hotair--2020-02-15--Disaster ahead in NV: Bernie leads

Disaster ahead in NV: Bernie leads -- but six Dems in double digits?

If Democrats hope to narrow the field in their presidential primary , they ’ ll have to look past Nevada ’ s caucuses .
With a week to go — and with early voting set to start today — six candidates now poll in double digits in the latest Review-Journal/AARP survey .
Bernie Sanders leads with 25 % , but Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are not far behind , with Tom Steyer , Pete Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar all getting 10 % or more as well .
Anyone else see the train wreck coming ?
Sanders led the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support , followed by former Vice President Joe Biden ( 18 percent ) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ( 13 percent ) .
Businessman Tom Steyer ( 11 percent ) , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ( 10 percent ) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( 10 percent ) were clustered close behind .
… Eight percent of Democrats surveyed said they were undecided .
Five percent of respondents chose another candidate .
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang , Sen. Michael Bennet and former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick dropped out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if this were a primary , an outcome like this would be problematic for Democrats .
Bernie still leads in this poll by enough outside the margin of error to ensure he gets the plurality of delegates , but at least two more would get a delegate tranche out of this , too .
However , it ’ s not the same two who got delegates out of New Hampshire , one of whom didn ’ t get delegates out of Iowa either .
But it ’ s not a primary — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a field with this kind of spread-out distribution will make it difficult to settle viability challenges .
With two candidates already coming in solidly viable and four others on the cusp , expect to see and hear a lot of rhetorical elbows flying on Caucus Day next Saturday .
Even if the caucus operations go smoothly , several candidates will either come out of Nevada with delegates , victimization narratives , or both .
This caucus doesn ’ t appear to have much chance of running smoothly , though .
It has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the strange decision to allow early voting ( for a caucus ? )
, and like Iowa has a new and untested infrastructure .
CNN reported yesterday that the Nevada Democratic Party still hasn ’ t tested the system fully , nor trained anyone on its operations : Having scrapped plans to use a pair of Shadow ’ s apps , the parties will instead use a “ caucus calculator , ” as outlined in a new memo released by the Nevada State Democratic Party Thursday .
Described as “ user friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add early voting data into each precinct and calculate totals on caucus day , February 22 , along with paper work sheets .
The tool , which the party does not consider an app , will be available on iPads owned by the party and “ accessed through a secure Google web form.
” … But caucus volunteers have yet to get their hands on the calculator even though they ’ re the ones expected to use it on caucus day , and they have been given few details about it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to CNN this week .
… “ The training showed us graphs that could ’ ve been an Excel spreadsheet .
There was no training on the tool because they ’ re still working on it , ” Seth Morrison , a site lead for multiple precincts in Nevada , told CNN when describing what the state party now calls a caucus calculator .
“ We ’ ve had a lot of training in how the process works , but no training on the tool , how we get the voting data or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday night.
” “ All they have said on the tool and calculation side is , ‘ Trust us .
We ’ ve got it well in hand .
We can ’ t tell you what vendors we use because then they ’ ll be hacked , ' ” he said .
If this was a one-person race , it wouldn ’ t matter at all .
If it were a two-candidate race , it would only be annoying .
But a race in which six candidates poll above 10 % and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has all the earmarks of a train wreck , complete with a “ Trust us !
” quote .
It ’ s doomed to failure , as is the debate this week .
The LVRW-AARP poll shows 59 % of participants plan to vote early starting today and running through Tuesday , which means they will have cast their preferences before the Wednesday debate — which will include Michael Bloomberg , who doesn ’ t even appear on the ballot .
A primary would have solved all these problems .
And maybe by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to end the caucus system once and for all .

