida literally translates to “The Race United,” and the group sought to create a new country in the American Southwest called Aztlan. Breitbart News has run a number of pieces over the years on this group and the Castro family’s connections to it, but perhaps the most interesting thing about Castro’s presidential campaign launch is that he did not shy away from this radical upbringing; he embraced it.

The Washington Post reporter, Michael Scherer, did not ask Castro how Americans voters would gain or lose amid of flood of blue-collar and white-collar labor. The reporter did not address how a massive rise of the immigrant population would help lower-income Americans keep their homes in neighborhoods that are already seeing rising real-estate prices, such as New York and Los Angeles.

Instead, Castro and Scherer treated the migration issue merely as a matter of the migrants’ welfare. This skew hides the greatest economic impact of migration — the transfer of blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries earned by ordinary Americans and legal immigrants up to wealthy, older recipients, including investors, CEOs, and real estate owners.

Also, Castro and Scherer treated the migration as only a humanitarian crisis, and portrayed the migrants as helpless victims, which are described as “asylum-seeking families.” Castro told Scherer that “We see this administration’s approach to immigration is a total failure. Instead of marching forward with cruelty, I believe we should choose compassion.”

That approach dismisses the strong evidence that the migrants are rationally exploiting the many legal loopholes which are being held open by Democrats, judges and business lobbyists, to win jobs and residency for their children in the peaceful, prosperous United States.

Scherer did not reply to questions from Breitbart News.

The focus by Castro and Scherer on the migrants’ welfare and on humanitarian concerns also echoes the bipartisan claim that the United States is a “nation of immigrants,” not a nation of and for Americans.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.52.17 PM

The voting public is likely to strongly oppose Castro’s open-borders and cheap-labor policy.

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. But the federal government then imports approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers and roughly 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers.

This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors. This policy shiftsenormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

But the Washington Post article also put a racial, class, and regional skew on the rational public opposition to elite support for cheap-labor migration:

Some Democratic strategists are wary of turning off white voters in swing states of the upper Midwest who Trump has been able to sway with anti-immigration rhetoric.

Those views of “white voters” have been validated by President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy which has raised wages in 2018 by limiting the inflow of new workers in 2017 and 2018:

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.53.11 PM

Amnesty advocates rely on business-funded “Nation of Immigrants” push polls to show apparent voter support for immigration and immigrants.

But “choice” polls reveal most voters’ often-ignored preference that CEOs should hire Americans at decent wages before hiring migrants. Those Americans include many blue-collar Blacks, Latinos, and people who hide their opinions from pollsters. Similarly, the 2018 polls show that GOP voters are far more concerned about migration — more properly, the economics of migration — than they are concerned about illegal migration and MS-13, taxes, or House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

WATCH: Dem Presidential Candidate Julián Castro Favors ‘Reparations’ For Slavery, Though He’s Unsure How To Go About It

By FRANK CAMP

Julian Castro, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), listens as a volunteer speaks at the 'Navigating Recovery of the Lakes Region' organization in Laconia, New Hampshire, U.S., on Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019.

On Sunday, democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper.

During the segment, Tapper spoke with Castro about the issue of reparations for descendants of slavery: “This is also dividing Democrats on the trail. You’ve said that there needs to be some kind of reparations to descendants of slaves to compensate for years of slavery and discrimination against African Americans in this country.”

Tapper then played a clip in which presidential rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) talks about Castro’s and Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) support for reparations:

What do they mean? I’m not sure anyone’s very clear. What I just said is that I think we must do everything that we can to address the massive level of disparity that exists in this country.

Tapper asked Castro: “So, what do you mean? Do you think that there should be actual monetary payments to descendants of slaves? Do support more like what Senator Sanders is talking about, policies such as child care and education that help those who are disadvantaged?”

Castro replied:

Well, you know, what I said was that I’ve long believed that this country should address slavery, the original sin of slavery, including by looking at reparations, and if I’m president, then I’m going to appoint a commission or task force to determine the best way to do that. There’s a tremendous amount of disagreement on how we would do that.

Castro then took a jab at Sanders, saying that he shouldn’t be arguing against an approach to reparations that might include “writing a big check” because that’s been the senator from Vermont’s position on health care and college tuition.

He concluded: “So, if under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property?”

The notion of somehow compensating the ancestors of American slaves has long been a topic of discussion among academics and political thinkers. However, the mechanics by which a reparations program would operate have challenged even the most diligent.

On an episode of “Point Taken” on PBS regarding reparations, libertarian commentator Kmele Foster stated bluntly: “I think the important things to consider are, who pays? How much do they pay? And who do they pay it to? These are impossibly difficult questions to actually reconcile and answer in a meaningful and just way.”

Even progressive author Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his 2014 thesis on “the case for reparations” published in The Atlantic, didn’t come to any conclusion as to how reparations should work, writing in part:

Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.

