hotair--2020-02-29--Landslide? Final polls of South Carolina show Biden north of 40%

I ’ ve been writing all week about the surge of Joementum in South Carolina but the sheer scale of it in polling makes it more surprising by the day .
SC has always been his best early state , of course , the “ firewall ” where Biden has never once relinquished the lead since entering the race last April .
( Bernie alllllmost caught up to him seven days ago . )
But for all his strength there , he ’ s only rarely crossed the 40 percent threshold in polling .
Before this week , the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early November .
The previous time before that was early October .
He ’ s done it twice in the past 24 hours .
In one of those polls , from Emerson , he leads by 16 points .
In another , Trafalgar , he ’ s ahead by 21 .
He ’ s right on course for exactly the sort of blowout win he needs to revive his candidacy and maybe give him enough buzz to produce a stronger-than-expected showing on Super Tuesday .
Which would make the March primaries meaningful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his own blowout win in Nevada last weekend .
Only once since last June had Biden touched 44 percent in a poll .
His polling average of 39.7 percent at RCP today is the highest he ’ s ever had in SC .
He ’ s peaking at the perfect moment .
There ’ s even an outside chance that the polls are lowballing him : With a big enough win tonight , in fact , Biden would briefly hold the distinction of leading the race in terms of both national delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll change dramatically four days from now once Bernie runs up the score in California , but “ new frontrunner ” will be a sweet talking point for Biden ahead of Super Tuesday .
His biggest problem since Iowa has been the growing perception that Mr. Electability can ’ t seem to actually win anywhere , and thus isn ’ t worth investing in .
South Carolina ’ s about to change that and maybe encourage swing voters in other primaries next week to roll the dice on Joe too .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what sort of effect Biden ’ s shocking rise in SC has had on the overall nomination picture , eyeball the first graph in FiveThirtyEight ’ s South Carolina forecast .
A week or so ago , Sanders was approaching 50 percent odds of winning the nomination via a majority of delegates .
As Biden gained new life in SC polling , though , Bernie ’ s odds plunged .
The most likely outcome right now is a brokered convention ( 52 percent odds ) , with Sanders clinching down to just 32 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this past week to send Joe through the roof ?
What did he say or do to convince so many late deciders to break his way ?
Nothing , possibly : It might be a Bernie backlash , as SC voters realized that a vote for Sanders tonight would all but end the primaries .
This NYT article adds an interesting second dimension , though .
Black Democrats know that Iowa and New Hampshire are grossly unrepresentative of their party demographically ; if they rubber-stamp Bernie ’ s victories in those states by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marginalizing themselves as a force within the party .
A vote for Joe , in other words , is a vote to flex their electoral muscle , to show the field that black Democrats are a major constituency that can and will strongly influence the outcome of the race .
More broadly , in interviews with African-Americans across the state this past week , many said they were eager to send a message to the national Democratic Party : that their views on electability — which candidate is best suited to beat President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes in the predominantly white states Iowa and New Hampshire , which backed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Bernie Sanders in contests earlier in February .
“ We ’ re the base , and we ’ re yet to express ourselves , ” said David Cakley , a church deacon from Goose Creek , S.C , referring to black voters .
“ Biden needs a boost and we ’ re going to give it to him.
” Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin of Columbia , S.C. , who has endorsed the former New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summed up the urgency for black voters in this primary by quoting a line from the Atlanta rapper André 3000 : “ The South got something to say.
” Will the south as a whole have something to say on Tuesday ?
There are seven southern states up for grabs , but according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s model , right now Biden is favored to win just one of them , Alabama .
He ’ s being weighed down by Mike Bloomberg ’ s presence on the ballot in the other six .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have on voter preferences between Biden and Bloomy in those ?
Some votes are already banked via early voting but 72 hours of Joementum hype could shift remaining undecideds towards Biden on Election Day .
Which could mean *a lot* in determining whether Bernie wins this race outright or has to fight for it on the floor of the convention .
We ’ ll have a better idea of all this in six hours or so .
There is , of course , the possibility that the good polling this week for Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high in South Carolina that even a mildly impressive Biden win of eight points or so , say , will feel like a minor disappointment .
He needs to run up the score .
But if he does , who knows what sort of Super Tuesday polling we ’ ll see on Monday — or what sort of fundraising windfall Biden might see from the anti-Bernie brigades ?
His cash flow has improved recently , and some of the movers and shakers who ’ d been frozen while they wait to see whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Sanders might come away from tonight believing that Joe is clearly the moderate with the best chance .
( Especially given Bloomberg ’ s polling downturn lately . )
Stay tuned .

I’ve been writing all week about the surge of Joementum in South Carolina but the sheer scale of it in polling makes it more surprising by the day. SC has always been his best early state, of course, the “firewall” where Biden has never once relinquished the lead since entering the race last April. (Bernie alllllmost caught up to him seven days ago.) But for all his strength there, he’s only rarely crossed the 40 percent threshold in polling. Before this week, the last time he’d done it was early November. The previous time before that was early October.
He’s done it twice in the past 24 hours.
In one of those polls, from Emerson, he leads by 16 points. In another, Trafalgar, he’s ahead by 21. He’s right on course for exactly the sort of blowout win he needs to revive his candidacy and maybe give him enough buzz to produce a stronger-than-expected showing on Super Tuesday. Which would make the March primaries meaningful, not the Bernie walkover that seemed assured after his own blowout win in Nevada last weekend.
According to [Trafalgar]’s crystal ball, Biden leads among likely “First in the South” voters with a whopping 43.9 percent of the vote – easily outdistancing Sanders (22.8 percent), Steyer (10.5 percent), Buttigieg (9.6 percent), Klobuchar (5.9 percent), Warren (5.6 percent) and Gabbard (1.7 percent). The email indicated the survey was conducted between February 26-27, polling 1,081 respondents with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.99 percentage points.
Only once since last June had Biden touched 44 percent in a poll. His polling average of 39.7 percent at RCP today is the highest he’s ever had in SC. He’s peaking at the perfect moment. There’s even an outside chance that the polls are lowballing him:
While there *have* been polling errors this large in primaries past—think Michigan 2016!—a Sanders win would be a big-time upset. On the flip side Biden could run up the score. In 2008 (Obama) and 2016 (Clinton) the SC winner won by a much BIGGER margin than poll averages showed. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020
With a big enough win tonight, in fact, Biden would briefly hold the distinction of leading the race in terms of both national delegate totals and total votes received:
For instance, with a 25-point win and a turnout of 400K, Biden would net 100K popular votes over Sanders and become the popular vote leader. He currently trails Sanders by 95K in the aggregate national popular vote. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020
That’ll change dramatically four days from now once Bernie runs up the score in California, but “new frontrunner” will be a sweet talking point for Biden ahead of Super Tuesday. His biggest problem since Iowa has been the growing perception that Mr. Electability can’t seem to actually win anywhere, and thus isn’t worth investing in. South Carolina’s about to change that and maybe encourage swing voters in other primaries next week to roll the dice on Joe too. In fact, to see at a glance what sort of effect Biden’s shocking rise in SC has had on the overall nomination picture, eyeball the first graph in FiveThirtyEight’s South Carolina forecast. A week or so ago, Sanders was approaching 50 percent odds of winning the nomination via a majority of delegates. As Biden gained new life in SC polling, though, Bernie’s odds plunged. The most likely outcome right now is a brokered convention (52 percent odds), with Sanders clinching down to just 32 percent.
What happened in South Carolina this past week to send Joe through the roof? What did he say or do to convince so many late deciders to break his way? Nothing, possibly: It might be a Bernie backlash, as SC voters realized that a vote for Sanders tonight would all but end the primaries. This NYT article adds an interesting second dimension, though. Black Democrats know that Iowa and New Hampshire are grossly unrepresentative of their party demographically; if they rubber-stamp Bernie’s victories in those states by handing him another today, they risk marginalizing themselves as a force within the party. A vote for Joe, in other words, is a vote to flex their electoral muscle, to show the field that black Democrats are a major constituency that can and will strongly influence the outcome of the race.
More broadly, in interviews with African-Americans across the state this past week, many said they were eager to send a message to the national Democratic Party: that their views on electability — which candidate is best suited to beat President Trump — would not be shaped by outcomes in the predominantly white states Iowa and New Hampshire, which backed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Bernie Sanders in contests earlier in February. “We’re the base, and we’re yet to express ourselves,” said David Cakley, a church deacon from Goose Creek, S.C, referring to black voters. “Biden needs a boost and we’re going to give it to him.” Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin of Columbia, S.C., who has endorsed the former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, summed up the urgency for black voters in this primary by quoting a line from the Atlanta rapper André 3000: “The South got something to say.”
Will the south as a whole have something to say on Tuesday? There are seven southern states up for grabs, but according to FiveThirtyEight’s model, right now Biden is favored to win just one of them, Alabama. He’s being weighed down by Mike Bloomberg’s presence on the ballot in the other six. What effect will a blowout win tonight have on voter preferences between Biden and Bloomy in those? Some votes are already banked via early voting but 72 hours of Joementum hype could shift remaining undecideds towards Biden on Election Day.
Which could mean *a lot* in determining whether Bernie wins this race outright or has to fight for it on the floor of the convention.
We’ll have a better idea of all this in six hours or so. There is, of course, the possibility that the good polling this week for Biden will backfire: Expectations are now so high in South Carolina that even a mildly impressive Biden win of eight points or so, say, will feel like a minor disappointment. He needs to run up the score. But if he does, who knows what sort of Super Tuesday polling we’ll see on Monday — or what sort of fundraising windfall Biden might see from the anti-Bernie brigades? His cash flow has improved recently, and some of the movers and shakers who’d been frozen while they wait to see whether Biden or Bloomberg is their best bet against Sanders might come away from tonight believing that Joe is clearly the moderate with the best chance. (Especially given Bloomberg’s polling downturn lately.) Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-02-29--U.K.: Greta Thunberg's climate strike shuts down Bristol's city centre

