hotair--2020-02-20--Not shocking: New York and New Jersey losing the most people

This is a trend that ’ s been building for quite a few years and it shows no signs of slowing down any time soon .
A new study reveals that the two states losing the most residents in 2017 and 2018 were once again New York and New Jersey .
And who were the big winners in population gains ?
You might think it would be Texas and Florida , but you ’ d be wrong .
Both of them did see impressive increases , but the biggest winners in the population wars were Arizona , Idaho and Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new study finds that New York and New Jersey are losing more residents than any other states .
The career website Zippia looked at the population data from the Census ’ American Community Survey to determine the states with the largest population decrease from 2017 to 2018 , which is the most recent data available .
New York topped the list , losing 307,190 residents , and New Jersey came in second with 97,124 residents moving out .
Connecticut also made it into the top 10 , losing 15,519 residents .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ( adding in Connecticut to the top ten list ) all have quite a bit in common beyond being neighbors in the northeast .
They are some of the most heavily taxed states in the nation .
They also have each passed some of the most oppressive gun control laws in the country .
All three have adopted some level of “ sanctuary ” policies designed to shield illegal aliens from detection and deportation .
And they ’ ve all begun adopting “ justice reform ” measures intended to go easy on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting in ( don ’ t faint from shock ) more crime .
Losing population puts states at risk of diluting their congressional representation .
According to the latest report from the Census Bureau , New Jersey and Connecticut will avoid that fate for one more ten-year cycle , but New York is among the ten states projected to lose a seat in Congress .
The others are Alabama , California , Illinois , Michigan , Minnesota , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island and West Virginia .
The only real outliers there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio could be counted as well .
The rest of them are all tax-happy , liberal paradises to one degree or another .
West Virginia lost population for different reasons , largely to do with the collapse of the coal industry over the past decade .
They ’ ve only barely started to recover from that in the past couple of years .
Alabama is a different story entirely .
A 2019 report from Alabama.com shows that most of the state ’ s population decline can be attributed to two factors .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas that increasingly have insufficient services such as hospitals and grocery stores .
The second , perhaps more alarming factor is that nearly fifty of Alabama ’ s 67 counties recorded birth rates significantly below the number of people dying each year .
So who are the winners in terms of congressional representation ?
Texas is projected to gain three seats and Florida should pick up two .
Arizona , Colorado , Montana , North Carolina and Oregon should all pick up one seat .
The next realignment will leave New York with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the first time they ’ ve has lost seats in Congress .
They lost two after the 2010 census .
Keep in mind that in the 1940s , the Empire State had 45 congressional districts .
They ’ ve been declining ever since .
You have to wonder if the voters will ever take the hint and stop electing tax and spend nanny state advocates year after year .

This is a trend that’s been building for quite a few years and it shows no signs of slowing down any time soon. A new study reveals that the two states losing the most residents in 2017 and 2018 were once again New York and New Jersey. And who were the big winners in population gains? You might think it would be Texas and Florida, but you’d be wrong. Both of them did see impressive increases, but the biggest winners in the population wars were Arizona, Idaho and Utah. (CBS New York)
A new study finds that New York and New Jersey are losing more residents than any other states. The career website Zippia looked at the population data from the Census’ American Community Survey to determine the states with the largest population decrease from 2017 to 2018, which is the most recent data available. New York topped the list, losing 307,190 residents, and New Jersey came in second with 97,124 residents moving out. Connecticut also made it into the top 10, losing 15,519 residents.
The original study is available here.
It is absolutely not a coincidence that those three states (adding in Connecticut to the top ten list) all have quite a bit in common beyond being neighbors in the northeast. They are some of the most heavily taxed states in the nation. They also have each passed some of the most oppressive gun control laws in the country. All three have adopted some level of “sanctuary” policies designed to shield illegal aliens from detection and deportation. And they’ve all begun adopting “justice reform” measures intended to go easy on criminals and lock fewer people up, resulting in (don’t faint from shock) more crime.
Losing population puts states at risk of diluting their congressional representation. According to the latest report from the Census Bureau, New Jersey and Connecticut will avoid that fate for one more ten-year cycle, but New York is among the ten states projected to lose a seat in Congress. The others are Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. The only real outliers there are West Virginia and Alabama. Maybe Ohio could be counted as well. The rest of them are all tax-happy, liberal paradises to one degree or another.
West Virginia lost population for different reasons, largely to do with the collapse of the coal industry over the past decade. They’ve only barely started to recover from that in the past couple of years. Alabama is a different story entirely. A 2019 report from Alabama.com shows that most of the state’s population decline can be attributed to two factors. One is the trend of people fleeing rural areas that increasingly have insufficient services such as hospitals and grocery stores. The second, perhaps more alarming factor is that nearly fifty of Alabama’s 67 counties recorded birth rates significantly below the number of people dying each year.
So who are the winners in terms of congressional representation? Texas is projected to gain three seats and Florida should pick up two. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon should all pick up one seat.
The next realignment will leave New York with 27 seats. But this is far from the first time they’ve has lost seats in Congress. They lost two after the 2010 census. Keep in mind that in the 1940s, the Empire State had 45 congressional districts. They’ve been declining ever since. You have to wonder if the voters will ever take the hint and stop electing tax and spend nanny state advocates year after year.


hotair--2020-02-20--"Tone-deaf disaster": Bloomy boomlet busted?

Elizabeth Warren gave Michael Bloomberg quite a welcome to the Democratic primaries — and it didn ’ t get any better for the multibillionaire after that .
Warren ripped Bloomberg for calling women “ fat broads and horse-faced lesbians , ” and that was just the appetizer for the Pile-On Mike Night that followed in the Nevada debate .
Oddly , no one seemed interested in pulling out and endorsing Bloomberg last night , especially not Warren : Warren was just warming up , however .
Not long after , Bloomberg tried to defend himself on # MeToo issues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren then demanded to know when Bloomberg would renounce his NDAs in settlements with female employees , and that … did not go well at all as everyone jumped all over Bloomberg ’ s response : WARREN : Yes , I have .
And I hope you heard what his defense was .
“ I ’ ve been nice to some women.
” That just doesn ’ t cut it .
The mayor has to stand on his record .
And what we need to know is exactly what ’ s lurking out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of women , dozens , who knows , to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace .
So , Mr. Mayor , are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements , so we can hear their side of the story ?
BLOOMBERG : We have a very few nondisclosure agreements .
WARREN : How many is that ?
WARREN : How many is that ?
BLOOMBERG : None of them accuse me of doing anything , other than maybe they didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And let me just — and let me — there ’ s agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet and that ’ s up to them .
They signed those agreements , and we ’ ll live with it .
WARREN : So , wait , when you say it is up to — I just want to be clear .
Some is how many ?
And — and when you — and when you say they signed them and they wanted them , if they wish now to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story about what it is they allege , that ’ s now OK with you ?
You ’ re releasing them on television tonight ?
Is that right ?
WARREN : Is that right , tonight ?
BLOOMBERG : Senator , the company and somebody else , in this case — a man or a woman or it could be more than that , they decided when they made an agreement they wanted to keep it quiet for everybody ’ s interests .
BLOOMBERG : They signed the agreements and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with .
( CROSSTALK ) So Bloomberg wants people to believe that the NDAs exist to protect the women ?
Riiiiiiight .
Joe Biden later pulled that argument apart like warm bread , and the audience made clear they weren ’ t buying it either : BIDEN : You think the women , in fact , were ready to say I don ’ t want anybody to know about what you did to me ?
That ’ s not how it works .
The way it works is they say , look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me and the mayor comes along and his attorneys said , I will give you this amount of money if you promise you will never say anything .
That ’ s how it works .
BLOOMBERG : I ’ ve said we ’ re not going to get — to end these agreements because they were made consensually and they have every right to expect that they will stay private .
( AUDIENCE BOOS ) BIDEN : If they want to release it , they should be able to release themselves .
Say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any better for Bloomberg on policy , either .
Biden ripped Bloomberg over his stop-and-frisk policy , which Bloomberg had just characterized as a leftover policy from the Rudy Giuliani era .
Biden reminded the audience that Bloomberg embraced it for years in defiance of calls to curtail or end it , and he only stopped when the Obama administration intervened : BIDEN : Yes , let ’ s get something straight .
The reason that stop and frisk changed is because Barack Obama sent moderators to see what was going on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this practice has to stop , the mayor thought it was a terrible idea we send them there , a terrible idea .
Let ’ s get the facts straight .
Let ’ s get the order straight .
And it ’ s not whether he apologized or not .
It ’ s the policy .
The policy was abhorrent .
And it was a fact of violation of every right people have .
And we are the one , my — our administration sent — sent in people to moderate .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued against that .
This idea that he figured out it was a bad idea , he figured out it was a bad idea after we sent in monitors and said it must stop .
Even then , he continued the policy .
HOLT : All right .
Mayor , would you like to make a quick response to that ?
BLOOMBERG : Yes , I would .
I ’ ve sat , I ’ ve apologized , I ’ ve asked for forgiveness , but the bottom line is that we stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — we stopped too many people .
And we ’ ve got to make sure that we do something about criminal justice in this country .
There is no great answer to a lot of these problems .
And if we took off everybody that was wrong off this panel , everybody that was wrong on criminal justice at some time in their careers , there ’ d be nobody else up here .
And let ’ s not forget Bloomberg ’ s fumble on the common touch either , in which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderator asks whether Bloomberg will release his taxes soon , a question that Bloomberg had to see coming a mile away , and he delivers not just a Trumpian answer but edges into Marie Antoinette territory — sending Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg into gales of laughter : BLOOMBERG : Fortunately , I make a lot of money , and we do business all around the world .
And we are preparing it .
The number of pages will probably be in the thousands of pages .
I can ’ t go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax return every year for 12 years in City Hall .
We will put out this one .
It tells everybody everything they need to know about every investment that I make and where the money goes .
And the biggest item is all the money I give away .
And we list that , every single donation I make .
And you can get that from our foundation any time you want .
KLOBUCHAR : OK , yeah , I ’ m just looking at my husband in the front row that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes all the time .
We probably could go to TurboTax .
And the point of this is , I believe in transparency .
I had a physical , by the way .
It came out well .
We might all be surprised if my blood pressure is lower than Mayor Pete ’ s .
That might really shock everyone out there .
And I think you should release your records from your physical .
Secondly , when it comes to tax returns , everyone up here has released their tax returns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a major issue , because the president of the United States has been hiding behind his tax returns , even when courts order him to come forward with those tax returns .
And I think — I don ’ t care how much money anyone has .
I think it ’ s great you ’ ve got a lot of money .
But I think you ’ ve got to come forward with your tax returns .
JACKSON : Senator , I want to get to you in a second .
Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
BLOOMBERG : We ’ ll releasing them .
They ’ ll be out in a few weeks .
And that ’ s just as fast as I can do it .
Remember , I only entered into this race 10 weeks ago .
All of my associates here have been at this for a couple of years .
BUTTIGIEG : That ’ s right , we have .
Engaging with voters and humbling ourselves to the backyards and diners .
In reading the transcript , I can ’ t see a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I was not able to watch the debate live ) .
He seemed strangely unprepared for the onslaught even though he ’ d managed to get a few months of prep time out of the line of fire .
His answer on stop-and-frisk were probably the best he could muster , but his answer on NDAs were dreadful .
Even on policy , Van Jones argues , Bloomberg was “ tone deaf ” and a “ disaster ” : “ He ’ s got to go back to the woodshed , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his team and come back better next time.
” Will that opening really exist , though ?
Bloomberg doesn ’ t have to worry about donors drying up so he ’ s in to stay , but this first impression among engaged Democratic primary voters can ’ t be so easily undone .
The impression of an imperious , “ tone deaf ” billionaire bureaucrat won ’ t quickly fade from their minds , not even with Bloomberg ’ s saturation ad campaign running over the next few weeks .
Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be entirely over , but it ’ s almost certainly been greatly reduced .
The bigger question will be whether Bloomberg takes his ball and goes home .
He promised to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get one of the people on stage elected even if it ’ s not him .
After last night ’ s savaging , does Bloomberg really want to support any of them ?