Coates does refer to a bill from former Rep. John Conyers as the beginning of a potential solution: “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in [John] Conyers’s bill, now called HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions.”

Former President Obama even commented on the non-feasibility of a reparations program:

As a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation’s resources over a long period of time to make that right.

Instead, Obama pointed toward progressive redistributionist programs as a means of reparations:

[I am] not so optimistic as to think you would ever be able to garner a majority of the American Congress that would make those kinds of investments above and beyond the kind of investments that could be made in a progressive program for lifting up all people.

As the Democratic presidential candidates gear up for a contentious primary season, they should be prepared to answer questions about reparations. With Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren already promoting the issue, it’s unlikely that it will fade silently into the night.

READ MORE: BARACK OBAMA  DEMOCRATIC PARTY  JULIAN CASTRO  REPARATIONS  SLAVERY

Democrats Mute Calls for Va. Resignations With Power at Risk

Screen Shot 2019-02-07 at 10.21.19 AM.png

By Alan Suderman & Nicholas Riccardi

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Prominent Democrats came down hard on Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam after he apologized for a racist photo. But they were quieter as two more scandals — one involving race, another a sexual assault allegation — rocked Virginia’s statehouse.

The subdued response from national Democrats shows how their zero-tolerance approach has put them in a bind. The party has prided itself on policing its own and hoped to contrast that record with the GOP’s tolerance of misbehavior by President Donald Trump. Now the party will have to decide whether to stick with its principles or retain its political power.

“The party’s put in an odd position,” said Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist who, like much of the political world, watched Virginia’s developments with astonishment Wednesday. “Let’s say they live by their standards and clean house. The stakes are very real now because the line of succession goes through the other side.”

Last Friday, a picture of a man in blackface on Northam’s medical school yearbook page surfaced. During a press conference Saturday, Northam insisted he was not in the yearbook photo but admitted he had once worn blackface. Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, said, “It is no longer possible for Gov. Northam to lead our Commonwealth.”

On Wednesday, the Democrat who would succeed Northam, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, reeled from a detailed statement released by a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her 15 years ago.

Later Wednesday, Herring, the Democrat who would succeed Fairfax, admitted he had worn blackface while in college.

If all three Democrats stepped down, Republicans would take over the state’s top offices. The GOP speaker of the House of Delegates, Kirk Cox, is in line to become governor, and the Republican-controlled House would select a new attorney general. That’s a different dynamic from recent efforts by Democrats to clean house.

In 2017, the party pushed Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, to resign after several women accused him of sexual harassment, but he was replaced by a Democrat. When interparty fury rained down on Northam after the photo came to light last Friday, it seemed likely he’d be replaced by Fairfax.

“The cost for Democrats of getting rid of the office holder are really low,” Seth Masket, a University of Denver political scientist, said of the Northam and Franken scandals earlier this week. “The real test,” he added, would be a scenario in which Republicans could gain a key political office.

Democrats did not seem to pass that test Wednesday. No Democratic presidential contender candidate issued any statement calling for the resignations of Herring or Fairfax, whose accuser, Vanessa Tyson, is represented by the same law firm that represented future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is exploring a Democratic presidential bid, told NBC, “I don’t know that this is a set of decisions we can automate because each of these cases brings different elements to it.”

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker told reporters at the Capitol that “it takes tremendous courage for someone to come forward in the way that she did. This is a deeply disturbing allegation that should be thoroughly investigated.”

Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 4.03.22 PM

Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who was the first presidential candidate to call for Northam’s resignation, told MSNBC it was important for the party to confront the issue. “This can be painful,” Castro said. “But I’m confident that at the end of that day, what we’re going to have is not only a stronger Democratic Party, more importantly we’re going to have a stronger country that lives by these values of respect for everybody.”

Jennifer Wexton, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman representing Northern Virginia, tweeted, “I believe Dr. Vanessa Tyson.” And Al Sharpton, the prominent black activist and television personality, told BuzzFeed News that Herring and Northam should resign and that he’d lead protests against the two politicians. The National Organization of Women called for Fairfax’s resignation.

Part of the reticence to talk was clearly the speed at which the allegations surfaced. Northam’s inner circle was taken aback by how quickly national figures piled on him. The stampede became so pronounced that Herring himself called for Northam’s departure on Saturday after the governor, at a press conference, admitted he’d worn blackface before but denied he was the person in the yearbook photo.

State Sen. Barbara Favola, a Democrat, showed signs of weariness when asked about the new allegations Wednesday. “I have to think about this, I really do,” she said. “I have to take a breath and think about this. This is moving way too quickly. My goal is to be fair to everyone concerned.”

