WOW, IF THIS IS THE DEMOCRAT BENCH FOR PRESIDENT, THEY ARE IN FOR A WORLD OF HURT FOR DECADES ...
Donald Trump has not yet been sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, and The Hill already has a list of the top 15 Democrat challengers for 2020. I must say, if this is the Democrat bench, they are in deep, deep trouble. No wonder no one ran against Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries, there was no one of any substance to run. The Democrat challengers for 2020 is a who’s who from Pocahontas, Elizabeth Warren to old white fossils like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden who will be 79 and 77 respectively on election day 2020. Honestly, unless some one emerges between now and 2020, the Democrats have nothing.
If you think its too soon to be discussing 2020, that’s because it is. Hillary Clinton, Democrats and the MSM have not recovered from the Trump presidential victory and they are already putting Hillary back in the mix for 2020.
1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) – Really, Pocahontas is going to run for president? Sorry, this woman is way too far left.
2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – He will be 79 next Election Day. Also, Sanders sold out the people who backed him in the primaries by backing Hillary Clinton, even after the world found out that the DNC and Team Hillary conspired against him.
3. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) -The past 8 years of Barack Obama may have sunk his chances.
4. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) – Who?
5. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y) – And other than a woman, why is she running?
6. First lady Michelle Obama- Please, Michelle is not running for president. Barack Obama had no coattails, not even for his wife. This is a liberal pipe dream.
7. Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colo.)
8. Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.)
9. Vice President Joe Biden – Not happening. Biden would be 77 years old on election day.
10. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (N.Y.)
11. Sen.-elect Kamala Harris (Calif.) HUH? And her qualifications are what? She would be just as experienced as Obama was, how did that work out for us America?
12. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – Would Hillary try for a 3rd time? Sorry, can’t see this one happening. She has crashed and burned too many times. And she would be 4 years older.
13. Former Gov. Deval Patrick (Mass.) – See #3.
14. Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) – Seriously? After his disastrous, moon-bat VP debate, no one would let this loon near the nuclear codes.
15. Oprah Winfrey – Oprah? Talk about your desperate measures for the Democrat party.
U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith Haults Michigan Recount Charade by Green Party candidate Jill Stein
MICHIGAN PRESIDENTIAL VOTE RECOUNT STOPPED …
U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith has sided with a state appeals court Wednesday in stopping the Michigan presidential vote recount. Previously, a Michigan appeals court ruled 3-0 that Green Party candidate Jill Stein should not have been allowed to demand a recount because she is not an “aggrieved candidate.” Gee, really? How would anyone be allowed to claim they were aggrieved in the voting process when they only won 1.1% of the vote? Thus, the recount sham on the part of Green Party candidate Jill Stein is over and it is as it was, TRUMP WINS MICHIGAN!!! In fact, thanks to Jill Stein’s joke recount efforts, Trump picked up even more votes than originally determined.
A federal judge has stopped the hand recount of nearly 5 million ballots in Michigan, a decision that seems to secure Donald Trump’s narrow victory in the traditionally blue state.
U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who effectively ordered the recount to begin Monday, sided with a state appeals court Wednesday in halting the effort, ABC News reported.
On Tuesday, a Michigan appeals court ruled 3-0 that Green Party candidate Jill Stein should not have been allowed to demand a recount because she is not an “aggrieved candidate.” Goldsmith, after hearing arguments from the state Republican Party and GOP attorney general, agreed.
“Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term ‘aggrieved,’ plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount,” Goldsmith said.
IS BIDEN REALLY GOING TO RUN IN 2020 FOR PRESIDENT?
On Monday Vice President Joe Biden raised the possibility that he might run for president in 2020. When asked whether he was kidding and pressed on his comment Biden stated, “I am not committed to anything, I learned a long time ago, fate has a strange way of intervening.” Surely he was most likely kidding, as Joe is prone to do. The 74 year old Biden would be 78 in 2020. However, all joking aside, those on the Left would probably want Biden to run and he might even be the Democrat front-runner. Which shows just how pathetic the Democrat bench really is. Biden decided not to run in 2016 following the death of his son, Beau. In retrospect, Biden would have made a much better candidate than Hillary Clinton.
“I am going to run in 2020,” Biden told a group of reporters in the Capitol when asked about his political future. “What the hell man, anyway.”
Asked if he was kidding about running, the 74-year-old paused for four seconds before saying he is “not committing not to run.”
“I am not committed to anything,” he added. “I learned a long time ago, fate has a strange way of intervening.”
It would be surprising if Biden decided to continue his decades-long political career, which many assumed would end once President Obama and he leave the White House next month.
Biden will be 78 in 2020 and would by far the oldest person ever to win a major-party presidential nomination if he became the Democrats’ standard bearer.
WASN’T IT THE LEFT THAT WAS BELLYACHING THAT TRUMP WAS NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
Remember when prior to the election the LEFT and Hillary Clinton lost their minds when Donald Trump stated that he would withhold judgement as to whether he would accept the results of the election in case their was fraud? Now, the Libs in just another example of hypocrisy are questioning the election and want to challenge the vote count in three swing states without any proof what-so-ever of voter fraud. They just are speculating because how else could Trump have won. UNREAL. The Clinton campaign is actually considering this.
Of course I said I would agree to the will of the people’s vote, that was before I lost
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.
More from Twitchy … IT’S REAL: After insisting the election couldn’t be rigged, liberals pretty sure election could have been rigged.
MRC/YouGov Poll: 69% Think Media is Dishonest … 78% of Voters Say News Coverage of the Presidential Campaign was Bias
THE MEDIA HAS FINALLY BEEN EXPOSED TO BE BIAS, DISHONEST AND UNTRUSTWORTHY ...
One of the biggest losers of the 2016 presidential elections was the news media, from top to bottom. A recent MRC/YouGov poll showed that 69% of voters believe the media to be dishonest and untrustworthy, while another 78% stated that the new coverage of the presidential campaign was biased. Of those who believe the media was bias, nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%). Maybe one of the most telling and disastrous finding of this poll for the media was that 97% of voters said that they did not let the MSM affect or influence their vote. Can you say, the MSM is now irrelevant?
The Media Research Center (MRC) announces the findings of a new post-election poll on what actual voters thought about the media’s influence on the 2016 presidential race. The MRC/YouGov poll was conducted on November 9 and 10.
- 7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.
- 8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).
- Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”
- 8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.
- 97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.
This should be a wake up call for the liberal media, but it is most likely not. They still appear to be spewing their liberal bias agenda in their news as pointed out by Legal Insurrection. However, one thing is for certain, the American voters rejected their bias and was able to see through the lies.