The City of London space wasn ’ t big enough so teen climate change alarmist Greta Thunberg changed cities .
The Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate event was held Friday and the entire Bristol city centre was shut down to accommodate the rally .
As happens with large crowds , the total number of participants varies .
Police and security people say that about 15,000 attended while Ms. Thunberg says the number was more like 30,000 .
It ’ s week 80 of Thunberg ’ s Fridays for Future marches .
Wednesday Avon and Somerset Police warned that the crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was promoted on social media by supporters .
They were concerned about public safety .
Safety concerns don ’ t seem to have deterred Thunberg ’ s devoted fans .
Parents brought children along – the indoctrination into this movement starts at a very young age .
Avon and Somerset Police say they expect thousands of people at the Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate on College Green on Friday to hear the 17-year-old climate activist speak .
The force said there was “ potential for trips , slips , falls and crushing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make their own safety arrangements .
The Swedish climate change campaigner tweeted over the weekend that she would be taking part in the city ’ s youth protest .
But in a letter addressed to parents of school-age children , Supt Andy Bennett said the force was “ unable to accurately predict how large this event will be ” .
” Social media has gone viral with interest which leads me to believe it will be thousands of people , ” he wrote .
The Mayor of Bristol welcomed Greta to the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as it always is – the world is on fire and we ’ re all going to die , or something .
According to her , adults are children and children are the adults in the room .
Tens of thousands of people , many of them children skipping school , braved heavy rain to join a climate strike headed by Greta Thunberg in Bristol city centre .
The vast crowd fell silent as the 17-year-old activist told them governments were acting like children and so it fell to young people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Criticising governments and the media , she said : “ Once again they sweep their mess under the rug for us – young people , their children – to clean up for them .
We must continue and we have to be patient .
Remember that the changes required will not happen overnight.
” She told them : “ We will not be silenced because we are the change , and change is coming whether you like it or not .
This emergency is being completely ignored by the politicians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Basically , nothing is being done to halt this crisis despite all the beautiful words and promises from our elected officials .
So what did you do during this crucial time ?
I will not be silenced when the world is on fire.
” Like any petulant teenager , she may tell her fans to be patient but she is the one demanding immediate changes , most of which are impossible unless the world ’ s economy is destroyed .
There is nothing patient about her .
For example , she told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent decision of the Bristol councillors to reject plans to expand Bristol ’ s airport .
She has said she wants air travel eliminated in past interviews so this opinion would fit with that wish .
Greta traveled to Bristol by train and was driven in an electric car to the event .
Thunberg ’ s Friday marches have become her personal mission and her family is trademarking the phrase she uses on her protest signs – Skolstrejk för klimatet ( school strike for climate ) .
Greta says the reason is because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and impersonating her to gain access to high profile people .
She ’ s protecting her brand .
The march was hard on Mother Earth , as it turns out .
One man is setting up a crowdfunding campaign to raise money to replant grass on College Green , where the rally was held .
The protesters “ left a muddy quagmire ” behind .

The City of London space wasn’t big enough so teen climate change alarmist Greta Thunberg changed cities. The Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate event was held Friday and the entire Bristol city centre was shut down to accommodate the rally. As happens with large crowds, the total number of participants varies. Police and security people say that about 15,000 attended while Ms. Thunberg says the number was more like 30,000.
It’s week 80 of Thunberg’s Fridays for Future marches. Wednesday Avon and Somerset Police warned that the crowd was expected to be large since it was promoted on social media by supporters. They were concerned about public safety. Safety concerns don’t seem to have deterred Thunberg’s devoted fans. Parents brought children along – the indoctrination into this movement starts at a very young age.
Avon and Somerset Police say they expect thousands of people at the Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate on College Green on Friday to hear the 17-year-old climate activist speak. The force said there was “potential for trips, slips, falls and crushing”. Parents and carers were advised to make their own safety arrangements. The Swedish climate change campaigner tweeted over the weekend that she would be taking part in the city’s youth protest. But in a letter addressed to parents of school-age children, Supt Andy Bennett said the force was “unable to accurately predict how large this event will be”. ” Social media has gone viral with interest which leads me to believe it will be thousands of people,” he wrote.
Pictured: Empty streets as Bristol city centre cleared for Greta Thunberg visit https://t.co/ue1ETDcEEe pic.twitter.com/RAAoDnqA4M — Bristol Biz (@BristolBizz) February 28, 2020
The Mayor of Bristol welcomed Greta to the city.
Welcome @GretaThunberg & all the young people who've come to #Bristol today We're a city at the forefront of action on climate & social justice & have just launched our Climate Strategy with the urgent action needed to achieve #CarbonNeutrality by 2030: https://t.co/xqFEPuYdPZ pic.twitter.com/Cr16zxIJp2 — Marvin Rees (@MarvinJRees) February 28, 2020
Greta’s message was the same as it always is – the world is on fire and we’re all going to die, or something. According to her, adults are children and children are the adults in the room.
Tens of thousands of people, many of them children skipping school, braved heavy rain to join a climate strike headed by Greta Thunberg in Bristol city centre. The vast crowd fell silent as the 17-year-old activist told them governments were acting like children and so it fell to young people to be “the adults in the room”. Criticising governments and the media, she said: “Once again they sweep their mess under the rug for us – young people, their children – to clean up for them. We must continue and we have to be patient. Remember that the changes required will not happen overnight.” She told them: “We will not be silenced because we are the change, and change is coming whether you like it or not. This emergency is being completely ignored by the politicians, the media and those in power. “Basically, nothing is being done to halt this crisis despite all the beautiful words and promises from our elected officials. So what did you do during this crucial time? I will not be silenced when the world is on fire.”
Like any petulant teenager, she may tell her fans to be patient but she is the one demanding immediate changes, most of which are impossible unless the world’s economy is destroyed. There is nothing patient about her. For example, she told the crowd she was happy about a recent decision of the Bristol councillors to reject plans to expand Bristol’s airport. She has said she wants air travel eliminated in past interviews so this opinion would fit with that wish. Greta traveled to Bristol by train and was driven in an electric car to the event.
Greta Thunberg leads the climate strike march around the city #GretaThunberg bristol #ClimateAction pic.twitter.com/wHAtiksTy4 — BBC West Live (@BBCBristol) February 28, 2020
Thunberg’s Friday marches have become her personal mission and her family is trademarking the phrase she uses on her protest signs – Skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for climate). Greta says the reason is because people are selling products with her slogan and impersonating her to gain access to high profile people. She’s protecting her brand.
Ms Thunberg also announced she has set up a non-profit foundation to handle the financial side of #FridaysForFuture. It will manage money raised from donations and book royalties. “The foundation’s aim will be to promote ecological, climatic and social sustainability as well as mental health,” she told her Instagram followers.
The march was hard on Mother Earth, as it turns out. One man is setting up a crowdfunding campaign to raise money to replant grass on College Green, where the rally was held. The protesters “left a muddy quagmire” behind.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9HqwsxJ5o_/


hotair--2020-02-29--Go time: US signs peace treaty with the Taliban

So it looks like we ’ re actually going to do this thing… maybe .
After months of negotiations that proceeded in fits and starts , we ’ ve signed a peace deal with the Taliban aimed at getting us out of that country sometime next year .
But there are some caveats included in the agreement that could see the whole thing blow up in our faces before we ever make it out .
The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban , its adversary in Afghanistan ’ s 18-year war .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate .
One provision of the agreement is the full withdrawal of American troops that is “ heavily conditions based , ” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the deal .
The officials declined to elaborate on what exactly those conditions are .
They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly .
This deal , such as it is , would play out in several stages and is contingent upon a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to meet .
We ’ re supposed to begin an almost immediate troop reduction of roughly 3,500 troops .
But even under the best of circumstances , we wouldn ’ t be out of the country entirely for fourteen months .
The full withdrawal demands that the Taliban “ not harbor terrorist groups intent on attacking the west.
” Is it just me , or weren ’ t we thinking of the Taliban themselves as a terrorist group intent on attacking the west ?
The deal also requires the current , American-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Taliban ( and vice versa ) but that ’ s not starting out well either .
A group from the Afghanistan government attempted to meet with Taliban leaders yesterday , but the Taliban refused the meeting .
The Taliban is also demanding the release of 5,000 prisoners in exchange for 1,000 captive members of the Afghanistan security forces before they negotiate .
The government wants some sort of agreement in place before they start cutting all of those terrorists loose .
This is something I was venting my frustrations about on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong , I can ’ t believe that the promises of the Taliban are worth anything .
Also , even if they were being sincere , they don ’ t control all of the fighters in their country , so their ability to maintain a ceasefire is dubious at best .
I realize I ’ ve preached this line to all of you in the past , but I ’ ve not seen anything to sway my opinion much .
The Taliban is just waiting for us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another 14 months or another 14 years , they will .
They ’ re very good at waiting for invading armies to grow frustrated and go home .
They ’ ve been doing it forever .
And as soon as we ’ re gone , they will tear now the new government and return to being a primitive , seventh century nation just as they ’ ve always been .
At this point , we should probably just face up to that reality , use this deal as a ticket to pull our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own devices .

