Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Fundraising Plummets 30% in Fourth Quarter

H/T Breitbart.

Sounds like Princess Fauxchontis is the next clown out of the 2020 DemocRat Clown Car.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) presidential campaign emailed an urgent fundraising plea to supporters on Friday, conceding it experienced a 30 percent drop in contributions in the fourth quarter.

The campaign revealed to supporters it has raised $17 million in the fourth quarter, a sizeable drop from its $24.6 million haul in the third quarter, as first noted by CNBC.

So far this quarter, we’ve raised a little over $17 million. That’s a good chunk behind where we were at this time last quarter,” the memo reads.

The quarter concludes in four days (December 31st.)

The drop comes as Warren, once nearly tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the Democrat primary frontrunner, has seen a steady decline in support, according to state and national polling averages.

The Massachusetts Democrat’s signature proposal, Medicare for All, has received a mixed reception since unveiling it last month. To pay for the eyewatering $20.5 trillion plan, she has floated a wealth tax of 2 percent of every dollar over $50 million of an individuals’ net worth, a rate which would climb to 6 percent for those worth over $1 billion. Earlier this month, Warren softened her chief health care proposal, labeling it as a “choice” and has begun reframing it as a transition plan, which would allow individuals to opt-in to a public option.

“We’re going to push through health care that’s available to everyone,” Warren recently told voters in Clinton, Iowa. “You don’t have to, but it’s your choice, if you want to come in and get full health care coverage.”

The development also comes as Warren ratchets up her attacks on the donor class. She’s accused former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg of attempting to buy the primary and took aim at South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg during the last DNC debate for holding a high-dollar fundraiser in what she described as a “wine cave.”

Despite her refusal to accept donor money for her 2020 bid, the senator held a fundraiser at City Winery Boston in 2018, which included a souvenir wine bottle and “VIP experiences” for donors.

Warren’s hypocritical stance on donors caught the attention of Obama strategist David Axelrod, who called her attack on Buttigieg “an unforced error.”

‘This was the danger in the @ewarren “wine cave” attack on @PeteButtigieg. Her own past fundraising practices were pretty much in line with his, including even some of the same high dollar sponsors. She invited stories like this. Unforced error,” he tweeted last week.

Of course, Warren’s no strange to self-inflicted political harm. She infamously alleged having Native America heritage — an erroneous declaration she’s been accused of leveraging to advance her career — and has had to since apologize several times for doing so.

Michael Moore Predicts 2020 Trump Victory: Trump’s Level Of Support “Has Not Gone Down One Inch”

H/T Real Clear Politics.

This proves Micheal Moore is smarter than he looks.

In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Michael Moore said if the election were held today that President Trump would win a second term. However, Moore predicted the Democratic candidate for president would win the popular vote count by 4 to 5 million people.

Moore warned the “problem” is support for Trump in the Midwest has not gone down by “one inch” and that Trump voters are “even more rabid” than before because they are afraid he may lose.

“I think if the election were held today,” Moore said of a Trump victory. “Hillary won by 3 million popular votes. I believe whoever the Democrat is next year is going to win by 4 to 5 million popular votes. There’s no question in my mind that people who stayed home, who sat on the bench, they’re going to pour out, in California, New York and — you know, but also in Texas and whatever, I mean, places that Trump will probably win, but, yeah, there’s going to be a much higher percentage of people voting against him.”

“The problem is, if the vote were today, I believe, he would win the electoral states that he would need, because, living out there, I will tell you, his level of support has not gone down one inch,” he said. “In fact, I’d say it’s even more rabid than it was before, because they’re afraid now. They’re afraid he could lose, because they watched his behavior. So they are voracious in their appetite for Donald Trump. That’s the bad news.”

Moore said the good news is that 70% of the electorate next year will be women, people of color and young adults who he says are “on our side.” Moore said Democrats, who are going in with the momentum of demographics, have to make sure they don’t give people “another Hillary Clinton” to vote for. He said Democrats must put someone on the ballot that comes across as a “fighter” that excites the base of women, people of color, and young people.

“What we have to do is we have to make sure we don’t give them another Hillary Clinton to vote for,” he said. “The Democrats who are encouraging moderation, go to the center — you know, ‘Let’s not upset the angry white guys’ — that’s really what it is.”

