hotair--2020-02-21--<span class='red'>WaPo: Feds have briefed Bernie that Russia is trying to help his campaign; Update:

This election is going to rule so very hard .
Two questions off the bat .
One : There ’ s another Democratic debate this coming Tuesday night that may well amount to the last chance to derail Bernie before he ’ s unstoppable .
Are Warren , Biden , and the rest going to take off the gloves and use this against him or are they really going to let this pinko waltz to the nomination untouched ?
Two : What ’ s the connection , if any , between this story and the curious story last night about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee — perhaps erroneously — that Russia is once again working to help elect Trump ?
Did Democrats leak that story because they knew this scoop about Bernie was coming ?
That is , did they try to preempt a very bad “ Russia ’ s working for Bernie !
” outcry among the public by manufacturing some new “ Russia ’ s working for Trump !
” outrage instead ?
Or was it Trump and his allies who leaked this new story about Sanders for the opposite reason , to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest , according to people familiar with the matter .
President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator , according to people familiar with the matter , who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence… Despite Trump ’ s skepticism of Russian efforts to damage American democracy , officials in his administration have repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans , part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world .
Some analysts believe that the Kremlin ’ s goal is to cause the maximum disruption within the United States , and it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal , not any particular affinity for the persons running .
Bernie ’ s out with a statement this afternoon blasting Putin .
And Trump too , naturally : It got lost in the shuffle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first half of Trump ’ s presidency but this isn ’ t the first time the Kremlin has tried to lend Bernie a hand .
The indictment filed by Mueller against 13 Russian agents working for Russia ’ s “ Internet Research Agency ” claimed that Russian trolls tasked with spamming U.S. social media with propaganda during the last campaign were told to “ use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest ( except Sanders and Trump — we support them ) .
” That makes sense politically since Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populists are wont to do .
It also makes sense that Russia would want to promote “ outsider ” candidates whose electoral success would wreak havoc with party establishments , causing bitter splits on the left and right .
If their candidate ( s ) win the election , great ; that would mean the U.S. would pose less of an obstacle abroad .
If their candidate ( s ) lose the election , that ’ s still okay ; at least they ’ d have deepened the political rifts within the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means for a Trump vs. Sanders election , who knows .
Russia promotes both online , maybe , in order to further embitter the two sides ?
Promotes Bernie over Trump because you can ’ t go wrong encouraging socialism in a rival nation whose power you ’ re looking to sap ?
Promotes Trump over Bernie because POTUS and his party are more likely to withdraw from NATO than Russia-hating Democrats are , even with Bernie at the helm ?
I don ’ t know .
At this point , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can promote Sanders in the primary and decide on the general later .
The most noteworthy line in Bernie ’ s statement is the deeply cynical bit near the end speculating that the Russians may in fact be secretly responsible for his more excitable fans ’ habit of abuse online .
There ’ s simply no evidence of that , the Daily Beast reported yesterday .
But Sanders keeps repeating the claim whenever he ’ s asked about the BernieBros ’ behavior , a cynically opportunistic way to find a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s being aided by Russia .
Were you recently insulted by some tankie A-hole with a rose in his Twitter handle ?
Relax , bro — that ’ s not a socialist , it ’ s probably a Russian .
But it ’ s not : The Daily Beast reached out to experts in tracking disinformation to see if there was any evidence of Russian involvement in the feud between Sanders supporters and the Nevada Culinary Workers Union .
None could point to a specific example of Russia-linked personas imitating pro-Bernie personas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Workers Union… Oftentimes , Russian covert operations on social media act as echo chambers for the issues and priorities of overt Russian propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT .
Jessica Brandt , director of research at the Alliance for Securing Democracy , which tracks Russian state news trends and disinformation , said Russian outlets haven ’ t made much of the Nevada union feud [ between Bernie fans and the Culinary Union ] .
“ We ’ ve seen no evidence of that , ” she told The Daily Beast , adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overt Russian propaganda turned up only one story on the Nevada issue .
Trump should try that the next time he ’ s held to account for something boorish a fan has done .
“ Probably just Russians posing as a supporter , you know.
” See how the media reacts .
He said this at a rally in Nevada today about the Maguire/Pierson story : WaPo says he knew about the Russian effort to aid Sanders but he hasn ’ t said anything about it publicly , which is surprising given how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s possible , of course , that he held back because he wants to face Bernie in the general election and didn ’ t want this popping up before Sanders ’ s nomination is assured .
But like I said up top , it could also be that he or his allies decided to leak this now because they wanted to counter the Maguire/Pierson story from yesterday .
Exit question : Coincidence that this is appearing 24 hours before Nevada is set to crown Bernie as presumptive nominee or no ?
Hmmmm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not see any “ Russia , if you ’ re listening ” press conferences from him on the trial .

WaPo: Feds have briefed Bernie that Russia is trying to help his campaign; Update: "Stay out of American elections"
This election is going to rule so very hard.
Two questions off the bat. One: There’s another Democratic debate this coming Tuesday night that may well amount to the last chance to derail Bernie before he’s unstoppable. Are Warren, Biden, and the rest going to take off the gloves and use this against him or are they really going to let this pinko waltz to the nomination untouched? Two: What’s the connection, if any, between this story and the curious story last night about a DNI deputy telling Schiff’s committee — perhaps erroneously — that Russia is once again working to help elect Trump?
Did Democrats leak that story because they knew this scoop about Bernie was coming? That is, did they try to preempt a very bad “Russia’s working for Bernie!” outcry among the public by manufacturing some new “Russia’s working for Trump!” outrage instead? Or was it Trump and his allies who leaked this new story about Sanders for the opposite reason, to try to obscure a new headache-inducing Trump/Russia bombshell?
U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter. President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence… Despite Trump’s skepticism of Russian efforts to damage American democracy, officials in his administration have repeatedly warned that Russia has ongoing plans to interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans, part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world. Some analysts believe that the Kremlin’s goal is to cause the maximum disruption within the United States, and it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal, not any particular affinity for the persons running.
Bernie’s out with a statement this afternoon blasting Putin. And Trump too, naturally:
Full Sanders statement on report that Russia is trying to boost his candidacy pic.twitter.com/qao9oKFCha — Sam Stein (@samstein) February 21, 2020
It got lost in the shuffle of the Trump/Mueller Russiagate saga that consumed the first half of Trump’s presidency but this isn’t the first time the Kremlin has tried to lend Bernie a hand. The indictment filed by Mueller against 13 Russian agents working for Russia’s “Internet Research Agency” claimed that Russian trolls tasked with spamming U.S. social media with propaganda during the last campaign were told to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them).” That makes sense politically since Trump and Sanders each tend towards isolationism, as populists are wont to do. It also makes sense that Russia would want to promote “outsider” candidates whose electoral success would wreak havoc with party establishments, causing bitter splits on the left and right. If their candidate(s) win the election, great; that would mean the U.S. would pose less of an obstacle abroad. If their candidate(s) lose the election, that’s still okay; at least they’d have deepened the political rifts within the U.S. population in the process.
What that means for a Trump vs. Sanders election, who knows. Russia promotes both online, maybe, in order to further embitter the two sides? Promotes Bernie over Trump because you can’t go wrong encouraging socialism in a rival nation whose power you’re looking to sap? Promotes Trump over Bernie because POTUS and his party are more likely to withdraw from NATO than Russia-hating Democrats are, even with Bernie at the helm? I don’t know. At this point, though, it’s not a binary choice. They can promote Sanders in the primary and decide on the general later.
The most noteworthy line in Bernie’s statement is the deeply cynical bit near the end speculating that the Russians may in fact be secretly responsible for his more excitable fans’ habit of abuse online. There’s simply no evidence of that, the Daily Beast reported yesterday. But Sanders keeps repeating the claim whenever he’s asked about the BernieBros’ behavior, a cynically opportunistic way to find a political silver lining in the fact that he’s being aided by Russia. Were you recently insulted by some tankie A-hole with a rose in his Twitter handle? Relax, bro — that’s not a socialist, it’s probably a Russian. But it’s not:
The Daily Beast reached out to experts in tracking disinformation to see if there was any evidence of Russian involvement in the feud between Sanders supporters and the Nevada Culinary Workers Union. None could point to a specific example of Russia-linked personas imitating pro-Bernie personas and attacking members of the Nevada Culinary Workers Union… Oftentimes, Russian covert operations on social media act as echo chambers for the issues and priorities of overt Russian propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT. Jessica Brandt, director of research at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian state news trends and disinformation, said Russian outlets haven’t made much of the Nevada union feud [between Bernie fans and the Culinary Union]. “We’ve seen no evidence of that,” she told The Daily Beast, adding that the Alliance’s dashboard for tracking overt Russian propaganda turned up only one story on the Nevada issue.
Trump should try that the next time he’s held to account for something boorish a fan has done. “Probably just Russians posing as a supporter, you know.” See how the media reacts.
He said this at a rally in Nevada today about the Maguire/Pierson story:
Pres. Trump on reports of 2020 Russian meddling: "They're trying to start a rumor … that Putin wants to make sure I get elected. Doesn’t he want to see who the Democrat's going to be? Wouldn’t he rather have, let's say, Bernie, who honeymooned in Moscow?"pic.twitter.com/RK45Cin8nQ — Jennifer Franco (@jennfranconews) February 21, 2020
WaPo says he knew about the Russian effort to aid Sanders but he hasn’t said anything about it publicly, which is surprising given how it might benefit him politically. It’s possible, of course, that he held back because he wants to face Bernie in the general election and didn’t want this popping up before Sanders’s nomination is assured. But like I said up top, it could also be that he or his allies decided to leak this now because they wanted to counter the Maguire/Pierson story from yesterday.
Exit question: Coincidence that this is appearing 24 hours before Nevada is set to crown Bernie as presumptive nominee or no? Hmmmm!
Update: Bernie comments. Might not see any “Russia, if you’re listening” press conferences from him on the trial.