Democrats were also visibly frustrated that Republicans were capitalizing on the scandals. Cox, for example, said Herring “should adhere to the standards he’s set for others or lose credibility” and called the allegations against Fairfax “shocking.”

Guy Cecil, head of the major Democratic super PAC Priorities USA, was one of the earlier national Democrats to demand Northam’s resignation. On Wednesday afternoon, he tweeted: “The past actions of Virginia’s leaders are abhorrent, but many Republicans around the country are engaged in modern-day Jim Crow voter suppression. They need to sweep their own porch before sitting in judgment of another.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who is close to Northam but has called for his resignation, acknowledged the frustrations of other members of his party. He told reporters in the Capitol that he couldn’t judge yet what should happen to Fairfax or Herring but that Democrats shouldn’t worry about the political consequences.

“When the politics are bad — and they’re bad — and everything else sucks, as it does now, just follow the principles,” Kaine said. “Just ask, ‘What is the right way to treat people?’ And that actually makes it clearer.”

#MeToo: Admitted Sexual Predator Cory Booker Joins Presidential Race

Will the FBI investigate his admitted sexual misconduct?

By Peter D’Abrosca

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 10.55.27 AM

A heterosexual U.S. Senator from New Jersey announced Friday morning that he will join the crowded 2020 Democratic presidential field.

“In America, we have a common pain,” said a video posted to Twitter by Sen. Cory Booker. “But what we’re lacking is a sense of common purpose. I grew up knowing that the only way we can make change is when people come

The announcement was typical of a Democrat. The main message is this: America is a fundamentally bad place and I will fix it. It is reminiscent of the eight year message of do-nothing President Barack Obama.

Booker, though, has some problems of his own to contend with. Mainly, he admitted to sexual misconduct with a teenaged girl in an op-ed he wrote in Stanford University’s newspaper.

Big League Politics reported:

New Jersey Senator who has been sharply critical of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 1992 column in which he bragged about groping a high school friend.

“As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game,” said Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker in the column. “With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark.’”

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 10.57.30 AM

Booker admittedly ignored his female friend’s rejection before moving forward in his column called “So Much for Stealing Second.” Apparently “no” means “yes” in Booker’s mind.

Booker’s column surfaced while he, playing the role of male feminist, grilled Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for unprovable allegations of sexual assault during Kavanaugh’s September confirmation hearing.

Booker enters an already-crowded field which includes Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), former San Antonio mayor Julian Castro, among other lesser-known candidates. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has teased an independent run.

Dems hysteria over Starbucks CEO Schultz is all about power, not political views – Tucker Carlson

cap

Democratic outrage over Starbucks founder Howard Schultz’s presidential campaign shows they care only about power, not political agenda, Fox anchor Tucker Carlson said.

While Schulz’s political views are “indistinguishable” from those of establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, his third-party campaign status is the only thing that matters, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in his latest remarks on Tuesday.

“What Democrats really want, what they’re not kidding about, at all, is political power… Poor, hapless Howard Schultz and his overfunded midlife crisis just got in their way. So, they have to crush him,” Carlson said.

Schultz, a billionaire responsible for putting a Starbucks in every strip-mall in America, quit the firm last year. The former coffee kingpin announced on Sunday that he is “seriously considering” a shot at the presidency in 2020, as an independent candidate.

Schultz was immediately lambasted by the liberal establishment and media. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that Schultz would “just split the anti-Trump vote and end up re-electing the president,” while liberal think-tank head Neera Tanden announced that she would spearhead a Starbucks boycott.

Potential Democratic candidate Julian Castro appeared on television to plead with Schultz to pull out of contention.

“I have a concern that if he did run that essentially, it would provide Donald Trump with his best hope of getting re-elected,” Castro said. “I would suggest to Mr Schultz to truly think about the negative impact that that might make.”

Schultz’s positions are not the problem. Even as a self-described “independent centrist,” he does not stray too far from the Democratic orthodoxy. The billionaire candidate rejects universal healthcare and free college tuition, and has called the leftist progressive wing of the Democratic party “un-American.” Instead, he advocates fiscal responsibility, gun control, and moderate immigration reform.

“If you sincerely thought Barack Obama did a great job as president, you’d probably be perfectly happy with Howard Schultz at the helm,” Carlson continued. However, the party establishment don’t want to risk their only shot at unseating Trump.

Neither do some passionate Democratic voters. Schultz was heckled and jeered at his first public appearance as candidate in a Manhattan bookstore on Monday night.

“Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical, billionaire a**hole,” the disgruntled Democrat shouted. “Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world.”

Carlson concluded that Schultz’s ‘liberal’ opponents are all eschewing the classic liberal concept of welcoming a third candidate in the hope that the best ideas win.

“You get the strong feeling they prefer to see just one candidate on the ballot,” he said. “That way they’d win every time. Voters couldn’t screw it up with their dumb opinions.”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