“Ninety thousand wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party: “You forgot us a long time ago out here, and we will not put up with this anymore. We’re not going to vote for Trump, but we’re not going to tolerate you sending us another Republican-lite Democrat,'” Moore said.

“If we go that route, it’s guaranteed we will lose the Electoral College,” Moore continued. “We will win when we put somebody on that ballot that excites the base — women, people of color, young people. When they wake up that morning and they feel the way that many of us, many of you watching, felt the morning that you were going to — in 2008, and you were going to get to go and vote for Barack Obama.”

“That feeling has got to happen in the 18-to-35-year-old demographic,” he said. “It has to happen with people of color and with women. We already feel that way. They already feel that way. It’s just: Will they come out and vote for a centrist, moderate candidate. I don’t think that is going to happen. They’re going to come out and vote for the fighter, for the person that shares their values.”

Moore said that political polarization is a “good thing” and complained that it is always talked about like it’s a bad thing.

“Polarization is always talked about like it’s a bad thing,” Moore told Goodman. “I think it’s a good thing. I think if you think women should have the right to vote, I don’t think there’s a middle position on that. You either believe that women should vote or women shouldn’t vote. You either believe that a fertilized egg is a human being or not. There’s no middle ground there.”

Transcript, via Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s President Trump, impeachment night, in your state. But interestingly, you kind of agree with him. You think he would win now.

MICHAEL MOORE: I think if the election were held today — Hillary won by 3 million popular votes. I believe whoever the Democrat is next year is going to win by 4 to 5 million popular votes. There’s no question in my mind that people who stayed home, who sat on the bench, they’re going to pour out, in California, New York and — you know, but also in Texas and whatever, I mean, places that Trump will probably win, but, yeah, there’s going to be a much higher percentage of people voting against him.

The problem is, is that he will — if the vote were today, I believe, he would win the electoral states that he would need, because, living out there, I will tell you, his level of support has not gone down one inch. In fact, I’d say it’s even more rabid than it was before, because they’re afraid now. They’re afraid he could lose, because they watched his behavior. So they are voracious in their appetite for Donald Trump. That’s the bad news.

The good news is, again, number one, never forget, there’s more of us than there are of them. The majority of the American people agree with us. Seventy percent of the voters next year are women, people of color and young adults. OK? All that on our side.

So, what we have to do is we have to make sure we don’t give them another Hillary Clinton to vote for. The Democrats who are encouraging moderation, go to the center — you know, “Let’s not upset the angry white guys” — that’s really what it is. You know, the voter they’re trying to convince — “That’s why we’ve got to have Biden. You know, we’ve got to have Klobuchar. We’ve got to have somebody that is somewhere there, wherever that middle is now.” There’s really nobody in that middle, by the way. Even the Fox News poll last week showed that 54% supported impeachment and conviction, and 40-some percent didn’t. And then they asked the question: How many of you would support impeachment but no removal? It was at 4%, 5%. I mean, it was like — there’s nobody in that trying to have it both ways. So, it is polarized, but for a good reason. Polarization is always talked about like it’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. I think if you think women should have the right to vote, I don’t think there’s a middle position on that. You either believe that women should vote or women shouldn’t vote. You either believe that a fertilized egg is a human being or not. There’s no middle ground there.

And so, our side has got to take this by the reins, and it’s got to have the courage of our convictions to fight this. And if we do this, then he won’t win the electoral states. Remember, Hillary only lost Michigan by two votes per precinct. That’s it. And it’s not because Lunch Bucket Joe stayed home, you know, or voted for Trump. It’s because the — when they talk about the working class, Amy, this just drives me crazy. “Oh, you know, Trump won all these working-class votes in Michigan and Pennsylvania.” No. What happened was, is that the Democratic Party didn’t stand up in the way that they should have for what the youth wanted, for what people of color needed. And there were 90,000 people in Michigan, almost 90,000, who went to the polls, mostly Democrats, in very large numbers of them, in Detroit, Flint, Pontiac, Saginaw — these are all black cities, majority black. They stood in line in the cold for two to three hours to vote. They went in there, and they voted for state rep, state Senate, county commission. We don’t have dog catcher. We have drain commissioner, the person in charge of the sewage. That’s the lowest name on the ballot. They stood there. They voted for the Democrats all down ballot and left the top box blank. She only lost Michigan by 10,000, 11,000 votes. Ninety thousand wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party: “You forgot us a long time ago out here, and we will not put up with this anymore. We’re not going to vote for Trump, but we’re not going to tolerate you sending us another Republican-lite Democrat.”

