hotair--2020-03-05--Back already? Bloomberg launches new buy-the-election effort 24 hours after leaving it

Maybe that headline ’ s just a tad bit unfair .
Michael Bloomberg tried to buy the Democratic nomination for himself first .
This time he ’ s going to try to buy the White House for someone else .
With Bloomberg as landlord , no doubt .
The Washington Post gets the scoop on Bloomberg ’ s as-yet-untitled PAC , in which he ’ ll keep his campaign staff duly employed for another few months .
Gee , which poor-organizing candidate might that benefit ?
Hmmmmmm : Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall .
The group , with a name that is still undisclosed because its trademark application is in process , would also be a vehicle for Bloomberg to spend money on advertising to attack President Trump and support the Democratic nominee , according to a person familiar with the discussions , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations .
… The new group , operating with the same potentially limitless bankroll that funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major role in shaping the race this fall .
Bloomberg , who is worth more than $ 50 billion , also has not ruled out using the group to spend money to support former vice president Joe Biden during his primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
Bloomberg dropped out of the race Wednesday .
This is about as custom-fit for Joe Biden as possible , isn ’ t it ?
Biden ’ s weaknesses are organization and fundraising .
Bloomberg ’ s got an organization on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” anyway ) and room to expand .
The former mayor just burned through somewhere between $ 500-700 million over the last four months and ended up with bupkis , but Biden ’ s got a head start and some momentum now in the primaries .
Another half-billion dollars will help alleviate the need for Biden to raise his own money to cover staff expenses .
At least as long as he keeps Bloomberg happy , of course .
This is , however , a yuuuuge gift to Bernie Sanders in another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a stooge of corporate interests , and here comes one of the corporate world ’ s most wealthy men to essentially acquire Biden & Co. Now Biden ’ s not just a stooge , he ’ s a subsidiary of corporate interests — in fact , the corporate interest ( Bloomberg ’ s investment wire service ) that helps grease the wheels of Wall Street .
If it ’ s possible to inflame passions among Sanders ’ followers even more — and make a later rapprochement even less likely — Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Making this even tastier in that sense , the Center for Public Integrity has a new report questioning the timing of Bloomberg ’ s exit from the race .
His re-entry as a PAC man will have Dave Levinthal working overtime on this question — did Bloomberg quit abruptly to avoid filing required asset disclosures to the FEC ?
Starting in December , Bloomberg sought two extensions on the 30-day deadline , with the latest due date coming in just two weeks : “ Mr .
Bloomberg … has made diligent efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote the FEC .
“ Nevertheless , due to the complexity of his holdings and the need to obtain certain information from third parties , Mr. Bloomberg needs additional time to gather and review his financial information and complete and file his report.
” The FEC again gave Bloomberg 45 more days .
The former mayor of New York City and Bloomberg LP mogul needn ’ t file his personal financial disclosure form until March 20 — after Bloomberg had already pumped more than half a billion dollars of his own money into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast ballots during Super Tuesday primaries .
Small hitch : Bloomberg is now a former presidential candidate .
As such , he is no longer under legal obligation to disclose the sources of his wealth or any creditors he owes , according to guidance from the FEC and Office of Government Ethics .
In essence , Bloomberg ran out the clock on transparency .
As Levinthal later points out , Sanders himself has has a few transparency issues , which might lessen the impact of an attack on Bloomberg over this .
Nonetheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red meat for his anti-corporate tirades and his anti-corporate following to chew on .
As for Biden , he ’ d better not count too much on this help .
Bloomberg ’ s money didn ’ t do much when it was spent to boost the guy Bloomberg esteems the most — himself — so it ’ s far from clear it will do Biden more good than harm in the end .
Besides , Bernie ’ s not the only one with a potential narrative emerging from this .
Donald Trump will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the very swamp he wanted to drain all along , and some of those anti-corporate types might just come along for the ride on that basis .

Maybe that headline’s just a tad bit unfair. Michael Bloomberg tried to buy the Democratic nomination for himself first. This time he’s going to try to buy the White House for someone else. With Bloomberg as landlord, no doubt.
The Washington Post gets the scoop on Bloomberg’s as-yet-untitled PAC, in which he’ll keep his campaign staff duly employed for another few months. Gee, which poor-organizing candidate might that benefit? Hmmmmmm:
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent expenditure campaign that will absorb hundreds of his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall. The group, with a name that is still undisclosed because its trademark application is in process, would also be a vehicle for Bloomberg to spend money on advertising to attack President Trump and support the Democratic nominee, according to a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. … The new group, operating with the same potentially limitless bankroll that funded Bloomberg’s campaign, could play a major role in shaping the race this fall. Bloomberg, who is worth more than $50 billion, also has not ruled out using the group to spend money to support former vice president Joe Biden during his primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Bloomberg dropped out of the race Wednesday.
This is about as custom-fit for Joe Biden as possible, isn’t it? Biden’s weaknesses are organization and fundraising. Bloomberg’s got an organization on the ground already (in “six swing states,” anyway) and room to expand. The former mayor just burned through somewhere between $500-700 million over the last four months and ended up with bupkis, but Biden’s got a head start and some momentum now in the primaries. Another half-billion dollars will help alleviate the need for Biden to raise his own money to cover staff expenses. At least as long as he keeps Bloomberg happy, of course.
This is, however, a yuuuuge gift to Bernie Sanders in another way. Sanders just accused Biden of being a stooge of corporate interests, and here comes one of the corporate world’s most wealthy men to essentially acquire Biden & Co. Now Biden’s not just a stooge, he’s a subsidiary of corporate interests — in fact, the corporate interest (Bloomberg’s investment wire service) that helps grease the wheels of Wall Street. If it’s possible to inflame passions among Sanders’ followers even more — and make a later rapprochement even less likely — Bloomberg’s doing his best to achieve it.
Making this even tastier in that sense, the Center for Public Integrity has a new report questioning the timing of Bloomberg’s exit from the race. His re-entry as a PAC man will have Dave Levinthal working overtime on this question — did Bloomberg quit abruptly to avoid filing required asset disclosures to the FEC? Starting in December, Bloomberg sought two extensions on the 30-day deadline, with the latest due date coming in just two weeks:
“Mr. Bloomberg … has made diligent efforts to prepare his report,” Norton wrote the FEC. “Nevertheless, due to the complexity of his holdings and the need to obtain certain information from third parties, Mr. Bloomberg needs additional time to gather and review his financial information and complete and file his report.” The FEC again gave Bloomberg 45 more days. The former mayor of New York City and Bloomberg LP mogul needn’t file his personal financial disclosure form until March 20 — after Bloomberg had already pumped more than half a billion dollars of his own money into his campaign and after millions of Democrats cast ballots during Super Tuesday primaries. Small hitch: Bloomberg is now a former presidential candidate. As such, he is no longer under legal obligation to disclose the sources of his wealth or any creditors he owes, according to guidance from the FEC and Office of Government Ethics. In essence, Bloomberg ran out the clock on transparency.
As Levinthal later points out, Sanders himself has has a few transparency issues, which might lessen the impact of an attack on Bloomberg over this. Nonetheless, it’s still there as red meat for his anti-corporate tirades and his anti-corporate following to chew on.
As for Biden, he’d better not count too much on this help. Bloomberg’s money didn’t do much when it was spent to boost the guy Bloomberg esteems the most — himself — so it’s far from clear it will do Biden more good than harm in the end. Besides, Bernie’s not the only one with a potential narrative emerging from this. Donald Trump will have a field day laying this out as the very swamp he wanted to drain all along, and some of those anti-corporate types might just come along for the ride on that basis.


hotair--2020-03-05--San Francisco's sky high commercial rents are about to go up

A San Francisco progressive housing group called Todco promoted a ballot proposition which would tie the creation of new office space in the city to construction of new housing .
The final tally isn ’ t in yet but it appears Prop E might pass .
A San Francisco ballot measure to put new limits on office development was holding a hefty lead Tuesday night .
Proposition E , which would tie allowable office construction to the amount of affordable housing built in the city , was ahead 55 % to 45 % with 100 % of precincts reporting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass , but an unknown number of mail-in ballots were still outstanding… “ The commercial sector is growing so fast because of the boom , ” John Elberling , executive director of Todco , previously said .
“ We ’ re not keeping up with the housing needs of all the new workers that are flooding into the Bay Area.
” So what happens if Prop E passes ?
According to the city ’ s chief economist , it would lead to rising office rents and a significant hit to the city ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office development in the face of strong demand , ( Prop .
E ) will drive up office rents , making office space less affordable for tenants , and pricing out those employers who are unable to afford rising rents , ” it said .
“ This will lead to a reduction in the size of the city ’ s economy , the city ’ s population and income , and employment base , relative to a baseline projection , over the next 20 years .
The impact will be especially , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” After 20 years , the economic impact would be an 8.5 % reduction in the city ’ s gross domestic product , or $ 23 billion in today ’ s dollars , it said .
Disposable personal income would be 5.9 % less than otherwise expected , and the population would be 5.8 % smaller .
Total employment would fall by 7.9 % , or 91,000 jobs in 2040 , from the projected figure .
Critics of Prop E see it as a potential disaster because it won ’ t actually do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing construction , nor will it allocate new funds for housing .
And it ’ s not as if developers don ’ t have other options nearby .
Will moving new commercial development to Oakland somehow help develop housing in San Francisco ?
The Chamber of Commerce calls it a no-win scenario : “ The effect of this ballot measure will be to shift offices out of the city , but leave the housing crisis with us .
But we will no longer have any of the revenue to address it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s public policy director .
“ The end result of Prop .
E will literally take money out of people ’ s pockets .
It ’ s really a no-win scenario.
” … “ Prop .
E definitely promises one thing but is actually going to reduce affordable housing funding , ” said Nick Josefowitz , director of policy at SPUR .
“ Prop .
E does nothing to make it easier to build affordable housing.
” The one thing everyone , including the city ’ s big developers , agrees on is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landlords who can expect to see already sky-high rents ascend even higher .
The shortage of office space created by Prop E with cause prices to rise until only the largest companies can afford to remain .
Meanwhile the city ’ s non-profits and small startups will be priced out .

