hotair--2020-02-04--Pete Buttigieg declared victory last night but today says he's 'beaten every expectation' in Iowa

In the midst of the Iowa caucus disaster last night , Mayor Pete Buttigieg came out before a crowd and declared victory .
At least that ’ s what it sounded like to many observers at the time .
“ What a night !
Because tonight an improbably hope became an undeniable reality , ” Buttigieg said .
At this point , the crowd began chanting his name “ Boot-Edge-Edge-Boot-Edge-Edge.
” He continued , “ So we don ’ t know all the results but we know by the time it ’ s all said and done—Iowa , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.
” Sounds like a declaration of victory to me and it certainly did to the assembled crowd which began chanting , “ Pete !
Pete !
Pete !
” But as I write this , we still don ’ t know who won Iowa .
Sanders has released some numbers suggesting he is winning with Mayor Pete in 2nd place .
But Buttigieg ’ s campaign released numbers showing Pete in the lead .
From CNBC : Data released late Monday by Sen. Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show Buttigieg in second place , with about 26 % share of state delegate equivalents , compared with about 29 % for Sanders .
“ Let me begin by stating that I imagine , have a strong feeling , that at some point the results will be announced , ” Sanders said to cheering supporters Monday night .
“ And when those results are announced I have a good feeling we ’ re going to be doing very , very well in Iowa.
” … A Buttigieg campaign aide told CNBC that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign ’ s precinct captains showed Buttigieg in the lead .
The campaign aide said that internal projections prior to the caucus suggested that the race would be a tie , but that the internal numbers so far showed Buttigieg performing 8 percentage points better than expected , enough to win first place .
Today , Buttigieg is making the rounds on television and being asked about the results .
CBS This Morning host Gayle King asked Buttigieg how he could declare victory “ when the official results are not in.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she asked .
“ Well , we have the results from our organization and if you look at what we were able to do , what happened last night , the fact that this campaign was able to gather support in urban , suburban , and rural areas alike , in counties that Hillary Clinton won , counties that Donald Trump won—we are thrilled and absolutely consider that a victory , ” he replied .
Asked again if he was premature in using “ the v-word ” Buttigieg said , “ Looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the data that we ’ ve got , it was an extraordinary night and we are absolutely victorious coming into New Hampshire.
” So does “ victorious ” mean he won or simply that he exceeded expectations ?
It ’ s not quite clear .
Buttigieg also appeared on MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe where he was asked by co-host Willie Geist why he decided to declare victory .
Buttigieg replied , “ Well , we were looking at the internal numbers that we had and beginning to realize that something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean here you have a campaign that was really questioned when we first got in for whether we really ought to be here , whether we belonged in this race .
And to not only establish that but to reach the position that we did was a clear victory for this campaign.
” What position was that exactly ?
A bit later he added , “ We wanted to see those results last night so we could address our supporters with a firm , official count in hand .
Instead we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with those official numbers and , at the same time , we know for the road ahead that we are arriving here [ in New Hampshire ] with the extraordinary momentum of having beaten every expectation in the state of Iowa .
And that ’ s why I was able to say with confidence when we were getting on that plane we were victorious.
” Here ’ s the clip : And here ’ s one more from CNN .
He ’ s asked if this is just a moral victory of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all it is .
He does say that he has “ the momentum ” which may even be true but is still not the same thing as victory .
Mayor Pete is by all accounts a smart guy but it appears to me he ’ s taking quite a risk .
If it turns out he did win Iowa then his own statements about shocking the nation will prove correct .
In fact , if he won then it ’ s fair to say he was robbed of a day in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only thing anyone was talking about on television .
However , if it turns out he came in 2nd or 3rd place then I think he ’ s going to get some serious backlash .
Specifically , the Bernie Bros are going to be savage if their candidate actually won and yet Buttigieg declared victory .
They will not let him forget it for the rest of this campaign .
It will launch a thousand of bitter memes .
And that could overshadow the fact that he actually did pretty well .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second place behind Sanders , that means he beat both Biden and Warren , which really would be a tremendous result for him .
But by overstating it a bit , he may wind up backpedaling instead of moving forward .
Again , it seems like a big risk .
We ’ ll have to wait a few more hours to see if he was correct about a stunning victory or if he was exaggerating a bit .
Meanwhile , here ’ s his speech from last night :

In the midst of the Iowa caucus disaster last night, Mayor Pete Buttigieg came out before a crowd and declared victory. At least that’s what it sounded like to many observers at the time.
“What a night! Because tonight an improbably hope became an undeniable reality,” Buttigieg said. At this point, the crowd began chanting his name “Boot-Edge-Edge-Boot-Edge-Edge.”
He continued, “So we don’t know all the results but we know by the time it’s all said and done—Iowa, you have shocked the nation…because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.”
Sounds like a declaration of victory to me and it certainly did to the assembled crowd which began chanting, “Pete! Pete! Pete!” But as I write this, we still don’t know who won Iowa. Sanders has released some numbers suggesting he is winning with Mayor Pete in 2nd place. But Buttigieg’s campaign released numbers showing Pete in the lead. From CNBC:
Data released late Monday by Sen. Bernie Sanders reflected 40% of precincts and appeared to show Buttigieg in second place, with about 26% share of state delegate equivalents, compared with about 29% for Sanders. “Let me begin by stating that I imagine, have a strong feeling, that at some point the results will be announced,” Sanders said to cheering supporters Monday night. “And when those results are announced I have a good feeling we’re going to be doing very, very well in Iowa.”… A Buttigieg campaign aide told CNBC that data provided by 77% of the campaign’s precinct captains showed Buttigieg in the lead. The campaign aide said that internal projections prior to the caucus suggested that the race would be a tie, but that the internal numbers so far showed Buttigieg performing 8 percentage points better than expected, enough to win first place.
Today, Buttigieg is making the rounds on television and being asked about the results. CBS This Morning host Gayle King asked Buttigieg how he could declare victory “when the official results are not in.” “Shouldn’t you wait?” she asked.
“Well, we have the results from our organization and if you look at what we were able to do, what happened last night, the fact that this campaign was able to gather support in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike, in counties that Hillary Clinton won, counties that Donald Trump won—we are thrilled and absolutely consider that a victory,” he replied.
Asked again if he was premature in using “the v-word” Buttigieg said, “Looking at what happened last night, looking at all of the data that we’ve got, it was an extraordinary night and we are absolutely victorious coming into New Hampshire.”
So does “victorious” mean he won or simply that he exceeded expectations? It’s not quite clear.
Buttigieg also appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe where he was asked by co-host Willie Geist why he decided to declare victory. Buttigieg replied, “Well, we were looking at the internal numbers that we had and beginning to realize that something extraordinary had happened last night. I mean here you have a campaign that was really questioned when we first got in for whether we really ought to be here, whether we belonged in this race. And to not only establish that but to reach the position that we did was a clear victory for this campaign.”
What position was that exactly?
A bit later he added, “We wanted to see those results last night so we could address our supporters with a firm, official count in hand. Instead we’re waiting on the party to come through with those official numbers and, at the same time, we know for the road ahead that we are arriving here [in New Hampshire] with the extraordinary momentum of having beaten every expectation in the state of Iowa. And that’s why I was able to say with confidence when we were getting on that plane we were victorious.” Here’s the clip:
And here’s one more from CNN. He’s asked if this is just a moral victory of some kind and refuses to say whether that’s all it is. He does say that he has “the momentum” which may even be true but is still not the same thing as victory.
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1224697662689226754
Mayor Pete is by all accounts a smart guy but it appears to me he’s taking quite a risk. If it turns out he did win Iowa then his own statements about shocking the nation will prove correct. In fact, if he won then it’s fair to say he was robbed of a day in which his victory would have been the only thing anyone was talking about on television.
However, if it turns out he came in 2nd or 3rd place then I think he’s going to get some serious backlash. Specifically, the Bernie Bros are going to be savage if their candidate actually won and yet Buttigieg declared victory. They will not let him forget it for the rest of this campaign. It will launch a thousand of bitter memes. And that could overshadow the fact that he actually did pretty well.
For instance, if he’s in second place behind Sanders, that means he beat both Biden and Warren, which really would be a tremendous result for him. But by overstating it a bit, he may wind up backpedaling instead of moving forward. Again, it seems like a big risk. We’ll have to wait a few more hours to see if he was correct about a stunning victory or if he was exaggerating a bit. Meanwhile, here’s his speech from last night:


hotair--2020-02-04--Sacramento proposes homeless shelter near school. It doesn't go well