If we go that route — if we go that route, it’s guaranteed we will lose the Electoral College. We will win when we put somebody on that ballot that excites the base — women, people of color, young people. When they wake up that morning and they feel the way that many of us, many of you watching, felt the morning that you were going to — in 2008, and you were going to get to go and vote for Barack Obama, and you couldn’t believe this was happening in your lifetime, that if you remember that feeling — you know, I’m not talking about — we’re not going to discuss his eight years; I’m just talking about that morning. That feeling has got to happen in the 18-to-35-year-old demographic. It has to happen with people of color and with women. We already feel that way. They already feel that way. It’s just: Will they come out and vote for a centrist, moderate candidate. I don’t think that is going to happen. They’re going to come out and vote for the fighter, for the person that shares their values.

And the values of the majority of this country are the progressive values, in my opinion. I’m for Bernie Sanders. But I understand why people want to vote for Elizabeth Warren or — I don’t know — well, nobody else, actually, has those particular values. So, both of them are good. I’ve had Elizabeth in a couple of my films. But Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders has the record. When Elizabeth said there, a few weeks ago, that she voted Republican until 1996, that really kind of took me. But I think, “OK, well, we welcome everybody. And if you used to vote for Republicans, fine.”

But Bernie, go back to Bernie in 1963, the photo of him — I don’t know if anybody has it in the control room — of him being arrested as a college student in a civil rights demonstration in Chicago, 1963. That’s Bernie Sanders. They’re hauling him away. He’s not doing the thing that they teach us to do in civil disobedience where you just go limp and let them take — he’s actually — he’s fighting the cops. You know, that’s Bernie Sanders. He’s never, never changed. And so, I know that there’s a history. So many of his ideas are now the popular way, in terms of minimum wage, in terms of equal pay, mass incarceration, these things, you know. And look, I mean, just like any candidate, he’s a politician. You know, people watching this will have their disagreements or whatever. But one thing you can’t disagree with is, he has been true to his convictions. He will fight like hell for us. The fact that 52% of young people are for him — in the latest poll, 52% of young voters are for him; the millennial that’s running, 2%. Two percent of 18-to-35-year-olds are for the person their age. Young people want —

AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about Pete Buttigieg?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, Pete Buttigieg, yes. I’m not trying to avoid trying to pronounce the name. It is Buttigieg. No, but the youngest people want the oldest person. Why? Why? How could that be?

I think it’s because they know their future is screwed. The future of this planet is — they probably think, and they may not be right, that it’s already too late. I mean, Bill McKibben came on this show 10, 12 years ago and told us if we’ve got above — if we went above 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, that’s it. There’s no turning back. There’s no reversing it. We’re at 415 parts. The younger generation — see, myself, you know, I will probably make it out of here without the awful, horrific collapse. I’ll see some of it. We’re seeing some of it now. Bernie, he’s fighting for this. They know he’s fighting for their future. Bernie has no future. No offense, if he’s watching. I mean, live long and prosper. But let’s just admit, he’s in the final quarter of his life. You know? And he’s willing to give up his final years to fight so that these 18-to-35-year-olds will have a future. And they know that. That’s why they’re for him.

And I say to other adults my age, “Maybe we owe it to the young people, because we were supposed to leave them a better country. We were supposed to leave them a better planet. And we, the ’60s and ’70s generation, we haven’t done that. So maybe we owe it to these young people to get behind the person they want. It’s their future. That’s our responsibility.”

Socialist Warren Defends Massive Spending, Literally Says ‘There’s Always Money’

H/T Western Journal.

DemocRats alway think raising taxes are the answer to getting more money for their spending schemes.

On a recent “Saturday Night Live” cold open, the network couldn’t help but make fun of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s penchant for wanting to spend your money and then not explaining where it’s going to come from.

The skit featured a voter asking Warren about her “Medicare for All” plan: “You said your plan would cost $20.5 trillion, but other economists have said it could cost $34 trillion,” the woman told Warren.