hotair--2020-02-21--Vox: Identity politics is saving liberalism

Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp has written a lengthy piece arguing that , contrary to critics on the right and left , identity politics is the salvation of liberal politics .
Because of the length of this piece I won ’ t have time to fully do justice to a response , but I wanted to at least get the ball rolling on what I would agree is a significant debate .
To be fair to his argument you should read the whole piece but here ’ s a sampling of it : To understand why this kind of identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its critics often get wrong about it — we need to turn to the work of the late University of Chicago philosopher Iris Marion Young .
In 1990 , Young published a classic book titled Justice and the Politics of Difference .
At the time , political philosophy was dominated by internal debates among liberals who focused heavily on the question of wealth distribution .
Young , both a philosopher and a left activist , found this narrow discourse unsatisfying .
In her view , mainstream American liberalism had assumed a particular account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that equal social status for all persons requires treating everyone according to the same principles , rules , and standards.
” Securing “ equality ” on this view means things like desegregation and passing nondiscrimination laws , efforts to end overt discrimination against marginalized groups .
This is an important start , Young argues , but not nearly enough .
The push for formally equal treatment can ’ t eliminate all sources of structural inequality ; in fact , it can serve to mask and even deepen them .
Judging a poor black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same allegedly meritocratic college admissions standards , for example , will likely lead to the rich white one ’ s admission — perpetuating a punishing form of inequality that started at birth .
Young sees an antidote in a political vision she developed out of experiences in social movements , which she calls “ the politics of difference.
” Sometimes , Young argues , achieving true equality demands treating groups differently rather than the same .
“ The specificity of each group requires a specific set of rights for each , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for others , ” Young writes .
The goal is identity consciousness rather than identity blindness : “ Black Lives Matter ” over “ All Lives Matter.
” Again , we ’ re just scratching the surface but already you can probably see where this is going .
Beauchamp is taking up the argument that neutrality under the law isn ’ t producing equality so what ’ s need is to step away from “ allegedly meritocratic ” standards .
In lieu of that , we need to come up with “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity group .
He describes this as if it ’ s all new but if you ’ ve listened to many identity politics lectures , the word that is often used is “ equity.
” Equity doesn ’ t mean neutrality under the law or equality of opportunity , it means reworking the system to produce an equitable outcome even if doing so means favoring one group at the expense of another .
Beauchamp doesn ’ t mention Martin Luther King Jr. which seems odd because he is probably the best known historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character , ” King said .
But I guess we ’ re leaving that behind now .
Are we going “ beyond ” King ’ s message or are we undercutting it completely by saying sexual and racial group identity should be made the most important part of our politics ?
A bit later , Beauchamp feels the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more negative outcomes which are already associated with identity politics : It is of course true that one can point to illiberal behavior by activists in the name of identity politics : Think of the student group at the City University of New York that attempted to shout down a relatively mainstream conservative legal scholar ’ s lecture out of hostility to his views on immigration law .
But instances of campus intolerance are actually quite uncommon , despite their omnipresence in the media , and the idea that a handful of student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics ” is a mistake .
Here I would completely disagree .
Evergreen State College alumnus Benjamin Boyce has spent more than two years documenting the meltdown which took place at his school in 2017 .
In his ongoing series of videos , most of which I ’ ve written about here , Boyce makes an iron-clad case that the students who took over the campus , demanded a teacher be fired , told white students they shouldn ’ t speak , roamed the campus with sticks and bats , demanded the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school ’ s president not to raise his arms , etc.
, etc .
—all of it was explicitly motivated by identity politics training the students received from their professors as well as visiting speakers like Robin DiAngelo .
In short , Evergreen is what happens when a group of students absorb a metric ton of identity politics ( including a heavy dose of Black Lives Matter ) and act on it .
The same could be said for what took place at Mizzou , Oberlin , Yale , and many other campuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these outbreaks of illiberal and sometimes violent behavior keep happening on the most left-wing campuses .
It ’ s on these campuses where identity politics are being transmitted most uniformly and where students are probably most willing to accept the message .
It ’ s true that these incidents are relatively rare compared to the sheer number of college campuses in the U.S. but this entire project is brand new .
Black Lives Matter is only 6-7 years old .
The illiberal behavior we ’ re seeing now has spread incredibly quickly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even one of Beauchamp ’ s success stories doesn ’ t seem terribly successful : The 2017 Women ’ s March is a concrete example of how identity politics can help in this struggle .
The march was billed , at the time , as both an expression of feminist rage and the major anti-Trump action the weekend of the inauguration .
Some liberal identity skeptics fretted that these goals were antithetical ; that the particularism of the event ’ s feminist rhetoric would end up dividing the anti-Trump coalition… The experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have galvanized a significant number of people — overwhelmingly women — to engage in sustained activism for both gender equality and the defense of liberalism more broadly… The Women ’ s March itself seems to have largely petered out , succumbing to fatigue and leadership infighting .
But its true legacy will be the activist networks it helped create , ones that contributed to sustained and impactful challenges to an illiberal presidency .
The Women ’ s March collapsed specifically because of identity politics infighting and concerns over anti-Semitism in the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity politics is good at getting people worked up at other groups of people .
On that I ’ d agree .
But the idea that this is going to be a net positive for liberalism doesn ’ t seem to be proven by this chaotic , failed movement which millions of people no longer associate themselves with .