Elizabeth Warren gave Michael Bloomberg quite a welcome to the Democratic primaries — and it didn’t get any better for the multibillionaire after that. Warren ripped Bloomberg for calling women “fat broads and horse-faced lesbians,” and that was just the appetizer for the Pile-On Mike Night that followed in the Nevada debate.
Oddly, no one seemed interested in pulling out and endorsing Bloomberg last night, especially not Warren:
WATCH: Sen. Warren kicks off the #DemDebate by launching a direct criticism of Mike Bloomberg's previous comments about women. pic.twitter.com/x6RQvayWB4 — NBC News (@NBCNews) February 20, 2020
Warren was just warming up, however. Not long after, Bloomberg tried to defend himself on #MeToo issues and highlight his success in promoting women. Warren then demanded to know when Bloomberg would renounce his NDAs in settlements with female employees, and that … did not go well at all as everyone jumped all over Bloomberg’s response:
One debate moment can cause a candidate to slip badly, and Mike Bloomberg’s refusal to release women from non-disclosure agreements struck with his company marked a low point for his nascent candidacy #DemDebate https://t.co/g0ZfjfgUtK pic.twitter.com/OY8f5LyIyb — POLITICO (@politico) February 20, 2020
WARREN: Yes, I have. And I hope you heard what his defense was. “I’ve been nice to some women.” That just doesn’t cut it. The mayor has to stand on his record. And what we need to know is exactly what’s lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So, Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements, so we can hear their side of the story? BLOOMBERG: We have a very few nondisclosure agreements. WARREN: How many is that? BLOOMBERG: Let me finish. WARREN: How many is that? BLOOMBERG: None of them accuse me of doing anything, other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told. And let me just — and let me — there’s agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet and that’s up to them. They signed those agreements, and we’ll live with it. BIDEN: Come on. WARREN: So, wait, when you say it is up to — I just want to be clear. Some is how many? And — and when you — and when you say they signed them and they wanted them, if they wish now to speak out and tell their side of the story about what it is they allege, that’s now OK with you? You’re releasing them on television tonight? Is that right? BLOOMBERG: Senator… WARREN: Is that right, tonight? BLOOMBERG: Senator, the company and somebody else, in this case — a man or a woman or it could be more than that, they decided when they made an agreement they wanted to keep it quiet for everybody’s interests. BIDEN: Come on. BLOOMBERG: They signed the agreements and that’s what we’re going to live with. (CROSSTALK)
So Bloomberg wants people to believe that the NDAs exist to protect the women? Riiiiiiight. Joe Biden later pulled that argument apart like warm bread, and the audience made clear they weren’t buying it either:
BIDEN: You think the women, in fact, were ready to say I don’t want anybody to know about what you did to me? That’s not how it works. The way it works is they say, look, this is what you did to me and the mayor comes along and his attorneys said, I will give you this amount of money if you promise you will never say anything. That’s how it works. JACKSON: Mayor Bloomberg, final word to you? BLOOMBERG: I’ve said we’re not going to get — to end these agreements because they were made consensually and they have every right to expect that they will stay private. (AUDIENCE BOOS) BIDEN: If they want to release it, they should be able to release themselves. Say yes.
It didn’t get any better for Bloomberg on policy, either. Biden ripped Bloomberg over his stop-and-frisk policy, which Bloomberg had just characterized as a leftover policy from the Rudy Giuliani era. Biden reminded the audience that Bloomberg embraced it for years in defiance of calls to curtail or end it, and he only stopped when the Obama administration intervened:
Joe Biden criticizes Mike Bloomberg on stop and frisk policy, and Bloomberg responds. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/vTVGHvxVnu — NBC News (@NBCNews) February 20, 2020
BIDEN: Yes, let’s get something straight. The reason that stop and frisk changed is because Barack Obama sent moderators to see what was going on. When we sent them there to say this practice has to stop, the mayor thought it was a terrible idea we send them there, a terrible idea. Let’s get the facts straight. Let’s get the order straight. And it’s not whether he apologized or not. It’s the policy. The policy was abhorrent. And it was a fact of violation of every right people have. And we are the one, my — our administration sent — sent in people to moderate. And at the very time, the mayor argued against that. This idea that he figured out it was a bad idea, he figured out it was a bad idea after we sent in monitors and said it must stop. Even then, he continued the policy. HOLT: All right. Mayor, would you like to make a quick response to that? BLOOMBERG: Yes, I would. I’ve sat, I’ve apologized, I’ve asked for forgiveness, but the bottom line is that we stopped too many people, but the policy — we stopped too many people. And we’ve got to make sure that we do something about criminal justice in this country. There is no great answer to a lot of these problems. And if we took off everybody that was wrong off this panel, everybody that was wrong on criminal justice at some time in their careers, there’d be nobody else up here.
And let’s not forget Bloomberg’s fumble on the common touch either, in which he seemingly sneers at TurboTax users. The moderator asks whether Bloomberg will release his taxes soon, a question that Bloomberg had to see coming a mile away, and he delivers not just a Trumpian answer but edges into Marie Antoinette territory — sending Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg into gales of laughter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PReuxr7ouCQ
BLOOMBERG: Fortunately, I make a lot of money, and we do business all around the world. And we are preparing it. The number of pages will probably be in the thousands of pages. I can’t go to TurboTax. But I put out my tax return every year for 12 years in City Hall. We will put out this one. It tells everybody everything they need to know about every investment that I make and where the money goes. And the biggest item is all the money I give away. And we list that, every single donation I make. And you can get that from our foundation any time you want. KLOBUCHAR: OK, yeah, I’m just looking at my husband in the front row that has to, like, do our taxes all the time. We probably could go to TurboTax. And the point of this is, I believe in transparency. I had a physical, by the way. It came out well. We might all be surprised if my blood pressure is lower than Mayor Pete’s. That might really shock everyone out there. And I think you should release your records from your physical. Secondly, when it comes to tax returns, everyone up here has released their tax returns, Mayor. I think — and it is a major issue, because the president of the United States has been hiding behind his tax returns, even when courts order him to come forward with those tax returns. And I think — I don’t care how much money anyone has. I think it’s great you’ve got a lot of money. But I think you’ve got to come forward with your tax returns. JACKSON: Senator, I want to get to you in a second. Mayor Bloomberg, quick response to Senator Klobuchar? BLOOMBERG: We’ll releasing them. They’ll be out in a few weeks. And that’s just as fast as I can do it. Remember, I only entered into this race 10 weeks ago. All of my associates here have been at this for a couple of years. BUTTIGIEG: That’s right, we have. Engaging with voters and humbling ourselves to the backyards and diners.
In reading the transcript, I can’t see a single favorable exchange for Bloomberg the entire night (I was not able to watch the debate live). He seemed strangely unprepared for the onslaught even though he’d managed to get a few months of prep time out of the line of fire. His answer on stop-and-frisk were probably the best he could muster, but his answer on NDAs were dreadful. Even on policy, Van Jones argues, Bloomberg was “tone deaf” and a “disaster”:
WATCH: CNN's Van Jones tears apart Mike Bloomberg's debate performance. "It was a disaster." "He was tone-deaf on issue after issue." pic.twitter.com/cC4eAD2T4j — America Rising (@AmericaRising) February 20, 2020
“He’s got to go back to the woodshed,” Jones concludes, “and get it from his team and come back better next time.” Will that opening really exist, though? Bloomberg doesn’t have to worry about donors drying up so he’s in to stay, but this first impression among engaged Democratic primary voters can’t be so easily undone. The impression of an imperious, “tone deaf” billionaire bureaucrat won’t quickly fade from their minds, not even with Bloomberg’s saturation ad campaign running over the next few weeks. Bloomberg’s threat in the moderate lane might not be entirely over, but it’s almost certainly been greatly reduced.
The bigger question will be whether Bloomberg takes his ball and goes home. He promised to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get one of the people on stage elected even if it’s not him. After last night’s savaging, does Bloomberg really want to support any of them?