“Right, right,” Kate McKinnon-as-Warren responded. “Let me stop you right there. We’re talking trillions. You know, when the numbers are this big, they’re just pretend. There ain’t no Scrooge McDuck vault. You ready to get red-pilled? Money doesn’t exist. It’s just a promise from a computer!”

This is pretty funny until you realize how problematically close this is to the Massachusetts senator’s actual campaign trail rhetoric.

In a November interview that’s just now getting some play, the president of the National Education Association asked Warren whether she would pledge more money for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

“If the answer is yes, how do you pay for that?” Lily Eskelsen Garcia asked Warren.

“So the answer is yes,” Warren said.

“And pay for it? This is about our priorities, what matters most to us. A budget is about priorities.”

Which is true. Except when, of course, you don’t have to really set priorities.

“The way I see it, there’s always, c’mon, there’s always money,” Warren said.

“It’s there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?”

Oh, come on. Why didn’t she just take out one of those bumper stickers that say “It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber” bumper stickers and wave it around?

I wish her the best of luck enacting that policy when she becomes president and realizes the defense and security challenges that the United States faces. On the other hand, if she ever becomes president, I should probably be wishing us the best of luck; we’ll need it.

In terms of the idea that “there’s always money” — no, there’s not. I know in the wacky world of Modern Monetary Theory, where a government can pay off all of its debts by printing money without triggering hyperinflation or its attendant issues, this makes sense. In the real world, where MMT will end up being a disaster if it’s ever actually implemented, this is pretty much dead on arrival.

Similarly DOA is Warren’s wealth tax, an overly optimistic plan in which everything we want can be paid for by a tax on the wealth (a not-entirely-constitutional tax, it must be noted) of multimillionaires and billionaires

This can’t even raise anywhere near what she would need for her “Medicare for All” plan. How are we supposed to expect that it’ll also free up money for whatever we need?

Cutting defense isn’t the answer, not in the current geopolitical climate and not with the military rot we saw during the Obama years.

It still can’t be cut to the level where we can pay for everything that Warren wants. I doubt she wants to touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Where does that leave us?

The answer is pretty straightforward: When Elizabeth Warren says, “c’mon, there’s always money,” what she means is, “c’mon, there’s always your money.” And she plans to use that money to buy herself the election.

 

 

 

 

Schiff-Disturbers Show Up At Shifty’s Townhall Meeting And It Gets Rowdy! (Video)

H/T Clash Daily.

Will this anger hold up and result in Adam Schiff(Delusional-CA)losing his seat in Congress?

Doesn’t exactly look like a love-fest for ol’ Shifty, there, does it?

His role in running the three-ring circus has come to an end and the impeachment baton has been passed on to others.

When he came home to meet his constituents, did he get a hero’s welcome?

Not exactly. Not even when it was arranged as a ‘thank you’ for not being one of the eleven who voted NOT to support recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Schiff was at a town hall meeting at the Glendale Central Library put on by the Armenian National Committee of America — Western Region. The event was designed to thank the California Congressman for voting to recognize the Armenian genocide, the Los Angeles Times reported. The House voted overwhelmingly to approve the measure at the end of October by a vote of 405-11.

Multiple people sat in the front of the audience with signs that read “Don’t Impeach.”

In a video, audience members in the back of the crowd yelled “liar!” One man said Schiff would be known for “committing treason,” a clear reference to Schiff spearheading the impeachment of the president. Source: TownHall

The whole thing erupted into chaos. And no… it wasn’t the celebratory kind.

The Chants of ‘Liar! Liar!’ were exactly the kind of viral video he does NOT want going viral at this critical step in the Kangaroo Court process.

But here we are.

Grab some popcorn and enjoy.

Better yet, tag Schiff in it and share with your friends on your preferred social media platforms. Because you just KNOW the ‘legacy media’ crowd will be doing their best to bury it.

 

Marianne Williamson Falls for Hoax Saying Trump Pardoned Charles Manson

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The DemocRat hatred of President Trump is so deep they will believe anything said about him even if it is a hoax.

Like President Trump giving a posthumous pardon to Charles Manson.

Manson was convicted in state court therefore he was not able to be pardoned by President Trump.

A satirical article on MoronMajority.com originated the story.

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson deleted a tweet in which she fell for a hoax about President Donald Trump pardoning murderer Charles Manson.