Vox’s Zack Beauchamp has written a lengthy piece arguing that, contrary to critics on the right and left, identity politics is the salvation of liberal politics. Because of the length of this piece I won’t have time to fully do justice to a response, but I wanted to at least get the ball rolling on what I would agree is a significant debate. To be fair to his argument you should read the whole piece but here’s a sampling of it:
To understand why this kind of identity politics is so controversial — and what its critics often get wrong about it — we need to turn to the work of the late University of Chicago philosopher Iris Marion Young. In 1990, Young published a classic book titled Justice and the Politics of Difference. At the time, political philosophy was dominated by internal debates among liberals who focused heavily on the question of wealth distribution. Young, both a philosopher and a left activist, found this narrow discourse unsatisfying. In her view, mainstream American liberalism had assumed a particular account of what social equality means: “that equal social status for all persons requires treating everyone according to the same principles, rules, and standards.” Securing “equality” on this view means things like desegregation and passing nondiscrimination laws, efforts to end overt discrimination against marginalized groups. This is an important start, Young argues, but not nearly enough. The push for formally equal treatment can’t eliminate all sources of structural inequality; in fact, it can serve to mask and even deepen them. Judging a poor black kid and a rich white one by the same allegedly meritocratic college admissions standards, for example, will likely lead to the rich white one’s admission — perpetuating a punishing form of inequality that started at birth. Young sees an antidote in a political vision she developed out of experiences in social movements, which she calls “the politics of difference.” Sometimes, Young argues, achieving true equality demands treating groups differently rather than the same. “The specificity of each group requires a specific set of rights for each, and for some a more comprehensive system than for others,” Young writes. The goal is identity consciousness rather than identity blindness: “Black Lives Matter” over “All Lives Matter.”
Again, we’re just scratching the surface but already you can probably see where this is going. Beauchamp is taking up the argument that neutrality under the law isn’t producing equality so what’s need is to step away from “allegedly meritocratic” standards. In lieu of that, we need to come up with “a specific set of rights” for each identity group. He describes this as if it’s all new but if you’ve listened to many identity politics lectures, the word that is often used is “equity.” Equity doesn’t mean neutrality under the law or equality of opportunity, it means reworking the system to produce an equitable outcome even if doing so means favoring one group at the expense of another.
Beauchamp doesn’t mention Martin Luther King Jr. which seems odd because he is probably the best known historical figure associated with “identity blindness.” “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” King said. But I guess we’re leaving that behind now. Are we going “beyond” King’s message or are we undercutting it completely by saying sexual and racial group identity should be made the most important part of our politics?
A bit later, Beauchamp feels the need to brush aside some of the more negative outcomes which are already associated with identity politics:
It is of course true that one can point to illiberal behavior by activists in the name of identity politics: Think of the student group at the City University of New York that attempted to shout down a relatively mainstream conservative legal scholar’s lecture out of hostility to his views on immigration law. But instances of campus intolerance are actually quite uncommon, despite their omnipresence in the media, and the idea that a handful of student excesses represent the core of “identity politics” is a mistake.
Here I would completely disagree. Evergreen State College alumnus Benjamin Boyce has spent more than two years documenting the meltdown which took place at his school in 2017. In his ongoing series of videos, most of which I’ve written about here, Boyce makes an iron-clad case that the students who took over the campus, demanded a teacher be fired, told white students they shouldn’t speak, roamed the campus with sticks and bats, demanded the police be disarmed or disbanded, told the school’s president not to raise his arms, etc., etc. —all of it was explicitly motivated by identity politics training the students received from their professors as well as visiting speakers like Robin DiAngelo. In short, Evergreen is what happens when a group of students absorb a metric ton of identity politics (including a heavy dose of Black Lives Matter) and act on it. The same could be said for what took place at Mizzou, Oberlin, Yale, and many other campuses.
It’s no accident that these outbreaks of illiberal and sometimes violent behavior keep happening on the most left-wing campuses. It’s on these campuses where identity politics are being transmitted most uniformly and where students are probably most willing to accept the message. It’s true that these incidents are relatively rare compared to the sheer number of college campuses in the U.S. but this entire project is brand new. Black Lives Matter is only 6-7 years old. The illiberal behavior we’re seeing now has spread incredibly quickly.
Finally, I have to point out that even one of Beauchamp’s success stories doesn’t seem terribly successful:
The 2017 Women’s March is a concrete example of how identity politics can help in this struggle. The march was billed, at the time, as both an expression of feminist rage and the major anti-Trump action the weekend of the inauguration. Some liberal identity skeptics fretted that these goals were antithetical; that the particularism of the event’s feminist rhetoric would end up dividing the anti-Trump coalition… The experience of attending Women’s Marches seems to have galvanized a significant number of people — overwhelmingly women — to engage in sustained activism for both gender equality and the defense of liberalism more broadly… The Women’s March itself seems to have largely petered out, succumbing to fatigue and leadership infighting. But its true legacy will be the activist networks it helped create, ones that contributed to sustained and impactful challenges to an illiberal presidency.
The Women’s March collapsed specifically because of identity politics infighting and concerns over anti-Semitism in the leadership. Perhaps the lesson here is that identity politics is good at getting people worked up at other groups of people. On that I’d agree. But the idea that this is going to be a net positive for liberalism doesn’t seem to be proven by this chaotic, failed movement which millions of people no longer associate themselves with.


hotair--2020-02-21--Fake controversy over Bloomberg's jokey ad somehow turns stupider

how is this a two-day story ?
How is our media even semi-seriously debating whether this breezy little Twitter fart… …is “ disinformation ” worthy of 24+ hours of overheated analysis like this ?
Go read Becket Adams ’ s round-up of yesterday ’ s hottest media takes about the alleged Danger To Democracy posed by Team Mike ’ s video .
Last night WaPo ’ s “ fact-checker ” bestowed Four Pinocchios on the clip , a rating normally reserved for the most blatant and momentous political lies .
Bloomberg ’ s aides have now had to go on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press to formally clarify that the video was made in jest .
“ It ’ s tongue-in-cheek .
There were obviously no crickets on the debate stage , ” said spokesman Julie Wood to WaPo .
A different spokesman , Sabrina Singh , turned up on MSNBC this morning and dutifully informed the host , “ It was a parody video .
There were no crickets that you could hear on stage.
” To which the host replied , “ But why do that ?
” To which I replied : What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable-news outlets that are doing segments about it keep replaying the clip .
In both the segment embedded above and the one with Singh , MSNBC amplified this supposedly insidious propaganda by beaming it out anew to its viewers .
It ’ s so embarrassing that a Trump appointee , FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr , felt obliged to pipe up on “ Mini Mike ’ s ” behalf : For the sake of my own sanity I need to know that this is all kabuki , nothing more or less than an orchestrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a new reason to hate him .
I can stomach the thought of a media that openly colludes with each other to push politically useful narratives which they don ’ t necessarily really believe in ; righties have been living with that for ages .
The more terrifying alternative is that these people really have gone so far around the bend with their own self-serving “ guardians of truth ” horsesh*t that they ’ ve sincerely lost the ability to distinguish glaringly obvious parody memes from malicious disinformation .
But even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense .
There are so many more fruitful ways than this that the media might damage Bloomberg if that ’ s what it ’ s out to do .
Vanity Fair published a piece a few days ago about Bloomy ’ s alleged habit of trash-talking St. Barack Obama behind his back , a claim to which a lot of Obama-loving undecided Democratic voters would surely react badly .
“ Mike would have dinner parties and piss all over Obama when he was president .
I know because I attended them , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agenda is to wreck the plutocrat and make democracy safe for socialism , why not focus on that instead of criticism that the average viewer will absorb and think , “ Do these people have brain damage ?
”

How…
how…
how is this a two-day story?
How is our media even semi-seriously debating whether this breezy little Twitter fart…
…is “disinformation” worthy of 24+ hours of overheated analysis like this?
NBC’s Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) on Bloomberg’s “doctored video": Twitter’s new policy flagging “disinformation” will include videos like this. "If nobody will stop [disinfo], it can change narratives or change the outcome of the election." pic.twitter.com/4aINQNjWxH — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 21, 2020
Go read Becket Adams’s round-up of yesterday’s hottest media takes about the alleged Danger To Democracy posed by Team Mike’s video. Last night WaPo’s “fact-checker” bestowed Four Pinocchios on the clip, a rating normally reserved for the most blatant and momentous political lies.
What is happening?
Bloomberg’s aides have now had to go on the record, multiple times, with the press to formally clarify that the video was made in jest. “It’s tongue-in-cheek. There were obviously no crickets on the debate stage,” said spokesman Julie Wood to WaPo. A different spokesman, Sabrina Singh, turned up on MSNBC this morning and dutifully informed the host, “It was a parody video. There were no crickets that you could hear on stage.”
To which the host replied, “But why do that?”
To which I replied: What?
The funniest part is that the cable-news outlets that are doing segments about it keep replaying the clip. In both the segment embedded above and the one with Singh, MSNBC amplified this supposedly insidious propaganda by beaming it out anew to its viewers.
It’s so embarrassing that a Trump appointee, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, felt obliged to pipe up on “Mini Mike’s” behalf:
Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people in to the discussion. Equating this type of political speech with doctored deepfakes or illegal content is a serious mistake. pic.twitter.com/ZN2zSmvpIg — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) February 21, 2020
For the sake of my own sanity I need to know that this is all kabuki, nothing more or less than an orchestrated bad-faith effort by Bloomberg-hating liberals to gin up a new reason to hate him. I can stomach the thought of a media that openly colludes with each other to push politically useful narratives which they don’t necessarily really believe in; righties have been living with that for ages. The more terrifying alternative is that these people really have gone so far around the bend with their own self-serving “guardians of truth” horsesh*t that they’ve sincerely lost the ability to distinguish glaringly obvious parody memes from malicious disinformation.
But even if it’s kabuki it makes no sense. There are so many more fruitful ways than this that the media might damage Bloomberg if that’s what it’s out to do. Vanity Fair published a piece a few days ago about Bloomy’s alleged habit of trash-talking St. Barack Obama behind his back, a claim to which a lot of Obama-loving undecided Democratic voters would surely react badly. “Mike would have dinner parties and piss all over Obama when he was president. I know because I attended them,” said one donor to VF. If the agenda is to wreck the plutocrat and make democracy safe for socialism, why not focus on that instead of criticism that the average viewer will absorb and think, “Do these people have brain damage?”


hotair--2020-02-21--Venezuelan describes daily life in his country: 'My Socialism Nightmare'