A San Francisco progressive housing group called Todco promoted a ballot proposition which would tie the creation of new office space in the city to construction of new housing. The final tally isn’t in yet but it appears Prop E might pass.
A San Francisco ballot measure to put new limits on office development was holding a hefty lead Tuesday night. Proposition E, which would tie allowable office construction to the amount of affordable housing built in the city, was ahead 55% to 45% with 100% of precincts reporting. The measure needs a simple majority to pass, but an unknown number of mail-in ballots were still outstanding… “The commercial sector is growing so fast because of the boom,” John Elberling, executive director of Todco, previously said. “We’re not keeping up with the housing needs of all the new workers that are flooding into the Bay Area.”
So what happens if Prop E passes? According to the city’s chief economist, it would lead to rising office rents and a significant hit to the city’s economy:
“By further limiting office development in the face of strong demand, (Prop. E) will drive up office rents, making office space less affordable for tenants, and pricing out those employers who are unable to afford rising rents,” it said. “This will lead to a reduction in the size of the city’s economy, the city’s population and income, and employment base, relative to a baseline projection, over the next 20 years. The impact will be especially, but not exclusively, felt in office-using sectors.” After 20 years, the economic impact would be an 8.5% reduction in the city’s gross domestic product, or $23 billion in today’s dollars, it said. Disposable personal income would be 5.9% less than otherwise expected, and the population would be 5.8% smaller. Total employment would fall by 7.9%, or 91,000 jobs in 2040, from the projected figure.
Critics of Prop E see it as a potential disaster because it won’t actually do anything to remove regulations that prevent new housing construction, nor will it allocate new funds for housing.
Genius city, facing down a possible pandemic-driven recession, passes special interest initiative that city economist says will reduce the GDP by $23 billion dollars. https://t.co/IwxUcTeLpa — Kim-Mai Cutler (@kimmaicutler) March 4, 2020
And it’s not as if developers don’t have other options nearby. Will moving new commercial development to Oakland somehow help develop housing in San Francisco? The Chamber of Commerce calls it a no-win scenario:
“The effect of this ballot measure will be to shift offices out of the city, but leave the housing crisis with us. But we will no longer have any of the revenue to address it,” said Jay Cheng, the chamber’s public policy director. “The end result of Prop. E will literally take money out of people’s pockets. It’s really a no-win scenario.”… “Prop. E definitely promises one thing but is actually going to reduce affordable housing funding,” said Nick Josefowitz, director of policy at SPUR. “Prop. E does nothing to make it easier to build affordable housing.”
The one thing everyone, including the city’s big developers, agrees on is that Prop E will be great for landlords who can expect to see already sky-high rents ascend even higher. The shortage of office space created by Prop E with cause prices to rise until only the largest companies can afford to remain. Meanwhile the city’s non-profits and small startups will be priced out.


hotair--2020-03-05--Trump should stop talking about coronavirus

He should stop talking about it as much as he can , I mean .
He ’ s the president , he ’ s destined to get questions about it .
He ’ ll need to brief the public periodically , even with Mike Pence and Anthony Fauci as the day-to-day faces of the administration response .
But he can deflect most questions with vague reassurances — “ we ’ re making progress on mass testing , ” etc — and his public briefings will all be scripted .
He should stop musing on the subject .
Because when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy talk .
And happy talk is the opposite of what ’ s needed now .
Nothing he says there is strictly untrue .
It is likely that the *current* WHO death rate of 3.4 percent will be revised downward over time as testing expands from the most critically ill cases to people with mild symptoms .
And he was right when he complained this morning that he never encouraged anyone who ’ s under the weather to go to work .
He says it matter-of-factly in the clip : Some people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without even realizing that they have COVID-19 .
The problem with what he told Hannity last night isn ’ t specific misinformation , it ’ s the overall emphasis .
Watching the segment , the average person ’ s takeaway would be , “ Well , maybe this is no big deal.
” But it is a big deal .
The 61,099 flu-related deaths in the U.S. during the severe flu season of 2017-2018 amounted to 0.14 % of the estimated 44.8 million cases of influenza-like illness .
There were also an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1.8 % .
Assume a Covid-19 outbreak of similar size in the U.S. , multiply the death and hospitalization estimates by five or 10 , and you get some really scary numbers : 300,000 to 600,000 deaths , and 4 million to 8 million hospitalizations in a country that has 924,107 staffed hospital beds .
Multiply by 40 and , well , forget about it .
Also , death rates would go higher if the hospital system is overwhelmed , as happened in the Chinese province of Hubei where Covid-19 ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iran now .
That ’ s one reason that slowing the spread is important even if it turns out the disease can ’ t be stopped .
There ’ s an outbreak of potential Wuhan proportions developing in Seattle as you read this .
We had six weeks to ramp up testing nationally so that we might detect the first wisps of smoke if coronavirus began to burn somewhere inside the United States .
The CDC farted that time away , so now there ’ s an actual blaze threatening to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a moment for happy talk about how relatively few trees are likely to burn .
Because some people , listening to happy talk like that , will get complacent and decide there ’ s no need to act when they see fire in the distance .
Rod Dreher is furious : I tell you a particular reason why this makes me so angry .
My widowed mother is 76 years old , and has the kind of breathing difficulties you would expect from someone who has spent a lifetime smoking heavily .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ best these last few days to get her to take the medical warnings seriously , to stock up on medicines and supplies , and to stop going out of the house unnecessarily , based on the CDC ’ s warnings to seniors .
She ’ s trying to be a good soldier , but it ’ s all such an abstract threat to her , because the coronavirus hasn ’ t yet been officially found here in Louisiana .
She said don ’ t worry , if she gets sick , she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ibuprofen .
I ’ ve had to patiently explain that the coronavirus mortality rate for people in her age group is eight percent , and that given her age and diminished lung capacity , she would have a hell of a time fighting it ( and she certainly wouldn ’ t do it alone ; I would go up there and move in to care for her ) .
There is no guarantee that if she needed the hospital , that there would be a bed available for her if she gets sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve begged her .
It ’ s just not worth it .
Let me or a neighbor bring you anything you need , until the threat goes away .
Here ’ s the thing : she ’ s an avid Fox News watcher , and Trump supporter .
When the President of the United States , a man she believes in , appearing on a Fox program , minimizes the seriousness of the threat , at best this is going to confuse her , and at worst it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been trying to do to protect her health .
Trump ’ s core message should be encouraging people to keep their distance from others to the greatest extent possible in hot zones , starting with Seattle and L.A .
Even if a mass outbreak is inevitable because of the CDC ’ s incompetence , slowing down the spread of the illness by reducing contacts between people will prevent hospitals from being overloaded .
Chinese authoritarianism is such that they can deploy workers to build new hospitals almost literally overnight to expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , and even if we could , the number of doctors and nurses is finite .
Happy talk from Trump is especially dangerous considering how older people , the group most endangered by COVID-19 , skew Republican and may be more prone to believe him when he suggests that this will be no worse than a common flu .
Fauci described his outlook on the disease this way recently : “ It could be really , really bad .
I don ’ t think it ’ s gon na be , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the kind of mitigation .
It could be mild .
I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be that mild either.
” When the list of possible deadly epidemic outcomes includes “ really , really bad , ” that ’ s not a moment for complacency .
But the president can ’ t resist happy talk .
For instance , Fauci and others like Alex Azar have had to correct him repeatedly about the timetable for a vaccine .
He keeps misunderstanding them as saying it might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
In reality , testing will begin within months but it won ’ t be ready for public use until a year to a year and a half from now — too late to benefit him in November , which may be why he ’ s having so much difficulty with the timetable .
The irony is that happy talk is not only likely to hurt others by encouraging them to take risks that ’ ll lead to wider contagion , it ’ ll hurt him politically by destroying his credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time congratulating himself and his administration for limiting the number of cases in the United States .
If he wants to minimize the spread and minimize the electoral fallout , he should err on the side of encouraging people to believe the outbreak will be larger than expected , not smaller .
I ’ m still not convinced , though , that he sees this chiefly as a public health issue instead of a stock-market issue .
If you ’ re worried about an epidemic , you have every reason to argue against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into taking precautions .
If you ’ re worried about a downturn in the Dow , however , then you don ’ t want to spook anyone .
To the contrary , you might try happy talk to restore investors ’ complacency , er , I mean confidence .
( It ’ s not working , as a look at the markets today will show you . )
Increasingly this has the feel of an all-in bet by Trump that either his team will successfully contain the virus soon even though the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many test kits it ’ ll send out this week or that the onset of summer will tamp down COVID-19 infections the way it tamps down the flu , which is very much an open question .
If he loses that bet and we have a mass outbreak , he loses everything — lives , his credibility , public confidence in his leadership , and any hope of preventing a major market slide .
If you want to see the potential for voter anger about this , read this story about irate Washingtonians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease spreads and being told that capacity still remains extremely limited .
There are broad political lessons to be drawn from this episode , surely , but in a hyperpartisan era only the narrowest , most self-interested ones will do : Exit question re : the clip above : How did Trump learn only recently that tens of thousands of people die of the flu in the United States every year ?
He ’ s 73 years old .