hotair--2020-02-20--NY county tries to ban smoking... in your own home

Suffolk County , located on Long Island , is on a self-described mission to be the “ most progressive county in the state.
” ( And since we ’ re talking about New York , there ’ s some stiff competition for the title . )
With that in mind , county legislators are now considering a new ban on smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products .
While it ’ s already forbidden to smoke in most public places , the new effort would apply to smoking in your own home .
If that sounds a bit too intrusive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
But the author of the bill insists that his reasoning is sound .
( CBS New York ) Is one suburban county going too far trying to legislate what residents can and can not do in the privacy of their own homes ?
Hoping to be the most progressive county in the state , Suffolk County is proposing a law that would snuff out secondhand smoke in apartment complexes , condominiums , and multi-family dwellings .
Smoking is already banned in many public places , and near schools and office buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for apartment buildings , condos and two-family homes .
For the moment , the ban wouldn ’ t apply to owners of single-family homes .
( Apparently , even the excessively woke Suffolk County legislators aren ’ t ready to go quite that far into full-blown government control of your lives . )
As far as apartment complexes go , many of them already ban smoking in rental units , but that ’ s a decision made by the landlord .
Cleaning a unit after a smoker moves out requires more time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be scrubbed of residual smoke and/or repainted .
If you ’ re the owner of the property , that ’ s a reasonable limit to place on how your space is used .
Whether or not that ’ s a decision for the county government to make is another question .
The bigger issue comes with applying such restrictions to condominiums and row homes or other multi-family dwellings .
Much the same as any single-family home , if you ’ re the one who paid for and owns the dwelling , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say what you do inside ?
The answer provided by the bill ’ s author , Dr. William Spencer , is that secondhand smoke doesn ’ t remain behind closed doors .
He claims that smoke can creep through “ cracks in walls , electrical lines , plumbing , and ventilation systems.
” This would allegedly allow it to seep into adjoining dwellings where non-smokers could be affected .
Frankly , if you have gaps surrounding your electrical outlets and water pipes that are large enough to allow smoke to come billowing through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electrician or plumber , not your county legislator .
Similarly , if there are cracks in your walls or ceilings sufficiently large to allow smoke to come through , you either need to call a contractor or move out , because your place should probably be condemned .
The one area I hadn ’ t considered previously , however , was the question of ventilation systems .
Row homes almost always have their own heating and air conditioning systems , so smoke wouldn ’ t be an issue there .
But I suppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you buy instead of rent ) must have some sort of centralized heating and air .
( I ’ ve never lived in a condo , but it makes sense . )
There has to be some sort of cold air return system , so if anyone is smoking in one of the units , the smoke would cycle back down to the heater and be redistributed throughout the building .
Is that sufficient justification to impose a ban ?
If the voters agree it is then I suppose so .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more to the point , single-family dwellings , this seems like a far too intrusive push by the nanny state .
We all know by this time that smoking is bad for your health and a sufficient amount of secondhand smoke can lead to health issues .
If the government believes that it ’ s truly that much of a threat to the world , perhaps they should just reclassify nicotine as a more closely controlled substance and ban it .
Of course , if they did that they would lose out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes .
And we couldn ’ t have that now , could we ?

Suffolk County, located on Long Island, is on a self-described mission to be the “most progressive county in the state.” (And since we’re talking about New York, there’s some stiff competition for the title.) With that in mind, county legislators are now considering a new ban on smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products. While it’s already forbidden to smoke in most public places, the new effort would apply to smoking in your own home. If that sounds a bit too intrusive to you, you’re probably not alone. But the author of the bill insists that his reasoning is sound. (CBS New York)
Is one suburban county going too far trying to legislate what residents can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes? Hoping to be the most progressive county in the state, Suffolk County is proposing a law that would snuff out secondhand smoke in apartment complexes, condominiums, and multi-family dwellings. Smoking is already banned in many public places, and near schools and office buildings, but there are no smoke-free laws for apartment buildings, condos and two-family homes.
For the moment, the ban wouldn’t apply to owners of single-family homes. (Apparently, even the excessively woke Suffolk County legislators aren’t ready to go quite that far into full-blown government control of your lives.) As far as apartment complexes go, many of them already ban smoking in rental units, but that’s a decision made by the landlord. Cleaning a unit after a smoker moves out requires more time and expense since walls and ceilings will need to be scrubbed of residual smoke and/or repainted. If you’re the owner of the property, that’s a reasonable limit to place on how your space is used. Whether or not that’s a decision for the county government to make is another question.
The bigger issue comes with applying such restrictions to condominiums and row homes or other multi-family dwellings. Much the same as any single-family home, if you’re the one who paid for and owns the dwelling, what business is it of the government to say what you do inside? The answer provided by the bill’s author, Dr. William Spencer, is that secondhand smoke doesn’t remain behind closed doors. He claims that smoke can creep through “cracks in walls, electrical lines, plumbing, and ventilation systems.” This would allegedly allow it to seep into adjoining dwellings where non-smokers could be affected.
Frankly, if you have gaps surrounding your electrical outlets and water pipes that are large enough to allow smoke to come billowing through, you need to talk to your electrician or plumber, not your county legislator. Similarly, if there are cracks in your walls or ceilings sufficiently large to allow smoke to come through, you either need to call a contractor or move out, because your place should probably be condemned.
The one area I hadn’t considered previously, however, was the question of ventilation systems. Row homes almost always have their own heating and air conditioning systems, so smoke wouldn’t be an issue there. But I suppose condominiums (which are basically just apartments that you buy instead of rent) must have some sort of centralized heating and air. (I’ve never lived in a condo, but it makes sense.) There has to be some sort of cold air return system, so if anyone is smoking in one of the units, the smoke would cycle back down to the heater and be redistributed throughout the building.
Is that sufficient justification to impose a ban? If the voters agree it is then I suppose so. But when it comes to row homes or, more to the point, single-family dwellings, this seems like a far too intrusive push by the nanny state. We all know by this time that smoking is bad for your health and a sufficient amount of secondhand smoke can lead to health issues. If the government believes that it’s truly that much of a threat to the world, perhaps they should just reclassify nicotine as a more closely controlled substance and ban it.
Of course, if they did that they would lose out on all that sweet revenue from tobacco taxes. And we couldn’t have that now, could we?


hotair--2020-02-19--Report: Last words Kirk Douglas told son: “Mike can get it done.”