Fox News published this clip on its website but there isn ’ t a story built around it .
All we really have is the clip below and a headline “ My Socialism Nightmare : Venezuelan capitalist shares the deadly side of socialized medicine.
” In any case , this 9 minute clip is definitely worth a look .
“ The crisis is not the crisis when it ’ s on the news .
The crisis is every day , ” Jose Rafael Monagas said .
He ’ s talking about people who get sick and then die while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one who will admit them .
It ’ s not just the health system that has collapsed , it ’ s also the police .
“ No one ever is going to invest in Venezuela if there is no police , ” he explained .
“ If you get robbed and you can not tell anyone , who is going to put their money in jeopardy like that ?
” he said .
Monagas said his own mother was kidnapped when he was 12 years old by men who took her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her up , stole her car and credit cards .
People in Venezuela rarely go to the police because they know they are corrupt .
Monagas has been trying to keep his software business afloat but has struggled because the power occasionally goes out , once for three days with no explanation .
But even when he can keep the business working , he often loses workers who can ’ t come in because they have no water and haven ’ t been able to shower for several days or weeks .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to work because the water they do have made them sick .
In short , this is a society that is barely functioning for anyone .
But President Maduro has hired a new lawyer in Washington to act as a lobbyist for his regime .
The previous attorneys abandoned a $ 2.5 million per month contract after receiving blowback for taking the job .
Lawyer Bob Amsterdam declined to comment on the nature of work for Maduro ’ s Inspector General Reinaldo Muñoz , other than saying it would focus on sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian lawyer , heads a law firm with offices in Washington and London .
In the past , it has represented a mix of repressive governments hostile to the U.S. as well as clients persecuted by authoritarian governments .
Not sure why anyone would want the situation described in this video to continue any longer than it has already , but I guess several million dollars per month is a strong incentive .

Fox News published this clip on its website but there isn’t a story built around it. All we really have is the clip below and a headline “My Socialism Nightmare: Venezuelan capitalist shares the deadly side of socialized medicine.” In any case, this 9 minute clip is definitely worth a look.
“The crisis is not the crisis when it’s on the news. The crisis is every day,” Jose Rafael Monagas said. He’s talking about people who get sick and then die while they are taken from hospital to hospital looking for one who will admit them.
It’s not just the health system that has collapsed, it’s also the police. “No one ever is going to invest in Venezuela if there is no police,” he explained. “If you get robbed and you cannot tell anyone, who is going to put their money in jeopardy like that?” he said. Monagas said his own mother was kidnapped when he was 12 years old by men who took her to a city several hours away, tied her up, stole her car and credit cards. People in Venezuela rarely go to the police because they know they are corrupt.
Monagas has been trying to keep his software business afloat but has struggled because the power occasionally goes out, once for three days with no explanation. But even when he can keep the business working, he often loses workers who can’t come in because they have no water and haven’t been able to shower for several days or weeks. In some cases, people can’t come to work because the water they do have made them sick.
In short, this is a society that is barely functioning for anyone. But President Maduro has hired a new lawyer in Washington to act as a lobbyist for his regime. The previous attorneys abandoned a $2.5 million per month contract after receiving blowback for taking the job.
Lawyer Bob Amsterdam declined to comment on the nature of work for Maduro’s Inspector General Reinaldo Muñoz, other than saying it would focus on sanctions and human rights issues… Amsterdam, a Canadian lawyer, heads a law firm with offices in Washington and London. In the past, it has represented a mix of repressive governments hostile to the U.S. as well as clients persecuted by authoritarian governments.
Not sure why anyone would want the situation described in this video to continue any longer than it has already, but I guess several million dollars per month is a strong incentive.


hotair--2020-02-21--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Learning to listen, Hollywood's latest, abortion's decline, a

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Learning to listen, Hollywood's latest, abortion's decline, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• NY Post columnist F.H .
Buckley on the need to listen to those we disagree with — even Bernie Sanders supporters have legitimate gripes • Christian Toto on the latest from Hollywood , including a fresh and over-CGI ’ d look at The Call of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how Knives Out played it fair with its immigration-hypocrisy subtext .
• Peter Grandich on Biblical approach to personal financial management , his foray into gold in 2015 , and the investment Peter now feels for which the time is right .
• Re .
Walter Hoye on some good news regarding abortion rates in African-American communities .
Do we finally have some good news for rejoicing ?
• And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
NY Post columnist F.H. Buckley on the need to listen to those we disagree with — even Bernie Sanders supporters have legitimate gripes
Christian Toto on the latest from Hollywood, including a fresh and over-CGI’d look at The Call of the Wild, Billy Crystal’s latest, and how Knives Out played it fair with its immigration-hypocrisy subtext.
Peter Grandich on Biblical approach to personal financial management, his foray into gold in 2015, and the investment Peter now feels for which the time is right.
Re. Walter Hoye on some good news regarding abortion rates in African-American communities. Do we finally have some good news for rejoicing?
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-02-21--CA governor: No really, let's allow doctors to write prescriptions for houses

Just in case anyone thought this moment from Gavin Newsom ’ s state of the state address on Wednesday was just a momentary lapse into craziness , California ’ s governor spent this morning dispelling that notion .
Let ’ s take a look at Newsom ’ s proposal in his speech , in which he declared that roofs amounted to medication .
Why not prescribe housing to cure the homeless , Newsom asked , adding “ Why not ?
” Calling Doogie Housing , Rx !
Doogie Housing Rx , to the red insanity line , please : Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still the aim of California : Before everyone starts laughing at this ridiculous pander , let ’ s recall that we used to allow doctors to do just this very thing — in a way .
Only back in the day , we called “ doctors putting a roof over someone ’ s head for mental illness issues ” commitment papers .
And while that system created problems and abuses , it also prevented the mentally-ill homeless from overrunning cities and creating 19th-century disease outbreaks in cities like Los Angeles , Seattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can start laughing .
By the way , there are many things fundamental to a person ’ s well-being — food , water , education , and public systems that discourage fecal matter lying around in the street among them .
This is why people work to afford those fundamentals in life , and why we organize government to provide those systems .
None of these items are medical in nature , not even proper sewage systems and a culture which makes them fundamental .
Doctors can ’ t write prescriptions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestion somehow skips over the fact that someone eventually has to pay for that house or apartment .
Who ’ s going to do that ?
It won ’ t be the insurance companies , just as they ’ re not going to start covering groceries or Port-a-Potties .
If the homeless could afford the housing in other ways , they ’ d already have the roof over their heads .
A prescription pad is not a magic spell that just summons things into existence without any cost whatsoever .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Democratic establishment has been pushing a single-payer health care plan for the last few years to eliminate private health insurance , a program whose cost will run around $ 400 billion a year — more than twice the current state budget in its entirety .
Under that system , the state would have to pay for the housing , expanding the single-payer system ’ s cost exponentially .
But it gets even more simple than that — if the state has to pay for the housing , why does a doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This idea is sheer economic and political idiocy .
It reminds this Golden State ex-pat — and likely many more — of the blessing of being a Golden State ex-pat these days .

Just in case anyone thought this moment from Gavin Newsom’s state of the state address on Wednesday was just a momentary lapse into craziness, California’s governor spent this morning dispelling that notion. Let’s take a look at Newsom’s proposal in his speech, in which he declared that roofs amounted to medication. Why not prescribe housing to cure the homeless, Newsom asked, adding “Why not?”
Calling Doogie Housing, Rx! Doogie Housing Rx, to the red insanity line, please:
Newsom, getting deep: “Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin and antibiotics. Why not?” pic.twitter.com/8BD7eSkla8 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 19, 2020
NEWSOM: Health care and housing can no longer be divorced.
(Side note: I didn’t even realize they were fighting!)
NEWSOM: After all, what’s more fundamental to a person’s well-being than a roof over their head? Doctors — doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin and antibiotics! Why not? That’s the aim of Cali[fornia].
Two days later, Newsom insists that this is still the aim of California:
We need to start targeting social determinants of health. We need to start treating brain health like we do physical health. What’s more fundamental to a person’s well being than a roof over their head? — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) February 21, 2020
Let’s be clear: Massive failures in our mental health system and disinvestment in our social safety net—exacerbated by widening income inequality and our housing shortage— has led us to where we are today: too many Californians left to live on our streets. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) February 21, 2020
Before everyone starts laughing at this ridiculous pander, let’s recall that we used to allow doctors to do just this very thing — in a way. Only back in the day, we called “doctors putting a roof over someone’s head for mental illness issues” commitment papers. And while that system created problems and abuses, it also prevented the mentally-ill homeless from overrunning cities and creating 19th-century disease outbreaks in cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, and others.
Okay, now you can start laughing.
By the way, there are many things fundamental to a person’s well-being — food, water, education, and public systems that discourage fecal matter lying around in the street among them. This is why people work to afford those fundamentals in life, and why we organize government to provide those systems. None of these items are medical in nature, not even proper sewage systems and a culture which makes them fundamental. Doctors can’t write prescriptions for everything in life.
Newsom’s suggestion somehow skips over the fact that someone eventually has to pay for that house or apartment. Who’s going to do that? It won’t be the insurance companies, just as they’re not going to start covering groceries or Port-a-Potties. If the homeless could afford the housing in other ways, they’d already have the roof over their heads. A prescription pad is not a magic spell that just summons things into existence without any cost whatsoever.
Let’s not forget, too, that California’s Democratic establishment has been pushing a single-payer health care plan for the last few years to eliminate private health insurance, a program whose cost will run around $400 billion a year — more than twice the current state budget in its entirety. Under that system, the state would have to pay for the housing, expanding the single-payer system’s cost exponentially. But it gets even more simple than that — if the state has to pay for the housing, why does a doctor need to be involved at all?
This idea is sheer economic and political idiocy. It reminds this Golden State ex-pat — and likely many more — of the blessing of being a Golden State ex-pat these days.