He should stop talking about it as much as he can, I mean. He’s the president, he’s destined to get questions about it. He’ll need to brief the public periodically, even with Mike Pence and Anthony Fauci as the day-to-day faces of the administration response. But he can deflect most questions with vague reassurances — “we’re making progress on mass testing,” etc — and his public briefings will all be scripted.
He should stop musing on the subject.
Because when he muses, he inevitably strays towards self-interested happy talk. And happy talk is the opposite of what’s needed now.
In this clip, Trump:
1. Denies WHO’s coronavirus death rate based on “hunch”
2. Calls coronavirus “corona flu”
3. Suggests it’s fine for people w/ Covid-19 to go to work
4. Compares coronavirus to “the regular flu,” indicating he doesn’t get the difference pic.twitter.com/uC9c03zX31 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 5, 2020
Nothing he says there is strictly untrue. It is likely that the *current* WHO death rate of 3.4 percent will be revised downward over time as testing expands from the most critically ill cases to people with mild symptoms. And he was right when he complained this morning that he never encouraged anyone who’s under the weather to go to work. He says it matter-of-factly in the clip: Some people with mild symptoms might head to the office without even realizing that they have COVID-19. The problem with what he told Hannity last night isn’t specific misinformation, it’s the overall emphasis. Watching the segment, the average person’s takeaway would be, “Well, maybe this is no big deal.”
But it is a big deal.
The 61,099 flu-related deaths in the U.S. during the severe flu season of 2017-2018 amounted to 0.14% of the estimated 44.8 million cases of influenza-like illness. There were also an estimated flu-related 808,129 hospitalizations, for a rate of 1.8%. Assume a Covid-19 outbreak of similar size in the U.S., multiply the death and hospitalization estimates by five or 10, and you get some really scary numbers: 300,000 to 600,000 deaths, and 4 million to 8 million hospitalizations in a country that has 924,107 staffed hospital beds. Multiply by 40 and, well, forget about it. Also, death rates would go higher if the hospital system is overwhelmed, as happened in the Chinese province of Hubei where Covid-19’s spread began and seems to be happening in Iran now. That’s one reason that slowing the spread is important even if it turns out the disease can’t be stopped.
There’s an outbreak of potential Wuhan proportions developing in Seattle as you read this. We had six weeks to ramp up testing nationally so that we might detect the first wisps of smoke if coronavirus began to burn somewhere inside the United States. The CDC farted that time away, so now there’s an actual blaze threatening to become a runaway forest fire. This is not a moment for happy talk about how relatively few trees are likely to burn.
Because some people, listening to happy talk like that, will get complacent and decide there’s no need to act when they see fire in the distance. Rod Dreher is furious:
I tell you a particular reason why this makes me so angry. My widowed mother is 76 years old, and has the kind of breathing difficulties you would expect from someone who has spent a lifetime smoking heavily. I’ve been trying my very best these last few days to get her to take the medical warnings seriously, to stock up on medicines and supplies, and to stop going out of the house unnecessarily, based on the CDC’s warnings to seniors. She’s trying to be a good soldier, but it’s all such an abstract threat to her, because the coronavirus hasn’t yet been officially found here in Louisiana. She said don’t worry, if she gets sick, she’ll just stay in bed and take ibuprofen. I’ve had to patiently explain that the coronavirus mortality rate for people in her age group is eight percent, and that given her age and diminished lung capacity, she would have a hell of a time fighting it (and she certainly wouldn’t do it alone; I would go up there and move in to care for her). There is no guarantee that if she needed the hospital, that there would be a bed available for her if she gets sick. Don’t risk going out, I’ve begged her. It’s just not worth it. Let me or a neighbor bring you anything you need, until the threat goes away. Here’s the thing: she’s an avid Fox News watcher, and Trump supporter. When the President of the United States, a man she believes in, appearing on a Fox program, minimizes the seriousness of the threat, at best this is going to confuse her, and at worst it’s going to undo all the work I’ve been trying to do to protect her health.
Trump’s core message should be encouraging people to keep their distance from others to the greatest extent possible in hot zones, starting with Seattle and L.A. Even if a mass outbreak is inevitable because of the CDC’s incompetence, slowing down the spread of the illness by reducing contacts between people will prevent hospitals from being overloaded. Chinese authoritarianism is such that they can deploy workers to build new hospitals almost literally overnight to expand capacity; we can’t do that, and even if we could, the number of doctors and nurses is finite. Happy talk from Trump is especially dangerous considering how older people, the group most endangered by COVID-19, skew Republican and may be more prone to believe him when he suggests that this will be no worse than a common flu. Fauci described his outlook on the disease this way recently: “It could be really, really bad. I don’t think it’s gonna be, because I think we’d be able to do the kind of mitigation. It could be mild. I don’t think it’s going to be that mild either.” When the list of possible deadly epidemic outcomes includes “really, really bad,” that’s not a moment for complacency.
But the president can’t resist happy talk. For instance, Fauci and others like Alex Azar have had to correct him repeatedly about the timetable for a vaccine. He keeps misunderstanding them as saying it might be ready within months, i.e. before the election. In reality, testing will begin within months but it won’t be ready for public use until a year to a year and a half from now — too late to benefit him in November, which may be why he’s having so much difficulty with the timetable. The irony is that happy talk is not only likely to hurt others by encouraging them to take risks that’ll lead to wider contagion, it’ll hurt him politically by destroying his credibility after he’s spent so much time congratulating himself and his administration for limiting the number of cases in the United States. If he wants to minimize the spread and minimize the electoral fallout, he should err on the side of encouraging people to believe the outbreak will be larger than expected, not smaller.
I’m still not convinced, though, that he sees this chiefly as a public health issue instead of a stock-market issue. If you’re worried about an epidemic, you have every reason to argue against complacency. You want to spook people into taking precautions. If you’re worried about a downturn in the Dow, however, then you don’t want to spook anyone. To the contrary, you might try happy talk to restore investors’ complacency, er, I mean confidence. (It’s not working, as a look at the markets today will show you.) Increasingly this has the feel of an all-in bet by Trump that either his team will successfully contain the virus soon even though the CDC is already backing off estimates of how many test kits it’ll send out this week or that the onset of summer will tamp down COVID-19 infections the way it tamps down the flu, which is very much an open question. If he loses that bet and we have a mass outbreak, he loses everything — lives, his credibility, public confidence in his leadership, and any hope of preventing a major market slide.
If you want to see the potential for voter anger about this, read this story about irate Washingtonians demanding to be tested for coronavirus as the disease spreads and being told that capacity still remains extremely limited. There are broad political lessons to be drawn from this episode, surely, but in a hyperpartisan era only the narrowest, most self-interested ones will do:
It's a testament to the power of partisan psychology that a virus seemingly tailor-mutated to confirm populist priors about the perils of globalized supply chains originating in Red China is being minimized by certain right-wingers because Trump doesn't want it to be a big deal. — Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 5, 2020
Exit question re: the clip above: How did Trump learn only recently that tens of thousands of people die of the flu in the United States every year? He’s 73 years old.


hotair--2020-03-05--Warren: Of course sexism in Democratic Party presidential primaries is a problem; <span class='red'>

Warren: Of course sexism in Democratic Party presidential primaries is a problem; Update: Pelosi too?