So it looks like we’re actually going to do this thing… maybe. After months of negotiations that proceeded in fits and starts, we’ve signed a peace deal with the Taliban aimed at getting us out of that country sometime next year. But there are some caveats included in the agreement that could see the whole thing blow up in our faces before we ever make it out.
The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban, its adversary in Afghanistan’s 18-year war. The deal marks a major turning point in a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate. One provision of the agreement is the full withdrawal of American troops that is “heavily conditions based,” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the deal. The officials declined to elaborate on what exactly those conditions are. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly.
This deal, such as it is, would play out in several stages and is contingent upon a number of milestones that frankly look nearly impossible to meet. We’re supposed to begin an almost immediate troop reduction of roughly 3,500 troops. But even under the best of circumstances, we wouldn’t be out of the country entirely for fourteen months.
The full withdrawal demands that the Taliban “not harbor terrorist groups intent on attacking the west.” Is it just me, or weren’t we thinking of the Taliban themselves as a terrorist group intent on attacking the west? The deal also requires the current, American-backed government in Afghanistan to begin talks with the Taliban (and vice versa) but that’s not starting out well either. A group from the Afghanistan government attempted to meet with Taliban leaders yesterday, but the Taliban refused the meeting.
The Taliban is also demanding the release of 5,000 prisoners in exchange for 1,000 captive members of the Afghanistan security forces before they negotiate. The government wants some sort of agreement in place before they start cutting all of those terrorists loose.
This is something I was venting my frustrations about on Twitter yesterday. While I would be very pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, I can’t believe that the promises of the Taliban are worth anything. Also, even if they were being sincere, they don’t control all of the fighters in their country, so their ability to maintain a ceasefire is dubious at best.
I realize I’ve preached this line to all of you in the past, but I’ve not seen anything to sway my opinion much. The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave. If they have to wait another 14 months or another 14 years, they will. They’re very good at waiting for invading armies to grow frustrated and go home. They’ve been doing it forever. And as soon as we’re gone, they will tear now the new government and return to being a primitive, seventh century nation just as they’ve always been. At this point, we should probably just face up to that reality, use this deal as a ticket to pull our troops out and leave them to their own devices.


hotair--2020-02-29--NYT: Shocked, shocked we are to find #CPAC2020 united behind GOP incumbent president

NATIONAL HARBOR , MD — Greetings from the calm before the storm at the Gaylord Resort , a few hours before Donald Trump will speak to what has been an enthusiastic , energized crowd of supporters .
Security lines have the massive throngs mainly waiting to make it to the main concourse of CPAC , where they have crowded the hallways and filled the main ballroom since opening on Thursday .
Even at this hour , the audience has filled the room for the early presentations as people wait for the Trump address , scheduled to start at 3 pm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been among the most energetic and single-minded CPACs of my experience .
As I wrote earlier at The Week , the organizers put the 2020 election in the starkest terms in a bid to unite the fractious Right , and it has largely paid off : Trump ’ s qualifications for that job may have been part of the discussion at CPAC under different circumstances , but no longer .
Even the MAGA agenda will take second place to the existential necessity of stopping a socialist from winning the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinvigorated focus .
Eight of the presentations at the conference are specifically dedicated to socialism , such as Thursday morning ’ s session on “ Socialism : Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies , ” emceed by former Trump administration national-security official KT McFarland .
Half of those events are main-stage sessions as opposed to breakout sessions , showing the heightened focus on this mission .
… To be sure , the conference will have plenty of training sessions for organizers and discussions of other policy areas .
The most prominent theme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arms against socialism .
Attendees will have the opportunity to learn about “ Exposing and Defeating the Socialist Plot to Hijack America ” in one session , or to hear “ the Unshackled Voices of Socialist Regimes.
” Some will learn “ words that work in persuading others [ against ] socialism ” in one breakout session , or find out how to beat “ Socialism & The Great Awokening ” from the main stage .
The agenda has its own message to activists — emphasize “ socialism.
” The words “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely absent from this agenda .
In any other cycle , that would be seen as either hyperbole or an anachronism .
Sanders ’ rise in the Democratic primary has made it both timely and at least within reach of Sanders ’ own rhetoric , especially after his remarks about Castro and the communist regime in China this week .
Of course , being an election year , the focus on winning in 2020 would have been more or less singular anyway .
In 2008 and in 2012 , both years in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t played all the way out , so there was considerable debate over the relative qualities of the challengers , as there was in 2016 for that matter .
In 2008 , as I recall , the fall of the last conservative activist hope to John McCain ’ s primary juggernaut caused an outpouring of grief and frustration .
( Fun fact : That conservative activist hope was Mitt Romney , who announced his campaign suspension the first night of CPAC . )
I didn ’ t attend CPAC in 2004 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ran for election , but one presumes that the conference that year didn ’ t focus much on division points and policy differences within the GOP .
They would have been gearing up to fight John Kerry and pushing electoral unity rather than philosophical debate .
Thus , it ’ s no surprise to see this CPAC ’ s singular focus on the election ahead , especially as a contest between “ America vs Socialism , ” as the signs proclaim here .
That is , it ’ s no surprise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahem .
The Conservative Political Action Conference has been a gathering of conservatives throughout its 47-year run .
Libertarians have been welcome , and at times have had a louder voice than they presently do , but the character of CPAC hasn ’ t been a “ gathering of libertarians.
” Even during the Ron/Rand Paul era , libertarians took a back seat to social conservatism and Reaganesque national-security policies , the latter perhaps even more so then than this particular year .
For never Trump conservatives , however , the experience of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ CPAC should have really been a wake-up call to me about what was going on in the party , ” said Lucy Caldwell , an adviser to Joe Walsh , the former congressman from Illinois who briefly challenged Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination .
“ It used to be a place where the radical fringe could kind of let their hair down amidst think tank people and mainstream Republicans , ” said Ms. Caldwell , who attended the conference for the first time in years .
“ Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to reach out to Never Trump figures to get your gee-isn ’ t-CPAC-disappointing hot take , I ’ d argue that tends to prove its success .
There are legitimate beefs about excluding Romney , which seemed tacky , and perhaps one could even argue that the breakout sessions could have been more policy-oriented , but “ Never Trumpers dislike Trump support at CPAC ” is not exactly a stunning revelation .
And having CPAC focused on motivating activists to unite to keep a Republican incumbent in office , especially one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement like none other , rather than dividing them on policy and comportment issues is not much of a scoop , either .
The “ should we keep Trump ” debate has already taken place , and the nays lost big when no one of consequence stepped up to challenge him in the GOP primaries .
Thus far , CPAC seems to be a smashing success in energizing the party ’ s core base .
Our newest member of the Townhall media empire Larry O ’ Connor caught up with me to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as to affirm our greatest fear — running afoul of our colleagues at Twitchy .