hotair--2020-02-21--Hoo boy: Bernie now within two points of Biden among black Democrats nationally

Big margin of error here ( 6.2 percent ) but we have enough polling of the race nationally and from Nevada and South Carolina that I don ’ t see a reason to doubt the basic conclusion that Biden ’ s huge lead among black voters has crumbled .
Sanders now leads by an average of 11.4 points nationwide ; he ’ s pulling away in NV , up 14 there ; and poll after poll of SC lately , including the one Ed wrote about earlier , has Biden ’ s lead very narrow .
Bearing all of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how Joe Biden comes roaring into Super Tuesday — the big , probably decisive prize on the calendar — 11 days from now and knocks Bernie back on his heels .
If Sanders wins Nevada going away , as seems likely , the “ Berniemania ” narrative afterward will drown any good buzz Biden might receive by finishing second .
And that narrative will propel Bernie in South Carolina either to an outright victory or a surprisingly close second , which will deflate much of the Super Tuesday momentum Joe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Realistically , I think , Biden ’ s chances at this point depend on a shockingly strong finish in Nevada , not South Carolina .
If he surprises there , the media will shift to a “ Biden comeback ” narrative in the days before SC votes .
That might in turn ensure a comfortable win in South Carolina .
And those two solid finishes back-to-back really might make him a player on Super Tuesday .
But it all depends on tomorrow night .
A tepid finish in Nevada , even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s effectively over .
And needless to say , if the national trend among black voters that NBC/WSJ is detecting continues , it ’ s over regardless : According to the newly released data , Biden has the support of 31 percent of black Democratic primary voters , while Sanders captures the backing of 29 percent… [ T ] he close margin shows that Sanders has made inroads in a community previously dominated by Biden ; aggregated data from 2019 shows that Biden led Sanders among these voters by as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News/WSJ national polls last year… A combined 65 percent are either enthusiastic ( 20 percent ) or comfortable ( 45 percent ) with Sanders .
For Biden , it ’ s a combined 69 percent either enthusiastic ( 16 percent ) or comfortable ( 53 percent ) .
Head to head with Trump among black voters , Joe and Bernie are equally strong : Biden leads 89/8 while Sanders leads 87/7 .
Black voters are also less likely than the overall electorate to say they ’ re uncomfortable with a socialist candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ firewall ” here ?
The only good news for him here is that this poll was taken before Wednesday ’ s debate ; maybe Bloomberg ’ s lousy night will convince some black voters to migrate over to Joe .
But Bloomy will keep spending to win them back , and it ’ s an open question right now whether his debate performance will matter at all .
I wonder if even an Obama endorsement would save Joe should Bernie succeed in running up the score in Nevada tomorrow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of at this point .
He shocks the world by winning NV , let ’ s say ( never mind that he ’ s third behind Buttigieg in the most recent poll there ) , then wallops Sanders in South Carolina .
He ’ s back in the game !
Except … lots of Super Tuesday votes will have already been cast before tomorrow night ’ s Nevada results thanks to early voting .
And where ’ s the money supposedly coming from that ’ ll enable a last-second Biden ad blitz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s not merely that Biden hasn ’ t yet spent a million bucks on TV ads in Super Tuesday states .
According to the WSJ , he ( and Buttigieg ) hadn ’ t booked a single ad yet in those states as of last night .
The only campaigns not running on fumes financially right now are Bernie and of course the billionaires Bloomberg and Steyer .
And so the only way Biden threatens Sanders on Super Tuesday is if there ’ s a big — BIG — wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , enough to overwhelm paid media arranged by Bernie ’ s machine and the Bloomberg death star .
The idea of it is farcical .
And even if Biden somehow managed to fight his way to respectable second-place finishes across a variety of Super Tuesday states , there ’ s still the thorny problem of catching up to and eventually passing Bernie in delegates before the convention .
In theory the majority of Democratic voters will doggedly vote for him over the socialist this spring in state after state , month after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowing erasing the delegate gap between them .
But in practice that ’ s not how it works : Biden would have to overcome that plus Sanders ’ s superior fundraising plus he ’ d have to neutralize Bloomberg , who can run for as long as he wants in hopes of engineering a brokered convention .
C ’ mon .
It ’ s over for Joe .
And probably over for Bloomberg , although he may still be half a billion dollars or so away from figuring that out .

Big margin of error here (6.2 percent) but we have enough polling of the race nationally and from Nevada and South Carolina that I don’t see a reason to doubt the basic conclusion that Biden’s huge lead among black voters has crumbled. Sanders now leads by an average of 11.4 points nationwide; he’s pulling away in NV, up 14 there; and poll after poll of SC lately, including the one Ed wrote about earlier, has Biden’s lead very narrow.
Bearing all of that in mind, paint me a picture of how Joe Biden comes roaring into Super Tuesday — the big, probably decisive prize on the calendar — 11 days from now and knocks Bernie back on his heels. If Sanders wins Nevada going away, as seems likely, the “Berniemania” narrative afterward will drown any good buzz Biden might receive by finishing second. And that narrative will propel Bernie in South Carolina either to an outright victory or a surprisingly close second, which will deflate much of the Super Tuesday momentum Joe’s hoping to get out of the state. Realistically, I think, Biden’s chances at this point depend on a shockingly strong finish in Nevada, not South Carolina. If he surprises there, the media will shift to a “Biden comeback” narrative in the days before SC votes. That might in turn ensure a comfortable win in South Carolina. And those two solid finishes back-to-back really might make him a player on Super Tuesday.
But it all depends on tomorrow night. A tepid finish in Nevada, even a (distant) second place one, and it’s effectively over.
And needless to say, if the national trend among black voters that NBC/WSJ is detecting continues, it’s over regardless:
According to the newly released data, Biden has the support of 31 percent of black Democratic primary voters, while Sanders captures the backing of 29 percent… [T]he close margin shows that Sanders has made inroads in a community previously dominated by Biden; aggregated data from 2019 shows that Biden led Sanders among these voters by as much as 30 percentage points in NBC News/WSJ national polls last year… A combined 65 percent are either enthusiastic (20 percent) or comfortable (45 percent) with Sanders. For Biden, it’s a combined 69 percent either enthusiastic (16 percent) or comfortable (53 percent).
Head to head with Trump among black voters, Joe and Bernie are equally strong: Biden leads 89/8 while Sanders leads 87/7. Black voters are also less likely than the overall electorate to say they’re uncomfortable with a socialist candidate. So what’s left of Joe’s “firewall” here? The only good news for him here is that this poll was taken before Wednesday’s debate; maybe Bloomberg’s lousy night will convince some black voters to migrate over to Joe. But Bloomy will keep spending to win them back, and it’s an open question right now whether his debate performance will matter at all.
I wonder if even an Obama endorsement would save Joe should Bernie succeed in running up the score in Nevada tomorrow.
Imagine the best-case Biden scenario you can think of at this point. He shocks the world by winning NV, let’s say (never mind that he’s third behind Buttigieg in the most recent poll there), then wallops Sanders in South Carolina. He’s back in the game! Except … lots of Super Tuesday votes will have already been cast before tomorrow night’s Nevada results thanks to early voting. And where’s the money supposedly coming from that’ll enable a last-second Biden ad blitz in Super Tuesday states? Digest this:
While Sanders started February with nearly $17 million in the bank, according to campaign finance disclosures filed Thursday night, his next closest rival (nonbillionaire class) was Biden, at $7.1 million. Warren was closest to the red, with just $2.3 million left in her account, while Buttigieg ($6.6 million) and Klobuchar ($2.9 million) were in between… Bloomberg, fellow billionaire Tom Steyer and Sanders are the only candidates with more than $1 million in television advertising time already booked in the coming days in Super Tuesday states.
It’s not merely that Biden hasn’t yet spent a million bucks on TV ads in Super Tuesday states. According to the WSJ, he (and Buttigieg) hadn’t booked a single ad yet in those states as of last night. The only campaigns not running on fumes financially right now are Bernie and of course the billionaires Bloomberg and Steyer. And so the only way Biden threatens Sanders on Super Tuesday is if there’s a big — BIG — wave of Joementum buzz after Nevada and South Carolina, enough to overwhelm paid media arranged by Bernie’s machine and the Bloomberg death star. The idea of it is farcical.
And even if Biden somehow managed to fight his way to respectable second-place finishes across a variety of Super Tuesday states, there’s still the thorny problem of catching up to and eventually passing Bernie in delegates before the convention. In theory the majority of Democratic voters will doggedly vote for him over the socialist this spring in state after state, month after month, seeding ever more chaos by slowing erasing the delegate gap between them. But in practice that’s not how it works:
If Sanders does take a large delegate lead on Super Tuesday, voters concerned about his electability should consider the possibility that the benefits of uniting the party (and turning its combined fire on Trump) by early spring would outweigh the costs of Bernie's liabilities. — Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) February 21, 2020
Biden would have to overcome that plus Sanders’s superior fundraising plus he’d have to neutralize Bloomberg, who can run for as long as he wants in hopes of engineering a brokered convention. C’mon. It’s over for Joe. And probably over for Bloomberg, although he may still be half a billion dollars or so away from figuring that out.