Sadly , it ’ s time for another update on the homelessness crisis in California , specifically in Sacramento .
You can ’ t say that the city isn ’ t at least trying to come up with some solutions .
One recent proposal calls for the construction of dozens of cabins in the fashion of tiny homes on a vacant five-acre lot .
It ’ s an admittedly minimalist way to live , but each one could at least get a couple of people under a roof while more permanent solutions are developed .
Unfortunately for the homeless in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming to a screeching halt .
The vacant lot being looked at is immediately adjacent to a junior high school .
That brought residents out in droves to a recent meeting at the school where they expressed their outrage over the idea .
( CBS Sacramento ) Outrage overflowed in North Sacramento Wednesday night over a proposed homeless shelter just yards from an elementary school .
Hundreds attended a community meeting at Rio Tierra Junior High to speak out against a proposed facility for women and children across from Garden Valley Elementary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems .
City leaders want to build dozens of small cabins on a five-acre lot off Northgate that is currently empty .
“ I don ’ t want that environment for my kids , ” said Rosa Romero , a mom with two kids at Garden Valley Elementary school .
I sympathize with the Mayor to a certain extent here .
Cost-effective solutions for homelessness are hard to come by and it ’ s only natural that he would feel like he has to try something .
But at the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The parents and neighbors at that meeting were raising completely valid complaints .
Any time you set up a sizeable homeless facility , problems arise with sanitary concerns , drug use and crime .
Many of the children who attend that school walk there from their homes each day .
Obviously the parents would be concerned .
Beyond that , the plan is simply inefficient in terms of addressing the full scale of the problem .
As of last year , the city estimated that they had more than 5,000 homeless and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new collection of sheds is only expected to provide housing for 100 women and children and it ’ s taking up five acres of land .
On a property that size you should easily be able to construct an actual housing complex capable of providing beds for at least a thousand people .
The problem , of course , is the money .
Those sheds can probably be obtained and set up far more cheaply , particularly if the project will rely on a centralized kitchen and dining facility as proposed .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of a dent in the overall homeless population .
Beyond budget concerns , you ’ re always going to run into a NIMBY response when talking about new homeless shelters .
This phenomenon was greatly amplified by proposing to plop the project down right next to a middle school .
Of course the parents were going to revolt .
The Mayor needs to go back to the drawing board on this one .
If they ’ ve got the money to construct all of these sheds , it could probably be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further away from schools and residential neighborhoods .
That ’ s the approach Los Angeles has been trying to take and it at least appears more productive than this .
And the White House has already begun pushing plans to convert abandoned federal buildings .
If Sacramento has any of those types of structures , they might want to pick up the phone and call Washington , unless the idea of working with Donald Trump to solve a problem is simply too revolting for them .

Sadly, it’s time for another update on the homelessness crisis in California, specifically in Sacramento. You can’t say that the city isn’t at least trying to come up with some solutions. One recent proposal calls for the construction of dozens of cabins in the fashion of tiny homes on a vacant five-acre lot. It’s an admittedly minimalist way to live, but each one could at least get a couple of people under a roof while more permanent solutions are developed.
Unfortunately for the homeless in Sacramento, the plan may wind up coming to a screeching halt. The vacant lot being looked at is immediately adjacent to a junior high school. That brought residents out in droves to a recent meeting at the school where they expressed their outrage over the idea. (CBS Sacramento)
Outrage overflowed in North Sacramento Wednesday night over a proposed homeless shelter just yards from an elementary school. Hundreds attended a community meeting at Rio Tierra Junior High to speak out against a proposed facility for women and children across from Garden Valley Elementary. Neighbors said it will bring nothing but problems. City leaders want to build dozens of small cabins on a five-acre lot off Northgate that is currently empty. “I don’t want that environment for my kids,” said Rosa Romero, a mom with two kids at Garden Valley Elementary school.
I sympathize with the Mayor to a certain extent here. Cost-effective solutions for homelessness are hard to come by and it’s only natural that he would feel like he has to try something. But at the same time, there are multiple problems with this plan.
The parents and neighbors at that meeting were raising completely valid complaints. Any time you set up a sizeable homeless facility, problems arise with sanitary concerns, drug use and crime. Many of the children who attend that school walk there from their homes each day. Obviously the parents would be concerned.
Beyond that, the plan is simply inefficient in terms of addressing the full scale of the problem. As of last year, the city estimated that they had more than 5,000 homeless and that number was only rising. This new collection of sheds is only expected to provide housing for 100 women and children and it’s taking up five acres of land. On a property that size you should easily be able to construct an actual housing complex capable of providing beds for at least a thousand people.
The problem, of course, is the money. Those sheds can probably be obtained and set up far more cheaply, particularly if the project will rely on a centralized kitchen and dining facility as proposed. But it wouldn’t result in making much of a dent in the overall homeless population.
Beyond budget concerns, you’re always going to run into a NIMBY response when talking about new homeless shelters. This phenomenon was greatly amplified by proposing to plop the project down right next to a middle school. Of course the parents were going to revolt.
The Mayor needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. If they’ve got the money to construct all of these sheds, it could probably be put to better use converting an abandoned building further away from schools and residential neighborhoods. That’s the approach Los Angeles has been trying to take and it at least appears more productive than this. And the White House has already begun pushing plans to convert abandoned federal buildings. If Sacramento has any of those types of structures, they might want to pick up the phone and call Washington, unless the idea of working with Donald Trump to solve a problem is simply too revolting for them.


hotair--2020-02-04--Durbin confirms: Three Dems "on the fence" for Senate trial verdict

Holy cow , there may really be four members of the Everyone Else Stinks Caucus by tomorrow .
Dick Durbin , the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate , told CNN ’ s Manu Raju that neither he nor Chuck Schumer could guarantee party-line unanimity on the vote for Donald Trump ’ s removal from office .
Three Senate Democrats are “ on the fence , ” Durbin confirms , and claims that Schumer ’ s not whipping the vote : Come on , man — surely Schumer ’ s pitching a conviction vote a little .
House Democrats desperately need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for conviction on both articles in order to counter the inevitable backlash for their failure .
If Senate Dems unite behind them , then Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi can blame Republicans for their rabid fealty to Trump .
If , however , one or more Senate Democrats vote to acquit , that undermines the narrative they have been crafting ever since Pelosi finally released the articles of impeachment .
Durbin doesn ’ t name the three Senate Democrats , but they are almost certainly Kyrsten Sinema , Doug Jones , and Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might lean toward acquittal despite misgivings over Trump ’ s actions .
Only Jones is up for re-election this year and he ’ s almost certain to lose in Alabama no matter which way he votes , but a vote to remove would allow Jones to take the rest of the campaign off , full stop .
West Virginia is so Republican right now that Manchin looks like Nancy Pelosi in contrast , and the last thing he needs for his next election fight is to appear to be in her thrall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat in 2018 in Arizona , a nominal red state that is turning purple — or was , until impeachment .
Trump was never terribly popular in John McCain ’ s state , barely edging out Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election without making it to 50 % , but one has to wonder whether that will remain the case as Trump ’ s national polling keeps rising .
Sinema won her election by putting both her partisanship and radical politics in her past , which makes her a very interesting target for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she throw in with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler , or with Trump ?
In Arizona , that ’ s about as close to a damned if you do , damned if you don ’ t scenario : Sinema was the first Democrat to win a Senate race in Arizona in 30 years and has positioned herself as a conservative Democrat in the caucus .
Still , she often votes with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) on procedural votes .
Notably , she joined the party ’ s quest for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial written by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-K.Y. )
.
But back home things are complicated .
For months , the Arizona state party has been considering whether to reprimand her for leaning too far to the right .
No matter how she votes , some will be angry .
Best guess : all three will vote against the obstruction article , and they may not be the only three Democrats to do so .
It ’ s not just an unsupportable allegation , it ’ s dangerous in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power article , Democrats might end up trading Joe Manchin for Mitt Romney and settle it with a tie on bipartisanship .
If they lose more than one on both articles , though , Democrats can kiss their “ Republican partisanship ” narrative goodbye .

Holy cow, there may really be four members of the Everyone Else Stinks Caucus by tomorrow. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, told CNN’s Manu Raju that neither he nor Chuck Schumer could guarantee party-line unanimity on the vote for Donald Trump’s removal from office. Three Senate Democrats are “on the fence,” Durbin confirms, and claims that Schumer’s not whipping the vote:
Durbin told me doesn’t know if Ds will be united on conviction. “I don’t know the answer.” He said Schumer is in touch with the three Dem senators who are on the fence but said Schumer isn’t pressuring them. He said pressuring them is not possible on a vote “of this magnitude” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 4, 2020
Come on, man — surely Schumer’s pitching a conviction vote a little. House Democrats desperately need the Senate Democrat caucus to vote unanimously for conviction on both articles in order to counter the inevitable backlash for their failure. If Senate Dems unite behind them, then Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi can blame Republicans for their rabid fealty to Trump. If, however, one or more Senate Democrats vote to acquit, that undermines the narrative they have been crafting ever since Pelosi finally released the articles of impeachment.
Durbin doesn’t name the three Senate Democrats, but they are almost certainly Kyrsten Sinema, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin, who very publicly suggested he might lean toward acquittal despite misgivings over Trump’s actions. Only Jones is up for re-election this year and he’s almost certain to lose in Alabama no matter which way he votes, but a vote to remove would allow Jones to take the rest of the campaign off, full stop. West Virginia is so Republican right now that Manchin looks like Nancy Pelosi in contrast, and the last thing he needs for his next election fight is to appear to be in her thrall.
That leaves Sinema, who won her seat in 2018 in Arizona, a nominal red state that is turning purple — or was, until impeachment. Trump was never terribly popular in John McCain’s state, barely edging out Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election without making it to 50%, but one has to wonder whether that will remain the case as Trump’s national polling keeps rising. Sinema won her election by putting both her partisanship and radical politics in her past, which makes her a very interesting target for both sides on this vote. Does she throw in with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, or with Trump? In Arizona, that’s about as close to a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario:
Sinema was the first Democrat to win a Senate race in Arizona in 30 years and has positioned herself as a conservative Democrat in the caucus. Still, she often votes with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on procedural votes. Notably, she joined the party’s quest for new witnesses and opposed the rules of the impeachment trial written by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.). But back home things are complicated. For months, the Arizona state party has been considering whether to reprimand her for leaning too far to the right. No matter how she votes, some will be angry.
Best guess: all three will vote against the obstruction article, and they may not be the only three Democrats to do so. It’s not just an unsupportable allegation, it’s dangerous in its precedent as well. On the abuse of power article, Democrats might end up trading Joe Manchin for Mitt Romney and settle it with a tie on bipartisanship. If they lose more than one on both articles, though, Democrats can kiss their “Republican partisanship” narrative goodbye.