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD — Greetings from the calm before the storm at the Gaylord Resort, a few hours before Donald Trump will speak to what has been an enthusiastic, energized crowd of supporters. Security lines have the massive throngs mainly waiting to make it to the main concourse of CPAC, where they have crowded the hallways and filled the main ballroom since opening on Thursday. Even at this hour, the audience has filled the room for the early presentations as people wait for the Trump address, scheduled to start at 3 pm ET today.
Thus far, this has been among the most energetic and single-minded CPACs of my experience. As I wrote earlier at The Week, the organizers put the 2020 election in the starkest terms in a bid to unite the fractious Right, and it has largely paid off:
Trump’s qualifications for that job may have been part of the discussion at CPAC under different circumstances, but no longer. Even the MAGA agenda will take second place to the existential necessity of stopping a socialist from winning the White House. CPAC’s agenda already reflects this reinvigorated focus. Eight of the presentations at the conference are specifically dedicated to socialism, such as Thursday morning’s session on “Socialism: Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies,” emceed by former Trump administration national-security official KT McFarland. Half of those events are main-stage sessions as opposed to breakout sessions, showing the heightened focus on this mission. … To be sure, the conference will have plenty of training sessions for organizers and discussions of other policy areas. The most prominent theme, however, will be the call to arms against socialism. Attendees will have the opportunity to learn about “Exposing and Defeating the Socialist Plot to Hijack America” in one session, or to hear “the Unshackled Voices of Socialist Regimes.” Some will learn “words that work in persuading others [against] socialism” in one breakout session, or find out how to beat “Socialism & The Great Awokening” from the main stage. The agenda has its own message to activists — emphasize “socialism.” The words “liberal” and “progressive” are entirely absent from this agenda. In any other cycle, that would be seen as either hyperbole or an anachronism. Sanders’ rise in the Democratic primary has made it both timely and at least within reach of Sanders’ own rhetoric, especially after his remarks about Castro and the communist regime in China this week.
Of course, being an election year, the focus on winning in 2020 would have been more or less singular anyway. In 2008 and in 2012, both years in which I covered CPAC, the primaries still hadn’t played all the way out, so there was considerable debate over the relative qualities of the challengers, as there was in 2016 for that matter. In 2008, as I recall, the fall of the last conservative activist hope to John McCain’s primary juggernaut caused an outpouring of grief and frustration. (Fun fact: That conservative activist hope was Mitt Romney, who announced his campaign suspension the first night of CPAC.) I didn’t attend CPAC in 2004, the last time a Republican incumbent president ran for election, but one presumes that the conference that year didn’t focus much on division points and policy differences within the GOP. They would have been gearing up to fight John Kerry and pushing electoral unity rather than philosophical debate.
Thus, it’s no surprise to see this CPAC’s singular focus on the election ahead, especially as a contest between “America vs Socialism,” as the signs proclaim here. That is, it’s no surprise to anyone except the New York Times:
CPAC has been transformed from a gathering of libertarians where establishment Republicans mingled with fringe conservative activists into a stage for Mr. Trump and his top advisers and allies to road-test winning messages for the campaign trail. Republicans not on board with defending the president and his agenda, like Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, were disinvited from the conference this year.
Ahem. The Conservative Political Action Conference has been a gathering of conservatives throughout its 47-year run. Libertarians have been welcome, and at times have had a louder voice than they presently do, but the character of CPAC hasn’t been a “gathering of libertarians.” Even during the Ron/Rand Paul era, libertarians took a back seat to social conservatism and Reaganesque national-security policies, the latter perhaps even more so then than this particular year.
For never Trump conservatives, however, the experience of attending the conference was lonely and disheartening. “CPAC should have really been a wake-up call to me about what was going on in the party,” said Lucy Caldwell, an adviser to Joe Walsh, the former congressman from Illinois who briefly challenged Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. “It used to be a place where the radical fringe could kind of let their hair down amidst think tank people and mainstream Republicans,” said Ms. Caldwell, who attended the conference for the first time in years. “Now, it’s their house.”
If you have to reach out to Never Trump figures to get your gee-isn’t-CPAC-disappointing hot take, I’d argue that tends to prove its success. There are legitimate beefs about excluding Romney, which seemed tacky, and perhaps one could even argue that the breakout sessions could have been more policy-oriented, but “Never Trumpers dislike Trump support at CPAC” is not exactly a stunning revelation. And having CPAC focused on motivating activists to unite to keep a Republican incumbent in office, especially one fulfilling the judicial mandate of the conservative movement like none other, rather than dividing them on policy and comportment issues is not much of a scoop, either. The “should we keep Trump” debate has already taken place, and the nays lost big when no one of consequence stepped up to challenge him in the GOP primaries.
Thus far, CPAC seems to be a smashing success in energizing the party’s core base. Our newest member of the Townhall media empire Larry O’Connor caught up with me to discuss the energy and the mission of CPAC, as well as to affirm our greatest fear — running afoul of our colleagues at Twitchy.


hotair--2020-02-29--Failed Baltimore ex-mayor named co-chair for Bloomberg campaign

Mike Bloomberg continues to collect endorsements and accolades from key figures in the DNC , despite disastrous debate performances and accusations that he ’ s totally out of step with the liberal wing of his party ’ s base .
His latest move is yet another that isn ’ t drawing much media attention but probably should .
This week , Bloomberg named former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as a national co-chair for his presidential campaign .
He also picked up her formal endorsement for his candidacy .
In the announcement , they both felt the need to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many values they share in common .
( WBAL Baltimore ) “ Mike has been a good friend and mentor to me for many years .
He is a no-nonsense leader who has taken on the country ’ s toughest fights , ” Rawlings-Blake said in a statement .
“ When we were both in office , we worked together to get illegal guns off the streets of Baltimore , New York , and cities across America .
He continues to lead the national movement for gun safety , building grassroots support and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun safety laws.
” Rawlings-Blake joins several other former mayors as political co-chairs of Bloomberg ’ s campaign , including Philadelphia ’ s Michael Nutter , Miami ’ s Manny Diaz and Los Angeles ’ Antonio Villaraigosa .
Rawlings-Blake will advise the campaign and serve as a national surrogate for Bloomberg .
Something about this announcement struck me as being a bit tone-deaf .
Of all the issues on the Democratic platform , why did they decide to highlight their mutual work in reducing gun violence ?
He ’ s talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a murder rate that rivals sever hot spots in literal war zones .
At any rate , let ’ s take a moment to see why this appointment and endorsement matters .
At a glance , you might see Rawlings-Blake a something of a non-entity in Democratic politics .
She served a bit more than one term as Mayor of Charm City , having taken over when her predecessor was convicted of embezzlement .
( The woman who replaced her was similarly driven out of office over corruption charges . )
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riots where her city was both literally and figuratively going up in flames .
While she wasn ’ t forced to resign , she did opt to not bother trying for a second term and exited the scene .
But for some reason , the Democratic Party was still busy trying to make her into a “ rising star ” and find someplace to put her .
That ’ s how she was somehow named the president of the US Conference of Mayors ( even while her city was burning down ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was also enjoying some hefty donations from Bloomberg even back then .
So here ’ s the other factoid about Rawlings-Blake that should grab your attention .
She was a Democratic superdelegate for the 2016 convention and she will be one again this year .
If you look down the list of mayors , former mayors and other party officials who have endorsed Bloomberg this year , you note that many of them have these same things in common .
They were previous recipients of generous donations from Mike and they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that as this entire passion play unfolds .
Mike Bloomberg doesn ’ t have to beat Bernie Sanders , Joe Biden or anyone else in the delegate race .
He just has to stop them from getting to 50 % plus one on the first ballot at the convention .
And then the superdelegates will get to jump in for the second vote .
Bloomberg is playing the long game here and it ’ s still entirely possible that it could work .

Mike Bloomberg continues to collect endorsements and accolades from key figures in the DNC, despite disastrous debate performances and accusations that he’s totally out of step with the liberal wing of his party’s base. His latest move is yet another that isn’t drawing much media attention but probably should. This week, Bloomberg named former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as a national co-chair for his presidential campaign. He also picked up her formal endorsement for his candidacy. In the announcement, they both felt the need to point out their long history of partnership and the many values they share in common. (WBAL Baltimore)
“Mike has been a good friend and mentor to me for many years. He is a no-nonsense leader who has taken on the country’s toughest fights,” Rawlings-Blake said in a statement. “When we were both in office, we worked together to get illegal guns off the streets of Baltimore, New York, and cities across America. He continues to lead the national movement for gun safety, building grassroots support and working to elect candidates fighting for common-sense gun safety laws.” Rawlings-Blake joins several other former mayors as political co-chairs of Bloomberg’s campaign, including Philadelphia’s Michael Nutter, Miami’s Manny Diaz and Los Angeles’ Antonio Villaraigosa. Rawlings-Blake will advise the campaign and serve as a national surrogate for Bloomberg.
Something about this announcement struck me as being a bit tone-deaf. Of all the issues on the Democratic platform, why did they decide to highlight their mutual work in reducing gun violence? He’s talking about the former mayor of Baltimore, a city with a murder rate that rivals sever hot spots in literal war zones.
At any rate, let’s take a moment to see why this appointment and endorsement matters. At a glance, you might see Rawlings-Blake a something of a non-entity in Democratic politics. She served a bit more than one term as Mayor of Charm City, having taken over when her predecessor was convicted of embezzlement. (The woman who replaced her was similarly driven out of office over corruption charges.) She oversaw the aftermath of the Freddie Gray riots where her city was both literally and figuratively going up in flames. While she wasn’t forced to resign, she did opt to not bother trying for a second term and exited the scene.
But for some reason, the Democratic Party was still busy trying to make her into a “rising star” and find someplace to put her. That’s how she was somehow named the president of the US Conference of Mayors (even while her city was burning down) and made a deputy-chair of the DNC. She was also enjoying some hefty donations from Bloomberg even back then.
So here’s the other factoid about Rawlings-Blake that should grab your attention. She was a Democratic superdelegate for the 2016 convention and she will be one again this year. If you look down the list of mayors, former mayors and other party officials who have endorsed Bloomberg this year, you note that many of them have these same things in common. They were previous recipients of generous donations from Mike and they are superdelegates.
Don’t lose sight of that as this entire passion play unfolds. Mike Bloomberg doesn’t have to beat Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or anyone else in the delegate race. He just has to stop them from getting to 50% plus one on the first ballot at the convention. And then the superdelegates will get to jump in for the second vote. Bloomberg is playing the long game here and it’s still entirely possible that it could work.


hotair--2020-02-28--Here we go again: Trump nominates John Ratcliffe to be new director of national intelligence