hotair--2020-02-21--AOC's PAC announces first slate of candidate endorsements

Today , AOC announced her Courage to Change PAC would be endorsing and supporting a slate of progressives , some of whom are challenging more moderate Democrats : NBC has the details on the candidates who are attempting to defeat Democrats : This is just the first slate of candidates AOC intends to support .
The NY Times calls it an attempt to reshape the Democratic Party : The endorsements of the congressional candidates — including one who is challenging Senate Democrats ’ preferred candidate in Texas — amount to a powerful stamp of approval for a diverse group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez , a celebrity of the liberal left , intends to leverage her influence among activists to try to reshape the Democratic Party .
The move also underlines the struggle among Democrats that is defining the race for the presidency , which is pitting Senator Bernie Sanders , the self-described democratic socialist , against more moderate candidates who are presenting themselves as better able to appeal to a broad section of voters in taking on President Trump .
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has traversed the country to campaign for Mr. Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left parallel his bid to deploy his progressive message to emerge as the Democratic nominee , an effort that has instilled fear in many centrist lawmakers who believe it could cost them their seats .
Well , you can ’ t say that she lacks conviction .
I actually think this could be a good thing in the long run…for Republicans .
The Democratic Party is an increasingly uneasy bargain between relative moderates like Joe Biden and far left figures like Sanders and AOC .
What AOC wants to do is drag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She may succeed in a few places but I suspect she also going to turn off moderate voters and make it more difficult for the party to elect moderates .
The important point is that it was moderates who gave Democrats control of the House .
Driving those people out or forcing them to move left is going to open up opportunities for Republicans to take back some of those seats .
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she saw her role as breaking down the barriers to entry for the kinds of Democrats who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s important for us to create mechanisms of support because so much of what is happening in Washington is driven by fear of loss , ” she said in the interview .
“ We can really create an ecosystem that makes people more comfortable into making the leap to make politically courageous choices.
” The thing about fear of loss is that , sometimes it may limit your options but it also helps protects you from getting way out over your skis .
I don ’ t think AOC appreciates that yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new candidates are going to be swept into office on Bernie ’ s socialist coattails .
And if that happens , she ’ ll be even more powerful than she is now .
But there are lots of experienced Democrats out there ( Hillary Clinton and James Carville come to mind ) saying what ’ s more likely to happen is that Bernie is going to be seen as too extreme by swing voters and will not only lose but could create problems for down ballot Democrats .
( Hillary actually suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow wins because he won ’ t be able to deliver on any of his promises . )
To be fair , Sanders and his campaign are well aware of this potential problem .
Their bet has always been that a new wave of far left voters will show up at the polls to make up for the moderates that tune out .
It ’ s a theory but it ’ s one that hasn ’ t been proven yet .
And that makes AOC ’ s decision to double down on it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely at this moment is that Sanders wins the nomination and then loses the race in a Corbyn-style blowout that costs Democrats seats in the House .
If that happens , I think a lot of Democrats are going to have not nice things to say to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for driving the party over the cliff .

Today, AOC announced her Courage to Change PAC would be endorsing and supporting a slate of progressives, some of whom are challenging more moderate Democrats:
Today @CouragetoChange is announcing its first endorsements of newcomers to Congress: SENATE
Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez (TX) HOUSE
Teresa Fernandez (NM)
Kara Eastman (NE)
Georgette Gomez (CA)
Marie Newman (IL)
Jessica Cisneros (TX)
Samelys Lopez (NY)https://t.co/sbSKTipijm — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 21, 2020
NBC has the details on the candidates who are attempting to defeat Democrats:
Eastman is challenging Democratic Rep. Don Bacon in Nebraska and Newman is trying to defeat Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ primary. On Newman’s campaign website, she slams Lipiniski for voting against Obamacare and coverage for pre-existing conditions. Cisneros is trying to primary Democratic Rep. Henry Cueller in Texas and said on her website that Cueller is “Trump’s favorite Democrat.”
This is just the first slate of candidates AOC intends to support. The NY Times calls it an attempt to reshape the Democratic Party:
The endorsements of the congressional candidates — including one who is challenging Senate Democrats’ preferred candidate in Texas — amount to a powerful stamp of approval for a diverse group of newcomers. They also are a clear sign that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a celebrity of the liberal left, intends to leverage her influence among activists to try to reshape the Democratic Party. The move also underlines the struggle among Democrats that is defining the race for the presidency, which is pitting Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist, against more moderate candidates who are presenting themselves as better able to appeal to a broad section of voters in taking on President Trump. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has traversed the country to campaign for Mr. Sanders, and her efforts to pull Congress to the left parallel his bid to deploy his progressive message to emerge as the Democratic nominee, an effort that has instilled fear in many centrist lawmakers who believe it could cost them their seats.
Well, you can’t say that she lacks conviction. I actually think this could be a good thing in the long run…for Republicans. The Democratic Party is an increasingly uneasy bargain between relative moderates like Joe Biden and far left figures like Sanders and AOC. What AOC wants to do is drag the party left by electing more socialists. She may succeed in a few places but I suspect she also going to turn off moderate voters and make it more difficult for the party to elect moderates.
The important point is that it was moderates who gave Democrats control of the House. Driving those people out or forcing them to move left is going to open up opportunities for Republicans to take back some of those seats.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she saw her role as breaking down the barriers to entry for the kinds of Democrats who should be serving. “It’s important for us to create mechanisms of support because so much of what is happening in Washington is driven by fear of loss,” she said in the interview. “We can really create an ecosystem that makes people more comfortable into making the leap to make politically courageous choices.”
The thing about fear of loss is that, sometimes it may limit your options but it also helps protects you from getting way out over your skis. I don’t think AOC appreciates that yet. She’s imagining all of these new candidates are going to be swept into office on Bernie’s socialist coattails. And if that happens, she’ll be even more powerful than she is now.
But there are lots of experienced Democrats out there (Hillary Clinton and James Carville come to mind) saying what’s more likely to happen is that Bernie is going to be seen as too extreme by swing voters and will not only lose but could create problems for down ballot Democrats. (Hillary actually suggested that things could be equally bad if Sanders somehow wins because he won’t be able to deliver on any of his promises.)
To be fair, Sanders and his campaign are well aware of this potential problem. Their bet has always been that a new wave of far left voters will show up at the polls to make up for the moderates that tune out. It’s a theory but it’s one that hasn’t been proven yet. And that makes AOC’s decision to double down on it pretty risky.
What I think looks likely at this moment is that Sanders wins the nomination and then loses the race in a Corbyn-style blowout that costs Democrats seats in the House. If that happens, I think a lot of Democrats are going to have not nice things to say to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for driving the party over the cliff.


hotair--2020-02-21--American Federation of Teachers wimps out, endorses three candidates