Hollywood ’ s movers and shakers are taking a hard look at Michael Bloomberg and they are liking what they see .
The billionaire candidate buying his way onto the debate stage and into the top tier of polls is capturing the imagination of those who dwell in the land of make-believe .
Bloomberg is having a moment and the power players are here for it .
The power players are business people at heart .
Imagine their horror that a socialist is leading the slate of Democrat candidates .
As much as they despise President Trump , they rightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the far left wing of the Democrat Party .
They are looking for a business-friendly candidate willing and able to take the fight to Trump .
So far , Bloomberg is looking good to them as an alternative to Sanders .
There is a sense of relief that Bloomberg has hired a social media team , for instance , savvy enough to pack a punch to Trump in response to Trump ’ s tweets against “ Mini Mike ” .
The successful and wealthy in the entertainment industry aren ’ t stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ booming economy with President Trump at the helm .
They are not going to vote for a socialist who would destroy the American economy .
They want the economy to continue but they don ’ t want to vote for the guy who is heading up the policy decisions behind the economy .
“ Of course people are relieved to have the option of Bloomberg , ” said one former studio chief , confessing to liking the current flush economic climate .
“ I would not want to have to vote for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders candidacy would leave him little choice .
“ If I had a wand and I could pick the nominee — it would be Bloomberg .
It ’ s a no brainer , ” said a Democratic donor who has not yet committed and declined to be identified .
“ He ’ ll be beholden to no one.
” Another studio chief said he was “ glad to see he was in the game , ” but still needed to know more .
They think that replacing one wealthy New York businessman with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to keep the economy thriving without Trump .
They are wrong .
The liberal bubble is coloring the actual policies that Bloomberg is putting forth .
Bloomberg wants to be the Nanny-in-Chief for the nation , as he was the Mayor of the Nanny State in New York City .
His support of climate change alarmism alone would cripple the energy independence of America as well as the national economy .
Bloomberg is particularly appealing to those entertainment insiders with roots in New York .
Those people have almost a visceral dislike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplishing important things when he was mayor from 2002 to 2013 .
“ I watched what he did for New York City , how he built an amazing administration , ” veteran producer Jane Rosenthal ( “ The Irishman ” ) told The Hollywood Reporter in January .
“ He changed the way the city works , and I know he can do the same for the country.
” We know that Judge Judy was the first nationally-known public figure to endorse Bloomberg from the entertainment world .
Bloomberg has since gotten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former “ Project Runway ” star Tim Gunn and singer John Mellencamp .
Actor Michael Douglas is a big fan of Bloomberg .
He says he hasn ’ t been this excited for a candidate since JFK .
Mellencamp likes the fact that a billionaire like Bloomberg can ’ t be bought .
While Mellencamp isn ’ t the first to utter that hot take on the race , it ’ s ironic because it is one of the arguments Trump and his supporters gave in favor of his candidacy in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglas , the now-deceased father of Michael , was really supportive of Bloomberg ’ s candidacy , too , if Michael Douglas is to be believed .
As a matter of fact , Michael says that his father ’ s last words to him were Bloomberg ’ s campaign slogan : “ Mike can get it done.
” Am I the only one to think that is really strange ?
I understand the enthusiasm for a candidate , especially in a primary for the presidential election , but good heavens .
Is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to utter to your child ?
Maybe Democrat politics was a subject of conversation the father and son bonded over , who knows ?
That quote just struck me as a real eye-opener .
All eyes will be on Bloomberg Wednesday night as appears on debate stage for the first time with the other qualifying candidates .
Will he win over more support from the business-savvy Hollywood crowd or will the less socialist candidates unite with Bernie Sanders and show Bloomberg to be another thin-skinned , narcissistic , wealthy old guy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Hollywood’s movers and shakers are taking a hard look at Michael Bloomberg and they are liking what they see. The billionaire candidate buying his way onto the debate stage and into the top tier of polls is capturing the imagination of those who dwell in the land of make-believe. Bloomberg is having a moment and the power players are here for it.
The power players are business people at heart. Imagine their horror that a socialist is leading the slate of Democrat candidates. As much as they despise President Trump, they rightly fear the rise in acceptance of socialism in the far left wing of the Democrat Party. They are looking for a business-friendly candidate willing and able to take the fight to Trump. So far, Bloomberg is looking good to them as an alternative to Sanders. There is a sense of relief that Bloomberg has hired a social media team, for instance, savvy enough to pack a punch to Trump in response to Trump’s tweets against “Mini Mike”.
“I’ve been really impressed lately in the quality and reach of Bloomberg’s social and transition media ads,” Ross Gerber, an L.A.-based investor whose clientele is heavily comprised of Hollywood, told TheWrap. “He seems to get what he needs to do to get voters behind him. People are super happy to have a non-socialist who is business-friendly running for the Democrats.”
The successful and wealthy in the entertainment industry aren’t stupid – they know we are experiencing a booming economy with President Trump at the helm. They are not going to vote for a socialist who would destroy the American economy. They want the economy to continue but they don’t want to vote for the guy who is heading up the policy decisions behind the economy.
“Of course people are relieved to have the option of Bloomberg,” said one former studio chief, confessing to liking the current flush economic climate. “I would not want to have to vote for Trump,” he said, but a Sanders candidacy would leave him little choice. “If I had a wand and I could pick the nominee — it would be Bloomberg. It’s a no brainer,” said a Democratic donor who has not yet committed and declined to be identified. “He’ll be beholden to no one.” Another studio chief said he was “glad to see he was in the game,” but still needed to know more.
They think that replacing one wealthy New York businessman with another wealthy New York businessman is the way to keep the economy thriving without Trump. They are wrong. The liberal bubble is coloring the actual policies that Bloomberg is putting forth. Bloomberg wants to be the Nanny-in-Chief for the nation, as he was the Mayor of the Nanny State in New York City. His support of climate change alarmism alone would cripple the energy independence of America as well as the national economy.
Bloomberg is particularly appealing to those entertainment insiders with roots in New York. Those people have almost a visceral dislike of Trump, while crediting Bloomberg with accomplishing important things when he was mayor from 2002 to 2013. “I watched what he did for New York City, how he built an amazing administration,” veteran producer Jane Rosenthal (“The Irishman”) told The Hollywood Reporter in January. “He changed the way the city works, and I know he can do the same for the country.”
We know that Judge Judy was the first nationally-known public figure to endorse Bloomberg from the entertainment world. Bloomberg has since gotten the support of Sam Waterston and Ted Danson, former “Project Runway” star Tim Gunn and singer John Mellencamp. Actor Michael Douglas is a big fan of Bloomberg. He says he hasn’t been this excited for a candidate since JFK. Mellencamp likes the fact that a billionaire like Bloomberg can’t be bought. While Mellencamp isn’t the first to utter that hot take on the race, it’s ironic because it is one of the arguments Trump and his supporters gave in favor of his candidacy in the 2015 GOP primary.
Legendary actor Kirk Douglas, the now-deceased father of Michael, was really supportive of Bloomberg’s candidacy, too, if Michael Douglas is to be believed. As a matter of fact, Michael says that his father’s last words to him were Bloomberg’s campaign slogan: “Mike can get it done.” Am I the only one to think that is really strange? I understand the enthusiasm for a candidate, especially in a primary for the presidential election, but good heavens. Is a campaign slogan the last few words you want to utter to your child?
Douglas has been among Bloomberg’s most enthusiastic backers, even trekking to Madison, Wisconsin earlier this month to mark the opening of a campaign office. Douglas told Bloomberg supporters that some of the last words that his father Kirk said to him were, “Mike can get it done.”
Maybe Democrat politics was a subject of conversation the father and son bonded over, who knows? That quote just struck me as a real eye-opener. All eyes will be on Bloomberg Wednesday night as appears on debate stage for the first time with the other qualifying candidates. Will he win over more support from the business-savvy Hollywood crowd or will the less socialist candidates unite with Bernie Sanders and show Bloomberg to be another thin-skinned, narcissistic, wealthy old guy in the race? Pass the popcorn.


hotair--2020-02-19--Trump matches personal best job approval in RCP average, highest in more than three years

Just beaming this out there for any moderate Democrats who might be reading , in case they ’ re not depressed enough yet about their election prospects in the midst of Berniemania .
I like to imagine them gazing at these numbers at the very moment during tonight ’ s debate that Joe Biden has forgotten his name or Mike Bloomberg has accused everyone in America who makes less than $ 250K a year of being a moron .
The last time he was at 46.0 percent approval in the RCP poll of polls was February 4 , 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was the honeymoon period with voters after inauguration .
It took an impeachment in the House and a bipartisan removal vote in the Senate to return him to 46 percent .
Not only that , but at 51.1 percent , his disapproval rating is the lowest it ’ s been since December 2018 .
If it falls another tenth of a point to 51.0 , it ’ ll be his lowest mark since April 2017 .
With the economy booming and Trump climbing into polling territory that makes reelection perfectly plausible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to roll the dice on a 78-year-old socialist with heart trouble .
Here ’ s what ’ s happened to Trump ’ s numbers over the past six months : You can see that he was on his way up towards 46 percent in September — until the Ukraine quid pro quo exploded in the media and popped his bubble , sending him sliding all the way down to 41.6 in October .
Then in November the Ukraine news shifted from the newspapers to Adam Schiff ’ s Intelligence Committee and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was back at 44 percent within a few weeks and remained there , scoring 44.5 percent on the day he was impeached in December .
He touched 45 percent in early January as the Senate trial loomed and remained between 44 and 45 percent all month — until now , when he finally reached 46 percent .
My default assumption with good polling is that it ’ s the economy , stupid .
But impeachment seems clearly not to have hurt him , and having the matter finally behind him may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted its own polling on impeachment over the past few weeks and found that all three partisan groups — but especially Democrats — grew more convinced that it was a bad use of time and less convinced that it actually hurt Trump politically : The share of Republicans who thought that Trump and the congressional GOP handled the impeachment process well grew considerably over time as well .
That may also help explain the uptick in overall job approval .
It ’ s not just Trump-skeptic independents , say , who have softened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth , it ’ s the small cohort of anti-Trumpers left in the GOP possibly shrinking even further in the aftermath of impeachment .
I don ’ t know , maybe there ’ s a silver lining for moderate Democrats here after all .
If you ’ re destined to lose to Trump this fall no matter who you nominate , you ’ re better off nominating Bernie and letting socialists take the fall .
When Sanders gets spanked , centrists will use his defeat for the next 20 years as Exhibit A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get elected .
If there ’ s to be a sacrificial lamb in November , might as well sacrifice the DSA .
In honor of Trump ’ s big polling milestone , here ’ s a well-known supporter expressing his admiration for the president .