I appreciate the raw cunning of this move , even if the cynicism of it grosses me out .
Here ’ s how I ’ d rank the sort of person a president should want as DNI , in descending order : 1 .
Experienced and determined to shoot straight 2 .
Not experienced but determined to shoot straight 3 .
Not determined to shoot straight , whether experienced or not Shorthand for number three would be “ yes man , ” the sort of person who , if the intelligence says one thing and the president says something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , decides that the president ’ s version is the truth .
Note that this is distinct from “ loyalty.
” Trump deserves someone who won ’ t backbite him in the media , anonymously or otherwise ; he needs to be able to trust his deputies to function effectively and clearly he doesn ’ t trust them many of them right now , sometimes for good reasons , sometimes not .
But there ’ s a difference between loyalty and being a yes man .
The concern about Ratcliffe is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man but is being chosen *because* he ’ s a yes man .
He was nominated for this job once before , you may recall , seemingly for no better reason than that he ’ s an aggressive advocate for Trump during Intelligence Committee hearings .
He doesn ’ t have any field intel experience , just what he ’ s gleaned in five years as a member of the Homeland Security and ( later ) Intelligence Committees , plus some limited work on terrorism cases when he was a U.S. Attorney .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ padding his resume on that point . )
That ’ s why he ultimately withdrew last summer : Even Senate Republicans were concerned that he had been nominated not because there ’ s good reason to think he ’ d be effective in the job but because he ’ d be a yes man , the sort of person who ’ d eagerly carry out political vendettas for Trump against “ disloyal ” intelligence deputies and clean up , or even suppress , intel that the president found “ unhelpful.
” Richard Burr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , reportedly dialed up Trump last summer and urged him to rethink the Ratcliffe nomination .
Last year it looked like Ratcliffe would be DOA in a confirmation hearing , so he withdrew .
The Senate ’ s composition hasn ’ t changed meaningfully since then so presumably he ’ s still DOA .
So why renominate him ?
Here ’ s where the cunning comes in .
Trump knows that this is an election year .
He knows that his approval rating , both within his own party and across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now as it ’ s ever been .
( Coronavirus may change that soon , but never mind . )
He knows that Republican voters just circled the wagons around him on impeachment and are ready to circle those same wagons tighter as we proceed towards the general election .
All of that being so , Senate Republicans may be materially less likely to cross him on Ratcliffe ’ s nomination now than they were eight months ago .
Does Romney want to cast another “ traitorous ” vote against Trump so soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins want to piss him off with his voters in Maine watching her closely ?
Does Burr want to cause a rift with the president in North Carolina , one of the most important swing states this fall ?
The odds of the Senate meekly confirming Ratcliffe have improved and Trump knows it .
So he ’ s calling their bluff .
I dare you to reject him .
But here ’ s where it gets even more cunning .
Trump may be viewing this , correctly , as a “ heads I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to a loophole in federal law on executive branch vacancies .
The law was written in the belief that presidents would always prefer permanent appointees as a matter of basic stability and sound constitutional practice .
You want someone at DNI or DHS or HHS or wherever ?
Just send the nomination over to the Senate and they ’ ll vote up or down .
And until Trump , presidents did approach the matter that way .
Trump doesn ’ t care about stability , though ; if anything , he appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to prefer acting directors since they can be shuffled around according to his whims .
They may even be more prone to behaving like yes men than permanent appointees are because there ’ s a chance that the president will formally nominate them to the permanent position if they ’ re especially obsequious .
What does this have to do with Ratcliffe ’ s appointment , you say ?
Aha : Read the statute yourself .
He named Ric Grenell acting DNI a few weeks ago with the promise that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 .
That was the date Grenell ’ s term would have ended under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act if Trump hadn ’ t nominated a full-time replacement .
He ’ s done that now — with someone who may or may not be confirmable .
If the Senate confirms Ratcliffe , great for Trump .
He has his yes man .
If the Senate rejects Ratcliffe , no problem for Trump : He gets another seven months of service in the job from Grenell , who has himself been accused by Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to carry out vendettas and politicize inconvenient intelligence as needed .
I think the jury ’ s out on Grenell given the olive branch he extended a few days ago to Shelby Pierson , the briefer who reportedly erroneously told Schiff ’ s committee last week that Russia is trying to get Trump reelected .
But in hindsight , it was revealing that Grenell would reach out to Pierson given his supposedly short , temporary term in the DNI role .
Why would a guy set to exit the position 12 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any action , formal or otherwise , on Pierson ?
Why not let the permanent DNI handle it ?
Probable answer : Because Grenell knew Trump was planning to play a shell game with the Senate in which a possibly unconfirmable person would be nominated in order to buy him another seven months in the job .
All of this is cynical , as I say , but a clever exploitation of the rules .
One of the very first things Congress should do once Trump is gone and it ’ s once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorta care about basic civics is to drastically rein in the executive ’ s power to shuffle around acting directors .
It ’ s a blatant end-around the Senate ’ s own power to approve cabinet officials ; we may be stuck with Grenell as DNI until October even though the Senate will have never exercised its advise-and-consent prerogatives over his nomination to the intel position .
( The Senate did confirm him as ambassador to Germany , a starkly different role . )
They should revise the laws , let me stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually will revise them since our congressional leaders are timorous garbage who are happy to see their powers gradually sapped by a succession of increasingly powerful presidents .
These chumps will deserve it when President Bernie decides to follow Trump ’ s lead and play musical chairs involving “ acting ” roles with an exciting array of unconfirmed , and unconfirmable , hard-left dipsh*ts .

I appreciate the raw cunning of this move, even if the cynicism of it grosses me out.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1233518334282489861
Here’s how I’d rank the sort of person a president should want as DNI, in descending order:
1. Experienced and determined to shoot straight
2. Not experienced but determined to shoot straight
3. Not determined to shoot straight, whether experienced or not
Shorthand for number three would be “yes man,” the sort of person who, if the intelligence says one thing and the president says something else because political advantage requires him to do so, decides that the president’s version is the truth. Note that this is distinct from “loyalty.” Trump deserves someone who won’t backbite him in the media, anonymously or otherwise; he needs to be able to trust his deputies to function effectively and clearly he doesn’t trust them many of them right now, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. But there’s a difference between loyalty and being a yes man.
The concern about Ratcliffe is that he’s not just a yes man but is being chosen *because* he’s a yes man. He was nominated for this job once before, you may recall, seemingly for no better reason than that he’s an aggressive advocate for Trump during Intelligence Committee hearings. He doesn’t have any field intel experience, just what he’s gleaned in five years as a member of the Homeland Security and (later) Intelligence Committees, plus some limited work on terrorism cases when he was a U.S. Attorney. (He was accused last year of padding his resume on that point.) That’s why he ultimately withdrew last summer: Even Senate Republicans were concerned that he had been nominated not because there’s good reason to think he’d be effective in the job but because he’d be a yes man, the sort of person who’d eagerly carry out political vendettas for Trump against “disloyal” intelligence deputies and clean up, or even suppress, intel that the president found “unhelpful.” Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, reportedly dialed up Trump last summer and urged him to rethink the Ratcliffe nomination.
In naming Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe to be Director of National Intelligence, Trump ignored a warning from Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee, according to Congressional aides familiar with the matter. Burr told the White House last week that the move would inject more partisan politics into the work of the intelligence agencies, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.
Last year it looked like Ratcliffe would be DOA in a confirmation hearing, so he withdrew. The Senate’s composition hasn’t changed meaningfully since then so presumably he’s still DOA. So why renominate him?
Here’s where the cunning comes in. Trump knows that this is an election year. He knows that his approval rating, both within his own party and across the population, is about as high right now as it’s ever been. (Coronavirus may change that soon, but never mind.) He knows that Republican voters just circled the wagons around him on impeachment and are ready to circle those same wagons tighter as we proceed towards the general election. All of that being so, Senate Republicans may be materially less likely to cross him on Ratcliffe’s nomination now than they were eight months ago. Does Romney want to cast another “traitorous” vote against Trump so soon after the Senate trial? Does Susan Collins want to piss him off with his voters in Maine watching her closely? Does Burr want to cause a rift with the president in North Carolina, one of the most important swing states this fall?
The odds of the Senate meekly confirming Ratcliffe have improved and Trump knows it. So he’s calling their bluff. I dare you to reject him.
But here’s where it gets even more cunning. Trump may be viewing this, correctly, as a “heads I win, tails I win” situation thanks to a loophole in federal law on executive branch vacancies. The law was written in the belief that presidents would always prefer permanent appointees as a matter of basic stability and sound constitutional practice. You want someone at DNI or DHS or HHS or wherever? Just send the nomination over to the Senate and they’ll vote up or down. And until Trump, presidents did approach the matter that way. Trump doesn’t care about stability, though; if anything, he appears to enjoy volatility in government. He seems to prefer acting directors since they can be shuffled around according to his whims. They may even be more prone to behaving like yes men than permanent appointees are because there’s a chance that the president will formally nominate them to the permanent position if they’re especially obsequious.
What does this have to do with Ratcliffe’s appointment, you say? Aha:
Even if there's no real chance that @RepRatcliffe will be confirmed by the Senate, the formal submission of his nomination will allow @RichardGrenell to continue to serve as Acting DNI past March 11 — and for another 210 days _after_ Ratcliffe's rejection or withdrawal. https://t.co/jQ3R4dWHeb — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 28, 2020
Read the statute yourself. He named Ric Grenell acting DNI a few weeks ago with the promise that he’d nominate a permanent candidate before March 11. That was the date Grenell’s term would have ended under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act if Trump hadn’t nominated a full-time replacement. He’s done that now — with someone who may or may not be confirmable. If the Senate confirms Ratcliffe, great for Trump. He has his yes man. If the Senate rejects Ratcliffe, no problem for Trump: He gets another seven months of service in the job from Grenell, who has himself been accused by Democrats of being a yes man appointed by Trump to carry out vendettas and politicize inconvenient intelligence as needed. I think the jury’s out on Grenell given the olive branch he extended a few days ago to Shelby Pierson, the briefer who reportedly erroneously told Schiff’s committee last week that Russia is trying to get Trump reelected. But in hindsight, it was revealing that Grenell would reach out to Pierson given his supposedly short, temporary term in the DNI role. Why would a guy set to exit the position 12 days from now have felt obliged to take any action, formal or otherwise, on Pierson? Why not let the permanent DNI handle it?
Probable answer: Because Grenell knew Trump was planning to play a shell game with the Senate in which a possibly unconfirmable person would be nominated in order to buy him another seven months in the job.
All of this is cynical, as I say, but a clever exploitation of the rules. One of the very first things Congress should do once Trump is gone and it’s once again safe for congressional Republicans to kinda sorta care about basic civics is to drastically rein in the executive’s power to shuffle around acting directors. It’s a blatant end-around the Senate’s own power to approve cabinet officials; we may be stuck with Grenell as DNI until October even though the Senate will have never exercised its advise-and-consent prerogatives over his nomination to the intel position. (The Senate did confirm him as ambassador to Germany, a starkly different role.) They should revise the laws, let me stress. I don’t think they actually will revise them since our congressional leaders are timorous garbage who are happy to see their powers gradually sapped by a succession of increasingly powerful presidents. These chumps will deserve it when President Bernie decides to follow Trump’s lead and play musical chairs involving “acting” roles with an exciting array of unconfirmed, and unconfirmable, hard-left dipsh*ts.