hotair--2020-02-04--Trump's best poll ever: 49% job approval, according to new survey from Gallup

Quite a trifecta of headlines Democrats are waking up to this morning , on a day when they were expecting to crown a new frontrunner for president : “ UNHOLY SH*TSHOW IN IOWA CLOUDS DEM NOMINATION PICTURE ” “ SENATE POISED TO ACQUIT TRUMP , LIKELY WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES ” “ TRUMP SOARS TO HIGHEST JOB APPROVAL IN THREE YEARS IN GALLUP POLL ” At least they haven ’ t had to endure this one yet : “ SANDERS WINS CAUCUSES , SIGNALING SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF PARTY.
” But the day is still young , isn ’ t it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s ever posted in Gallup , it ’ s a tick better than his current number in Trump-friendly Rasmussen , which has him at 48/50 as I write this .
Maybe this is an outlier or maybe it ’ s the start of a trend , but reading through Gallup ’ s analysis of the data it strikes me that this is probably the single best poll for Trump I ’ ve ever seen .
He ’ s at 63 percent on handling the economy , which is not only his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by any president in nearly 20 years .
A majority approves of the Soleimani strike and 52 percent support acquittal by the Senate versus 46 percent who favor removal .
It ’ s bleeding over into party popularity , too : Now , 51 % of Americans view the Republican Party favorably , up from 43 % in September .
It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50 % since 2005 .
Meanwhile , 45 % of Americans have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party , a slight dip from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poll finds 48 % of Americans identifying as Republicans or leaning toward that party , compared with 44 % Democratic identification or leaning .
Half the country now says he deserves reelection versus just 41 percent who said so before the 2018 midterms .
It ’ s hard to disentangle all the reasons he ’ s trending upward — there ’ s the economy , of course , plus the economy , and also the economy , but there ’ s doubtless also an impeachment backlash component too .
You know how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 95 percent approval within the GOP and never actually cites any poll or data to back that up ?
Well , he can cite this one going forward : He ’ s at 94 percent among GOPers here , up six points from last month and likely a function of Republicans circling the wagons during his Senate trial .
The bad news for Trump is that that partisan solidarity might fade a tiny bit once the trial ends and he ’ s out of danger .
The good news , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come roaring back in November as the election intensifies partisanship on both sides .
And if that ’ s not enough , there actually is a little more bad news for Democrats swirling this morning : The only actual information released by the Iowa Democratic Party last night was that , as far as they could tell , turnout was on par with 2016 .
That ’ s … not particularly high turnout .
2016 was the Clinton/Sanders caucus , the first in a primary which everyone assumed would be won by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted this year was 2008-level turnout , when the battle between Hillary , an upstart Barack Obama , and lefty favorite John Edwards blew the roof off on caucus night .
One might have assumed that this year ’ s big field plus the enthusiasm of Bernie voters plus the urgency felt by Democratic moderates to hold back the progressive tide plus the party ’ s roiling enthusiasm to beat Trump might have added up to monster turnout .
But nope .
Didn ’ t happen , it appears .
If in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which seems likely , and if a core part of their argument is that they can turn out young voters who normally don ’ t show up to elections , what should we make of their ability to defeat Trump given that Iowans were apparently no more enthused to caucus this year than they were four years ago ?
It should be noted that the new Gallup data hasn ’ t quite been able to push Trump ’ s job approval to a new high in the RCP poll average .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be noted that he reached his highest number in RCP in almost three years just a few days ago .
The last time he touched 45.6 percent was early February 2017 , during his post-inauguration honeymoon period .
But he did it again on January 27 of this year .
It ’ s perfectly possible that tomorrow ’ s acquittal vote will send him to a new high in RCP ’ s average .
And if it does , and if he ends up being reelected , rest assured that the recent fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new president going forward will be unfounded .
Republicans might *want* to impeach a Democratic president the next time they hold a House majority but there ’ s no way they ’ ll pull the trigger after absorbing the lessons of the Clinton and Trump impeachments .
If impeachment makes a president more popular , not less , then it ’ s a nonstarter politically .
No matter how good it would feel to do it as a matter of pure partisan id .
Here ’ s CNN ’ s Harry Enten summing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WaPo columnist Karen Tumulty reports that Iowa Dems had been chattering that turnout last night might not only match the 240,000 who showed up to caucus in 2008 but could even zoom past it , to 300,000 .
If the preliminary estimates are right , they ’ ll end up with 170,000 or so .
Hoo boy .

Quite a trifecta of headlines Democrats are waking up to this morning, on a day when they were expecting to crown a new frontrunner for president:
“UNHOLY SH*TSHOW IN IOWA CLOUDS DEM NOMINATION PICTURE”
“SENATE POISED TO ACQUIT TRUMP, LIKELY WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES”
“TRUMP SOARS TO HIGHEST JOB APPROVAL IN THREE YEARS IN GALLUP POLL”
At least they haven’t had to endure this one yet: “SANDERS WINS CAUCUSES, SIGNALING SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF PARTY.”
But the day is still young, isn’t it?
New from Gallup:
Not only is that the best number he’s ever posted in Gallup, it’s a tick better than his current number in Trump-friendly Rasmussen, which has him at 48/50 as I write this. Maybe this is an outlier or maybe it’s the start of a trend, but reading through Gallup’s analysis of the data it strikes me that this is probably the single best poll for Trump I’ve ever seen. He’s at 63 percent on handling the economy, which is not only his personal best but the best number posted by any president in nearly 20 years. A majority approves of the Soleimani strike and 52 percent support acquittal by the Senate versus 46 percent who favor removal. It’s bleeding over into party popularity, too:
Now, 51% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably, up from 43% in September. It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50% since 2005. Meanwhile, 45% of Americans have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, a slight dip from 48% in September. Additionally, the poll finds 48% of Americans identifying as Republicans or leaning toward that party, compared with 44% Democratic identification or leaning.
Half the country now says he deserves reelection versus just 41 percent who said so before the 2018 midterms. It’s hard to disentangle all the reasons he’s trending upward — there’s the economy, of course, plus the economy, and also the economy, but there’s doubtless also an impeachment backlash component too. You know how he likes to tweet occasionally that he has 95 percent approval within the GOP and never actually cites any poll or data to back that up? Well, he can cite this one going forward: He’s at 94 percent among GOPers here, up six points from last month and likely a function of Republicans circling the wagons during his Senate trial. The bad news for Trump is that that partisan solidarity might fade a tiny bit once the trial ends and he’s out of danger. The good news, of course, is that it’s apt to come roaring back in November as the election intensifies partisanship on both sides.
And if that’s not enough, there actually is a little more bad news for Democrats swirling this morning:
I feel like turnout being rather low in Iowa is a theme of underrated importance. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 4, 2020
The only actual information released by the Iowa Democratic Party last night was that, as far as they could tell, turnout was on par with 2016. That’s … not particularly high turnout. 2016 was the Clinton/Sanders caucus, the first in a primary which everyone assumed would be won by Hillary in the end. What Democrats wanted this year was 2008-level turnout, when the battle between Hillary, an upstart Barack Obama, and lefty favorite John Edwards blew the roof off on caucus night. One might have assumed that this year’s big field plus the enthusiasm of Bernie voters plus the urgency felt by Democratic moderates to hold back the progressive tide plus the party’s roiling enthusiasm to beat Trump might have added up to monster turnout.
But nope. Didn’t happen, it appears. If in fact Bernie or Pete Buttigieg won the caucus, which seems likely, and if a core part of their argument is that they can turn out young voters who normally don’t show up to elections, what should we make of their ability to defeat Trump given that Iowans were apparently no more enthused to caucus this year than they were four years ago?
It should be noted that the new Gallup data hasn’t quite been able to push Trump’s job approval to a new high in the RCP poll average. But in that case, it should also be noted that he reached his highest number in RCP in almost three years just a few days ago. The last time he touched 45.6 percent was early February 2017, during his post-inauguration honeymoon period. But he did it again on January 27 of this year.
It’s perfectly possible that tomorrow’s acquittal vote will send him to a new high in RCP’s average. And if it does, and if he ends up being reelected, rest assured that the recent fears of “retaliatory impeachments” for each new president going forward will be unfounded. Republicans might *want* to impeach a Democratic president the next time they hold a House majority but there’s no way they’ll pull the trigger after absorbing the lessons of the Clinton and Trump impeachments. If impeachment makes a president more popular, not less, then it’s a nonstarter politically. No matter how good it would feel to do it as a matter of pure partisan id.
Here’s CNN’s Harry Enten summing up the Democrats’ enthusiasm problem. WaPo columnist Karen Tumulty reports that Iowa Dems had been chattering that turnout last night might not only match the 240,000 who showed up to caucus in 2008 but could even zoom past it, to 300,000. If the preliminary estimates are right, they’ll end up with 170,000 or so. Hoo boy.