Just beaming this out there for any moderate Democrats who might be reading, in case they’re not depressed enough yet about their election prospects in the midst of Berniemania. I like to imagine them gazing at these numbers at the very moment during tonight’s debate that Joe Biden has forgotten his name or Mike Bloomberg has accused everyone in America who makes less than $250K a year of being a moron.
The last time he was at 46.0 percent approval in the RCP poll of polls was February 4, 2017, exactly 15 days into his presidency. That was the honeymoon period with voters after inauguration. It took an impeachment in the House and a bipartisan removal vote in the Senate to return him to 46 percent. Not only that, but at 51.1 percent, his disapproval rating is the lowest it’s been since December 2018. If it falls another tenth of a point to 51.0, it’ll be his lowest mark since April 2017.
With the economy booming and Trump climbing into polling territory that makes reelection perfectly plausible, it seems like the right moment for Democrats to roll the dice on a 78-year-old socialist with heart trouble.
Here’s what’s happened to Trump’s numbers over the past six months:
You can see that he was on his way up towards 46 percent in September — until the Ukraine quid pro quo exploded in the media and popped his bubble, sending him sliding all the way down to 41.6 in October. Then in November the Ukraine news shifted from the newspapers to Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and Trump’s numbers started climbing again. He was back at 44 percent within a few weeks and remained there, scoring 44.5 percent on the day he was impeached in December. He touched 45 percent in early January as the Senate trial loomed and remained between 44 and 45 percent all month — until now, when he finally reached 46 percent.
My default assumption with good polling is that it’s the economy, stupid. But impeachment seems clearly not to have hurt him, and having the matter finally behind him may be nudging his approval upward lately. FiveThirtyEight conducted its own polling on impeachment over the past few weeks and found that all three partisan groups — but especially Democrats — grew more convinced that it was a bad use of time and less convinced that it actually hurt Trump politically:
The share of Republicans who thought that Trump and the congressional GOP handled the impeachment process well grew considerably over time as well. That may also help explain the uptick in overall job approval. It’s not just Trump-skeptic independents, say, who have softened a bit on him thanks to job growth, it’s the small cohort of anti-Trumpers left in the GOP possibly shrinking even further in the aftermath of impeachment.
I don’t know, maybe there’s a silver lining for moderate Democrats here after all. If you’re destined to lose to Trump this fall no matter who you nominate, you’re better off nominating Bernie and letting socialists take the fall. When Sanders gets spanked, centrists will use his defeat for the next 20 years as Exhibit A in the case that hard-leftists can’t get elected. If there’s to be a sacrificial lamb in November, might as well sacrifice the DSA.
In honor of Trump’s big polling milestone, here’s a well-known supporter expressing his admiration for the president.


hotair--2020-02-19--Live at 9 p.m. ET: The brawl to settle it all

The headline is half-true .
The nomination is already settled but tonight ’ s debate really should be a brawl .
Every candidate onstage has an incentive to throw down .
Specifically , to throw down with Mike Bloomberg .
For the likely also-rans , Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar , this may be the last moment to avert a slide into obscurity after a strong early performance .
Klobuchar knows firsthand how much a debate win can do for a candidate ’ s fortunes ; she was headed nowhere in New Hampshire until she came up big in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election day .
With the centrist lane newly crowded by Bloomberg ’ s polling surge and with Biden poised for a win in South Carolina next week , Klobuchar and Buttigieg each need to assert themselves to remain part of the conversation .
Otherwise the narrative tomorrow and probably through Super Tuesday will be “ Bernie vs. Bloomy vs. Biden.
” If one of them can knock Bloomberg back , maybe that arrests his rise in the polls and gets him/her noticed in Nevada .
Elizabeth Warren is a wild card in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to attack the competition — with one conspicuous exception — and did poorly enough in New Hampshire that there are no remaining expectations for her campaign .
She has nothing to lose tonight by blowing up everyone around her , as a bad result in Nevada in Saturday will probably force her from the race .
Her prime target will be Bloomberg , whom she ’ s going to lambaste as everything that ’ s wrong with American politics .
I think she ’ s calculating that if she hits him hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rekindle a little progressive interest in her .
But that would be naive ; no one ’ s climbing off the Bernie express en route to likely victory this summer in order to climb aboard a Warren train that ’ s been losing steam since October .
Which raises an intriguing possibility : Is tonight the night she finally goes after Bernie ?
If she can ’ t win lefties , her only option is to try to barge in on the centrist muddle and try to grab the attention of moderates as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Sanders while also proposing ambitious Bernie-lite reforms .
I don ’ t think she ’ ll do it .
I think she ’ d rather lose than derail progressivism ’ s victory , even if that victory ends up going to a different candidate .
If I ’ m wrong about that , why didn ’ t she come after Sanders months ago ?
Biden is fighting a two-front war , needing to stop Bernie ’ s momentum on his left and Bloomberg ’ s momentum on his right .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win South Carolina , which votes 10 days from now .
He ’ s going to hit Sanders hard for being too far left and unelectable and hit Bloomberg hard for trying to buy the nomination and deceitfully imply that he has Barack Obama ’ s support .
An impressive performance might claw back some of those Democratic voters in the middle who ’ ve peeled away from him lately in favor of Bloomberg , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar .
A less than impressive performance might finish him off .
The same goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in the race will face an environment tonight that hasn ’ t been paid for and scripted by his own campaign .
He ’ s going to be ripped for anything and everything — his unprecedented ad spending and unsubtle payoffs to Democratic influencers ; his arrogant call for the competition to clear the field for him ; his workplace sexism ; his long support for stop-and-frisk ; his Republican pedigree and chumminess with Trump ; and much , much more .
The competition ’ s collective arsenal will be emptied .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for Bloomy : If he can parry those attacks and come out of this looking defiant and unflappable , he might see the same sort of upside as Klobuchar saw after the New Hampshire debate .
Surely some Democratic voters are in wait-and-see mode with him right now .
If they like what they see tonight it may shake loose a new wave of support for him in polling .
That may be the only way this primary turns into a real race , in fact .
And if they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Bloomberg has no answer to the attacks or because he ’ s a bit too true to his dickish nature onstage ?
Well .
If I were Bloomy , I ’ d limit my attacks to the greatest extent possible to Trump and Bernie Sanders .
Ripping on Trump while he ’ s being dinged by his rivals will show voters that he ’ s above the petty intraparty fray and keeping his eyes on the prize .
But he ’ ll have to take some shots at Bernie , who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might parlay that into an upset in South Carolina .
Sanders has to be brought back to the pack before Super Tuesday .
And if Bloomberg ’ s the centrist who lands the hardest shots on him , it may cement the perception that this is a Bernie/Bloomy two-man race — exactly the point Team Mike was trying to make in its memo this morning .
As for Bernie , I think he ’ ll keep his head down and say as little as possible , believing that if it ain ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fix it .
If the rest of the field wants to kill each other , great .
It only makes his life easier .
But Bloomberg will swing at him even if no one else onstage will , so prepare for him to inveigh against plutocracy .
In fact , he ’ ll probably do that even if Bloomy doesn ’ t attack him since he won ’ t want to risk Warren stealing all the progressive thunder onstage .
Slate poses an interesting question , though : Now that Sanders is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his message a bit in anticipation of having to sell it to centrist suburbanites as his party ’ s presidential nominee ?
I ’ m thinking … no .
Bernie is Bernie .
There ’ ll be no traditional pivot towards the center if he ’ s nominated ( although it sure will be interesting to see if any of his old skepticism towards open borders reemerges in swing states ) .
He ’ s the ultimate WYSIWYG candidate .
The debate starts at 9 p.m .
ET and will air on NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Amy Klobuchar doing her cringy best as a middle-aged Minnesotan to relate to Nevada ’ s Latino voters .
Oh , and if you have time , digest this thoughtful argument by center-righty Ross Douthat that center-lefty Mike Bloomberg would be an especially terrible politician with whom to entrust the presidency .
Douthat doesn ’ t go as far as to say that Bernie would be preferable but there ’ s a small-D democratic case that he would be .
Especially if President Sanders is held in check by a solidly Republican @ @ @