hotair--2020-02-28--DC Appeals Court: Don McGahn does not have to testify (plus what this means about impeachment)

The DC Court of Appeals dismissed a case brought by the House of Representatives seeking to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify .
In a 2-1 decision , the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it wouldn ’ t police the standoff between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House… The House has said it still wants to question McGahn about potentially obstructive behavior from the President toward the Russia investigation , which McGahn witnessed and had disclosed to former special counsel Robert Mueller .
The House won at the trial-court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judge saying , “ presidents are not kings.
” The ruling , which you can read in full here , goes on at length arguing that the Courts have no generalized role in settling political disputes between the other two branches of government .
The Committee ’ s suit asks us to settle a dispute that we have no authority to resolve .
The Constitution does not vest federal courts with some “ amorphous general supervision of the operations of government.
” Raines , 521 U.S. at 829 ( internal quotation marks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. 579 , 594 ( 1952 ) ( Frankfurter , J. , concurring ) ( “ The Framers , however , did not make the judiciary the overseer of our government.
” ) .
Instead , as Chief Justice Marshall explained , federal courts sit “ to decide on the rights of individuals.
” … The Constitution imposes limitations on the “ judicial Power ” for good reason .
Interbranch disputes are deeply political and often quite partisan .
Compare , e.g.
, Comm .
on Oversight & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 979 F. Supp .
2d 1 ( D.D.C .
2013 ) , with Sandra Hernandez , Partisan Politics Plague Probe of “ Fast and Furious , ” L.A. TIMES ( Mar .
29 , 2012 ) .
By restricting the role of the judiciary , Article III preserves the “ public confidence ” in the federal courts by preventing “ [ r ] epeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured branch and the representative branches of government.
” Valley Forge Christian Coll .
v. Ams .
United for Separation of Church & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 474 ( 1982 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) .
If we throw ourselves into “ a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension , ” Raines , 521 U.S. at 833 ( Souter , J. , concurring in the judgment ) , we risk seeming less like neutral magistrates and more like pawns on politicians ’ chess boards .
In this case , the dangers of judicial involvement are particularly stark .
Few cases could so concretely present a direct clash between the political branches .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongdoing , which culminated in articles of impeachment against the President .
The Committee claims that , in furtherance of this investigation , McGahn must testify about events that occurred during his tenure as White House Counsel .
Meanwhile , the President denies all wrongdoing , and he has instructed McGahn not to testify… Or simply consider this case .
If we order McGahn to testify , what happens next ?
McGahn , compelled to appear , asserts executive privilege in response to the Committee ’ s questions .
The Committee finds those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Committee assures us , it would come right back to court to make McGahn talk .
See Oral Arg .
Tr .
60:25-61:1 .
The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one , and if we resolve this case today , we can expect Congress ’ s lawyers to make the trip often .
The Court concludes : “ We lack jurisdiction to hear and therefore dismiss the Committee ’ s lawsuit because it does not present an Article III case or controversy .
The judgment is vacated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions to direct that the complaint be dismissed.
” You may recall that during the impeachment , Jonathan Turley recommended that Democrats abandon their second article dealing with obstruction of justice in order to save their case .
Today , in light of the DC Court of Appeals decision , Turley argued this further proves the obstruction charge was premature :

The DC Court of Appeals dismissed a case brought by the House of Representatives seeking to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify.
In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled it wouldn’t police the standoff between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House… The House has said it still wants to question McGahn about potentially obstructive behavior from the President toward the Russia investigation, which McGahn witnessed and had disclosed to former special counsel Robert Mueller. The House won at the trial-court level, with an emphatic opinion from the judge saying, “presidents are not kings.”
The ruling, which you can read in full here, goes on at length arguing that the Courts have no generalized role in settling political disputes between the other two branches of government.
The Committee’s suit asks us to settle a dispute that we have no authority to resolve. The Constitution does not vest federal courts with some “amorphous general supervision of the operations of government.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 829 (internal quotation marks omitted); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“The Framers, however, did not make the judiciary the overseer of our government.”). Instead, as Chief Justice Marshall explained, federal courts sit “to decide on the rights of individuals.”… The Constitution imposes limitations on the “judicial Power” for good reason. Interbranch disputes are deeply political and often quite partisan. Compare, e.g., Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform v. Holder, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), with Sandra Hernandez, Partisan Politics Plague Probe of “Fast and Furious,” L.A. TIMES (Mar. 29, 2012). By restricting the role of the judiciary, Article III preserves the “public confidence” in the federal courts by preventing “[r]epeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured branch and the representative branches of government.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams.
United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). If we throw ourselves into “a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension,” Raines, 521 U.S. at 833 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment), we risk seeming less like neutral magistrates and more like pawns on politicians’ chess boards. In this case, the dangers of judicial involvement are particularly stark. Few cases could so concretely present a direct clash between the political branches. The Committee opened an investigation into possible presidential wrongdoing, which culminated in articles of impeachment against the President. The Committee claims that, in furtherance of this investigation, McGahn must testify about events that occurred during his tenure as White House Counsel. Meanwhile, the
President denies all wrongdoing, and he has instructed McGahn not to testify… Or simply consider this case. If we order McGahn to testify, what happens next? McGahn, compelled to appear, asserts executive privilege in response to the Committee’s questions. The Committee finds those assertions baseless. In that case, the Committee assures us, it would come right back to court to make McGahn talk. See Oral Arg. Tr. 60:25-61:1. The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often.
The Court concludes: “We lack jurisdiction to hear and therefore dismiss the Committee’s lawsuit because it does not present an Article III case or controversy. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct that the complaint be dismissed.”
You may recall that during the impeachment, Jonathan Turley recommended that Democrats abandon their second article dealing with obstruction of justice in order to save their case. Today, in light of the DC Court of Appeals decision, Turley argued this further proves the obstruction charge was premature:
The DC ruling further demonstrates that Article 2 on obstruction of congress was premature, as I testified. The White House is vindicated in showing that it had valid constitutional arguments to make — arguments ridiculed at the Senate trial . . . https://t.co/QJewtgZxeE — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
I do not agree with the court's analysis but I felt that Trump had a right to seek judicial review. Now that judicial review has shown that the court agrees with his constitutional https://t.co/VVW3cJhSc7 reaffirms the historic blunder of the House in rushing this impeachment — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
Rather than wait for courts to review immunity and privilege arguments, the House impeached Trump for seeking judicial review. Now the court says that he was right in raising his constitutional objections. Article 2 now looks like a case of prosecutorial excess, if not abuse. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020


hotair--2020-02-28--#MeToo re-do: Opera legend walks back apology to his accusers