“There is something deeply sinister about Trump pardoning Charles Manson, even posthumously,” the spiritual guru wrote in a late-night Sunday tweet. “Dog whistles of the very worst possible kind.”

Needless to say, Trump did not pardon Manson, the cult leader who was found guilty of seven murders in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Even if Trump were so inclined, Manson was convicted in a California state court, and the president can only pardon federal crimes.

Williamson did not provide a source for her claim, but she may have been taken in by a November satire article on the website MoronMajority.com. Urban-legend debunker Snopes reports that the piece later picked up traction when it was reposted as a blog on the liberal Daily Kos without a satire tag.

“I erroneously tweeted that President Trump had posthumously pardoned Charles Manson,” Williamson followed up in a second tweet after other Twitter users pointed out her error. “Glad to have been wrong.”

Both Williamson’s initial tweet and her acknowledgment of error were later deleted. The snafu occurred only hours after the candidate boasted on Twitter that “all the Democratic candidates are telling the truth.”

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

All the Democratic candidates are telling the truth. But this moment is like when you take an oath in a court of law: it’s to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Only seriously radical truth-telling is going to be deep enough to defeat big lies next year.

221 people are talking about this

Bloomberg Fumbles Facts, Laws in Gun-Control Policy Rollout

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Micheal Bloomberg(Delusional-NY)is channeling Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden fumbling and bumbling over his words.

Michael Bloomberg, who has spent years bankrolling the gun-control movement, fumbled facts and made muddled claims on how gun laws work while laying out his campaign’s gun-control plan on Thursday.

Bloomberg appeared to misunderstand what the FBI’s firearms background check system does, seemed to make up a new “loophole” in federal gun laws, and made questionable claims about gun use among young people during a campaign speech in Aurora, Colo.

Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars boosting the gun-control movement, Bloomberg’s comments suggest he lacks a basic familiarity with the details of firearms laws, sales, and operation. Thursday’s strange claims are just the latest example of Bloomberg demonstrating an apparent confusion about an issue he has described as his “life’s work.”

Thursday’s speech featured Bloomberg endorsing universal background checks, an expanded definition of domestic abuser under federal gun laws, a 48-hour waiting period on all gun purchases, and a “red flag” law. Bloomberg also proposed a system of government-issued permits for firearms, saying it would “allow authorities to screen applicants for dangerous behavior” and claimed the current system has no way of stopping people “from getting a gun when they’re a minor, when they have a criminal record, or when they have psychiatric problems.”

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, however, does verify whether anyone attempting to purchase a firearm from a gun dealer has a disqualifying criminal or mental health record. The process also verifies the purchaser is old enough to own the gun they’re trying to buy. Bloomberg did not say why he believes this system is inadequate or ineffective; his campaign did not respond to questions about this or other comments.

While defending his permit-to-purchase proposal, Bloomberg drew a confused analogy between requiring a permit to buy a gun and voter registration requirements

“I know critics will say ‘Americans shouldn’t need a permit to exercise their constitutional rights,’ but voting is a constitutional right, and we require people to register to protect the rights of all citizens, and this is the exact same idea,” he said.

Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote per se is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or its amendments. The federal charter only places limitations on what kind of voting rights restrictions can exist.

At the same time, connecting gun-right restrictions to voting-right restrictions may raise uncomfortable questions for skeptics of the latter, including those in Bloomberg’s party who rail against proposals like voter ID. In particular, the claim that a gun purchase permit would “allow authorities to screen applicants for dangerous behavior” is similar to the “good character” vouchers that historically allowed officials to deny someone the right to vote based on their subjective judgment of the would-be voter’s character. Such vouchers were outlawed during the Civil Rights Era due to their discriminatory misuse.

Bloomberg further promised to close a “loophole” that prevents “law enforcement from identifying felons and others who own guns illegally.” No such loophole appears to exist under federal law, and it is unclear exactly what Bloomberg is referring to.

While explaining his plan to ban 18- to-20-year-olds from purchasing guns, Bloomberg said the demographic should not be able to own guns because they are statistically more prone to violence than others and their suicide rate is rising.

“18- to-20-year-olds are four times as likely to commit a homicide compared to older Americans,” he said. “The suicide rate among teens has increased exponentially over the past decade.”