The headline is half-true. The nomination is already settled but tonight’s debate really should be a brawl. Every candidate onstage has an incentive to throw down. Specifically, to throw down with Mike Bloomberg.
For the likely also-rans, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, this may be the last moment to avert a slide into obscurity after a strong early performance. Klobuchar knows firsthand how much a debate win can do for a candidate’s fortunes; she was headed nowhere in New Hampshire until she came up big in the final TV scrum among the candidates before election day. With the centrist lane newly crowded by Bloomberg’s polling surge and with Biden poised for a win in South Carolina next week, Klobuchar and Buttigieg each need to assert themselves to remain part of the conversation. Otherwise the narrative tomorrow and probably through Super Tuesday will be “Bernie vs. Bloomy vs. Biden.” If one of them can knock Bloomberg back, maybe that arrests his rise in the polls and gets him/her noticed in Nevada.
Elizabeth Warren is a wild card in that she’s proved herself willing and able to attack the competition — with one conspicuous exception — and did poorly enough in New Hampshire that there are no remaining expectations for her campaign. She has nothing to lose tonight by blowing up everyone around her, as a bad result in Nevada in Saturday will probably force her from the race. Her prime target will be Bloomberg, whom she’s going to lambaste as everything that’s wrong with American politics. I think she’s calculating that if she hits him hard enough and memorably enough, it may rekindle a little progressive interest in her. But that would be naive; no one’s climbing off the Bernie express en route to likely victory this summer in order to climb aboard a Warren train that’s been losing steam since October. Which raises an intriguing possibility: Is tonight the night she finally goes after Bernie? If she can’t win lefties, her only option is to try to barge in on the centrist muddle and try to grab the attention of moderates as a candidate capable of channeling their angst about Sanders while also proposing ambitious Bernie-lite reforms.
I don’t think she’ll do it. I think she’d rather lose than derail progressivism’s victory, even if that victory ends up going to a different candidate. If I’m wrong about that, why didn’t she come after Sanders months ago?
Biden is fighting a two-front war, needing to stop Bernie’s momentum on his left and Bloomberg’s momentum on his right. He’s done if he doesn’t win South Carolina, which votes 10 days from now. He’s going to hit Sanders hard for being too far left and unelectable and hit Bloomberg hard for trying to buy the nomination and deceitfully imply that he has Barack Obama’s support. An impressive performance might claw back some of those Democratic voters in the middle who’ve peeled away from him lately in favor of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. A less than impressive performance might finish him off.
The same goes for Bloomberg, who for the first time in the race will face an environment tonight that hasn’t been paid for and scripted by his own campaign. He’s going to be ripped for anything and everything — his unprecedented ad spending and unsubtle payoffs to Democratic influencers; his arrogant call for the competition to clear the field for him; his workplace sexism; his long support for stop-and-frisk; his Republican pedigree and chumminess with Trump; and much, much more. The competition’s collective arsenal will be emptied. Which, in a way, is good for Bloomy: If he can parry those attacks and come out of this looking defiant and unflappable, he might see the same sort of upside as Klobuchar saw after the New Hampshire debate. Surely some Democratic voters are in wait-and-see mode with him right now. If they like what they see tonight it may shake loose a new wave of support for him in polling. That may be the only way this primary turns into a real race, in fact.
And if they don’t like what they see, whether because Bloomberg has no answer to the attacks or because he’s a bit too true to his dickish nature onstage? Well.
If I were Bloomy, I’d limit my attacks to the greatest extent possible to Trump and Bernie Sanders. Ripping on Trump while he’s being dinged by his rivals will show voters that he’s above the petty intraparty fray and keeping his eyes on the prize. But he’ll have to take some shots at Bernie, who’s likely to win in Nevada and might parlay that into an upset in South Carolina. Sanders has to be brought back to the pack before Super Tuesday. And if Bloomberg’s the centrist who lands the hardest shots on him, it may cement the perception that this is a Bernie/Bloomy two-man race — exactly the point Team Mike was trying to make in its memo this morning.
As for Bernie, I think he’ll keep his head down and say as little as possible, believing that if it ain’t broke there’s no need to fix it. If the rest of the field wants to kill each other, great. It only makes his life easier. But Bloomberg will swing at him even if no one else onstage will, so prepare for him to inveigh against plutocracy. In fact, he’ll probably do that even if Bloomy doesn’t attack him since he won’t want to risk Warren stealing all the progressive thunder onstage. Slate poses an interesting question, though: Now that Sanders is the frontrunner, might we see him tweak his message a bit in anticipation of having to sell it to centrist suburbanites as his party’s presidential nominee?
I’m thinking … no. Bernie is Bernie. There’ll be no traditional pivot towards the center if he’s nominated (although it sure will be interesting to see if any of his old skepticism towards open borders reemerges in swing states). He’s the ultimate WYSIWYG candidate.
The debate starts at 9 p.m. ET and will air on NBC. While we wait, here’s Amy Klobuchar doing her cringy best as a middle-aged Minnesotan to relate to Nevada’s Latino voters. Oh, and if you have time, digest this thoughtful argument by center-righty Ross Douthat that center-lefty Mike Bloomberg would be an especially terrible politician with whom to entrust the presidency. Douthat doesn’t go as far as to say that Bernie would be preferable but there’s a small-D democratic case that he would be. Especially if President Sanders is held in check by a solidly Republican Senate majority.


hotair--2020-02-19--Canadian rail companies lay off more than 1000 workers, court grants injunction against protests

Canadian rail companies have announced temporary layoffs because of the ongoing protests against a natural gas pipeline which has shut down much of the country ’ s rail system for nearly two weeks .
Today , VIA Rail announced it would lay off 1,000 workers : “ Until CN Rail opens the remaining tracks for service , VIA Rail has no choice but to continue the cancellation of its services on a large part of its network , ” Via Rail said in a statement .
“ It is with sincere regret that we must proceed with temporary employee suspensions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ service interruption due to a 13-day blockade east of Belleville , Ontario , “ unprecedented.
” “ In 42 years of existence , it is the first time that VIA Rail , a public intercity passenger rail service , has to interrupt most of its services across the country , ” she said in a statement .
The company has cancelled more than 530 trains since blockades began Feb. 6 .
That ’ s the second set of layoffs announced this week .
Yesterday , CN Rail said it would lay off 450 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 450 workers in its operations in Eastern Canada after cancelling more than 400 trains in the past week over a rail blockade protesting an LNG pipeline in British Columbia… The Montreal-based railway says the situation is “ regrettable ” because the impact on the economy and its employees from the protests is unrelated to CN ’ s activities and beyond its control .
There ’ s no immediate sign that protesters intend to stop blocking rail lines but even if they did it would take weeks for industries dependent on rail transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning of massive losses as a result of the blockade : “ Our last situation like this was the CN Rail strike in November .
That was an eight-day long strike and it took us over a month to recover , if not more , ” Joel Neuheimer , vice-president of international trade and transportation for the Forest Products Association of Canada , told Global News… Canada ’ s forest sector — which includes lumber and wood products like pulp and paper — has already seen a loss of $ 100 million since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters CEO Dennis Darby said the costs blooming behind the crisis are “ beyond serious.
” He claims that an estimated $ 425 million in goods are becoming stranded daily as a result of the blockades .
Darby and other business leaders gathered in Toronto on Tuesday to urge the government to act — and fast… “ Manufacturers don ’ t have much time before the impact becomes dire , ” he said .
“ It ’ s critical.
” Protesters have said they won ’ t stop until both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where a natural gas pipeline is being built .
A court order issued in December said construction workers had to be given access to the site but protesters have been setting up roadblocks anyway .
The RCMP came in and arrested some protesters but now the situation once again seems to be a stalemate .
Yesterday Prime Minister Trudeau called for patience so the two sides can negotiate a solution .
That ’ s easy for Trudeau to say because he ’ s not going to lose his job ( at least not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another week or two .
The same can be said for the protesters sitting outside to block the rail lines .
But for the 1,450 people who were laid off this week , the situation is a bit more serious .
As I ’ m writing this , I see that CN Rail has apparently received some sort of injunction from a judge .
Police were on hand as protesters were served the injunction and the material placed on the tracks was removed by counter-protesters .
This video shows a bit more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , things briefly got heated ( for Canada ) .
Update : A few more tweets on this .
An earlier confrontation where the protesters refuse to remove their masks :

Canadian rail companies have announced temporary layoffs because of the ongoing protests against a natural gas pipeline which has shut down much of the country’s rail system for nearly two weeks. Today, VIA Rail announced it would lay off 1,000 workers:
“Until CN Rail opens the remaining tracks for service, VIA Rail has no choice but to continue the cancellation of its services on a large part of its network,” Via Rail said in a statement. “It is with sincere regret that we must proceed with temporary employee suspensions.” Chief executive Cynthia Garneau called the service interruption due to a 13-day blockade east of Belleville, Ontario, “unprecedented.” “In 42 years of existence, it is the first time that VIA Rail, a public intercity passenger rail service, has to interrupt most of its services across the country,” she said in a statement. The company has cancelled more than 530 trains since blockades began Feb. 6.
That’s the second set of layoffs announced this week. Yesterday, CN Rail said it would lay off 450 employees:
CN Rail is laying off about 450 workers in its operations in Eastern Canada after cancelling more than 400 trains in the past week over a rail blockade protesting an LNG pipeline in British Columbia… The Montreal-based railway says the situation is “regrettable” because the impact on the economy and its employees from the protests is unrelated to CN’s activities and beyond its control.
There’s no immediate sign that protesters intend to stop blocking rail lines but even if they did it would take weeks for industries dependent on rail transportation to recover. Already business groups are warning of massive losses as a result of the blockade:
“Our last situation like this was the CN Rail strike in November. That was an eight-day long strike and it took us over a month to recover, if not more,” Joel Neuheimer, vice-president of international trade and transportation for the Forest Products Association of Canada, told Global News… Canada’s forest sector — which includes lumber and wood products like pulp and paper — has already seen a loss of $100 million since the blockades sprang up two weeks ago… Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters CEO Dennis Darby said the costs blooming behind the crisis are “beyond serious.” He claims that an estimated $425 million in goods are becoming stranded daily as a result of the blockades. Darby and other business leaders gathered in Toronto on Tuesday to urge the government to act — and fast… “Manufacturers don’t have much time before the impact becomes dire,” he said. “It’s critical.”
Protesters have said they won’t stop until both police and construction workers leave the site where a natural gas pipeline is being built. A court order issued in December said construction workers had to be given access to the site but protesters have been setting up roadblocks anyway. The RCMP came in and arrested some protesters but now the situation once again seems to be a stalemate. Yesterday Prime Minister Trudeau called for patience so the two sides can negotiate a solution.
That’s easy for Trudeau to say because he’s not going to lose his job (at least not immediately) if this drags on for another week or two. The same can be said for the protesters sitting outside to block the rail lines. But for the 1,450 people who were laid off this week, the situation is a bit more serious.
As I’m writing this, I see that CN Rail has apparently received some sort of injunction from a judge. Police were on hand as protesters were served the injunction and the material placed on the tracks was removed by counter-protesters.
Just had clarification this is CN suing. The protestors are concerned about safety with counter demonstrators #Wetsuwetan #yeg #abpoli #cndpoli pic.twitter.com/ZGbNvrJvfU — Carly Robinson (@CarlyDRobinson) February 19, 2020
BREAKING: As Alberta court grants CN a 30-day injunction against protests, the blockade west of Edmonton has been fully cleared. #yeg #yyc #Wetsuweten https://t.co/dPuGWlP1l6 — Courtney Theriault (@cspotweet) February 19, 2020
This video shows a bit more of what happened. As you can see, things briefly got heated (for Canada).
Update: A few more tweets on this.
Counter protesters in Edmonton have all but hauled away the barricades on the CN tracks. A protester is talking like it’s all over now. A few protesters have walked away already. pic.twitter.com/Z4olhPmVDx — Fletcher Kent (@FletcherKent) February 19, 2020
An earlier confrontation where the protesters refuse to remove their masks:


hotair--2020-02-19--Deep thought from WaPo: Maybe we should let elites choose our president; <span class='red'>Update: W

Deep thought from WaPo: Maybe we should let elites choose our president; Update: WaPo stealth-edits headline?

This seems like a rather odd argument to be running under the banner , “ Democracy Dies in Darkness , ” no ?
And yet , here we are .
Today ’ s version of darkness comes from Marquette professor Julia Azari , who thinks democracy works when it produces the kind of candidates that appeals to her .
When it doesn ’ t , it ’ s time to turn the process over to the elites — her word — who will then use their superior intellect to divine what voters truly desire .
There ’ s a word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ democracy ” : The current process is clearly flawed , but what would be better ?
Finding an answer means thinking about the purpose of presidential nominations , and about how the existing system falls short .
It will require swimming against the tide of how we ’ ve thought about nominations for decades — as a contest between everyday voters and elites , or as a smaller version of a general election .
A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions , instructed by voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycles is that a lot of candidates , many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial followings , will inevitably enter the race .
The system as it works now — with a long informal primary , lots of attention to early contests and sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for president .
What it ’ s not great at is choosing among the many candidates who clear that bar , or bringing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing priorities .
A process in which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want .
That would better reflect what voters want than … what voters actually say they want ?
By voting for what they want ?
This argument is as paternalistic as it gets .
Just how would this work , anyway ?
Azari first explains that we need to embrace the value of the elites , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manipulate .
Voila — “ democracy ” is saved !
For decades , the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else .
Today , that conversation is counterproductive .
A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles : to make their political parties more representative while ultimately narrowing the nomination choice down to one person .
And the best way to do that would be through preference primaries .
Preference primaries could allow voters to rank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to register opinions about their issue priorities — like an exit poll , but more formal and with all the voters .
The results would be public but not binding ; a way to inform elites about voter preferences .
This process could accompany a primary of the sort we ’ re used to — in which voters ’ first choices instruct the delegates , and preferences come into play only if there ’ s no clear winner .
So let ’ s get this straight .
Having primary voters choose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t give a clear indication of what they want .
However , some three-dimensional ranked voting across fifty-plus contests ( don ’ t forget the territories ! )
crunched into apps run by the same party that brought us the Iowa caucus disaster will somehow make the “ preference ” of this diverse electorate clear … to the elites .
Riiiiiiiiiight .
Bear in mind the consequences of this approach beyond nominations .
If voters stop having direct input on nominees , then they won ’ t have full direct impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All they will actually elect are the people who will make those decisions for them , not any particular candidate .
In essence , Azari wants to allow voters to staff the proverbial smoke-filled back room , not the Oval Office .
All this does is set up a system where primaries ( and caucuses , although hopefully those are an endangered species at this point ) don ’ t matter at all .
The cloud of ambiguity that would hover over such a system would require the “ elites ” to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it seems expressly designed for that exact outcome .
Elites won ’ t just get a “ bigger say , ” they ’ ll get the whole say , every time .
That ’ s quite a proposal to stick under the “ Democracy dies in darkness ” banner .
Final thought : What does Azari think of the Electoral College , which theoretically ( although not functionally ) operates in the manner she theorizes above ?
It chooses delegates from the ranks of party elites who then ( again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually prefer .
She ’ s surprisingly more fond of direct democracy in that case .
Hmmm .
Update , 9 pm ET : The Washington Post changed the headline at some point without acknowledging the change .
This is the new headline : Same argument below it , though , right down to trusting the elites to make the decision .
Perhaps democracy now dies in editorial darkness ?

This seems like a rather odd argument to be running under the banner, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” no?
And yet, here we are. Today’s version of darkness comes from Marquette professor Julia Azari, who thinks democracy works when it produces the kind of candidates that appeals to her. When it doesn’t, it’s time to turn the process over to the elites — her word — who will then use their superior intellect to divine what voters truly desire.
There’s a word for that, but it’s not “democracy”:
The current process is clearly flawed, but what would be better? Finding an answer means thinking about the purpose of presidential nominations, and about how the existing system falls short. It will require swimming against the tide of how we’ve thought about nominations for decades — as a contest between everyday voters and elites, or as a smaller version of a general election. A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters. One lesson from the 2020 and 2016 election cycles is that a lot of candidates, many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial followings, will inevitably enter the race. The system as it works now — with a long informal primary, lots of attention to early contests and sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for president. What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates who clear that bar, or bringing their different ideological factions together, or reconciling competing priorities. A process in which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.
That would better reflect what voters want than … what voters actually say they want? By voting for what they want? This argument is as paternalistic as it gets.
Just how would this work, anyway? Azari first explains that we need to embrace the value of the elites, and then give them a jumbled mess to manipulate. Voila — “democracy” is saved!
For decades, the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else. Today, that conversation is counterproductive. A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles: to make their political parties more representative while ultimately narrowing the nomination choice down to one person. And the best way to do that would be through preference primaries. Preference primaries could allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities — like an exit poll, but more formal and with all the voters. The results would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences. This process could accompany a primary of the sort we’re used to — in which voters’ first choices instruct the delegates, and preferences come into play only if there’s no clear winner.
So let’s get this straight. Having primary voters choose their own preferred nominee by direct vote doesn’t give a clear indication of what they want. However, some three-dimensional ranked voting across fifty-plus contests (don’t forget the territories!) crunched into apps run by the same party that brought us the Iowa caucus disaster will somehow make the “preference” of this diverse electorate clear … to the elites. Riiiiiiiiiight.
Bear in mind the consequences of this approach beyond nominations. If voters stop having direct input on nominees, then they won’t have full direct impact on the eventual general-election winner, either. All they will actually elect are the people who will make those decisions for them, not any particular candidate. In essence, Azari wants to allow voters to staff the proverbial smoke-filled back room, not the Oval Office.
All this does is set up a system where primaries (and caucuses, although hopefully those are an endangered species at this point) don’t matter at all. The cloud of ambiguity that would hover over such a system would require the “elites” to make the decision every time. And in fact, it seems expressly designed for that exact outcome. Elites won’t just get a “bigger say,” they’ll get the whole say, every time.
That’s quite a proposal to stick under the “Democracy dies in darkness” banner.
Final thought: What does Azari think of the Electoral College, which theoretically (although not functionally) operates in the manner she theorizes above? It chooses delegates from the ranks of party elites who then (again, theoretically these days) decide what voters actually prefer. She’s surprisingly more fond of direct democracy in that case. Hmmm.
Update, 9 pm ET: The Washington Post changed the headline at some point without acknowledging the change. This is the new headline:
Same argument below it, though, right down to trusting the elites to make the decision. Perhaps democracy now dies in editorial darkness?


hotair--2020-02-19--"Everyone will move over after South Carolina": Biden fundraisers starting to ditch him for Bloomber

"Everyone will move over after South Carolina": Biden fundraisers starting to ditch him for Bloomberg?