That was fast .
Legendary opera star Plácido Domingo issued an apology to women who claimed he sexually harassed them on Tuesday .
By Thursday he was couching the apology , saying he wants to “ correct the false impression ” his statement may have made .
This is turning out to be a case of sorry , not sorry .
On Tuesday , Domingo said , “ I respect that these women finally felt comfortable enough to speak out , and I want them to know that I am truly sorry .
I accept full responsibility for my actions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ apology .
He didn ’ t denigrate his accusers , he took full responsibility , and he apologized .
Since then , however , it looks like he ’ s had a change of heart .
He ’ s sorry but he ’ s not admitting to guilt .
“ My apology was sincere and wholehearted , ” he said .
“ But I know what I haven ’ t done , and I will deny it again.
” “ I have never behaved aggressively toward anybody , nor have I ever done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anybody , ” he continued .
“ On the contrary , I have dedicated a large part of my half-century in the world of opera to helping the industry and to promoting the career of innumerable singers.
” So , what changed from the original apology on Tuesday to Thursday ?
His professional career is hanging in the balance , that ’ s what happened .
Placido Domingo faces professional repercussions .
His additional statement came just hours before the executive committee of the Teatro Real , a major opera house in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee ’ s agenda is whether or not to cancel his performance of “ La Traviata ” in May .
To head off an unfavorable decision , he withdrew from performing “ to prevent my situation from affecting , harming or causing any additional inconvenience.
” Wednesday , after Mr. Domingo issued his apology , the National Institute of Performing Arts and Music of Spain canceled his scheduled performances at the Teatro de la Zarzuela in Madrid because he admitted guilt .
“ From the moment that he says that what happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect many women , ” José Manuel Rodríguez Uribes , the Spanish culture minister , said on Wednesday .
“ We have decided that we could not maintain his presence.
” The apology issued Tuesday happened because of the American Guild of Musical Artists , the union representing American opera performers , released its results from an investigation conducted after nine women accused Domingo of sexual misconduct .
American opera companies immediately bailed on the opera star while European opera companies continued to support him .
The Guild ’ s investigation found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranging from flirtation to sexual advances , in and outside of the workplace.
” While he awaits word on future performances , Domingo said he will withdraw , if requested , to avoid any problems for opera houses .
Otherwise , he intends to fulfill his commitments which include the Royal Opera House in London and the Bolshoi in Moscow this year .
Placido Domingo planned to avoid all of this publicity and consequences .
He was in discussions to pay the performers ’ union to limit statements about its investigation .
Details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that discussion fell apart Tuesday .
The agreement was to include payment of a $ 500,000 “ fine ” by Domingo to the union .
It wasn ’ t a secret deal , you see .
Wink , wink .
“ Based on this flagrant breach of confidentiality Domingo ’ s counsel has withdrawn the agreement , which was expressly premised on A.G.M.A.
’ s promise to maintain confidentiality over the details of the investigatory report , ” said the email , which was signed by Leonard Egert , the union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raymond Menard , its president , and sent to the union ’ s board .
It was read to The New York Times by two recipients .
The union released a statement Tuesday night calling the payment a “ fine ” which it described as “ to our knowledge the largest to be imposed on a union member , ” and not in “ exchange for A.G.M.A.
’ s silence or to make any ‘ secret deal.
’ ” “ Regardless of the fine imposed , A.G.M.A .
was never planning to publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation , as the union had assured witnesses of confidentiality , ” said the statement , which the union said it was releasing to counter “ misperceptions ” left by reports of the deal by The Times and NPR .
“ Any suggestion that the union was being paid to withhold information is patently false.
” Domingo is 79 years old .
He is a world-famous tenor who held leadership positions at the Los Angeles Opera and the Washington National Opera , so this case was bound to generate lots of publicity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ canceled , including with the Metropolitan Opera and the San Francisco Opera .
Next month , Mr. Domingo is scheduled to sing the title role in Verdi ’ s “ Simon Boccanegra ” at the Hamburg State Opera .
A spokesman for the company , Michael Bellgardt , said in an email on Tuesday that he expected Mr. Domingo to perform as planned “ if nothing happens to call this into question.
” The Los Angeles Opera , which Mr. Domingo helped found , and led until he stepped down last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Placido Domingo is doing the ultimate sorry , not sorry .
We ’ ll see how it turns out for him .

That was fast. Legendary opera star Plácido Domingo issued an apology to women who claimed he sexually harassed them on Tuesday. By Thursday he was couching the apology, saying he wants to “correct the false impression” his statement may have made. This is turning out to be a case of sorry, not sorry.
On Tuesday, Domingo said, “I respect that these women finally felt comfortable enough to speak out, and I want them to know that I am truly sorry. I accept full responsibility for my actions.” That is a basic, succinct apology. He didn’t denigrate his accusers, he took full responsibility, and he apologized. Since then, however, it looks like he’s had a change of heart. He’s sorry but he’s not admitting to guilt.
“My apology was sincere and wholehearted,” he said. “But I know what I haven’t done, and I will deny it again.” “I have never behaved aggressively toward anybody, nor have I ever done anything to obstruct or hurt the career of anybody,” he continued. “On the contrary, I have dedicated a large part of my half-century in the world of opera to helping the industry and to promoting the career of innumerable singers.”
So, what changed from the original apology on Tuesday to Thursday? His professional career is hanging in the balance, that’s what happened. Placido Domingo faces professional repercussions. His additional statement came just hours before the executive committee of the Teatro Real, a major opera house in Madrid, was to meet. On the committee’s agenda is whether or not to cancel his performance of “La Traviata” in May. To head off an unfavorable decision, he withdrew from performing “to prevent my situation from affecting, harming or causing any additional inconvenience.”
Wednesday, after Mr. Domingo issued his apology, the National Institute of Performing Arts and Music of Spain canceled his scheduled performances at the Teatro de la Zarzuela in Madrid because he admitted guilt. “From the moment that he says that what happened did happen, involving serious acts that affect many women,” José Manuel Rodríguez Uribes, the Spanish culture minister, said on Wednesday. “We have decided that we could not maintain his presence.”
The apology issued Tuesday happened because of the American Guild of Musical Artists, the union representing American opera performers, released its results from an investigation conducted after nine women accused Domingo of sexual misconduct. American opera companies immediately bailed on the opera star while European opera companies continued to support him. The Guild’s investigation found that he “engaged in inappropriate activity, ranging from flirtation to sexual advances, in and outside of the workplace.”
While he awaits word on future performances, Domingo said he will withdraw, if requested, to avoid any problems for opera houses. Otherwise, he intends to fulfill his commitments which include the Royal Opera House in London and the Bolshoi in Moscow this year.
Placido Domingo planned to avoid all of this publicity and consequences. He was in discussions to pay the performers’ union to limit statements about its investigation. Details from the investigation leaked out, though, so that discussion fell apart Tuesday. The agreement was to include payment of a $500,000 “fine” by Domingo to the union. It wasn’t a secret deal, you see. Wink, wink.
“Based on this flagrant breach of confidentiality Domingo’s counsel has withdrawn the agreement, which was expressly premised on A.G.M.A.’s promise to maintain confidentiality over the details of the investigatory report,” said the email, which was signed by Leonard Egert, the union’s national executive director, and Raymond Menard, its president, and sent to the union’s board. It was read to The New York Times by two recipients. The union released a statement Tuesday night calling the payment a “fine” which it described as “to our knowledge the largest to be imposed on a union member,” and not in “exchange for A.G.M.A.’s silence or to make any ‘secret deal.’” “Regardless of the fine imposed, A.G.M.A. was never planning to publicly release the specific details of its internal investigation, as the union had assured witnesses of confidentiality,” said the statement, which the union said it was releasing to counter “misperceptions” left by reports of the deal by The Times and NPR. “Any suggestion that the union was being paid to withhold information is patently false.”
Domingo is 79 years old. He is a world-famous tenor who held leadership positions at the Los Angeles Opera and the Washington National Opera, so this case was bound to generate lots of publicity. Some of his American dates have been canceled, including with the Metropolitan Opera and the San Francisco Opera.
Next month, Mr. Domingo is scheduled to sing the title role in Verdi’s “Simon Boccanegra” at the Hamburg State Opera. A spokesman for the company, Michael Bellgardt, said in an email on Tuesday that he expected Mr. Domingo to perform as planned “if nothing happens to call this into question.” The Los Angeles Opera, which Mr. Domingo helped found, and led until he stepped down last year, is still conducting its own investigation.
Placido Domingo is doing the ultimate sorry, not sorry. We’ll see how it turns out for him.


hotair--2020-03-01--Fauci: That NYT article was "completely misconstrued", he's not muzzled

The anti-Trump media outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times spread the false story that Dr. Anthony Fauci was being muzzled by Vice-President Pence in his efforts on information dissemination about the COVID-19 epidemic .
The New York Times quoted Fauci as saying the White House instructed him not to say anything without clearance .
Dr. Fauci told MSNBC ’ s Chris Matthews that the quote was “ misconstrued ” .
He is not being muzzled .
Vice-President Pence was chosen by President Trump to head up the coordination of the administration ’ s response to the COVID-19 epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House Saturday , both he and Fauci denied any muzzling was happening .
“ That ’ s a very dishonest question , because he has had that ability to do virtually whatever he ’ s wanted to do , ” Trump said when asked at a White House briefing if he was muzzling Fauci .
“ He was never muzzled.
” But Trump not only denied the claim , but also brought up Fauci to address the reports .
“ I have never been muzzled ever and I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ronald Reagan , I ’ m not being muzzled by this administration , ” Fauci said .
He said he followed normal procedure when the vice-president took over the operation .
He said he was set up to go on TV shows , but when Vice President Mike Pence was appointed to lead the efforts against the global virus , he stood down from those appearances as they regrouped .
He says he then reapplied for clearance to go on the shows and was approved .
“ So I have not been muzzled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misrepresentation of what happened , ” he said .
In his capacity as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , Fauci is the perfect point person on COVID-19 updates .
He is 79 years old , not prone to dramatic statements , and he is very professional in his public demeanor .
In other words , he has been around and knows when to panic and when not to panic .
This isn ’ t the time to panic , according to the information available to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nerves and state to the White House press during President Trump ’ s press conference Saturday that most people will not be required to be hospitalized if they contact COVID-19 .
The symptoms will be such that otherwise healthy people can stay home and treat the symptoms like they would the flu or a bad cold .
He said there are occasional outliers who may die from the disease , like a normally healthy young person , but those cases are very rare .
The patients who will be hit hardest and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with compromised immune systems .
It ’ s important that the Trump administration officials speak with one voice .
Fauci goes through the same procedure as anyone else from the administration who may be making television appearances – he gets approval .
Everyone is on the same page .
When President Trump held the press conference Saturday , he was accompanied by Pence , HHS Secretary Azar , as well as officials from the CDC and NIH , besides Fauci .
That is also important because each can address specific questions from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all the networks , answering questions on COVID-19 .
Going forward President Trump said he would be holding regular press conferences with the other administration officials , perhaps daily .
That is exactly the right approach to take .
People just want some answers to questions about a virus that can quickly spread .
As came out today , people should be more concerned about the flu than COVID-19 , for the most part .
Dr. Fauci said that can change but so far the people who are infected are responding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One person ’ s death was announced , a person in their 50s with a compromised immune system , and the president , along with the other officials expressed their sympathy for the deceased ’ s family .
Fauci said that lifestyles don ’ t have to change .
Just keep up on the updates and take the same precautions as any cold and flu season requires – especially washing your hands .
If you think you have COVID-19 symptoms , see a doctor .