Bloomberg is correct that the teen suicide rate has risen since 1999: 13- to-19-year-olds had a suicide rate of 6.4 deaths per 100,000 teens in 1999, rising to 9.8 in 2017. But, CDC data show, firearm suicides are substantially more common among older Americans, with those under 20 being the least likely age group to commit suicide using a gun.

Bloomberg did not say that older Americans should be denied their gun rights on the basis of these comparatively higher suicide rates. He also did not say if he would ban other groups from exercising their constitutional rights based on demographic-level crime rates.

Thursday’s roll-out was closely watched by gun-rights groups. Many have cautioned that the mega-donor’s entrance into the race could bring media attention back to gun control after a decline in recent weeks.

The campaign event was also not the first time the billionaire misunderstood details of the gun-control proposals he champions. In a December 2012 interview with ABC News, Bloomberg appeared to not understand the difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms, that the so-called assault weapons he wants to ban are semiautomatic, or that new sales of fully automatic firearms to civilians were banned in 1986. During the interview, he falsely insisted pistols and “assault weapons” are different because the latter are fully automatic.

Biden Attempts a Meet-and-Greet, Farmer Reportedly Has No Clue Who He Is

 H/T  Western Journal.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden has some name recognition in Iowa and that is not a good sign.

Oh, to be that farmer in the Corn Stalk Cafe.

If you don’t know who I’m talking about, well, Joe Biden probably wishes he doesn’t. And it’s just as well, because the farmer apparently doesn’t know who Joe Biden is, either.

In case the name of the establishment didn’t clue you in, Biden is on another sweep through Iowa, a state where he currently sits in fourth place and is trending downward, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average.

In fact, the only reason he can’t really get lower is that Amy Klobuchar is in fifth place and, let’s face facts — Amy-mentum just isn’t happening.

Campaigning in Iowa means plenty of low-level meet-and-greets, and one of them was at the Corn Stalk Cafe in Shelby, according to TheBlaze

The incident was caught on camera and tweeted out by Politico’s Natasha Korecki.

“That time when former VP @joebiden is standing right next to you at the Corn Stalk Cafe and you just don’t care,” Korecki tweeted Saturday.

Natasha Korecki

@natashakorecki

That time when former VP @joebiden is standing right next to you at the Corn Stalk Cafe and you just don’t care.

View image on Twitter
7,804 people are talking about this

Instead, the man in the photo seemed a bit more interested in the Auburn vs. Alabama football game on television.

Not only that, but he was only moderately interested when told who he was dealing with.

“I ask the guy if he just wasn’t a fan of Biden’s and he says ‘who?’ I say the former VP,” Korecki tweeted.

“The man, who farms in the Missouri Valley says he’s never heard of Joe Biden.”

“He says ‘are you serious?’ When I say he was Obama’s veep, I get an ‘ohhhhh. I’m not an Obama fan. This is Republican country.’”

Natasha Korecki

@natashakorecki

I ask the guy if he just wasn’t a fan of Biden’s and he says “who?” I say the former VP. The man, who farms in the Missouri Valley says he’s never heard of Joe Biden.

Natasha Korecki

@natashakorecki

He says “are you serious?” When I say he was Obama’s veep, I get an “ohhhhh. I’m not an Obama fan. This is Republican country.”

811 people are talking about this

There’s an interesting takeaway here, I suppose, and it has to do with celebrity — and namely, what it means for the Democratic field.

For all we know, this guy is just unusually uninformed about politics. Fair enough.

However, last campaign cycle, the top two candidates in each field going into Iowa could be identified with relative ease — even though Trump lost the state and Hillary Clinton barely won it, there likely wasn’t a single person in the Corn Stalk Cafe not suffering from soap opera-style amnesia who didn’t know who they were.

I’m trying to picture any other clear December frontrunner — particularly a former vice president — who would have this happen to them.

Howard Dean fell into this category (not a former VP, mind you, but a clear December frontrunner who might not be recognized) and … well, fat lot of good that did him when he started primal scream therapy after the caucuses just a few months later.

I think most Americans would recognize Joe Biden’s visage, but not as many as you’d think.

And yet, one of Biden’s selling points is his brand.

No, he may not be your first choice, but he’s supposed to be recognizable and respected.

At least to this farmer, Biden was neither.

I doubt this farmer is the only one — and that could be one of many signs of trouble for Biden, who, at least for the moment, is the putative frontrunner.