That ’ s what Elizabeth Warren must mean , right ?
The now-exited presidential candidate failed to win any contests at all in the 2020 cycle and finished third in her own home state of Massachusetts — in Democratic Party contests , that is .
When asked earlier today whether her gender played a role in the outcome , Warren declared it a “ trap question , ” and proceeded to step into the trap anyway : Reuters expanded the concept to generalized bigotry in its report : The vague notion of “ electability , ” a frequent buzzword on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump over all other concerns , seemed to hurt Warren and non-white male candidates .
“ The general narrative was that the women might be too risky , and I think there were people who heard that enough that it started showing up in polling … and becomes a vicious cycle that was hard to break out of , ” said Christina Reynolds , vice president of communications at EMILY ’ s List , which works to elect women supporting abortion rights and had endorsed Warren .
Asked on Thursday about the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren said it was a tricky issue for female candidates to address .
“ That is the trap question for every woman .
If you say , ‘ Yeah , there was sexism in this race , ’ everyone says , ‘ Whiner !
’ ” she said , in front of her home in Cambridge , Massachusetts .
“ If you say , ‘ No , there was no sexism , ’ about a zillion women say , ‘ What planet do you live on ?
’ ” Where to begin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Or do we need to begin at all ?
Democrats are being hoist by their own petard here , thanks to their incessant declarations of fidelity to an ambiguous standard of Diversity and Inclusivity in the early part of the cycle .
They tried to mine as much political gold they could by pandering to identity politics , up to and including Warren ’ s ludricrous declaration that a random transgender adolescent she met on the campaign trail would have veto power over her choice of Secretary of Education .
More seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s performance in her own home state .
In exit polls taken on Super Tuesday , Warren only scored 24 % among women who voted ; Biden got 34 % of women , followed by 26 % for Sanders .
Are 76 % of Massachusetts Democratic women sexist for not preferring Warren ?
If so , Minnesota Democratic women are worse , since only 19 % of them voted for Warren .
And Vermont women maybe the worst of all , with only 16 % challenging Teh Paytreearckee .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face facts , Christine Rosen writes at Commentary today .
Warren didn ’ t lose because of her gender , and her gender didn ’ t lose because Warren did .
This was about candidate quality , full stop : Just look at The Atlantic ’ s attempt to frame the end of the Warren campaign : “ Who could have predicted that Elizabeth Warren would fall so far ?
” The answer is simple : Anyone who wasn ’ t fan-girling her from day one , which too much of the mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steady diet of puff pieces featuring her loyal husband and cute dog , as well as flattering profiles depicting her as the smart person ’ s choice because , although she was reform-minded , she wasn ’ t a fire-breathing socialist like Bernie Sanders .
The disappointment these supporters now feel requires rationalization ( and someone to blame ) , and the obvious but incorrect culprit ?
Sexism .
As feminist writer Jessica Valenti wrote in a woe-is-women post for Medium , “ It ’ s enough to make me feel , well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate of a lifetime—someone with the energy , vision , and follow-through to lead the country out of our nightmarish era—and that the media and voters basically outright erased and ignored her .
Pundits will all have their theories ; fears over ‘ electability ’ will likely be their # 1 explanation .
Don ’ t tell me this isn ’ t about sexism .
I ’ ve been around too long for that.
” Valenti and her ilk have an odd definition of “ erased.
” Warren ( and Klobuchar ) were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Warren logged the most speaking time during several of the major televised debates .
As for sexism , wasn ’ t the Democrats ’ last candidate for president a woman ?
The real reason Warren ’ s campaign foundered was more mundane : she failed to win supporters among non-white , non-college educated Democratic voters .
Her fan base was always made up of the same kind of people who dominate the national media : well-educated , progressive-leaning white people .
News flash : This is not the majority of America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
This is why she couldn ’ t even win over female Democratic voters in her own state .
As the New York Times noted , “ Even among her strongest demographic group—white college-educated women—Ms .
Warren had just 33 percent support , not nearly enough to offset her weakness with other groups.
” Elizabeth Warren didn ’ t have a gender problem ; she had a trust and authenticity problem .
Her multiple fabulations about her personal history , including a false claim that she was fired because she was pregnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass herself off as Native American , undermine her narrative of being a truth-telling , incorruptible champion of the people .
As well , she opportunistically embraced intersectionality politics ( such as her claim that a trans person would vet whomever she might choose as her Secretary of Education and her attempts to paint Bernie Sanders as a raging sexist ) in a way that was likely off-putting for more moderate Democratic voters .
If Warren and her supporters are correct about sexism being the reason for her loss , then women should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the Democratic Party .
Run as Republicans !
And if sexism is truly their main fight , Republicans will look forward to these same women and their supporters endorsing Nikki Haley ’ s 2024 run for the GOP nomination .
Update : At some point , they ’ ll realize they ’ re talking about voters in their own party , right ?
Right ?

That’s what Elizabeth Warren must mean, right? The now-exited presidential candidate failed to win any contests at all in the 2020 cycle and finished third in her own home state of Massachusetts — in Democratic Party contests, that is. When asked earlier today whether her gender played a role in the outcome, Warren declared it a “trap question,” and proceeded to step into the trap anyway:
Warren on sexism in the 2020 race: "That is the trap question for every woman. If you say yeah, there was sexism in this race, everyone says, 'Whiner.' And if you say no, there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, 'What planet do you live on?'" https://t.co/7eG9ZYlQsW pic.twitter.com/zMy5ohtbgd — CBS News (@CBSNews) March 5, 2020
Reuters expanded the concept to generalized bigotry in its report:
The vague notion of “electability,” a frequent buzzword on the campaign trail as Democrats prioritized defeating Trump over all other concerns, seemed to hurt Warren and non-white male candidates. “The general narrative was that the women might be too risky, and I think there were people who heard that enough that it started showing up in polling … and becomes a vicious cycle that was hard to break out of,” said Christina Reynolds, vice president of communications at EMILY’s List, which works to elect women supporting abortion rights and had endorsed Warren. Asked on Thursday about the role that gender played in the campaign, Warren said it was a tricky issue for female candidates to address. “That is the trap question for every woman. If you say, ‘Yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner!’” she said, in front of her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “If you say, ‘No, there was no sexism,’ about a zillion women say, ‘What planet do you live on?’”
Where to begin, where to begin, where to begin … Or do we need to begin at all? Democrats are being hoist by their own petard here, thanks to their incessant declarations of fidelity to an ambiguous standard of Diversity and Inclusivity in the early part of the cycle. They tried to mine as much political gold they could by pandering to identity politics, up to and including Warren’s ludricrous declaration that a random transgender adolescent she met on the campaign trail would have veto power over her choice of Secretary of Education.
More seriously, let’s start with Warren’s performance in her own home state. In exit polls taken on Super Tuesday, Warren only scored 24% among women who voted; Biden got 34% of women, followed by 26% for Sanders. Are 76% of Massachusetts Democratic women sexist for not preferring Warren? If so, Minnesota Democratic women are worse, since only 19% of them voted for Warren. And Vermont women maybe the worst of all, with only 16% challenging Teh Paytreearckee.
It’s time for Warren and her supporters to face facts, Christine Rosen writes at Commentary today. Warren didn’t lose because of her gender, and her gender didn’t lose because Warren did. This was about candidate quality, full stop:
Just look at The Atlantic’s attempt to frame the end of the Warren campaign: “Who could have predicted that Elizabeth Warren would fall so far?” The answer is simple: Anyone who wasn’t fan-girling her from day one, which too much of the mainstream media did. Voters were fed a steady diet of puff pieces featuring her loyal husband and cute dog, as well as flattering profiles depicting her as the smart person’s choice because, although she was reform-minded, she wasn’t a fire-breathing socialist like Bernie Sanders. The disappointment these supporters now feel requires rationalization (and someone to blame), and the obvious but incorrect culprit? Sexism. As feminist writer Jessica Valenti wrote in a woe-is-women post for Medium, “It’s enough to make me feel, well, despairing: that we had the candidate of a lifetime—someone with the energy, vision, and follow-through to lead the country out of our nightmarish era—and that the media and voters basically outright erased and ignored her. Pundits will all have their theories; fears over ‘electability’ will likely be their #1 explanation. Don’t tell me this isn’t about sexism. I’ve been around too long for that.” Valenti and her ilk have an odd definition of “erased.” Warren (and Klobuchar) were endorsed by the New York Times, and Warren logged the most speaking time during several of the major televised debates. As for sexism, wasn’t the Democrats’ last candidate for president a woman? The real reason Warren’s campaign foundered was more mundane: she failed to win supporters among non-white, non-college educated Democratic voters. Her fan base was always made up of the same kind of people who dominate the national media: well-educated, progressive-leaning white people. News flash: This is not the majority of America, nor even the majority of self-identified Democratic voters. This is why she couldn’t even win over female Democratic voters in her own state. As the New York Times noted, “Even among her strongest demographic group—white college-educated women—Ms. Warren had just 33 percent support, not nearly enough to offset her weakness with other groups.” Elizabeth Warren didn’t have a gender problem; she had a trust and authenticity problem. Her multiple fabulations about her personal history, including a false claim that she was fired because she was pregnant and the infamous and repeated efforts to pass herself off as Native American, undermine her narrative of being a truth-telling, incorruptible champion of the people. As well, she opportunistically embraced intersectionality politics (such as her claim that a trans person would vet whomever she might choose as her Secretary of Education and her attempts to paint Bernie Sanders as a raging sexist) in a way that was likely off-putting for more moderate Democratic voters.
If Warren and her supporters are correct about sexism being the reason for her loss, then women should learn a lesson from it: Stay out of the Democratic Party. Run as Republicans! And if sexism is truly their main fight, Republicans will look forward to these same women and their supporters endorsing Nikki Haley’s 2024 run for the GOP nomination.
Update: At some point, they’ll realize they’re talking about voters in their own party, right? Right?


hotair--2020-03-05--Supercut: The Mortal Kombat primary

Supercut: The Mortal Kombat primary

With Warren ’ s departure from the field this is basically a two man race .
I know , I know .
Gabbard hasn ’ t dropped out yet but unless both of the other candidates have serious health issues her chances are less than slim .
In any case , I ’ m a sucker for anything arcade related so this supercut of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as characters in a Mortal Kombat game worked for me .
I actually laughed out loud before the end of this .
Some have already framed this primary as a choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests there ’ s some truth to that .
Sanders is definitely a socialist , no matter how many times people claim otherwise .
As for Biden , I don ’ t think he ’ s senile but he ’ s clearly not at the peak of his powers .
The number of cringe-worthy gaffes keeps growing .
Indeed , the clip above doesn ’ t include the most recent example .
My only real quibble with this clip is that the “ Fatality !
” announcement seems to come at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall the Declaration of Independence .
In reality , Biden is riding high at the moment .
It ’ s Bernie Sanders who suddenly looks vulnerable and likely to be knocked out of the race .
But why quibble when you can sit back and enjoy the spectacle .
To switch metaphors , watching the Democratic primary is a lot like the recent string of Star Wars movies .
After months of build up , the hopes of millions are dashed by an unpleasant reality : The product is inexplicably terrible .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the desperate hope that things will improve in the next installment .
But the truth is , it ’ s been awful for a long time and it ’ s going to keep being awful .
Despite this , fans will keep pouring money and adulation at Darth Castro and Obi-Joe Kenobi so the show will go on .