If Democrats hope to narrow the field in their presidential primary, they’ll have to look past Nevada’s caucuses. With a week to go — and with early voting set to start today — six candidates now poll in double digits in the latest Review-Journal/AARP survey. Bernie Sanders leads with 25%, but Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are not far behind, with Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar all getting 10% or more as well.
Anyone else see the train wreck coming?
Sanders led the pack with 25 percent of respondents expressing support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (13 percent). Businessman Tom Steyer (11 percent), former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (10 percent) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (10 percent) were clustered close behind. … Eight percent of Democrats surveyed said they were undecided. Five percent of respondents chose another candidate. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Sen. Michael Bennet and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick dropped out of the race on Feb. 11.
Even if this were a primary, an outcome like this would be problematic for Democrats. Bernie still leads in this poll by enough outside the margin of error to ensure he gets the plurality of delegates, but at least two more would get a delegate tranche out of this, too. However, it’s not the same two who got delegates out of New Hampshire, one of whom didn’t get delegates out of Iowa either.
But it’s not a primary — it’s a caucus, and a field with this kind of spread-out distribution will make it difficult to settle viability challenges. With two candidates already coming in solidly viable and four others on the cusp, expect to see and hear a lot of rhetorical elbows flying on Caucus Day next Saturday. Even if the caucus operations go smoothly, several candidates will either come out of Nevada with delegates, victimization narratives, or both.
This caucus doesn’t appear to have much chance of running smoothly, though. It has more complexity than the Iowa caucus, thanks to the strange decision to allow early voting (for a caucus?), and like Iowa has a new and untested infrastructure. CNN reported yesterday that the Nevada Democratic Party still hasn’t tested the system fully, nor trained anyone on its operations:
Having scrapped plans to use a pair of Shadow’s apps, the parties will instead use a “caucus calculator,” as outlined in a new memo released by the Nevada State Democratic Party Thursday. Described as “user friendly,” the calculator will be used to add early voting data into each precinct and calculate totals on caucus day, February 22, along with paper work sheets. The tool, which the party does not consider an app, will be available on iPads owned by the party and “accessed through a secure Google web form.” … But caucus volunteers have yet to get their hands on the calculator even though they’re the ones expected to use it on caucus day, and they have been given few details about it, according to three caucus workers who spoke to CNN this week. … “The training showed us graphs that could’ve been an Excel spreadsheet. There was no training on the tool because they’re still working on it,” Seth Morrison, a site lead for multiple precincts in Nevada, told CNN when describing what the state party now calls a caucus calculator. “We’ve had a lot of training in how the process works, but no training on the tool, how we get the voting data or how we get results to the party Saturday night.” “All they have said on the tool and calculation side is, ‘Trust us. We’ve got it well in hand. We can’t tell you what vendors we use because then they’ll be hacked,'” he said.
If this was a one-person race, it wouldn’t matter at all. If it were a two-candidate race, it would only be annoying. But a race in which six candidates poll above 10% and are actively campaigning in the state? This has all the earmarks of a train wreck, complete with a “Trust us!” quote.
It’s doomed to failure, as is the debate this week. The LVRW-AARP poll shows 59% of participants plan to vote early starting today and running through Tuesday, which means they will have cast their preferences before the Wednesday debate — which will include Michael Bloomberg, who doesn’t even appear on the ballot.
A primary would have solved all these problems. And maybe by 2024, both parties will have seen enough to end the caucus system once and for all.


hotair--2020-02-15--Joe and Hunter Biden's China connections under even closer scrutiny