hotair--2020-02-04--Jill Biden: We aren't friends with Lindsey Graham anymore

It was bound to happen .
Jill Biden spoke out about the friendship she and her husband Joe have with Senator Lindsey Graham .
According to her , it no longer exists .
Dr. Biden ( she has a Doctor of Education in educational leadership ) was asked on CNN about the solid friendship Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham have referenced in the past .
In the pre-Hunter Biden and Burisma days , Biden often spoke of Republicans he can work with and Graham and John McCain were always at the top of the list .
Biden sometimes points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are decent people and condescendingly puts himself out there as someone who can work with the other side of the aisle on legislation .
So , when Lindsey Graham , Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee , said that it would be only fair for Hunter to be called as a witness if John Bolton was called by Democrats during the impeachment trial , it was clear the Bidens would not be besties with Graham for long .
“ Well , you know , Lindsey — I don ’ t know what happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be great friends and friends with John McCain , ” Biden said on CNN ’ s “ New Day ” Monday , referring to the late senator .
“ I mean , we traveled together with the Foreign Relations Committee .
We ’ ve had dinner , you know , and now he ’ s changed.
” Asked by CNN ’ s John Berman if she still considers Graham a friend , Biden responded , “ You know , it ’ s hard when you , I don ’ t know , consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve said so many things , so many negative things .
And it ’ s — that ’ s been a little hurtful.
” Graham didn ’ t wait for the impeachment trial to begin , though , before he voiced concern about Hunter Biden ’ s appointment to the Burisma board .
Back in October , he said that action just didn ’ t pass the smell test .
Remember , Hunter Biden doesn ’ t speak Ukrainian , isn ’ t an expert on Ukraine history or government , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly , Hunter was brought in as a way to gain access to his father , then the Vice-President of the United States .
Hunter even admitted as much in a television interview – if his last name wasn ’ t Biden , he wouldn ’ t have secured that sweet gig .
Just last weekend , Graham doubled-down and called for investigations to begin as soon as the impeachment trial is over .
The Bidens are taking it personally .
That is what happens with the entitled political class .
Getting by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo , no matter how shady a deal may be .
Dr. Jill apparently thinks Hunter is off-limits .
She ’ s wrong , though .
Hunter , and Joe , for that matter , should be investigated .
Biden was the point man for the Obama administration in Ukraine .
It all smells really fishy .
So , now the friendship is over .
At least for now or until the Bidens need Graham ’ s help in Washington , D.C .
Does anyone think that if Joe Biden should somehow win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered a pal again ?
Jill Biden is more visible than she ’ s ever really been .
She ’ s taken time off from her teaching job at a community college in Virginia – she was the first Second Lady to hold a full-time job while her husband was in office – and has been a fixture in Iowa .
She has been sounding more like a co-president than a candidate ’ s spouse , too .
She weighed in on Joe ’ s choice of Secretary of Education .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe ’ s elected – “ we ” are going to get rid of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos .
“ We ’ re going to have a secretary of Education who has been in the classroom , ” she said .
“ These are all things that I have personally seen and have been important to me as a teacher.
” “ When he ’ s elected president , when you look right next to him , there will be standing a teacher , ” she added .
Jill Biden , a professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , praised her husband ’ s education plan , saying it will “ raise up the profile of teachers and celebrate who they are.
” Joe Biden even said that the “ first thing ” he ’ ll do as president is to make sure the Secretary of Education is not DeVos , and the person must be a teacher .
The odd part of Jill Biden ’ s lashing out at DeVos is that DeVos wouldn ’ t be staying on as a member of the Biden administration .
DeVos is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep the former administration ’ s cabinet , except in rare individual choices .
For instance , Bob Gates served in both the Bush and Obama administrations .
It sounds as though Dr. Jill will have a say in cabinet-level nominations , doesn ’ t it ?
Remember both Rosalyn Carter and Hillary Clinton also holding such power , though they were not elected officeholders themselves ?
Perhaps Jill will sit in on high-level meetings as Carter and Clinton did .
Perhaps that is why Jill Biden ’ s profile is being raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because her husband needs all the help he can get .
He ’ s coming out of Iowa badly wounded ( though we still don ’ t have the numbers from the Iowa caucuses as I write this Tuesday morning ) and Jill is trying her hardest to convince voters that Joe may not really be a favorite but he needs to win the nomination because he can beat Trump , or something .
Biden is experiencing his third failed attempt to secure the Democrat nomination for president .
He may surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a serious contender but he ’ s off to a rocky start .
Sanders looks to be the winner in Iowa and likely the winner in New Hampshire .
We ’ ll see if Jill can help him get back up on top .

It was bound to happen. Jill Biden spoke out about the friendship she and her husband Joe have with Senator Lindsey Graham. According to her, it no longer exists.
Dr. Biden ( she has a Doctor of Education in educational leadership) was asked on CNN about the solid friendship Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham have referenced in the past. In the pre-Hunter Biden and Burisma days, Biden often spoke of Republicans he can work with and Graham and John McCain were always at the top of the list. Biden sometimes points to the fact that he thinks some Republicans are decent people and condescendingly puts himself out there as someone who can work with the other side of the aisle on legislation. So, when Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, said that it would be only fair for Hunter to be called as a witness if John Bolton was called by Democrats during the impeachment trial, it was clear the Bidens would not be besties with Graham for long.
“Well, you know, Lindsey — I don’t know what happened to Lindsey. And we used to be great friends and friends with John McCain,” Biden said on CNN’s “New Day” Monday, referring to the late senator. “I mean, we traveled together with the Foreign Relations Committee. We’ve had dinner, you know, and now he’s changed.” Asked by CNN’s John Berman if she still considers Graham a friend, Biden responded, “You know, it’s hard when you, I don’t know, consider somebody a friend and then they’ve said so many things, so many negative things. And it’s — that’s been a little hurtful.”
Graham didn’t wait for the impeachment trial to begin, though, before he voiced concern about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the Burisma board. Back in October, he said that action just didn’t pass the smell test. Remember, Hunter Biden doesn’t speak Ukrainian, isn’t an expert on Ukraine history or government, and has no background in the energy sector. Clearly, Hunter was brought in as a way to gain access to his father, then the Vice-President of the United States. Hunter even admitted as much in a television interview – if his last name wasn’t Biden, he wouldn’t have secured that sweet gig.
“I think this is a defining moment in the Biden campaign. Joe Biden is truly a friend. … I think he’s a good man. But what Hunter Biden did was wrong at every level,” Graham told Fox News anchor Bret Baier in October. “I think what Hunter Biden did does not pass the smell test.”
Just last weekend, Graham doubled-down and called for investigations to begin as soon as the impeachment trial is over.
Over the weekend, Graham vowed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will look into the Bidens after the impeachment trial. He said these investigations will occur after the Senate acquits Trump, which is expected to occur on Wednesday. “I’m gonna bring in State Department officials and ask them, ‘Why didn’t you do something about the obvious conflict of interest Joe Biden had?” Graham said during an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
The Bidens are taking it personally. That is what happens with the entitled political class. Getting by with winks and nods is the status quo, no matter how shady a deal may be. Dr. Jill apparently thinks Hunter is off-limits. She’s wrong, though. Hunter, and Joe, for that matter, should be investigated. Biden was the point man for the Obama administration in Ukraine. It all smells really fishy. So, now the friendship is over. At least for now or until the Bidens need Graham’s help in Washington, D.C. Does anyone think that if Joe Biden should somehow win the presidency that Lindsey Graham would not be considered a pal again?
Jill Biden is more visible than she’s ever really been. She’s taken time off from her teaching job at a community college in Virginia – she was the first Second Lady to hold a full-time job while her husband was in office – and has been a fixture in Iowa. She has been sounding more like a co-president than a candidate’s spouse, too. She weighed in on Joe’s choice of Secretary of Education. She made a rather weird statement that if Joe’s elected – “we” are going to get rid of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
“We’re going to have a secretary of Education who has been in the classroom,” she said. “These are all things that I have personally seen and have been important to me as a teacher.” “When he’s elected president, when you look right next to him, there will be standing a teacher,” she added. Jill Biden, a professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College, praised her husband’s education plan, saying it will “raise up the profile of teachers and celebrate who they are.”
Joe Biden even said that the “first thing” he’ll do as president is to make sure the Secretary of Education is not DeVos, and the person must be a teacher.
“First thing as president of the United States, not a joke, first thing I will do is make sure that the secretary of Education, not Betsy DeVos, is a teacher,” Biden said at a National Education Association forum in Houston in July. “So the press doesn’t get confused, I promise I’m not going to appoint my wife,” he added. “She’d be a good one.”
The odd part of Jill Biden’s lashing out at DeVos is that DeVos wouldn’t be staying on as a member of the Biden administration. DeVos is a Republican. Incoming presidents don’t keep the former administration’s cabinet, except in rare individual choices. For instance, Bob Gates served in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
It sounds as though Dr. Jill will have a say in cabinet-level nominations, doesn’t it? Remember both Rosalyn Carter and Hillary Clinton also holding such power, though they were not elected officeholders themselves? Perhaps Jill will sit in on high-level meetings as Carter and Clinton did. Perhaps that is why Jill Biden’s profile is being raised. Or, more likely, it is because her husband needs all the help he can get. He’s coming out of Iowa badly wounded (though we still don’t have the numbers from the Iowa caucuses as I write this Tuesday morning) and Jill is trying her hardest to convince voters that Joe may not really be a favorite but he needs to win the nomination because he can beat Trump, or something.
Biden is experiencing his third failed attempt to secure the Democrat nomination for president. He may surprise us and hang in there to be a serious contender but he’s off to a rocky start. Sanders looks to be the winner in Iowa and likely the winner in New Hampshire. We’ll see if Jill can help him get back up on top.