With Warren’s departure from the field this is basically a two man race. I know, I know. Gabbard hasn’t dropped out yet but unless both of the other candidates have serious health issues her chances are less than slim. In any case, I’m a sucker for anything arcade related so this supercut of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as characters in a Mortal Kombat game worked for me. I actually laughed out loud before the end of this.
Some have already framed this primary as a choice between senility and socialism and this clip suggests there’s some truth to that. Sanders is definitely a socialist, no matter how many times people claim otherwise. As for Biden, I don’t think he’s senile but he’s clearly not at the peak of his powers. The number of cringe-worthy gaffes keeps growing. Indeed, the clip above doesn’t include the most recent example.
My only real quibble with this clip is that the “Fatality!” announcement seems to come at the end for Joe Biden when he fails to recall the Declaration of Independence. In reality, Biden is riding high at the moment. It’s Bernie Sanders who suddenly looks vulnerable and likely to be knocked out of the race. But why quibble when you can sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
To switch metaphors, watching the Democratic primary is a lot like the recent string of Star Wars movies. After months of build up, the hopes of millions are dashed by an unpleasant reality: The product is inexplicably terrible. That is followed by lots of pointless bickering and the desperate hope that things will improve in the next installment. But the truth is, it’s been awful for a long time and it’s going to keep being awful. Despite this, fans will keep pouring money and adulation at Darth Castro and Obi-Joe Kenobi so the show will go on.


hotair--2020-03-05--New IG report: FBI still deficient on investigating home-grown terrorists despite repeated failures

New IG report: FBI still deficient on investigating home-grown terrorists despite repeated failures -- and deaths

Plus ça change , plus c ’ est la même chose .
Last night , CBS News nat-sec reporter Catherine Herridge highlighted the results of an Inspector General audit of the FBI ’ s attempts to improve its track record on identifying and following up on home-grown violent extremists ( HVEs ) .
After deadly attacks involving these so-called “ known wolves , ” the FBI kept finding deficiencies .
And despite their efforts to fix them , they still have yet to correct these issues — and as many as 40 % of potential threats remained under-investigated as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet again : Following attacks conducted by individuals previously assessed or investigated by the FBI , such as Nidal Hasan , Omar Mateen , and Ahmad Rahami , the FBI conducted reviews to identify weaknesses and areas for improvement in the FBI ’ s process for assessing potential HVEs .
The reviews identified shortcomings and necessary improvements to the FBI ’ s assessment process , but we found that the FBI had not taken all appropriate actions to ensure that improvements and actions were implemented .
For instance , the FBI issued a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conduct specific database checks and interview identified subjects of counterterrorism assessments done within the Guardian system , which is the FBI ’ s analytical and operational database that tracks and manages threats .
However , in subsequent reviews , the FBI found that field offices had not complied with these requirements .
In 2016 , the FBI issued an internal report on the Guardian assessment process that contained recommendations and best practices but did not ensure that headquarters and field offices implemented them .
As a result , FBI field offices continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI requirements or standards .
Grreeeaaaaaat .
If you need a closer look at that graphic , here it is : Yes , the FBI had all of these on their radar screen at one point or another prior to their attacks , but had not done sufficient follow-up to ensure that they weren ’ t a risk .
That ’ s not just an off-the-cuff guess either , but the FBI ’ s own analysis of these cases .
After each of these incidents , including the Santiago attack in January 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revamp its HVE processes and resources to prevent any repeats of those gaps and failures : Following most of these attacks , the FBI conducted or requested various retrospective reviews to identify and assess its procedures and actions associated with its prior involvement with the subjects .
While the results of these reviews varied , some of the conclusions and recommendations in these reports focused on the need for the FBI to update and improve its process for assessing counterterrorism threats and suspicious activities in the FBI ’ s Guardian system .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out ?
Not well , not even after the Ft. Lauderdale attack .
In a point highlighted in a quote box on page 14 of the report , the IG found , “ Nearly 40 percent of flagged Guardian assessments remained unaddressed for 18 months , ” emphasis mine .
From the executive summary , we also learn that some of these turned out to be real threats : In 2017 , the FBI undertook an internal review of all counterterrorism assessments closed between calendar year ( CY ) 2014 and CY 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI may not have mitigated because of missed investigative actions .
The FBI identified more than [ redacted ] assessments ( or 6 percent ) that required additional investigative steps .
However , because the FBI did not effectively oversee and manage this review , over [ redacted ] closed assessments ( or nearly 40 percent ) identified as requiring additional investigative action were not addressed for 18 months , some of which have since resulted in the FBI opening preliminary or full counterterrorism investigations .
The conclusion hardly builds confidence in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 9/11 , let alone the string of attacks mentioned in this report : That would be bad enough had this been the first IG or internal audit to discover this deficiency .
However , the FBI has repeatedly reached these same conclusions , repeatedly promised to fix it , and apparently keep failing to do so .
The perhaps-too-easy conclusion to draw here would be that the FBI has been more focused on poking around political campaigns than on fixing its problems regarding actual acute threats to Americans .
Had the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crossfire Hurricane , however , this still would be embarrassing enough .

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Last night, CBS News nat-sec reporter Catherine Herridge highlighted the results of an Inspector General audit of the FBI’s attempts to improve its track record on identifying and following up on home-grown violent extremists (HVEs). After deadly attacks involving these so-called “known wolves,” the FBI kept finding deficiencies. And despite their efforts to fix them, they still have yet to correct these issues — and as many as 40% of potential threats remained under-investigated as a result until an auditor flagged the problem yet again:
BREAKING: IG report finds HVEs (Homegrown Violent Extremists) carried out 20+ attacks (since 9/11) in US, “some of which occurred after the FBI closed a counterterrorism investigation..FBI has not taken sufficient action to address weaknesses” @CBSNews https://t.co/0zNzEHTZSm — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) March 4, 2020
DEVELOPING: New IG report “…we found at least six attacks committed in the United States by individuals who the FBI had previously assessed or investigated…” including 2009 Fort Hood, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, 2016 Pulse Nightclub READ: https://t.co/0zNzEHTZSm @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/msBeTbZxEp — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) March 4, 2020
Following attacks conducted by individuals previously assessed or investigated by the FBI, such as Nidal Hasan, Omar Mateen, and Ahmad Rahami, the FBI conducted reviews to identify weaknesses and areas for improvement in the FBI’s process for assessing potential HVEs. The reviews identified shortcomings and necessary improvements to the FBI’s assessment process, but we found that the FBI had not taken all appropriate actions to ensure that improvements and actions were implemented. For instance, the FBI issued a September 2015 policy that required field offices to conduct specific database checks and interview identified subjects of counterterrorism assessments done within the Guardian system, which is the FBI’s analytical and operational database that tracks and manages threats. However, in subsequent reviews, the FBI found that field offices had not complied with these requirements. In 2016, the FBI issued an internal report on the Guardian assessment process that contained recommendations and best practices but did not ensure that headquarters and field offices implemented them. As a result, FBI field offices continued to conduct assessments that did not meet FBI requirements or standards.
Grreeeaaaaaat. If you need a closer look at that graphic, here it is:
Yes, the FBI had all of these on their radar screen at one point or another prior to their attacks, but had not done sufficient follow-up to ensure that they weren’t a risk. That’s not just an off-the-cuff guess either, but the FBI’s own analysis of these cases. After each of these incidents, including the Santiago attack in January 2017, the FBI promised to re-evaluate and revamp its HVE processes and resources to prevent any repeats of those gaps and failures:
Following most of these attacks, the FBI conducted or requested various retrospective reviews to identify and assess its procedures and actions associated with its prior involvement with the subjects. While the results of these reviews varied, some of the conclusions and recommendations in these reports focused on the need for the FBI to update and improve its process for assessing counterterrorism threats and suspicious activities in the FBI’s Guardian system.
How well did these reviews and revamps work out? Not well, not even after the Ft. Lauderdale attack. In a point highlighted in a quote box on page 14 of the report, the IG found, “Nearly 40 percent of flagged Guardian assessments remained unaddressed for 18 months,” emphasis mine. From the executive summary, we also learn that some of these turned out to be real threats:
In 2017, the FBI undertook an internal review of all counterterrorism assessments closed between calendar year (CY) 2014 and CY 2016 to identify potential terrorist threats that the FBI may not have mitigated because of missed investigative actions. The FBI identified more than [redacted] assessments (or 6 percent) that required additional investigative steps. However, because the FBI did not effectively oversee and manage this review, over [redacted] closed assessments (or nearly 40 percent) identified as requiring additional investigative action were not addressed for 18 months, some of which have since resulted in the FBI opening preliminary or full counterterrorism investigations.
The conclusion hardly builds confidence in the FBI’s performance nearly two decades after 9/11, let alone the string of attacks mentioned in this report:
In addition, some FBI field offices may not be fully aware of the investigative tools and techniques that can be used to thoroughly investigate counterterrorism assessment subjects given the inconsistent application of such techniques throughout the FBI. Further, the FBI has not developed a comprehensive strategy for addressing emerging challenges in mitigating potential cross-cutting threats from subjects with mental illnesses or those involving criminal, non-terrorist threats to life.
That would be bad enough had this been the first IG or internal audit to discover this deficiency. However, the FBI has repeatedly reached these same conclusions, repeatedly promised to fix it, and apparently keep failing to do so.
The perhaps-too-easy conclusion to draw here would be that the FBI has been more focused on poking around political campaigns than on fixing its problems regarding actual acute threats to Americans. Had the FBI not embarrassed itself so badly in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, however, this still would be embarrassing enough.


hotair--2020-03-05--Joe Klein: Dear Bernie Bros, please don't be stupid when Biden gets the nomination