The American Federation of Teachers ( AFT ) announced its endorsement of three Democrats running for president .
The decision to narrow down the preferences to three candidates instead of one is a sign of the disarray within the Democrat Party .
The union is encouraging its members to vote for Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , or Elizabeth Warren .
One from column A , two from column B is the best they can do ?
This is so on-brand for 2020 Democrats , isn ’ t it ?
This is clearly a slap at Michael Bloomberg , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message is anyone but Mike .
They don ’ t like Mike , you see , because back in his days as Mayor of New York City , he was a Republican and held the teachers ’ unions accountable .
The AFT objects to charter schools because the union says they take money away from traditional public schools .
The AFT endorsement came Thursday .
The decision is being called a first step in the process towards the final endorsement .
It sounds like the interview stage of the contest is continuing because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough support from the leadership , so they are just going with three of them .
Good heavens , why didn ’ t Randi Weingarten , the union president , just tell the thousands of AFT members and leaders participating in the telephone town hall to just go with anyone but Bloomberg with their primary votes ?
The message is the same .
AFT has no idea on the path forward , at least not right now .
Weingarten told the telephone town hall participants that the AFT executive council held a meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make this odd endorsement in order to not miss out on influencing upcoming primaries on the calendar .
No union voter left behind , so to speak .
How can a teacher or school worker possibly cast a vote in a primary election without the heavy hand of the union upon her ( or his ) shoulder ?
Let ’ s face it , it doesn ’ t matter who the Democrat candidate winds up being – AFT members will vote for him or her .
Especially given the wide range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter if the Democrats go with an alleged moderate like Biden or two socialists like Sanders and Warren .
The AFT endorsement recommendations cover the political spectrum .
There is no wrong answer .
This multiple-choice test ’ s answer is ( d ) any of the above .
Joining Weingarten on the phone call were Scranton ( Pa. ) Federation of Teachers President Rosemary Boland , AFT Vermont President Deb Snell , and Boston Teachers Union President Jessica Tang .
You see where this is going , right ?
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of others , like , you know , the actual union members .
The replies to this tweet show that the rank and file members are not at all pleased , much less inspired with this ridiculous endorsement decision .
It really just sounds like the AFT leadership panicked over Bloomberg ’ s success in buying his way into the race and rising in some polls and decided to jump into the fray before they had their act together enough to make one grand endorsement , as is their tradition .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they see Bloomberg ’ s performance on the debate stage Wednesday night ?
His debating skills , or lack of skills , sure don ’ t inspire confidence that he ’ ll catch on as the top choice of a majority of voters .
Sure , he ’ s got the money to stay in for as long as he wants to but he still has to get votes to win .
We ’ ll see how it shakes out after Super Tuesday .
So , where does the AFT go from here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken with its members and the 10 candidate town halls that have been held around the country , plus telephone town halls and polling .
She said several AFT local unions and state federations have already made candidate endorsements .
Wouldn ’ t you think after all this effort , a single candidate could have been chosen ?
“ We are fighting for working families and our communities to have the freedom to live , and a voice at work and in our democracy .
Donald Trump has proven himself to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspirations of educators , healthcare professionals , public employees and the communities we serve every day .
While several candidates in this race share our values , three in particular—Vice President Biden , Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren have significant support within our membership .
There is a real connection with these three candidates because of their record of working with us over the years on public education , higher education , healthcare , labor and civil rights .
“ Given the stakes of this election , the enthusiasm among our membership to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic nomination process , our board felt strongly that until the AFT makes a national endorsement in the primary process or at the AFT convention , it is important that our affiliates , members and leaders , including the three national officers , be actively involved in supporting and helping Vice President Biden , Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren .
“ It was clear that the time to take this action was now , before all the delegates are chosen and before all of the primaries are over , so that AFT members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the narrative , ensure our voices are heard , and ensure one of these three candidates emerges as the nominee .
Because , make no mistake : We are in the fight of our lives—for a better life for our members and the communities we serve , to preserve our democracy , and to defeat Donald Trump .
Ultimately , we must be unified and support the eventual Democratic nominee.
” In other words , AFT is too scared to come out and endorse a candidate seen as unacceptable to the socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and is softening the blow by not even choosing between Sanders and Warren .
They are just throwing it all on the wall and seeing what sticks .
They are refusing to disavow socialism .
This is all you need to know when you ponder why socialism has taken hold of so many young people .
They have been taught by teachers who sympathize with socialism for two or three decades and the fruits of their labor are being seen in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any wonder Michael Bloomberg , the entrepreneur and capitalist in the race supports school choice ?
Back in her teaching days , Warren was a Republican , too .
I wonder how Dr. Jill , the community college teacher married to Joe Biden feels about this mess of an endorsement .

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced its endorsement of three Democrats running for president. The decision to narrow down the preferences to three candidates instead of one is a sign of the disarray within the Democrat Party. The union is encouraging its members to vote for Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren.
One from column A, two from column B is the best they can do? This is so on-brand for 2020 Democrats, isn’t it? This is clearly a slap at Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for charter schools, and the message is anyone but Mike. They don’t like Mike, you see, because back in his days as Mayor of New York City, he was a Republican and held the teachers’ unions accountable. The AFT objects to charter schools because the union says they take money away from traditional public schools.
The AFT endorsement came Thursday. The decision is being called a first step in the process towards the final endorsement. It sounds like the interview stage of the contest is continuing because a single candidate hasn’t received enough support from the leadership, so they are just going with three of them. Good heavens, why didn’t Randi Weingarten, the union president, just tell the thousands of AFT members and leaders participating in the telephone town hall to just go with anyone but Bloomberg with their primary votes? The message is the same. AFT has no idea on the path forward, at least not right now.
Weingarten told the telephone town hall participants that the AFT executive council held a meeting this week and a decision was made to make this odd endorsement in order to not miss out on influencing upcoming primaries on the calendar. No union voter left behind, so to speak. How can a teacher or school worker possibly cast a vote in a primary election without the heavy hand of the union upon her (or his) shoulder? Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter who the Democrat candidate winds up being – AFT members will vote for him or her. Especially given the wide range of this endorsement. Clearly, it doesn’t matter if the Democrats go with an alleged moderate like Biden or two socialists like Sanders and Warren. The AFT endorsement recommendations cover the political spectrum. There is no wrong answer. This multiple-choice test’s answer is (d) any of the above.
Joining Weingarten on the phone call were Scranton (Pa.) Federation of Teachers President Rosemary Boland, AFT Vermont President Deb Snell, and Boston Teachers Union President Jessica Tang. You see where this is going, right? These three seem to have overshadowed the preferences of others, like, you know, the actual union members. The replies to this tweet show that the rank and file members are not at all pleased, much less inspired with this ridiculous endorsement decision.
While several candidates in this race share our values, three in particular— @JoeBiden, @BernieSanders and @ewarren have significant support within our membership. #AFTvotes https://t.co/gHnF4zRVQJ — Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten) February 21, 2020
It really just sounds like the AFT leadership panicked over Bloomberg’s success in buying his way into the race and rising in some polls and decided to jump into the fray before they had their act together enough to make one grand endorsement, as is their tradition. It also seems silly because, well, did they see Bloomberg’s performance on the debate stage Wednesday night? His debating skills, or lack of skills, sure don’t inspire confidence that he’ll catch on as the top choice of a majority of voters. Sure, he’s got the money to stay in for as long as he wants to but he still has to get votes to win. We’ll see how it shakes out after Super Tuesday.
So, where does the AFT go from here? Weingarten touted the surveys the union has taken with its members and the 10 candidate town halls that have been held around the country, plus telephone town halls and polling. She said several AFT local unions and state federations have already made candidate endorsements. Wouldn’t you think after all this effort, a single candidate could have been chosen?
“We are fighting for working families and our communities to have the freedom to live, and a voice at work and in our democracy. Donald Trump has proven himself to be an existential threat to the values and aspirations of educators, healthcare professionals, public employees and the communities we serve every day. While several candidates in this race share our values, three in particular—Vice President Biden, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren have significant support within our membership. There is a real connection with these three candidates because of their record of working with us over the years on public education, higher education, healthcare, labor and civil rights. “Given the stakes of this election, the enthusiasm among our membership to engage, and the nature of the democratic nomination process, our board felt strongly that until the AFT makes a national endorsement in the primary process or at the AFT convention, it is important that our affiliates, members and leaders, including the three national officers, be actively involved in supporting and helping Vice President Biden, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren. “It was clear that the time to take this action was now, before all the delegates are chosen and before all of the primaries are over, so that AFT members and leaders can help shape the race and the narrative, ensure our voices are heard, and ensure one of these three candidates emerges as the nominee. Because, make no mistake: We are in the fight of our lives—for a better life for our members and the communities we serve, to preserve our democracy, and to defeat Donald Trump. Ultimately, we must be unified and support the eventual Democratic nominee.”
In other words, AFT is too scared to come out and endorse a candidate seen as unacceptable to the socialist wing of the Democrat Party – Biden – and is softening the blow by not even choosing between Sanders and Warren. They are just throwing it all on the wall and seeing what sticks. They are refusing to disavow socialism. This is all you need to know when you ponder why socialism has taken hold of so many young people. They have been taught by teachers who sympathize with socialism for two or three decades and the fruits of their labor are being seen in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent, that of Elizabeth Warren. Is it any wonder Michael Bloomberg, the entrepreneur and capitalist in the race supports school choice? Back in her teaching days, Warren was a Republican, too. I wonder how Dr. Jill, the community college teacher married to Joe Biden feels about this mess of an endorsement.