hotair--2020-02-04--Murkowski: I'll vote to acquit, because everyone here stinks

Fact check : Mostly true .
After chastising Elizabeth Warren without naming her for attempting to make John Roberts a target in the witness vote , Lisa Murkowski declared late yesterday that she would vote to acquit Donald Trump in his impeachment trial .
However , the Alaska Republican blasted Trump , her Republican colleagues in the Senate , Democrats in both chambers , the media , and voters for their behavior throughout the impeachment process .
Did Murkowski leave anyone out ?
If so , it must have been an accident .
“ It ’ s my hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murkowski lamented : “ I can not vote to convict .
The Constitution provides for impeachment but does not demand it in all instances , ” Murkowski said from the Senate floor , adding that removing Trump from office would be “ the political death penalty.
” … “ The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months , and we must trust their judgement , ” she said during her floor speech .
Though Murkowski said she would vote to acquit Trump , she also publicly chastised him over his decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look into ” former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
“ The president ’ s behavior was shameful and wrong .
His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation , ” she said .
After that , Murkowski turned her rhetorical guns closer to home .
Not only did the legislative branch utterly fail in its responsibilities in impeachment , Murkowski declared , but they ’ ve failed institutionally for a lot longer than just during the Trump presidency : “ The House failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here , ” Murkowski said .
“ So many in this chamber share my sadness for the present state of our institutions .
It ’ s my hope that we ’ ve finally found bottom here.
” During her speech , Murkowski condemned the House for what she said was a rush through the impeachment process , while also criticizing her Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle for failing to approach the impeachment trial with an open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what she called “ careless coverage ” when Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate after they passed in the House .
Actually , she accused the media of more than just “ careless ” coverage , and her colleagues of more than rushing through the process : Alluding to a “ demon ” burning its way through Washington during the impeachment process that began late last September , Murkowski blamed “ a careless media ” that she said “ cheerfully tried to put out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited Trump supporters ’ eagerness to “ have just dismissed the case as soon as it reached ” the Senate and Trump ’ s detractors ’ acting as if “ the only way the trial could have been considered fair was if it resulted in the president ’ s removal from office.
” With a broad-brush criticism of both political parties , Murkowski spoke of their “ apparent willingness…to destroy not just each other , but all of the institutions of our government .
And for what ?
Because it may help win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mostly true .
Democrats and some of the media tried some forced swooning over Adam Schiff ’ s closing speech , but this is the speech that everyone deserves .
It might be the most populist speech by nature we ’ ll hear in Congress this session , although undoubtedly the populists on both sides will be unhappy about it .
It ’ s the speech of an institutionalist who has realized that the institution has betrayed her in the end , thanks mainly to her fellow institutionalists .
Murkowski ’ s declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to convict — Mitt Romney , as Allahpundit wrote yesterday .
We still haven ’ t yet heard from the handful of Democrats who might cross in the opposite direction , but Murkowski likely won ’ t be the last to declare a pox upon both houses .
Her speech might convince Joe Manchin , Krysten Sinema , or Doug Jones to join her — or maybe all three .
The Everyone Else Stinks Caucus looks pretty attractive at the moment .

Fact check: Mostly true. After chastising Elizabeth Warren without naming her for attempting to make John Roberts a target in the witness vote, Lisa Murkowski declared late yesterday that she would vote to acquit Donald Trump in his impeachment trial. However, the Alaska Republican blasted Trump, her Republican colleagues in the Senate, Democrats in both chambers, the media, and voters for their behavior throughout the impeachment process.
Did Murkowski leave anyone out? If so, it must have been an accident. “It’s my hope that we finally found bottom here,” Murkowski lamented:
“I cannot vote to convict. The Constitution provides for impeachment but does not demand it in all instances,” Murkowski said from the Senate floor, adding that removing Trump from office would be “the political death penalty.” … “The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgement,” she said during her floor speech. Though Murkowski said she would vote to acquit Trump, she also publicly chastised him over his decision to ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “look into” former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. “The president’s behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation,” she said.
After that, Murkowski turned her rhetorical guns closer to home. Not only did the legislative branch utterly fail in its responsibilities in impeachment, Murkowski declared, but they’ve failed institutionally for a lot longer than just during the Trump presidency:
“The House failed in its responsibilities and the Senate — the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here,” Murkowski said. “So many in this chamber share my sadness for the present state of our institutions. It’s my hope that we’ve finally found bottom here.” During her speech, Murkowski condemned the House for what she said was a rush through the impeachment process, while also criticizing her Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle for failing to approach the impeachment trial with an open mind. She lambasted the media for what she called “careless coverage” when Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate after they passed in the House.
Actually, she accused the media of more than just “careless” coverage, and her colleagues of more than rushing through the process:
Alluding to a “demon” burning its way through Washington during the impeachment process that began late last September, Murkowski blamed “a careless media” that she said “cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline.” … She cited Trump supporters’ eagerness to “have just dismissed the case as soon as it reached” the Senate and Trump’s detractors’ acting as if “the only way the trial could have been considered fair was if it resulted in the president’s removal from office.” With a broad-brush criticism of both political parties, Murkowski spoke of their “apparent willingness…to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what? Because it may help win an election?”
Fact check: Mostly true. Democrats and some of the media tried some forced swooning over Adam Schiff’s closing speech, but this is the speech that everyone deserves. It might be the most populist speech by nature we’ll hear in Congress this session, although undoubtedly the populists on both sides will be unhappy about it. It’s the speech of an institutionalist who has realized that the institution has betrayed her in the end, thanks mainly to her fellow institutionalists.
Murkowski’s declaration leaves Democrats with only one potential crossover vote to convict — Mitt Romney, as Allahpundit wrote yesterday. We still haven’t yet heard from the handful of Democrats who might cross in the opposite direction, but Murkowski likely won’t be the last to declare a pox upon both houses. Her speech might convince Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, or Doug Jones to join her — or maybe all three. The Everyone Else Stinks Caucus looks pretty attractive at the moment.


hotair--2020-02-04--On to New Hampshire, and Bernie's looking pretty good

We may never know for sure who won the Iowa caucuses last night , but the clown car moves on to New Hampshire next week .
Hopes for getting some meaningful results out of the Granite State are considerably higher since they use fancy voting machines and such , rather than crowdsourcing the job of picking the Democratic nominee to literal crowds .
So who will prevail there , assuming there isn ’ t yet another massive “ technical glitch ” awaiting us ?
One of the final Boston Globe polls suggests that the momentum is with Bernie Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead over Joe Biden .
And unless this one turns out to be a complete outlier ( which would be unusual for this particular poll ) , nobody else is within striking distance .
Days ahead of the nation ’ s first presidential primary , Senator Bernie Sanders has opened up a six-point lead over former vice president Joe Biden , according to a new Boston Globe/WBZ-TV/Suffolk University poll of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters .
Sanders , the Vermont independent who captured a convincing victory in New Hampshire four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , buoyed by strong support from younger voters and independents .
Biden took 18 percent .
Senator Elizabeth Warren had 13 percent , followed by former South Bend , Ind.
, mayor Pete Buttigieg , at 11 percent .
The rest of the field was in single digits , while 12 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided eight days ahead of the Feb. 11 vote .
In late December and early January , the polling in New Hampshire was bouncing around quite a bit .
But in recent weeks , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding a lead of six is a bit less than his RCP average ( leading by 9.2 ) but it ’ s still in the general ballpark .
Over the past five public polls , Bernie has come in first with margins ranging from as little as one to as high as 19 ( ! )
.
Two other situations seem to be coming into focus as well .
First of all , the New Hampshire Buttigieg boomlet appears to have deflated .
About a month ago Mayor Pete was suddenly running up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Sanders ’ heels in second place .
But now , several surveys in a row have seen him sinking back down toward a finish in third or fourth place .
Of course , if he does as well as he ’ s claiming he did in Iowa , that could conceivably give him a boost at the eleventh hour .
Meanwhile , the other real movement comes to us in the Klomentum column .
Amy Klobuchar had been knocking around down near one percent for a long time , but over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s moved into double digits twice .
( She only managed six percent in this most recent poll , however . )
That ’ s not going to give her a win , but she might at least come away with some delegates and an excuse to stick around when some of the other bottom tier folks begin dropping out .
Barring any major upsets , we ’ re clearly reaching the point where the Democrats are going to have to take a long , hard look in the mirror and ask the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this ?
You ’ re going to seriously look at nominating this 77-year-old socialist who ’ s still recovering from a recent heart attack to run against Donald Trump in November ?
Sorry , but I ’ m still not buying it .
Sure , the DNC doesn ’ t want to tick off the furthest left wing of their base , but Trump can ’ t possibly be this lucky .
Even if Biden – the original default candidate – continues to sag , somebody is going to have to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pack to pull the DNC ’ s feet out of the fire .
It might be Buttigieg or Klobuchar .
Or heck , even Bloomberg if we ’ re falling down some alternate reality rabbit hole in a month or so .
But maybe I just haven ’ t adjusted to “ the new normal ” yet .
Bernie either won Iowa or came in a close second by all indications .
And he looks like a pretty safe bet in New Hampshire and Nevada .
He ’ s currently lapping the field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dust settles on Super Tuesday , he could be sitting on a considerable stack of earned delegates .
You probably thought 2019 was a pretty weird year , right ?
Well , baby , 2020 just showed up saying hold mah beer .