The Sanders campaign is far from over but Tuesday was definitely a wake-up call that his chance to win the nomination seems to be sliding away .
That ’ s one reason there was so much anger pouring out from the far left yesterday including the hashtag # BernieorBust2020 .
Looking ahead , things don ’ t look any better for Sanders ’ revolution .
It ’ s really not hard to imagine that in two weeks even the Bernie Bros are going to realize the end is nigh .
They will of course be furious .
So today Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post begging the Bernie Bros not to take their ball and go home if things don ’ t go as planned .
It ’ s titled “ If Sanders loses the nomination , will you be as stupid as 1968 me was ?
” I am trying to remember the person I was in 1968 .
I was 22 years old and a recent college graduate .
I was angry , infuriated by the war in Vietnam and racial segregation .
It was my first chance to vote in a presidential election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very briefly — and I voted for Dick Gregory , the brilliant comedian running as a write-in candidate , instead of Hubert Humphrey , the Democrat running against Republican Richard Nixon .
It was a protest vote , obviously .
I regret it to this day… We were counseled by our elders : Vote the lesser of two evils .
But Humphrey ’ s kindness and humanity simply didn ’ t register .
We saw only this wimpy , old guy who was probably lying about his newfound opposition to the war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Nixon won : We were young ; we had a world to win , an establishment to overthrow .
We had a plenty of time .
Four years of Nixon would bring the country to its senses .
What was one election ?
… I am not trying to persuade young Sanders zealots that they should cast a vote for this year ’ s version of Humphrey .
Not yet .
In any case , they ’ re not going to listen to a geezer like me .
I understand their impatience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t understand why a 78-year-old man insists on the puerile offensiveness of calling himself a “ socialist ” when the countries he purportedly admires — the Scandinavians — are bastions of free enterprise tempered by a robust welfare state .
Perhaps Sanders needs to grow up a little , too .
My question to young voters is this : If Sanders loses the nomination to Biden , will you be as stupid as I was in 1968 ?
Will you allow the country — the federal government , the Environmental Protection Agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — another four years of President Trump ?
Are you entirely sure we can survive that ?
I can ’ t let the reference to Bernie ’ s admiration for Scandinavia slide .
This is such obvious BS .
Bernie has been saying for 40 years that he admires Cuba , the USSR , Nicaragua , etc .
Apparently he even told a Cuban political prisoner/hostage he didn ’ t see the problem with Cuba .
That was only six years ago when Bernie was [ checks notes ] 72 years old !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the evidence to the contrary while claiming to not understand why Sanders calls himself a socialist is just a mind-bending level of denial .
Seriously , Joe Klein , open your eyes just a little and things will make more sense .
Moving on to the thrust of his piece , I think he ’ s absolutely right about the most likely response of the Bernie Bros to losing another primary election to another establishment candidate .
Many of them are “ zealots ” as Klein suggests and they are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really do is present them with a version of the Flight 93 election , i.e .
America has been hijacked ( by Trump in his telling ) and unless we charge the cockpit together , democracy and justice are going to be extinguished from the earth .
I suspect we ’ ll hear a lot more of this kind of desperate pleading from establishment figures in the coming weeks .
What else can they do ?
What Klein is asking the Bernie Bros to do is grow up and fall in line but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that way .
There ’ s a reason socialist Bernie wins the under 30 crowd while Biden wins with those 60 and over .
As the old saw goes , ‘ If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty , he has no heart ; if he is not a conservative when he is forty , he has no head.
’ In fact , it ’ s easy to imagine how this is going to go over if you just pretend Klein is saying all of this directly to AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an epic Twitter-threat about why her position of free everything is morally necessary .
She ’ d probably also accuse Klein of mansplaining .
So good luck trying to mature the Bernie Bros into sensible Biden voters over the next few months .
The Democratic Party definitely has some tough weeks ahead of it .

The Sanders campaign is far from over but Tuesday was definitely a wake-up call that his chance to win the nomination seems to be sliding away. That’s one reason there was so much anger pouring out from the far left yesterday including the hashtag #BernieorBust2020. Looking ahead, things don’t look any better for Sanders’ revolution. It’s really not hard to imagine that in two weeks even the Bernie Bros are going to realize the end is nigh. They will of course be furious.
So today Joe Klein has a piece in the Washington Post begging the Bernie Bros not to take their ball and go home if things don’t go as planned. It’s titled “If Sanders loses the nomination, will you be as stupid as 1968 me was?”
I am trying to remember the person I was in 1968. I was 22 years old and a recent college graduate. I was angry, infuriated by the war in Vietnam and racial segregation. It was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. I was living in New Jersey — very briefly — and I voted for Dick Gregory, the brilliant comedian running as a write-in candidate, instead of Hubert Humphrey, the Democrat running against Republican Richard Nixon. It was a protest vote, obviously. I regret it to this day… We were counseled by our elders: Vote the lesser of two evils. But Humphrey’s kindness and humanity simply didn’t register. We saw only this wimpy, old guy who was probably lying about his newfound opposition to the war. And it didn’t really matter if Nixon won: We were young; we had a world to win, an establishment to overthrow. We had a plenty of time. Four years of Nixon would bring the country to its senses. What was one election?… I am not trying to persuade young Sanders zealots that they should cast a vote for this year’s version of Humphrey. Not yet. In any case, they’re not going to listen to a geezer like me. I understand their impatience and anger, even if I don’t understand why a 78-year-old man insists on the puerile offensiveness of calling himself a “socialist” when the countries he purportedly admires — the Scandinavians — are bastions of free enterprise tempered by a robust welfare state. Perhaps Sanders needs to grow up a little, too. My question to young voters is this: If Sanders loses the nomination to Biden, will you be as stupid as I was in 1968? Will you allow the country — the federal government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps — another four years of President Trump? Are you entirely sure we can survive that?
I can’t let the reference to Bernie’s admiration for Scandinavia slide. This is such obvious BS. Bernie has been saying for 40 years that he admires Cuba, the USSR, Nicaragua, etc. Apparently he even told a Cuban political prisoner/hostage he didn’t see the problem with Cuba. That was only six years ago when Bernie was [checks notes] 72 years old! The fact that Klein is ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary while claiming to not understand why Sanders calls himself a socialist is just a mind-bending level of denial. Seriously, Joe Klein, open your eyes just a little and things will make more sense.
Moving on to the thrust of his piece, I think he’s absolutely right about the most likely response of the Bernie Bros to losing another primary election to another establishment candidate. Many of them are “zealots” as Klein suggests and they are going to lose their minds.
All Klein can really do is present them with a version of the Flight 93 election, i.e. America has been hijacked (by Trump in his telling) and unless we charge the cockpit together, democracy and justice are going to be extinguished from the earth. I suspect we’ll hear a lot more of this kind of desperate pleading from establishment figures in the coming weeks. What else can they do?
What Klein is asking the Bernie Bros to do is grow up and fall in line but I don’t think it works that way. There’s a reason socialist Bernie wins the under 30 crowd while Biden wins with those 60 and over. As the old saw goes, ‘If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’
In fact, it’s easy to imagine how this is going to go over if you just pretend Klein is saying all of this directly to AOC. How would she respond? Probably with an epic Twitter-threat about why her position of free everything is morally necessary. She’d probably also accuse Klein of mansplaining.
So good luck trying to mature the Bernie Bros into sensible Biden voters over the next few months. The Democratic Party definitely has some tough weeks ahead of it.


hotair--2020-03-05--McConnell slams Schumer in floor speech: Don't pretend you didn't threaten two justices yesterday