hotair--2020-02-21--Politico: Bloomberg already brokering the second-ballot convention vote to oust Bernie

“ There ’ s a whole operation going on , ” one strategist tells Politico ’ s David Siders , but that might be a function of cash over common sense .
A day after his embarrassing performance on the Nevada debate stage , Michael Bloomberg is still building an operation to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders .
Rather than beat him in the primaries , though , Bloomberg ’ s aiming at the second ballot at the convention — and trying to convince everyone else to play along : Mike Bloomberg is privately lobbying Democratic Party officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to flip their allegiance to him — and block Bernie Sanders — in the event of a brokered national convention .
The effort , largely executed by Bloomberg ’ s senior state-level advisers in recent weeks , attempts to prime Bloomberg for a second-ballot contest at the Democratic National Convention in July by poaching supporters of Joe Biden and other moderate Democrats , according to two Democratic strategists familiar with the talks and unaffiliated with Bloomberg .
The outreach has involved meetings and telephone calls with supporters of Biden and Pete Buttigieg — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Virginia , Texas , Florida , Oklahoma and North Carolina , according to one of the strategists who participated in meetings and calls .
With Sanders ’ emergence as the frontrunner in the presidential primary , Democrats in those states have recently raised the prospect that the democratic socialist could be a top-of-the-ticket liability .
So , the disaster of the Wednesday night debate hasn ’ t dissuaded Bloomberg from competing for the Democratic nomination at all , as everyone pretty much assumed .
Perhaps more surprisingly , it hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other candidates to drop out of the competition , but at least he ’ s not making that an immediate demand now .
Siders calls this “ a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn ’ t yet won a delegate or appeared on a ballot , ” which is true enough , but .
It ’ s not even as presumptuous as Team Bloomberg ’ s earlier memo calling for everyone else to drop out of the race and endorse him now before Bloomberg even took the debate stage on Wednesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the debate , suggesting that Bloomberg should withdraw and endorse her .
Other candidates are starting to discuss the potential of a brokered convention , Siders reports , but aren ’ t attempting to broker it now .
That may not last long , though , because Democrats are increasingly convinced that ’ s where they will end up in Milwaukee .
It even came up in the debate , where Sanders said the party should nominate the candidate with the plurality of delegates on the first ballot , a proposition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorse : The question for the six candidates onstage was straightforward .
Should the person who wins the most pledged delegates during the primaries , even if he or she does not have a majority , be nominated at the national convention in Milwaukee to become the party ’ s challenger to President Trump ?
Sanders , alone , said yes .
The five other candidates said that , in that scenario , the decision of who becomes the nominee should be left to all the delegates at the convention , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members , lawmakers and other high-ranking Democrats who can only vote if the contest goes to a second ballot .
But if there is agreement that Sanders will lead the delegate race , there is similar agreement that he is not likely to be able to win a majority .
If that turns out to be the case , Democrats could he headed for a chaotic national convention , one that could split the party and weaken Democrats in the general election , regardless of who ends up as the nominee .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later ballot for anyone else but Sanders ( assuming he does get the plurality ) anathema to the Bernie Bros .
But Bloomberg would be the worst possible choice for that scenario .
How do you keep the progressives in the party by denying the plurality for the socialist and handing the nomination to the multi-billionaire capitalist who bought his way to the convention ?
It doesn ’ t matter how much money Bloomberg pours into an organization aimed at that outcome — there ’ s no way the DNC allows that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Way .
Not unless they want to give birth to the Democratic Socialist Party and a 50-state split , especially in their urban/Academia core constituencies .
But then who does get the nomination in a brokered convention ?
The best chance Democrats would have to remain united in that case is to find someone who appeals to all wings but who didn ’ t run in the primary , so as not to pick someone Sanders beat .
That won ’ t be Hillary Clinton or John Kerry , but it could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even Oprah Winfrey in a pinch .
Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer or Kansas governor Laura Kelly might be dark-horse floor candidates for their identity-politics appeal and their connection to Midwestern voters .
Whoever it is , it won ’ t be Mike Bloomberg .
Like Bernie Sanders , his only chance at the nomination is a first-ballot majority .
It doesn ’ t take a genius to recognize the disaster ahead if it unfolds any other way .

“There’s a whole operation going on,” one strategist tells Politico’s David Siders, but that might be a function of cash over common sense. A day after his embarrassing performance on the Nevada debate stage, Michael Bloomberg is still building an operation to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders. Rather than beat him in the primaries, though, Bloomberg’s aiming at the second ballot at the convention — and trying to convince everyone else to play along:
Mike Bloomberg is privately lobbying Democratic Party officials and donors allied with his moderate opponents to flip their allegiance to him — and block Bernie Sanders — in the event of a brokered national convention. The effort, largely executed by Bloomberg’s senior state-level advisers in recent weeks, attempts to prime Bloomberg for a second-ballot contest at the Democratic National Convention in July by poaching supporters of Joe Biden and other moderate Democrats, according to two Democratic strategists familiar with the talks and unaffiliated with Bloomberg. The outreach has involved meetings and telephone calls with supporters of Biden and Pete Buttigieg — as well as uncommitted DNC members — in Virginia, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and North Carolina, according to one of the strategists who participated in meetings and calls. With Sanders’ emergence as the frontrunner in the presidential primary, Democrats in those states have recently raised the prospect that the democratic socialist could be a top-of-the-ticket liability.
So, the disaster of the Wednesday night debate hasn’t dissuaded Bloomberg from competing for the Democratic nomination at all, as everyone pretty much assumed. Perhaps more surprisingly, it hasn’t convinced Bloomberg to abandon his call for other candidates to drop out of the competition, but at least he’s not making that an immediate demand now.
Siders calls this “a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn’t yet won a delegate or appeared on a ballot,” which is true enough, but. It’s not even as presumptuous as Team Bloomberg’s earlier memo calling for everyone else to drop out of the race and endorse him now before Bloomberg even took the debate stage on Wednesday. Elizabeth Warren skewered Bloomberg over that memo after the debate, suggesting that Bloomberg should withdraw and endorse her.
Other candidates are starting to discuss the potential of a brokered convention, Siders reports, but aren’t attempting to broker it now. That may not last long, though, because Democrats are increasingly convinced that’s where they will end up in Milwaukee. It even came up in the debate, where Sanders said the party should nominate the candidate with the plurality of delegates on the first ballot, a proposition that the other candidates pointedly chose not to endorse:
The question for the six candidates onstage was straightforward. Should the person who wins the most pledged delegates during the primaries, even if he or she does not have a majority, be nominated at the national convention in Milwaukee to become the party’s challenger to President Trump? Sanders, alone, said yes. The five other candidates said that, in that scenario, the decision of who becomes the nominee should be left to all the delegates at the convention, including the roughly 770 superdelegates — the party committee members, lawmakers and other high-ranking Democrats who can only vote if the contest goes to a second ballot. But if there is agreement that Sanders will lead the delegate race, there is similar agreement that he is not likely to be able to win a majority. If that turns out to be the case, Democrats could he headed for a chaotic national convention, one that could split the party and weaken Democrats in the general election, regardless of who ends up as the nominee.
That pretty much makes any nomination on a later ballot for anyone else but Sanders (assuming he does get the plurality) anathema to the Bernie Bros. But Bloomberg would be the worst possible choice for that scenario. How do you keep the progressives in the party by denying the plurality for the socialist and handing the nomination to the multi-billionaire capitalist who bought his way to the convention? It doesn’t matter how much money Bloomberg pours into an organization aimed at that outcome — there’s no way the DNC allows that to happen. No. Flippin’. Way. Not unless they want to give birth to the Democratic Socialist Party and a 50-state split, especially in their urban/Academia core constituencies.
But then who does get the nomination in a brokered convention? The best chance Democrats would have to remain united in that case is to find someone who appeals to all wings but who didn’t run in the primary, so as not to pick someone Sanders beat. That won’t be Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, but it could be Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, or even Oprah Winfrey in a pinch. Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer or Kansas governor Laura Kelly might be dark-horse floor candidates for their identity-politics appeal and their connection to Midwestern voters.
Whoever it is, it won’t be Mike Bloomberg. Like Bernie Sanders, his only chance at the nomination is a first-ballot majority. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize the disaster ahead if it unfolds any other way.