We may never know for sure who won the Iowa caucuses last night, but the clown car moves on to New Hampshire next week. Hopes for getting some meaningful results out of the Granite State are considerably higher since they use fancy voting machines and such, rather than crowdsourcing the job of picking the Democratic nominee to literal crowds.
So who will prevail there, assuming there isn’t yet another massive “technical glitch” awaiting us? One of the final Boston Globe polls suggests that the momentum is with Bernie Sanders, who has opened up a six point lead over Joe Biden. And unless this one turns out to be a complete outlier (which would be unusual for this particular poll), nobody else is within striking distance.
Days ahead of the nation’s first presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders has opened up a six-point lead over former vice president Joe Biden, according to a new Boston Globe/WBZ-TV/Suffolk University poll of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. Sanders, the Vermont independent who captured a convincing victory in New Hampshire four years ago, garnered 24 percent in the survey, buoyed by strong support from younger voters and independents. Biden took 18 percent. Senator Elizabeth Warren had 13 percent, followed by former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, at 11 percent. The rest of the field was in single digits, while 12 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided eight days ahead of the Feb. 11 vote.
In late December and early January, the polling in New Hampshire was bouncing around quite a bit. But in recent weeks, it seems to have solidified considerably. Sanders holding a lead of six is a bit less than his RCP average (leading by 9.2) but it’s still in the general ballpark. Over the past five public polls, Bernie has come in first with margins ranging from as little as one to as high as 19(!).
Two other situations seem to be coming into focus as well. First of all, the New Hampshire Buttigieg boomlet appears to have deflated. About a month ago Mayor Pete was suddenly running up numbers as high as 17 and nipping at Sanders’ heels in second place. But now, several surveys in a row have seen him sinking back down toward a finish in third or fourth place. Of course, if he does as well as he’s claiming he did in Iowa, that could conceivably give him a boost at the eleventh hour.
Meanwhile, the other real movement comes to us in the Klomentum column. Amy Klobuchar had been knocking around down near one percent for a long time, but over the past couple of weeks, she’s moved into double digits twice. (She only managed six percent in this most recent poll, however.) That’s not going to give her a win, but she might at least come away with some delegates and an excuse to stick around when some of the other bottom tier folks begin dropping out.
Barring any major upsets, we’re clearly reaching the point where the Democrats are going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask the question. Are we really going to do this? You’re going to seriously look at nominating this 77-year-old socialist who’s still recovering from a recent heart attack to run against Donald Trump in November?
Sorry, but I’m still not buying it. Sure, the DNC doesn’t want to tick off the furthest left wing of their base, but Trump can’t possibly be this lucky. Even if Biden – the original default candidate – continues to sag, somebody is going to have to come charging in from the back of the pack to pull the DNC’s feet out of the fire. It might be Buttigieg or Klobuchar. Or heck, even Bloomberg if we’re falling down some alternate reality rabbit hole in a month or so.
But maybe I just haven’t adjusted to “the new normal” yet. Bernie either won Iowa or came in a close second by all indications. And he looks like a pretty safe bet in New Hampshire and Nevada. He’s currently lapping the field in California. By the time the dust settles on Super Tuesday, he could be sitting on a considerable stack of earned delegates. You probably thought 2019 was a pretty weird year, right? Well, baby, 2020 just showed up saying hold mah beer.


hotair--2020-02-04--Iowa Democrats once again hilariously fail to count caucus votes

There ’ s a serious question facing all political pundits around the country this morning .
Should we bother writing a new post about how bad the Iowa caucus system is or just recycle the ones we used four , eight and twelve years ago ?
Well , let ’ s get on with it .
In case you somehow missed it , Allahpundit left a post up last night with a tool to import the first and second round results from Iowa .
As of the moment when my coffee finished brewing this morning , all of those numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports fans… the Iowa Democrats managed to once again drop the ball and fail to count the votes of their caucus-goers properly .
They ’ re talking about “ technical glitches ” and “ confusion ” and a variety of other excuses .
The point is , we don ’ t have the final numbers yet and people are going to be suspicious about whatever totals they do manage to spit out later today .
( Associated Press ) Democratic party officials in Iowa worked furiously Tuesday to deliver the delayed results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates claimed momentum and plowed ahead in their quest for the White House .
Technology problems and reporting “ inconsistencies ” kept Iowa Democratic Party officials from releasing results from Monday ’ s caucus , the much-hyped kickoff to the 2020 primary .
It was an embarrassing twist after months of promoting the contest as a chance for Democrats to find some clarity in a jumbled field with no clear front-runner .
Instead , caucus day ended with no winner , no official results and many fresh questions about whether Iowa can retain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of the quotes coming out of party leaders in the state are either laugh-out-loud funny or they ’ ll just make you weep .
At least part of the many problems reportedly arose from a new app they developed to allow each precinct to upload their results to state party headquarters .
Caucus organizers “ reported problems downloading the app and other glitches.
” Seriously ?
You had four years to get ready for this and some of your caucus organizers waited to downloaded the app until last night ?
“ Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has picked a candidate .
Get that new phone tool out and report the numbers.
” “ Okie Dokey , Betty .
Which button on the phone does that again ?
” So how did it happen yet again ?
According to Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner… these people simply can ’ t count .
He provides coverage of how things played out at one precinct in Council Bluffs and it was pretty much chaos .
Some voters started the evening unaligned , some voters realigned before the realignment period , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sanders ’ s acting precinct captain , some Sanders voters left early , and yet the precinct chairwoman conducted the count primarily by counting heads , using the paper ballots only as a backup .
All the while , the two precinct leaders tried to keep order with poorly amplified microphones , and many caucusgoers didn ’ t understand the rules , which changed this year .
A few elderly voters simply couldn ’ t hear instructions .
It didn ’ t help that Sanders ’ s precinct captain failed to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app working , the underlying data remains suspect because there were caucus organizers literally counting heads despite having paper ballots filled out .
Non-voters were mixed in with the crowds .
People arrived late or left early .
Physically counting heads is a system that was probably the best you could manage in the 1800s when you only had a middling chance of finding a precinct captain capable of counting past ten without removing their shoes .
Not for nothing , but we ’ re well into the 21st century now .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Virtually all of you have computers inside of your phones that are millions of times more powerful than the one on the first moon lander .
And yet , when given the task of running the first step of the process to potentially select the next leader of the free world , you ’ re counting your votes via a game of duck , duck , goose ?
For what it ’ s worth , Bernie Sanders ’ team got tired of waiting and eventually released their own unofficial results on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing quite well .
If we ’ re to accept Sanders ’ guesstimate , he finished first , with Buttigieg and Warren coming in second and third respectively with 29 , 24 and 21 percent .
Poor Joe Biden stumbles across the finish line with… twelve ?
With the exception of Bernie ’ s placement , that would be a stunning shift from the numbers Emerson posted on Sunday in their final poll .
You might suggest that some of the disparities were caused by the second round realignments , but does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor shifts , but nothing approaching the chasm between Biden ’ s last poll numbers and this report .
We ’ ll know sooner or later and one of us here will cover it , I ’ m sure .
For now , feel free to kick around some ideas as to how we can boot Iowa out of their first primary perch .
Perhaps we could all kick in and just offer to buy them some of those new-fangled voting machines I keep hearing about .

There’s a serious question facing all political pundits around the country this morning. Should we bother writing a new post about how bad the Iowa caucus system is or just recycle the ones we used four, eight and twelve years ago? Well, let’s get on with it.
In case you somehow missed it, Allahpundit left a post up last night with a tool to import the first and second round results from Iowa. As of the moment when my coffee finished brewing this morning, all of those numbers were still reading zero. Yes, sports fans… the Iowa Democrats managed to once again drop the ball and fail to count the votes of their caucus-goers properly. They’re talking about “technical glitches” and “confusion” and a variety of other excuses. The point is, we don’t have the final numbers yet and people are going to be suspicious about whatever totals they do manage to spit out later today. (Associated Press)
Democratic party officials in Iowa worked furiously Tuesday to deliver the delayed results of their first-in-the-nation caucus, as frustrated presidential candidates claimed momentum and plowed ahead in their quest for the White House. Technology problems and reporting “inconsistencies” kept Iowa Democratic Party officials from releasing results from Monday’s caucus, the much-hyped kickoff to the 2020 primary. It was an embarrassing twist after months of promoting the contest as a chance for Democrats to find some clarity in a jumbled field with no clear front-runner. Instead, caucus day ended with no winner, no official results and many fresh questions about whether Iowa can retain its coveted “first” status.
Some of the quotes coming out of party leaders in the state are either laugh-out-loud funny or they’ll just make you weep. At least part of the many problems reportedly arose from a new app they developed to allow each precinct to upload their results to state party headquarters. Caucus organizers “reported problems downloading the app and other glitches.”
Seriously? You had four years to get ready for this and some of your caucus organizers waited to downloaded the app until last night?
“Well, Martha, it looks like everyone has picked a candidate. Get that new phone tool out and report the numbers.”
“Okie Dokey, Betty. Which button on the phone does that again?”
So how did it happen yet again? According to Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner… these people simply can’t count. He provides coverage of how things played out at one precinct in Council Bluffs and it was pretty much chaos.
Some voters started the evening unaligned, some voters realigned before the realignment period, and others realigned to nonviable candidates. According to Sanders’s acting precinct captain, some Sanders voters left early, and yet the precinct chairwoman conducted the count primarily by counting heads, using the paper ballots only as a backup. All the while, the two precinct leaders tried to keep order with poorly amplified microphones, and many caucusgoers didn’t understand the rules, which changed this year. A few elderly voters simply couldn’t hear instructions. It didn’t help that Sanders’s precinct captain failed to show.
So even assuming they get their app working, the underlying data remains suspect because there were caucus organizers literally counting heads despite having paper ballots filled out. Non-voters were mixed in with the crowds. People arrived late or left early.
Physically counting heads is a system that was probably the best you could manage in the 1800s when you only had a middling chance of finding a precinct captain capable of counting past ten without removing their shoes. Not for nothing, but we’re well into the 21st century now. There are literally some flying cars out there. Virtually all of you have computers inside of your phones that are millions of times more powerful than the one on the first moon lander. And yet, when given the task of running the first step of the process to potentially select the next leader of the free world, you’re counting your votes via a game of duck, duck, goose?
For what it’s worth, Bernie Sanders’ team got tired of waiting and eventually released their own unofficial results on Twitter. Shockingly, their numbers have Sanders doing quite well.
New: @BernieSanders campaign has now released their internal caucus numbers pic.twitter.com/pPCFGBHV4b — Hanna Trudo (@HCTrudo) February 4, 2020
If we’re to accept Sanders’ guesstimate, he finished first, with Buttigieg and Warren coming in second and third respectively with 29, 24 and 21 percent. Poor Joe Biden stumbles across the finish line with… twelve? With the exception of Bernie’s placement, that would be a stunning shift from the numbers Emerson posted on Sunday in their final poll. You might suggest that some of the disparities were caused by the second round realignments, but does that really explain it? Sanders shows some minor shifts, but nothing approaching the chasm between Biden’s last poll numbers and this report.
We’ll know sooner or later and one of us here will cover it, I’m sure. For now, feel free to kick around some ideas as to how we can boot Iowa out of their first primary perch. Perhaps we could all kick in and just offer to buy them some of those new-fangled voting machines I keep hearing about.