We already learned that a majority of Americans find Hunter Biden ’ s sweetheart deal with Ukranian energy giant Burisma to be problematic at best .
Despite nearly all of the mainstream media providing as much cover for the Bidens as possible , you have to wonder how everyone is feeling about the unfolding story of a very similar series of deals that the younger Biden landed in China .
The closer you look at Hunter ’ s incredibly “ fortunate ” affairs in that nation , the worse it smells .
And it also raises questions about Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly aggressive country that ’ s rife with human rights abuses .
At the New York Post , there ’ s a detailed breakdown of how Hunter Biden cashed in .
It ’ s written by Peter Schweizer , the author of Secret Empires , and the details paint a very troubling picture .
In 2013 , then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China .
Less than two weeks later , Hunter Biden ’ s firm inked a $ 1 billion private equity deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Bank of China .
The deal was later expanded to $ 1.5 billion .
In short , the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president .
If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son — who has scant experience in private equity — clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government , that ’ s because it is .
If that story sounds oddly familiar to you it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Burisma deal despite having no background in the energy industry and he doesn ’ t speak Ukranian .
Similarly , he had virtually no experience in private equity markets or banking and he doesn ’ t speak Chinese , but he somehow managed to nail down billions in business for his own , recently formed LLC that was created just for such “ opportunities.
” The really massive deal described in that excerpt above took place fairly early in Obama and Biden ’ s second term , but Hunter ’ s history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Schweizer discovered through his research , shortly after Joe Biden was sworn in as Vice President , Hunter formed Rosemont Seneca Partners , an investment equity firm , with his partners Devon Archer and Chris Heinz .
If the Heinz name rings a bell , that ’ s because Chris is the stepson of John Kerry and his ketchup empire wife .
( Funny how they all run in the same circles , eh ? )
Rosemont Seneca was only one of a series of LLCs the three men launched , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars in deals with financial entities owned by the Chinese government .
At the same time , their firms partnered up with Massachusetts-based Thornton Group , headed by James Bulger .
To continue the name dropping game , James Bulger is the nephew of notorious mob hitman Whitey Bulger .
Hunter ’ s first trip to China to arrange these deals ( along with Devon Archer ) took place on the same day that Joe Biden was meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington .
Coincidence ?
If you insist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Chinese state-owned firms that went on to invest tens of millions of dollars into Hunter Biden ’ s firms .
It ’ s all so very convenient , not to mention highly profitable .
And even today , while China is growing increasingly aggressive and militaristic in the South China sea , partnering with Russia and Iran , and oppressing the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan , Schweizer points out how Joe Biden remains very forgiving and friendly toward the Chinese .
Just last week , the elder Biden is quoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Come on , man .
I mean , you know , they ’ re not bad folks , folks .
But guess what , they ’ re not competition for us.
” If Joe Biden does somehow manage to win the nomination and the White House , one can only imagine what sort of incredible opportunities might await Hunter Biden in China .
But if the subject is ever even mentioned on CNN or MSNBC , rest assured that these stories have all been “ completely debunked .
”

We already learned that a majority of Americans find Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with Ukranian energy giant Burisma to be problematic at best. Despite nearly all of the mainstream media providing as much cover for the Bidens as possible, you have to wonder how everyone is feeling about the unfolding story of a very similar series of deals that the younger Biden landed in China. The closer you look at Hunter’s incredibly “fortunate” affairs in that nation, the worse it smells. And it also raises questions about Joe Biden’s very friendly attitude toward an increasingly aggressive country that’s rife with human rights abuses.
At the New York Post, there’s a detailed breakdown of how Hunter Biden cashed in. It’s written by Peter Schweizer, the author of Secret Empires, and the details paint a very troubling picture.
In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president. If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son — who has scant experience in private equity — clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that’s because it is.
If that story sounds oddly familiar to you it’s not just your imagination. Hunter landed the Burisma deal despite having no background in the energy industry and he doesn’t speak Ukranian. Similarly, he had virtually no experience in private equity markets or banking and he doesn’t speak Chinese, but he somehow managed to nail down billions in business for his own, recently formed LLC that was created just for such “opportunities.”
The really massive deal described in that excerpt above took place fairly early in Obama and Biden’s second term, but Hunter’s history of cashing in started well before that. As Schweizer discovered through his research, shortly after Joe Biden was sworn in as Vice President, Hunter formed Rosemont Seneca Partners, an investment equity firm, with his partners Devon Archer and Chris Heinz. If the Heinz name rings a bell, that’s because Chris is the stepson of John Kerry and his ketchup empire wife. (Funny how they all run in the same circles, eh?)
Rosemont Seneca was only one of a series of LLCs the three men launched, all of which wound up landing billions of dollars in deals with financial entities owned by the Chinese government. At the same time, their firms partnered up with Massachusetts-based Thornton Group, headed by James Bulger. To continue the name dropping game, James Bulger is the nephew of notorious mob hitman Whitey Bulger.
Hunter’s first trip to China to arrange these deals (along with Devon Archer) took place on the same day that Joe Biden was meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington. Coincidence? If you insist.
The article goes on to list numerous other Chinese state-owned firms that went on to invest tens of millions of dollars into Hunter Biden’s firms. It’s all so very convenient, not to mention highly profitable. And even today, while China is growing increasingly aggressive and militaristic in the South China sea, partnering with Russia and Iran, and oppressing the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan, Schweizer points out how Joe Biden remains very forgiving and friendly toward the Chinese. Just last week, the elder Biden is quoted as saying (of the Chinese), “Come on, man. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they’re not competition for us.”
If Joe Biden does somehow manage to win the nomination and the White House, one can only imagine what sort of incredible opportunities might await Hunter Biden in China. But if the subject is ever even mentioned on CNN or MSNBC, rest assured that these stories have all been “completely debunked.”