I know what you ’ re thinking .
“ Why does Mike Bloomberg need people to raise funds for him ?
” He doesn ’ t .
The Times reported a few weeks ago that Bloomberg had been courting wealthy and influential Democrats and informing them up front that he doesn ’ t want their money and won ’ t accept it if it ’ s offered .
He doesn ’ t need money .
What he needs is to choke off the pool of money that ’ s temporarily available to his competition .
All you have to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep your checkbook closed for Joe Biden and the rest of the field .
That ’ s the only way to snuff out a candidacy , after all .
Bloomberg can spend 100 dollars to every dollar Biden spends but that won ’ t force Joe out of the race .
What ’ ll force him out is if he runs out of financial gas .
So Bloomberg ’ s taken to siphoning it out of Biden ’ s tank .
Weird timing on this story , though .
If you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s beginning to give up on him , wouldn ’ t you want to at least hold off and avoid giving him bad press until tonight ’ s debate is over ?
Better yet , why not keep your powder dry until South Carolina , since Bloomberg ’ s not even on the ballot in that state ?
I assume Team Mike is pressuring Biden fundraisers to jump ship immediately and to be loud about it when they do , not just because every second counts in trying to consolidate the center around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can generate for Biden before South Carolina the greater the likelihood that he ’ ll disappoint there and quit .
Jon Henes , a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis , has signaled to friends that he is shifting his allegiance from Biden ’ s campaign to Bloomberg ’ s bid to take on President Donald Trump , according to people with direct knowledge of the matter , who declined to be named as these decisions were made in private .
Henes is one of close to a dozen other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move toward Bloomberg , these people added… Another key figure in Biden ’ s network , Brad Karp , the chairman of law firm Paul , Weiss , Rifkind , Wharton & Garrison , is telling associates he will likely jump over to Bloomberg , these people added .
Karp is listed by the campaign as one of Biden ’ s bundlers… “ Bloomberg is running a great campaign , hiring incredible people and building an impressive field operation across the country , ” said a Wall Street Biden supporter who recently met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Also spending essentially unlimited money and we ’ re seeing all of that result in an impressive increase in the polls.
” … “ I think everyone will move over after South Carolina , ” [ another ] lead Biden fundraiser said .
All Bloomberg wants from them is outreach , i.e .
personal appeals to their professional and social networks to support him .
No doubt some of the people who ’ ve made the jump from Biden to Bloomy will be rolled out at campaign events over the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Biden ’ s campaign is sinking ” narrative in the media ahead of SC .
If nothing else , it ’ s an attempt to avert the “ maximum chaos ” scenario in South Carolina , in which Biden wins the primary as expected but only very narrowly , with lots of black voters peeling off to support Sanders .
That victory will probably encourage Joe to go on to Super Tuesday three days later — has a candidate ever quit a primary immediately after winning a state ?
— but in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is play spoiler for Bloomberg , not win any states outright himself .
Dem centrists can tolerate a blowout Biden win in SC or a dead-and-buried Biden loss , but an unimpressive victory will be a new dilemma for them .
Meanwhile , some liberals are trying to come up with a positive case for nominating Bloomberg in the highly unlikely event that he begins to seriously threaten Sanders .
Here ’ s the depressing best Eric Levitz can do for Democrats : So , it ’ s conceivable that Bloomberg could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency .
And once in office , his personal fortune could theoretically enable him to overcome other seemingly insurmountable political obstacles .
In February 2021 , Bloomberg will turn 79 .
What would a man with more than $ 50 billion — and only a few years left to live — be willing to spend on securing a legislative legacy ?
Is it inconceivable that Bloomberg could expand the boundaries of political possibility in the Senate , by promising the Joe Manchins and Lisa Murkowskis of the world giant dark money campaign contributions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their family members at a Bloomberg enterprise of their choice ) if they do his bidding ?
Can $ 2 billion in bribes buy president Bloomberg a more ambitious climate law than any other Democrat could hope to pass ?
This is the honest case for Michael Bloomberg .
It is an argument for Democrats to accept that the best that they can hope for in 2020 is benevolent plutocracy : There is no campaign capable of defeating Trumpism through organizing and reasoned argument , so best to let a billionaire drown it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no mass movement capable of breaking through D.C. ’ s gridlock , so let ’ s see if Lisa Murkowski has a price .
For so long we ’ ve allowed special interests to buy off our politicians .
Isn ’ t it time to counter that by letting the president personally buy them off to advance the common good ?
Let ’ s see how resolute those centrist Republicans are in opposing an assault-weapons ban when Bloomy ’ s cutting $ 50 million checks to their Super PACs .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball with Bloomberg in exchange for a fat envelope , why should Susan Collins be ?
Imagine the 2024 election , when Jeff Bezos buys the Republican nomination and he and President Mike drop $ 50 billion combined contesting that year ’ s election .
Exit question : We ’ re all going to feel very silly about the Bloomberg boomlet a week from now after he craps the bed at tonight ’ s debate and ends up sinking in the polls under the weight of even more oppo , aren ’ t @ @

I know what you’re thinking. “Why does Mike Bloomberg need people to raise funds for him?” He doesn’t. The Times reported a few weeks ago that Bloomberg had been courting wealthy and influential Democrats and informing them up front that he doesn’t want their money and won’t accept it if it’s offered. He doesn’t need money. What he needs is to choke off the pool of money that’s temporarily available to his competition. All you have to do to join the team is promise to keep your checkbook closed for Joe Biden and the rest of the field.
That’s the only way to snuff out a candidacy, after all. Bloomberg can spend 100 dollars to every dollar Biden spends but that won’t force Joe out of the race. What’ll force him out is if he runs out of financial gas. So Bloomberg’s taken to siphoning it out of Biden’s tank.
Weird timing on this story, though. If you’re a Biden donor or bundler who’s beginning to give up on him, wouldn’t you want to at least hold off and avoid giving him bad press until tonight’s debate is over? Better yet, why not keep your powder dry until South Carolina, since Bloomberg’s not even on the ballot in that state? I assume Team Mike is pressuring Biden fundraisers to jump ship immediately and to be loud about it when they do, not just because every second counts in trying to consolidate the center around Bloomberg but because the more bad press they can generate for Biden before South Carolina the greater the likelihood that he’ll disappoint there and quit.
Jon Henes, a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, has signaled to friends that he is shifting his allegiance from Biden’s campaign to Bloomberg’s bid to take on President Donald Trump, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter, who declined to be named as these decisions were made in private. Henes is one of close to a dozen other Biden fundraisers who have already decided to move toward Bloomberg, these people added… Another key figure in Biden’s network, Brad Karp, the chairman of law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is telling associates he will likely jump over to Bloomberg, these people added. Karp is listed by the campaign as one of Biden’s bundlers… “Bloomberg is running a great campaign, hiring incredible people and building an impressive field operation across the country,” said a Wall Street Biden supporter who recently met with Bloomberg but declined to be named. “Also spending essentially unlimited money and we’re seeing all of that result in an impressive increase in the polls.”… “I think everyone will move over after South Carolina,” [another] lead Biden fundraiser said.
All Bloomberg wants from them is outreach, i.e. personal appeals to their professional and social networks to support him. No doubt some of the people who’ve made the jump from Biden to Bloomy will be rolled out at campaign events over the next 10 days or so to encourage the “Biden’s campaign is sinking” narrative in the media ahead of SC. If nothing else, it’s an attempt to avert the “maximum chaos” scenario in South Carolina, in which Biden wins the primary as expected but only very narrowly, with lots of black voters peeling off to support Sanders. That victory will probably encourage Joe to go on to Super Tuesday three days later — has a candidate ever quit a primary immediately after winning a state? — but in sufficiently weak shape that all he can do is play spoiler for Bloomberg, not win any states outright himself. Dem centrists can tolerate a blowout Biden win in SC or a dead-and-buried Biden loss, but an unimpressive victory will be a new dilemma for them.
Meanwhile, some liberals are trying to come up with a positive case for nominating Bloomberg in the highly unlikely event that he begins to seriously threaten Sanders. Here’s the depressing best Eric Levitz can do for Democrats:
So, it’s conceivable that Bloomberg could, in fact, buy himself the presidency. And once in office, his personal fortune could theoretically enable him to overcome other seemingly insurmountable political obstacles. In February 2021, Bloomberg will turn 79. What would a man with more than $50 billion — and only a few years left to live — be willing to spend on securing a legislative legacy? Is it inconceivable that Bloomberg could expand the boundaries of political possibility in the Senate, by promising the Joe Manchins and Lisa Murkowskis of the world giant dark money campaign contributions (and/or, extraordinarily lucrative sinecures for their family members at a Bloomberg enterprise of their choice) if they do his bidding? Can $2 billion in bribes buy president Bloomberg a more ambitious climate law than any other Democrat could hope to pass? This is the honest case for Michael Bloomberg. It is an argument for Democrats to accept that the best that they can hope for in 2020 is benevolent plutocracy: There is no campaign capable of defeating Trumpism through organizing and reasoned argument, so best to let a billionaire drown it in an ocean of propaganda; there’s no mass movement capable of breaking through D.C.’s gridlock, so let’s see if Lisa Murkowski has a price.
For so long we’ve allowed special interests to buy off our politicians. Isn’t it time to counter that by letting the president personally buy them off to advance the common good? Let’s see how resolute those centrist Republicans are in opposing an assault-weapons ban when Bloomy’s cutting $50 million checks to their Super PACs. If Stacey Abrams isn’t above playing ball with Bloomberg in exchange for a fat envelope, why should Susan Collins be?
This may bring her more hits from the left. She received some criticism in January when she appeared alongside Bloomberg. Bloomberg announced a 5 million donation to her group in December. https://t.co/63WLC8kNx0 https://t.co/IwC9Q7pHQq — Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) February 18, 2020
Imagine the 2024 election, when Jeff Bezos buys the Republican nomination and he and President Mike drop $50 billion combined contesting that year’s election.
Exit question: We’re all going to feel very silly about the Bloomberg boomlet a week from now after he craps the bed at tonight’s debate and ends up sinking in the polls under the weight of even more oppo, aren’t we?