hotair--2020-03-30--Gov. DeSantis issues stay-at-home order for part of southern Florida (Update: Virginia stay-at-home

Gov. DeSantis issues stay-at-home order for part of southern Florida (Update: Virginia stay-at-home order)

Gov .
DeSantis has been under pressure to issue a state-wide stay-at-home order but he has refused to do it so far .
Today he did issue such an order for a portion of the state where the coronavirus has spread most widely : At a press conference at the drive-thru testing site at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens Monday , DeSantis announced he would be signing an executive order urging those in Miami-Dade , Broward , Palm Beach and Monroe Counties to stay home through “ mid-May.
” His order sets in stone what many South Florida communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 , the illness caused by novel coronavirus… As of Monday morning , the four counties made up 59 % of the total positive novel coronavirus cases in the state .
The counties included in this order have already issued their own stay-at-home orders .
What I don ’ t understand is why you would wait to close the other parts of the state knowing how quickly a few cases can become hundreds .
Gov .
DeSantis ordered bars and nightclubs to close on March 17th , but beaches in many parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to social distancing guidance .
As Allahpundit noted earlier today , New Smyrna Beach , which is north of Orlando , looked like this yesterday .
The photo below shows the diving line between two Florida counties .
Duval county , which includes Jacksonville , Florida , is in the foreground .
Further south is St. John ’ s County .
Beaches were closed in Duval but only parking lots were closed in St. John ’ s .
You can see the difference for yourself .
That photo went viral Saturday and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly deciding to close the beaches .
This follow up photo shows the same stretch of beach yesterday : I could show you examples of people on Twitter even today who are arguing that the danger to Florida is being overblown and that there are very few cases at present and no overwhelmed hospitals in the state .
All of that is true , but then it was also true in New York two weeks ago .
Back on March 16th , New York City reported 463 cases .
As of today there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of the reasons Italy has been so hard hit by the virus is that it has an older population .
That means more people hospitalized , more who need an ICU bed , and more deaths .
Most of the U.S. doesn ’ t have the same demographics as Italy but parts of Florida do .
It ’ s where people from New York and New Jersey retire .
Two weeks ago , Wired quoted a demographer who described Florida as “ an uber-Italy.
” It ’ s a place with pockets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to the virus .
At this point , DeSantis has already conceded the principle .
He ’ s acknowledged that a stay-at-home order issued by the state can be of some additional value over just letting counties handle it .
So why not go all the way ?
He ’ s probably going to wind up doing it eventually , maybe in another week as he sees the number of cases climb .
So just rip off the band-aid and do it now .
And for goodness sake , close the beaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam has also issued a stay-at-home order today .
This one extends until June 10 .

Gov. DeSantis has been under pressure to issue a state-wide stay-at-home order but he has refused to do it so far. Today he did issue such an order for a portion of the state where the coronavirus has spread most widely:
At a press conference at the drive-thru testing site at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens Monday, DeSantis announced he would be signing an executive order urging those in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe Counties to stay home through “mid-May.” His order sets in stone what many South Florida communities have already done to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the illness caused by novel coronavirus… As of Monday morning, the four counties made up 59% of the total positive novel coronavirus cases in the state.
The counties included in this order have already issued their own stay-at-home orders. What I don’t understand is why you would wait to close the other parts of the state knowing how quickly a few cases can become hundreds. Gov. DeSantis ordered bars and nightclubs to close on March 17th, but beaches in many parts of the state remain open, albeit subject to social distancing guidance.
As Allahpundit noted earlier today, New Smyrna Beach, which is north of Orlando, looked like this yesterday.
Last night Florida reported that the state has 4,246 active cases of coronavirus. There will be many more reported tonight. This is a photo of New Smyrna Beach this afternoon. Why are there people there? Because @GovRonDeSantis still won’t shut down the state. Any questions? pic.twitter.com/4Ncdni9bMP — Andrew Weinstein (@Weinsteinlaw) March 29, 2020
The photo below shows the diving line between two Florida counties. Duval county, which includes Jacksonville, Florida, is in the foreground. Further south is St. John’s County. Beaches were closed in Duval but only parking lots were closed in St. John’s. You can see the difference for yourself.
https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1243990179557359616
That photo went viral Saturday and resulted in St. John’s County suddenly deciding to close the beaches. This follow up photo shows the same stretch of beach yesterday:
https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1244345208218759169
I could show you examples of people on Twitter even today who are arguing that the danger to Florida is being overblown and that there are very few cases at present and no overwhelmed hospitals in the state. All of that is true, but then it was also true in New York two weeks ago. Back on March 16th, New York City reported 463 cases. As of today there are 36,000 cases in the city.
One of the reasons Italy has been so hard hit by the virus is that it has an older population. That means more people hospitalized, more who need an ICU bed, and more deaths. Most of the U.S. doesn’t have the same demographics as Italy but parts of Florida do. It’s where people from New York and New Jersey retire. Two weeks ago, Wired quoted a demographer who described Florida as “an uber-Italy.” It’s a place with pockets full of older people who are especially vulnerable to the virus.
At this point, DeSantis has already conceded the principle. He’s acknowledged that a stay-at-home order issued by the state can be of some additional value over just letting counties handle it. So why not go all the way? He’s probably going to wind up doing it eventually, maybe in another week as he sees the number of cases climb. So just rip off the band-aid and do it now. And for goodness sake, close the beaches to eliminate the temptation.
Update: Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has also issued a stay-at-home order today. This one extends until June 10.


hotair--2020-03-30--You know who the coronavirus is really hurting, right? The mafia

Things are tough all over , particularly in the New York City area these days .
Many businesses are shuttered , the hospitals are overflowing and you go into a panic every time you step outside and hear somebody cough .
But there ’ s one group being particularly hard it according to Big Apple law enforcement agencies and that ’ s La Cosa Nostra .
( Assuming you believe in such things . )
It turns out that the pandemic is really cutting into their action because most of the activities that they rely on for revenue have basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re missing out is the illegal gambling game because all professional sports have shut down so there ’ s not much to bet on .
( NY Post ) The coronavirus has succeeded where lawmen like Bobby Kennedy and Rudy Giuliani failed for more than a century — by putting the freeze on the mob .
The wholesale cancellation of major sports in the face of the contagion has wiped out tens of millions of dollars in illegal gambling income , a “ historic ” blow to the Mafia , law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never been a time when they weren ’ t making money through gambling , ” said one insider .
“ Since the days of Lucky Luciano , when the Five Families started .
Apparently , things have grown so desperate for the hardcore gamblers that they ’ ve been taking wagers on African cricket and Australian soccer matches .
But that only goes so far , so most of the gambling money has dried up .
It ’ s not just gambling that ’ s taking a hit , either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another big revenue stream , but most of them are closed now or doing very limited takeaway service , so that money has disappeared .
The same thing goes for corruption in the construction industry .
All non-essential projects have been put on hold .
So where would these alleged criminals go for cash now ?
According to one law enforcement source who remained anonymous , more and more of them are turning to drug trafficking .
The pandemic apparently hasn ’ t cut into the illegal drug trade noticeably , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to score a fix is something of a mystery .
But that ’ s a riskier line of work because the penalties for dealing hard drugs remain very stiff indeed .
Of course , all of this information is based on conjecture and relies on your belief that there ’ s actually a mafia operating in New York City .
Which , of course , there isn ’ t .
There ’ s no such thing as the mafia .
It ’ s just a long-standing bias and a slur against Italian-Americans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever .
All of the Italians I know are honest , hard-working , upstanding citizens who would never engage in such activities .
I said , HONEST , HARD-WORKING , UPSTANDING CITIZENS .
( We cool , guys ? )
The bottom line is that things are tough all over out there and likely will be until the pandemic passes .
So if you ’ re able , you should safely patronize whatever local businesses you ’ d be willing to help keep afloat .
Particularly if they ’ re owned by Italian-American @ @