I tip my hat to both Hot Air readers and to Cocaine Mitch , all of whom grasped the political opportunity Chuck Schumer presented better than I did .
“ There is nothing to call this except a threat , ” McConnell intoned from the Senate floor earlier this morning .
“ And there is absolutely no question to whom it was directed.
” McConnell used Schumer ’ s vituperative — and ultimately ignorant — rant yesterday to tie it together with Democrats ’ long war against judicial nominees , Supreme Court decisions , and the independence of the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was perhaps one of McConnell ’ s most stirring performances , and it had one somewhat surprising result — Schumer backed down , at least a little : ‘ Contrary to what the Democratic Leader has since tried to claim , he very clearly was not addressing Republican lawmakers or anybody else .
He literally directed the statement to the Justices , by name .
And he said , quote , “ if you go forward with these awful decisions , ” which could only apply to the Court itself .
‘ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court .
Period .
There ’ s no other way to interpret that .
Even worse , the threat was not clearly political or institutional .
As I ’ ll discuss in a moment , those kinds of threats are sadly nothing new from Senate Democrats .
‘ This was much broader .
The Democratic Leader traveled to the workplace of two judges , and in front of a crowd of activists , he told those judges “ you will pay the price ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit you.
” ‘ If any American had these words shouted at them from a sidewalk outside their office , they would hear those threats as personal .
And most likely they would hear them as threatening or inciting violence .
That ’ s how any American would interpret those words if they were directed at us .
And that is certainly how the press and leading Democrats would have characterized them if President Trump or any senior Republican had said anything remotely similar .
We have seen much more hay made out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleague thinks this is absurd .
Perhaps he would like the most generous possible interpretation : that he got carried away and did not mean what he said .
But if he can not even admit to saying what he said , we certainly can not know what he meant.
’ This part in particular hit the mark .
McConnell made it clear that all of the hysterics and agitation employed by Democrats were little more than a thuggish attempt at extorting favorable decisions from the Supreme Court , using a phrase that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this attack was not some isolated incident .
The left-wing campaign against the federal judiciary did not begin yesterday .
My colleagues will recall that during the impeachment trial , the senior Senator for Massachusetts and outside pressure groups tried to attack the Chief Justice for staying neutral instead of delivering the outcomes they wanted .
Those same groups came to Senator Schumer ’ s defense yesterday with gratuitous attacks against the Chief Justice for condemning the threats against his colleagues .
And last summer , a number of Senate Democrats sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It threatened to inflict institutional change on the Court if it did not rule the way Democrats wanted .
Here ’ s what they wrote : “ The Supreme Court is not well… Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘ restructured ’ … ” A political threat , plain as day .
As you read the document , you half-expected to end by saying : That ’ s some nice judicial independence you ’ ve got there .
It would be a shame if something happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was effective enough that even Schumer himself seems chastened … slightly .
In a non-apology apology , Schumer admitted that “ I should not have used the words I used yesterday , ” but still insisted that he meant Republicans would suffer political consequences for pro-life legislation and court decisions .
Here ’ s Chuck using the Gumpian variety of non-apology — it ’ s just that Kavanaugh and the G*****n pro-lifers : “ Now , I should not have used the words I used yesterday .
They didn ’ t come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer said Thursday morning .
“ My point was that there would be political consequences , political consequences for President ( Donald ) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court , with the newly confirmed justices , stripped away a woman ’ s right to choose.
” Schumer did not appear to directly apologize , and instead accused Republicans of “ gross distortion ” and “ manufacturing outrage.
” “ Of course I didn ’ t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imply otherwise .
I ’ m from Brooklyn .
We speak in strong language .
I shouldn ’ t have used the words I did , but in no way was I making a threat .
I never , never would do such a thing .
And Leader McConnell knows that .
And Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that , too.
” I ’ ve come around to the idea that there ’ s legitimate outrage over these remarks as well as some manufactured outrage .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument as to how Democrats have manufactured it better than McConnell does in this fifteen-minute floor speech .
It ’ s a masterpiece of an argument , with the only missing element being the abject stupidity of Schumer howling at the Supreme Court for hearing an appeal brought by abortion providers to reverse the reinstatement of abortion restrictions in Louisiana .
Eh , we ’ ll save that one for Schumer ’ s re-election campaign .

I tip my hat to both Hot Air readers and to Cocaine Mitch, all of whom grasped the political opportunity Chuck Schumer presented better than I did. “There is nothing to call this except a threat,” McConnell intoned from the Senate floor earlier this morning. “And there is absolutely no question to whom it was directed.” McConnell used Schumer’s vituperative — and ultimately ignorant — rant yesterday to tie it together with Democrats’ long war against judicial nominees, Supreme Court decisions, and the independence of the federal bench.
In its way, it was perhaps one of McConnell’s most stirring performances, and it had one somewhat surprising result — Schumer backed down, at least a little:
‘Contrary to what the Democratic Leader has since tried to claim, he very clearly was not addressing Republican lawmakers or anybody else. He literally directed the statement to the Justices, by name. And he said, quote, “if you go forward with these awful decisions,” which could only apply to the Court itself. ‘The Minority Leader of the United States Senate threatened two Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Period. There’s no other way to interpret that. Even worse, the threat was not clearly political or institutional. As I’ll discuss in a moment, those kinds of threats are sadly nothing new from Senate Democrats. ‘This was much broader. The Democratic Leader traveled to the workplace of two judges, and in front of a crowd of activists, he told those judges “you will pay the price” and “you won’t know what hit you.” ‘If any American had these words shouted at them from a sidewalk outside their office, they would hear those threats as personal. And most likely they would hear them as threatening or inciting violence. That’s how any American would interpret those words if they were directed at us. And that is certainly how the press and leading Democrats would have characterized them if President Trump or any senior Republican had said anything remotely similar. We have seen much more hay made out of much less. ‘Perhaps our colleague thinks this is absurd. Perhaps he would like the most generous possible interpretation: that he got carried away and did not mean what he said. But if he cannot even admit to saying what he said, we certainly cannot know what he meant.’
This part in particular hit the mark. McConnell made it clear that all of the hysterics and agitation employed by Democrats were little more than a thuggish attempt at extorting favorable decisions from the Supreme Court, using a phrase that no one could mistake:
And sadly, this attack was not some isolated incident. The left-wing campaign against the federal judiciary did not begin yesterday. My colleagues will recall that during the impeachment trial, the senior Senator for Massachusetts and outside pressure groups tried to attack the Chief Justice for staying neutral instead of delivering the outcomes they wanted. Those same groups came to Senator Schumer’s defense yesterday with gratuitous attacks against the Chief Justice for condemning the threats against his colleagues. And last summer, a number of Senate Democrats sent an extraordinary brief to the Supreme Court. It threatened to inflict institutional change on the Court if it did not rule the way Democrats wanted. Here’s what they wrote: “The Supreme Court is not well… Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured’…” A political threat, plain as day. As you read the document, you half-expected to end by saying: That’s some nice judicial independence you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it!
McConnell’s address was effective enough that even Schumer himself seems chastened … slightly. In a non-apology apology, Schumer admitted that “I should not have used the words I used yesterday,” but still insisted that he meant Republicans would suffer political consequences for pro-life legislation and court decisions. Here’s Chuck using the Gumpian variety of non-apology — it’s just that Kavanaugh and the G*****n pro-lifers:
“Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn’t come out the way I intended to,” Schumer said Thursday morning. “My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose.” Schumer did not appear to directly apologize, and instead accused Republicans of “gross distortion” and “manufacturing outrage.” “Of course I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise. I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. And Leader McConnell knows that. And Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know that, too.”
I’ve come around to the idea that there’s legitimate outrage over these remarks as well as some manufactured outrage. However, no one has put together a coherent argument as to how Democrats have manufactured it better than McConnell does in this fifteen-minute floor speech. It’s a masterpiece of an argument, with the only missing element being the abject stupidity of Schumer howling at the Supreme Court for hearing an appeal brought by abortion providers to reverse the reinstatement of abortion restrictions in Louisiana.
Eh, we’ll save that one for Schumer’s re-election campaign.


Warren quits

My condolences to her base of professional journalists and professional feminists and , uh … anyway , journalists and feminists .
This is the darkest day for upper-class white intellectuals since “ Mad Men ” went off the air .
Can ’ t finish third in your home state and expect to soldier on for long , no matter what cockamamie theory you might have about becoming a compromise choice at a contested convention .
Especially since , given the state of Joementum right now , a contested convention seems less likely by the day .
Senator Elizabeth Warren of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential race on Thursday and will inform her staff of her plans later this morning , according to a person close to her , ending a run defined by an avalanche of policy plans that aimed to pull the Democratic Party to the left and appealed to enough voters to make her briefly a front-runner last fall , but that proved unable to translate excitement from elite progressives into backing from the party ’ s more working-class and diverse base… Ms. Warren ’ s political demise was a death by a thousand cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steady decline .
Last October , according to most national polls , Ms. Warren was the national pacesetter in the Democratic field .
By December , she had fallen to the edge of the top tier , wounded by a presidential debate in November where her opponents relentlessly attacked her… Though her allies stress structural barriers , Ms. Warren ’ s shortcomings as a candidate had a great deal to do with her operation .
She didn ’ t win any actual primaries ( or even finish as high as second anywhere ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away , so congrats on that .
And so the Democratic primary arrives at its bizarre conclusion — two very old , very white guys , neither one of whom is particularly woke .
The Atlantic has a worthwhile piece this morning quoting old hands like James Carville on their theories of where Warren went wrong .
Dave Wasserman ’ s theory grabbed me , just because I remember the poll he mentions here vividly : I wrote about that poll on the day it appeared , back in early November .
Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climbing in primary polls , even very briefly unseating Joe Biden as the national leader in the RCP average .
But the Times poll showed her underperforming Biden head-to-head with Trump in six battleground states .
Other head-to-head polling has confirmed that Joe and even Bernie are stronger against Trump than Warren is : Biden leads by an average of 5.5 points nationally , Sanders by an average of 4.7 , and Warren by an average of … 2.0 .
One way to read Biden ’ s monster performance on Super Tuesday is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they really do view him as the most electable candidate in the race .
His electability was in grave doubt after Iowa , New Hampshire , and Nevada , but the blowout in South Carolina seemed to send a wave of relief among Dem voters nationally that he really did have what it takes to win in November .
Warren may have suffered for the opposite reason , because even her own fans had been given reason to doubt that she ’ d beat Trump .
Once the perception sank in , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laugh : But of course it ’ s not as simple as electability .
Her candidacy was premised on a high-risk wager , that Bernie either wouldn ’ t run this year or that she could win over progressives from him as a younger , supposedly more electable leftist who had the added bonus of potentially becoming the first woman presidency .
That ’ s why she stuck to her guns on programs like Medicare for All and massive college loan forgiveness , even knowing how much they would frighten moderate voters : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left was lining up with Bernie and wouldn ’ t return to her .
She lost her wager .
And with the middle crowded with Biden , Buttigieg , Klobuchar , and eventually Bloomberg , there was no way for her to reposition .
All she could do was advertise herself as the center-left candidate and hope that liberals would settle on her as an acceptable compromise .
Didn ’ t happen .
Lefties and centrists each had their own champion .
She won ’ t even get a VP slot out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s solid vice presidential material in a vacuum , someone who can talk policy but is also a skilled attack dog , as Mike Bloomberg discovered .
But Democrats need some racial diversity on the ticket .
And 1/1,024th Native American just ain ’ t gon na cut it .
She did certainly cost Bernie Massachusetts , but that ’ s her home state .
If she had a right to run anywhere , it was there .
She may have cost him Minnesota but it ’ s hard at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes will go now that she ’ s out : And don ’ t forget that Bloomberg was in the mix in Minnesota and Texas , where he actually finished ahead of Warren .
My guess is that Bloomy took more votes from Joe than Warren did from Sanders .
No word yet on an endorsement , but based on no evidence whatsoever I choose to believe that she ’ s already pledged her endorsement privately to Sanders and is about to tell him she ’ s withdrawing it in order to switch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make her … an Indian giver .
No , seriously , the probability of her shocking the world by supporting Joe over Bernie is somewhere on the order of .000001 percent .
But this WaPo detail is so irresistible that it simply must be blogged .
Top surrogates and allies of Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are discussing ways for their two camps to unite and push a common liberal agenda , with the expectation that Warren is likely to leave the presidential campaign soon , according to two people familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camp of former vice president Joe Biden also had talks about a potential endorsement if she drops out , according to two people familiar with the conversations… Winning the backing of Warren , who began the race as a leader of the party ’ s liberal wing but later positioned herself as a uniter , would be a coup for either Sanders or Biden .
For Sanders , it could help unify the liberal faction and signal that he is very much still in the race ; for Biden , it would extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have rallied around him .
For any other politician , endorsing Biden would be an easy call at this point .
He ’ s highly likely to finish ahead in delegates before the convention at this point , so why not make nice with him ?
But the only base Warren has is the left , and they ’ d hate her with the heat of a thousand suns if she denied Bernie the one major endorsement he ’ s been counting on since the race began .
Biden and Warren have always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not like there ’ s personal affection there that might tip the scale .
She ’ ll endorse Sanders .
Probably soon , or else progressives will hold it against her for delaying .
Especially after Buttigieg and Klobuchar moved so quickly to help Joe .
Update : Needless to say , the whining from journalists and feminists will be insufferable .
Update : A fair point here — but with a caveat .
Gutting the billionaire will certainly be Warren ’ s proudest moment of the campaign .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t ?
If Bloomberg had had a better debate , he might have performed better on Tuesday night , taking more votes from Biden .
That could have made the difference in Texas and might have mattered considerably to the final delegate hauls out of California .
Even Warren ’ s greatest populist triumph as a candidate may have unintentionally weakened Bernie ’ s chances at the nomination .