The anti-Trump media outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times spread the false story that Dr. Anthony Fauci was being muzzled by Vice-President Pence in his efforts on information dissemination about the COVID-19 epidemic. The New York Times quoted Fauci as saying the White House instructed him not to say anything without clearance.
Dr. Fauci told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that the quote was “misconstrued”. He is not being muzzled.
Vice-President Pence was chosen by President Trump to head up the coordination of the administration’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic. During Trump’s press conference at the White House Saturday, both he and Fauci denied any muzzling was happening.
“That’s a very dishonest question, because he has had that ability to do virtually whatever he’s wanted to do,” Trump said when asked at a White House briefing if he was muzzling Fauci. “He was never muzzled.” But Trump not only denied the claim, but also brought up Fauci to address the reports. “I have never been muzzled ever and I’ve been doing this since the administration of Ronald Reagan, I’m not being muzzled by this administration,” Fauci said.
He said he followed normal procedure when the vice-president took over the operation.
He said he was set up to go on TV shows, but when Vice President Mike Pence was appointed to lead the efforts against the global virus, he stood down from those appearances as they regrouped. He says he then reapplied for clearance to go on the shows and was approved. “So I have not been muzzled at all, that was a real misrepresentation of what happened,” he said.
In his capacity as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci is the perfect point person on COVID-19 updates. He is 79 years old, not prone to dramatic statements, and he is very professional in his public demeanor. In other words, he has been around and knows when to panic and when not to panic. This isn’t the time to panic, according to the information available to him. He specifically made a point to calm nerves and state to the White House press during President Trump’s press conference Saturday that most people will not be required to be hospitalized if they contact COVID-19. The symptoms will be such that otherwise healthy people can stay home and treat the symptoms like they would the flu or a bad cold. He said there are occasional outliers who may die from the disease, like a normally healthy young person, but those cases are very rare. The patients who will be hit hardest and may require hospitalization are the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.
It’s important that the Trump administration officials speak with one voice. Fauci goes through the same procedure as anyone else from the administration who may be making television appearances – he gets approval. Everyone is on the same page. When President Trump held the press conference Saturday, he was accompanied by Pence, HHS Secretary Azar, as well as officials from the CDC and NIH, besides Fauci. That is also important because each can address specific questions from the press. Fauci is a frequent guest on all the networks, answering questions on COVID-19.
Going forward President Trump said he would be holding regular press conferences with the other administration officials, perhaps daily. That is exactly the right approach to take. People just want some answers to questions about a virus that can quickly spread. As came out today, people should be more concerned about the flu than COVID-19, for the most part. Dr. Fauci said that can change but so far the people who are infected are responding to treatment of their symptoms and recovering well. One person’s death was announced, a person in their 50s with a compromised immune system, and the president, along with the other officials expressed their sympathy for the deceased’s family.
Fauci said that lifestyles don’t have to change. Just keep up on the updates and take the same precautions as any cold and flu season requires – especially washing your hands. If you think you have COVID-19 symptoms, see a doctor.
https://twitter.com/FrancisBrennan/status/1233840500131737603


hotair--2020-03-01--Biden campaign attempts 'center lane' vote consolidation after SC

Former Vice President Joe Biden campaign is attempting to consolidate the so-called ‘ center lane ’ vote following his win in South Carolina .
Plouffe is not an official Biden campaign worker but knows him dating back to their work together in the Obama Administration .
He ’ s arguing from a Democratic Party establishment vs. populist position under the guise the former is more of a return to normalcy against the latter .
It ’ s not hard to figure out Plouffe ’ s target .
He ’ s quite concerned Mike Bloomberg , more than any other candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ on Super Tuesday , allowing Sanders a majority of delegates .
“ Biden is going to be , I think , really harmed on Tuesday because Bloomberg is going to take votes and delegates , ” Plouffe also said on MSNBC noting Sanders will likely lead the delegate count after Super Tuesday .
“ Not all of that would have gone to Biden , but I think it ’ s fair to say a lot of them would.
” Bloomberg ’ s role in the Democratic race is both interesting and mercurial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot , despite showing up at last week ’ s South Carolina debate .
An appearance most everyone thought was abysmal .
Bloomberg ’ s hammering Super Tuesday states with campaign ad after campaign ad plus rally after rally .
He ’ ll air a three-minute response to President Donald Trump ’ s coronavirus plan on Sunday night .
The concern regarding Bloomberg ’ s Super Tuesday strategy is understandable .
His poll numbers hang around the teens despite a higher unlikability rating compared to other candidates .
Plouffe is correct in guessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishment candidates like Pete Buttigieg , Amy Klobuchar , and Biden .
There ’ s a direct link to Biden ’ s poll plunge in Texas and the rise of Bloomberg .
Buttigieg is also rising in the Texas polls , although not at a rate which puts him anywhere near the top or even the double digits .
One still has to wonder whether Bloomberg ’ s long game is a potential contested convention .
It ’ s a risky strategy given the rather static results of the early primary states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s performance in Iowa and New Hampshire .
He won zero delegates in South Carolina , at the moment , and isn ’ t doing well in other states .
Yet it may not be enough to get Buttigieg out until after Super Tuesday .
There is enough of a so-called ‘ center lane ’ vote to push Sanders back to the fringes if the polls are to be believed .
The problem is no one , outside of Tom Steyer , is willing to leave the race .
A 57-delegate lead for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Super Tuesday will likely garner several dropouts from the center lane , but may not be enough to put Biden in the lead for those votes .
Morning Consult noted the Bloomberg supporters are the only group that sees Biden as their ‘ second choice.
’ Biden supporters typically have Sanders as their second choice , although Bloomberg is within four-percentage points .
We may see a repeat of 2016 where everyone expects Sanders ’ bubble to burst but he rides it to November .
The voter anger is palpable especially towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rage , understandably , never quelled after the 2016 shenanigans involving Hillary Clinton .
It may never die regardless of who comes out on top .

Former Vice President Joe Biden campaign is attempting to consolidate the so-called ‘center lane’ vote following his win in South Carolina.
David Plouffe on MSNBC just now: "This is a two person race right now." Says there's only two people who can accept the Democratic Party nomination right now – Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. — Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) March 1, 2020
Plouffe is not an official Biden campaign worker but knows him dating back to their work together in the Obama Administration. He’s arguing from a Democratic Party establishment vs. populist position under the guise the former is more of a return to normalcy against the latter.
It’s not hard to figure out Plouffe’s target. He’s quite concerned Mike Bloomberg, more than any other candidate, may fracture the ‘center lane’ on Super Tuesday, allowing Sanders a majority of delegates.
“Biden is going to be, I think, really harmed on Tuesday because Bloomberg is going to take votes and delegates,” Plouffe also said on MSNBC noting Sanders will likely lead the delegate count after Super Tuesday. “Not all of that would have gone to Biden, but I think it’s fair to say a lot of them would.”
Bloomberg’s role in the Democratic race is both interesting and mercurial. He did not appear on the ballot, despite showing up at last week’s South Carolina debate. An appearance most everyone thought was abysmal. Bloomberg’s hammering Super Tuesday states with campaign ad after campaign ad plus rally after rally. He’ll air a three-minute response to President Donald Trump’s coronavirus plan on Sunday night.
The concern regarding Bloomberg’s Super Tuesday strategy is understandable. His poll numbers hang around the teens despite a higher unlikability rating compared to other candidates. Plouffe is correct in guessing the numbers would likely filter to more establishment candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Biden. There’s a direct link to Biden’s poll plunge in Texas and the rise of Bloomberg. Buttigieg is also rising in the Texas polls, although not at a rate which puts him anywhere near the top or even the double digits.
One still has to wonder whether Bloomberg’s long game is a potential contested convention. It’s a risky strategy given the rather static results of the early primary states. The only real surprise was Buttigieg’s performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. He won zero delegates in South Carolina, at the moment, and isn’t doing well in other states. Yet it may not be enough to get Buttigieg out until after Super Tuesday.
There is enough of a so-called ‘center lane’ vote to push Sanders back to the fringes if the polls are to be believed. The problem is no one, outside of Tom Steyer, is willing to leave the race. A 57-delegate lead for Biden and Sanders is far from insurmountable. Super Tuesday will likely garner several dropouts from the center lane, but may not be enough to put Biden in the lead for those votes. Morning Consult noted the Bloomberg supporters are the only group that sees Biden as their ‘second choice.’ Biden supporters typically have Sanders as their second choice, although Bloomberg is within four-percentage points.
We may see a repeat of 2016 where everyone expects Sanders’ bubble to burst but he rides it to November. The voter anger is palpable especially towards the so-called establishment of the Democrat Party. The rage, understandably, never quelled after the 2016 shenanigans involving Hillary Clinton. It may never die regardless of who comes out on top.