Things are tough all over, particularly in the New York City area these days. Many businesses are shuttered, the hospitals are overflowing and you go into a panic every time you step outside and hear somebody cough. But there’s one group being particularly hard it according to Big Apple law enforcement agencies and that’s La Cosa Nostra. (Assuming you believe in such things.) It turns out that the pandemic is really cutting into their action because most of the activities that they rely on for revenue have basically disappeared. The biggest area where they’re missing out is the illegal gambling game because all professional sports have shut down so there’s not much to bet on. (NY Post)
The coronavirus has succeeded where lawmen like Bobby Kennedy and Rudy Giuliani failed for more than a century — by putting the freeze on the mob. The wholesale cancellation of major sports in the face of the contagion has wiped out tens of millions of dollars in illegal gambling income, a “historic” blow to the Mafia, law enforcement sources told The Post. “There’s never been a time when they weren’t making money through gambling,” said one insider. “Since the days of Lucky Luciano, when the Five Families started. “This is historic.”
Apparently, things have grown so desperate for the hardcore gamblers that they’ve been taking wagers on African cricket and Australian soccer matches. But that only goes so far, so most of the gambling money has dried up.
It’s not just gambling that’s taking a hit, either. The feds claim that extortion of restaurants is another big revenue stream, but most of them are closed now or doing very limited takeaway service, so that money has disappeared. The same thing goes for corruption in the construction industry. All non-essential projects have been put on hold.
So where would these alleged criminals go for cash now? According to one law enforcement source who remained anonymous, more and more of them are turning to drug trafficking. The pandemic apparently hasn’t cut into the illegal drug trade noticeably, though where the junkies are finding the cash to score a fix is something of a mystery. But that’s a riskier line of work because the penalties for dealing hard drugs remain very stiff indeed.
Of course, all of this information is based on conjecture and relies on your belief that there’s actually a mafia operating in New York City. Which, of course, there isn’t. There’s no such thing as the mafia. It’s just a long-standing bias and a slur against Italian-Americans that’s been a tradition in Gotham forever. All of the Italians I know are honest, hard-working, upstanding citizens who would never engage in such activities. I said, HONEST, HARD-WORKING, UPSTANDING CITIZENS. (We cool, guys?)
The bottom line is that things are tough all over out there and likely will be until the pandemic passes. So if you’re able, you should safely patronize whatever local businesses you’d be willing to help keep afloat. Particularly if they’re owned by Italian-American families.


hotair--2020-03-30--Birx: 100-200,000 dead is the best-case scenario, if we do almost perfect social distancing

It ’ s tempting to believe that this is an exaggeration designed to scare people who ’ ve been skeptical about avoiding mass gatherings into getting with the program .
It isn ’ t .
If anything , given the balance of expert opinion , Birx is lowballing the likely death toll .
The CDC modeled four scenarios of the spread of the disease in a presentation last month .
The worst case was 1.7 million deaths .
The best was 200,000 .
Other infectious disease experts weren ’ t as optimistic : Dr. Lawler recently presented his own “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and health system executives at a private webinar convened by the American Hospital Association .
He estimated that some 96 million people in the United States would be infected .
Five out of every hundred would need hospitalization , which would mean close to five million hospital admissions , nearly two million of those patients requiring intensive care and about half of those needing the support of ventilators .
Dr. Lawler ’ s calculations suggested 480,000 deaths , which he said was conservative .
By contrast , about 20,000 to 50,000 people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the C.D.C .
Unlike with seasonal influenza , the entire population is thought to be susceptible to the new coronavirus .
FiveThirtyEight looked at projections by 17 different experts and calculated the best estimate among them to be 246,000 deaths , which is up from last week .
The range is enormous , from 36,000 dead to 1.1 million , but 14 of the 17 have a high-end estimate of at least 250,000 .
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ( IHME ) has also posted projections based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 86,000+ deaths in the next four months , with the U.S. to reach 10,000 sometime around April 5-6 , 20,000 within a week after that , and 50,000 around April 24-25 .
If they ’ re correct , we ’ ll start the month on Wednesday with a bit less than 5,000 people dead of COVID-19 and end it with nearly 60,000 deceased .
In a worst-case scenario , we could be approaching 100,000 dead — in a month .
Deaths will begin to slow in May thanks to the social distancing practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of warmer weather ) but if the projection is right , we ’ re about to see roughly as many Americans die of this illness in the next four to five weeks as died in the Vietnam , Iraq , and Afghanistan wars combined .
And then , at some point this fall , we ’ ll need to be ready for a second wave of it .
Unless , that is , antibody testing of the public reveals that many more people than thought have become infected and shaken off the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oxford model of coronavirus , the possibility that it ’ s spread much further than anyone realizes and that we ’ ll be largely done with it once this first terrible burst of deaths among people who are strangely vulnerable to it is over .
That ’ s not the way most epidemiologists are betting , though : Per FiveThirtyEight , the expert consensus as of March 23-24 was that known coronavirus cases comprise nine percent of the total number of actual infections in the U.S .
There were around 52,000 known cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would mean 572,000 actual infections nationally .
If that ’ s right then just two-tenths of one percent of the total U.S. population is infected , a number drastically lower than the sort of widespread contagion that the Oxford model imagines .
Virtually the entire population remains vulnerable to this disease .
We have a very long slog ahead of us .
I ’ m glad these numbers , or the grim scenes from Elmhurst Hospital in Trump ’ s home borough , finally got through to the president and convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible relaunch date for the economy .
Look at the IHME projections and you ’ ll see how ridiculous that would have been if he had followed through : By April 12 the United States should be seeing more than 2,000 deaths per day .
No one was going back to work under those circumstances whether he gave his permission or not .
On the other hand , in fairness to him , it ’ s wrong to assume that people are behaving irresponsibly because of him .
Yesterday , the day he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings through the month of April , some megachurches were still packing ’ em in .
Some red-staters appear to be treating the lockdowns as another culture-war skirmish even though Trump himself agrees with the experts this time .
This is why Birx and Fauci are on TV in the past 24 hours chattering about death tolls .
If more people don ’ t take this as seriously as Trump is , 200,000 will be the conservative estimate .
No pun intended .
We need a little hope after a post this grim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
Things can get better .

It’s tempting to believe that this is an exaggeration designed to scare people who’ve been skeptical about avoiding mass gatherings into getting with the program. It isn’t. If anything, given the balance of expert opinion, Birx is lowballing the likely death toll.
"If we do things together well … we could get in the range of 100,000-200,000 fatalities. We don't even want to see that." -Dr. Birx "You kind of take my breath away with that because what I hear you saying is that's sort of the best case scenario." –@savannahguthrie pic.twitter.com/bridl3WFJQ — TODAY (@TODAYshow) March 30, 2020
The CDC modeled four scenarios of the spread of the disease in a presentation last month. The worst case was 1.7 million deaths. The best was 200,000. Other infectious disease experts weren’t as optimistic:
Dr. Lawler recently presented his own “best guess” projections to American hospital and health system executives at a private webinar convened by the American Hospital Association. He estimated that some 96 million people in the United States would be infected. Five out of every hundred would need hospitalization, which would mean close to five million hospital admissions, nearly two million of those patients requiring intensive care and about half of those needing the support of ventilators. Dr. Lawler’s calculations suggested 480,000 deaths, which he said was conservative. By contrast, about 20,000 to 50,000 people have died from flu-related illnesses this season, according to the C.D.C. Unlike with seasonal influenza, the entire population is thought to be susceptible to the new coronavirus.
FiveThirtyEight looked at projections by 17 different experts and calculated the best estimate among them to be 246,000 deaths, which is up from last week. The range is enormous, from 36,000 dead to 1.1 million, but 14 of the 17 have a high-end estimate of at least 250,000.
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has also posted projections based on the latest numbers. They’re expecting 86,000+ deaths in the next four months, with the U.S. to reach 10,000 sometime around April 5-6, 20,000 within a week after that, and 50,000 around April 24-25. If they’re correct, we’ll start the month on Wednesday with a bit less than 5,000 people dead of COVID-19 and end it with nearly 60,000 deceased. In a worst-case scenario, we could be approaching 100,000 dead — in a month. Deaths will begin to slow in May thanks to the social distancing practices being followed now (and maybe because of warmer weather) but if the projection is right, we’re about to see roughly as many Americans die of this illness in the next four to five weeks as died in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined.
And then, at some point this fall, we’ll need to be ready for a second wave of it.
Unless, that is, antibody testing of the public reveals that many more people than thought have become infected and shaken off the virus without symptoms. That’s the Oxford model of coronavirus, the possibility that it’s spread much further than anyone realizes and that we’ll be largely done with it once this first terrible burst of deaths among people who are strangely vulnerable to it is over. That’s not the way most epidemiologists are betting, though: Per FiveThirtyEight, the expert consensus as of March 23-24 was that known coronavirus cases comprise nine percent of the total number of actual infections in the U.S. There were around 52,000 known cases then; if the experts are right, that would mean 572,000 actual infections nationally. If that’s right then just two-tenths of one percent of the total U.S. population is infected, a number drastically lower than the sort of widespread contagion that the Oxford model imagines. Virtually the entire population remains vulnerable to this disease. We have a very long slog ahead of us.
I’m glad these numbers, or the grim scenes from Elmhurst Hospital in Trump’s home borough, finally got through to the president and convinced him to back off Easter as a possible relaunch date for the economy. Look at the IHME projections and you’ll see how ridiculous that would have been if he had followed through: By April 12 the United States should be seeing more than 2,000 deaths per day. No one was going back to work under those circumstances whether he gave his permission or not. On the other hand, in fairness to him, it’s wrong to assume that people are behaving irresponsibly because of him. Yesterday, the day he wisely advised Americans to continue to avoid gatherings through the month of April, some megachurches were still packing ’em in. Some red-staters appear to be treating the lockdowns as another culture-war skirmish even though Trump himself agrees with the experts this time. This is why Birx and Fauci are on TV in the past 24 hours chattering about death tolls. If more people don’t take this as seriously as Trump is, 200,000 will be the conservative estimate. No pun intended.
We need a little hope after a post this grim so I’ll leave you with this. Things can get better.