hotair--2020-02-14--Barr: I agreed with the prosecution of Roger Stone and found it "righteous"

Via Mediaite , I missed this bit from his interview with ABC last night .
It ’ s circumstantial evidence that I and others are wrong to doubt his good faith in how he ’ s handled the matter of Stone ’ s resentencing .
Certainly he didn ’ t need to antagonize Trump and MAGA fans like Tucker Carlson who regard Stone ’ s freedom as a cause celebre by calling his conviction “ righteous.
” Maybe that really is his honest opinion .
And of course he ’ s right that the case went to trial while he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that he ’ s trying to cut Stone a break for political reasons .
But in that case , let ’ s also remember that the Stone investigation was foisted upon Barr by Mueller .
If Barr had quashed Stone ’ s prosecution , that would have stunk of politicization even more than the recent revised sentencing recommendation did .
( Instead he ordered the Durham probe , an attempt to “ balance ” the Russiagate probe by investigating the investigators . )
We still don ’ t have a good explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such unusual mercy from the DOJ in their new recommended sentences when federal prosecutors routinely recommend stiff sentences for defendants all over the country that go unrevised .
And of course , if Barr ’ s worried about his own employees suspecting him of illicit motives in interfering in the Stone matter — and he is , or else he wouldn ’ t have done this interview — then praising Stone ’ s conviction is a reasonable thing for him to say whether he means it or not .
This was a PR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ righteous ” is good PR towards the intended audience even though it was destined to annoy the president and his supporters .
Nine Senate Democrats called on him to resign today , which is futile but a cheap and easy way to virtue-signal to their base .
Watch a minute or so here , then read on : As I write this , news is breaking that Stone has filed a sealed motion with the court requesting a new trial , probably related to the claims amplified by Trump on Twitter that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biased .
This Daily Caller article sums up the evidence ; she tweeted nastily about Trump and his fans a few times , accusing them of racism , and also linked a few times to articles about Trump and Russia .
David French is a lawyer and went through the arguments for a mistrial at the last link .
( He ’ s not a criminal defense lawyer but Ken White is and says French ’ s analysis of the issues is entirely right . )
If Stone can show that the juror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dire , i.e .
the pretrial hearing at which jurors are questioned and selected , then maybe he has a case .
But if all he can show is that she had a bias , no dice .
Especially if the defense had reason to know that : French reprints a lengthy part of the transcript in which the juror was questioned .
She admits she once ran for Congress , and asked about what she knows of Stone and the Russia probe she says , “ nothing that I can recall specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but sometimes in the background CNN .
So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country , but I don ’ t have a whole lot of details .
I don ’ t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
” The DOJ ’ s going to flag that and say that Stone ’ s lawyers knew the juror was into politics and also knew that she was following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentioned .
They could have asked for her to be removed from the jury pool at that point , whether for cause ( “ she ’ s too biased to be fair ” ) or by using one of their peremptory challenges ( just because they got a bad vibe from her ) , but they didn ’ t .
If they ended up with a biased juror because they fell asleep at the switch , that ’ s their problem .
Team Stone will have to show that the juror told a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is related to bias , then I assume they ’ ll also have to show that she was somehow incapable of setting it aside , as she assured the judge she could and would .
That ’ s the key point in French ’ s analysis , that the court won ’ t strike a juror for bias automatically .
So long as the parties are satisfied that the juror will make a good-faith effort not to let her bias affect her judgment of guilt or innocence , she ’ s good to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans being racist fatally damage her ability to fairly judge Stone ?
I don ’ t know .
French notes that there was also a written jury questionnaire that each juror filled out and that the public hasn ’ t seen .
Maybe there ’ s something in there that they ’ re honing in on .
Exit question : The Durham probe is about exposing corruption , not about benefiting the president politically , right ?
I ask because I got a Ukraine vibe from this bit in a WaPo story last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huber investigation [ of Hillary Clinton ] is not likely to produce charges , Trump has become more insistent that Durham finish his work soon , according to people familiar with the discussions .
Trump , these people said , wants to be able to use whatever Durham finds as a cudgel in his reelection campaign .
”