My condolences to her base of professional journalists and professional feminists and, uh … anyway, journalists and feminists.
This is the darkest day for upper-class white intellectuals since “Mad Men” went off the air.
Can’t finish third in your home state and expect to soldier on for long, no matter what cockamamie theory you might have about becoming a compromise choice at a contested convention. Especially since, given the state of Joementum right now, a contested convention seems less likely by the day.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts plans to drop out of the presidential race on Thursday and will inform her staff of her plans later this morning, according to a person close to her, ending a run defined by an avalanche of policy plans that aimed to pull the Democratic Party to the left and appealed to enough voters to make her briefly a front-runner last fall, but that proved unable to translate excitement from elite progressives into backing from the party’s more working-class and diverse base… Ms. Warren’s political demise was a death by a thousand cuts, not a dramatic implosion but a steady decline. Last October, according to most national polls, Ms. Warren was the national pacesetter in the Democratic field. By December, she had fallen to the edge of the top tier, wounded by a presidential debate in November where her opponents relentlessly attacked her… Though her allies stress structural barriers, Ms. Warren’s shortcomings as a candidate had a great deal to do with her operation.
She didn’t win any actual primaries (or even finish as high as second anywhere) but she won the Twitter primary going away, so congrats on that. And so the Democratic primary arrives at its bizarre conclusion — two very old, very white guys, neither one of whom is particularly woke.
The Atlantic has a worthwhile piece this morning quoting old hands like James Carville on their theories of where Warren went wrong. Dave Wasserman’s theory grabbed me, just because I remember the poll he mentions here vividly:
4. Blame The New York Times/Siena College poll that showed President Donald Trump beating Warren in head-to-head matchups in several key swing states. It’s impossible to draw a direct line of causation, but here are a few things we know: Democrats are obsessed with electability. No. 2, Warren’s support is very concentrated among liberal whites with college degrees. No. 3, we know that happens to be a large New York Times–reading demographic. When you put those things together, it makes sense that Democrats and Warren supporters could read that polling and have second thoughts about supporting her.
I wrote about that poll on the day it appeared, back in early November. Warren had spent the month of October rapidly climbing in primary polls, even very briefly unseating Joe Biden as the national leader in the RCP average. But the Times poll showed her underperforming Biden head-to-head with Trump in six battleground states. Other head-to-head polling has confirmed that Joe and even Bernie are stronger against Trump than Warren is: Biden leads by an average of 5.5 points nationally, Sanders by an average of 4.7, and Warren by an average of … 2.0.
One way to read Biden’s monster performance on Super Tuesday is as confirmation by the Democratic electorate that they really do view him as the most electable candidate in the race. His electability was in grave doubt after Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, but the blowout in South Carolina seemed to send a wave of relief among Dem voters nationally that he really did have what it takes to win in November. Warren may have suffered for the opposite reason, because even her own fans had been given reason to doubt that she’d beat Trump. Once the perception sank in, she was done for. This made me laugh:
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/1235595474217955328
But of course it’s not as simple as electability. Her candidacy was premised on a high-risk wager, that Bernie either wouldn’t run this year or that she could win over progressives from him as a younger, supposedly more electable leftist who had the added bonus of potentially becoming the first woman presidency. That’s why she stuck to her guns on programs like Medicare for All and massive college loan forgiveness, even knowing how much they would frighten moderate voters: Not until December was it clear that the left was lining up with Bernie and wouldn’t return to her. She lost her wager. And with the middle crowded with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and eventually Bloomberg, there was no way for her to reposition. All she could do was advertise herself as the center-left candidate and hope that liberals would settle on her as an acceptable compromise. Didn’t happen. Lefties and centrists each had their own champion.
She won’t even get a VP slot out of this, in all likelihood. She’s solid vice presidential material in a vacuum, someone who can talk policy but is also a skilled attack dog, as Mike Bloomberg discovered. But Democrats need some racial diversity on the ticket. And 1/1,024th Native American just ain’t gonna cut it.
The obligatory Trump dunk:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235598653114511360
She did certainly cost Bernie Massachusetts, but that’s her home state. If she had a right to run anywhere, it was there. She may have cost him Minnesota but it’s hard at this point to assess where Warren’s votes will go now that she’s out:
Why do @BernieSanders supporters assume @ewarren voters would come to him if she gets out? To take one example, in VA Warren’s best demo was white women with college degrees. She won 18%. But Biden won 51% of these women and Bernie just 15%. — Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) March 5, 2020
And don’t forget that Bloomberg was in the mix in Minnesota and Texas, where he actually finished ahead of Warren. My guess is that Bloomy took more votes from Joe than Warren did from Sanders.
No word yet on an endorsement, but based on no evidence whatsoever I choose to believe that she’s already pledged her endorsement privately to Sanders and is about to tell him she’s withdrawing it in order to switch to Biden.
Just because that would make her … an Indian giver.
No, seriously, the probability of her shocking the world by supporting Joe over Bernie is somewhere on the order of .000001 percent. But this WaPo detail is so irresistible that it simply must be blogged.
Top surrogates and allies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are discussing ways for their two camps to unite and push a common liberal agenda, with the expectation that Warren is likely to leave the presidential campaign soon, according to two people familiar with the talks… Warren associates and the camp of former vice president Joe Biden also had talks about a potential endorsement if she drops out, according to two people familiar with the conversations… Winning the backing of Warren, who began the race as a leader of the party’s liberal wing but later positioned herself as a uniter, would be a coup for either Sanders or Biden. For Sanders, it could help unify the liberal faction and signal that he is very much still in the race; for Biden, it would extend the recent rush of party leaders who have rallied around him.
For any other politician, endorsing Biden would be an easy call at this point. He’s highly likely to finish ahead in delegates before the convention at this point, so why not make nice with him? But the only base Warren has is the left, and they’d hate her with the heat of a thousand suns if she denied Bernie the one major endorsement he’s been counting on since the race began. Biden and Warren have always had a frosty relationship too, so it’s not like there’s personal affection there that might tip the scale. She’ll endorse Sanders. Probably soon, or else progressives will hold it against her for delaying. Especially after Buttigieg and Klobuchar moved so quickly to help Joe.
Update: Needless to say, the whining from journalists and feminists will be insufferable.
Valenti writes: "we had the candidate of a lifetime — someone with the energy, vision, and follow-through to lead the country out of our nightmarish era — and that the media and voters basically outright erased and ignored her." Erased and ignored, huh? pic.twitter.com/SQXyKWrFpk — Noam Blum (@neontaster) March 5, 2020
Update: A fair point here — but with a caveat.
Have to imagine "She Stopped Bloomberg" is a 2020 epitaph Warren is happy to have stick for the rest of her life https://t.co/0CUKH0cdc7 — Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) March 5, 2020
Gutting the billionaire will certainly be Warren’s proudest moment of the campaign. But lefties will wonder: What if she hadn’t? If Bloomberg had had a better debate, he might have performed better on Tuesday night, taking more votes from Biden. That could have made the difference in Texas and might have mattered considerably to the final delegate hauls out of California. Even Warren’s greatest populist triumph as a candidate may have unintentionally weakened Bernie’s chances at the nomination.