Via Mediaite, I missed this bit from his interview with ABC last night. It’s circumstantial evidence that I and others are wrong to doubt his good faith in how he’s handled the matter of Stone’s resentencing. Certainly he didn’t need to antagonize Trump and MAGA fans like Tucker Carlson who regard Stone’s freedom as a cause celebre by calling his conviction “righteous.” Maybe that really is his honest opinion. And of course he’s right that the case went to trial while he was AG, a wrinkle in the theory that he’s trying to cut Stone a break for political reasons.
But in that case, let’s also remember that the Stone investigation was foisted upon Barr by Mueller. If Barr had quashed Stone’s prosecution, that would have stunk of politicization even more than the recent revised sentencing recommendation did. (Instead he ordered the Durham probe, an attempt to “balance” the Russiagate probe by investigating the investigators.) We still don’t have a good explanation for why Stone and Mike Flynn received such unusual mercy from the DOJ in their new recommended sentences when federal prosecutors routinely recommend stiff sentences for defendants all over the country that go unrevised. And of course, if Barr’s worried about his own employees suspecting him of illicit motives in interfering in the Stone matter — and he is, or else he wouldn’t have done this interview — then praising Stone’s conviction is a reasonable thing for him to say whether he means it or not. This was a PR effort. Calling Stone’s prosecution “righteous” is good PR towards the intended audience even though it was destined to annoy the president and his supporters.
Nine Senate Democrats called on him to resign today, which is futile but a cheap and easy way to virtue-signal to their base. Watch a minute or so here, then read on:
As I write this, news is breaking that Stone has filed a sealed motion with the court requesting a new trial, probably related to the claims amplified by Trump on Twitter that one of Stone’s jurors was biased. This Daily Caller article sums up the evidence; she tweeted nastily about Trump and his fans a few times, accusing them of racism, and also linked a few times to articles about Trump and Russia. David French is a lawyer and went through the arguments for a mistrial at the last link. (He’s not a criminal defense lawyer but Ken White is and says French’s analysis of the issues is entirely right.) If Stone can show that the juror was deceptive about something important during voir dire, i.e. the pretrial hearing at which jurors are questioned and selected, then maybe he has a case. But if all he can show is that she had a bias, no dice. Especially if the defense had reason to know that:
The law does not require judges to sideline potential jurors who have strong political beliefs. Democrats can sit in judgment on Republicans, and Republicans can sit in judgment on Democrats. The key question isn’t whether a person is partisan but rather whether they’re capable of setting aside political bias to decide questions of fact fairly and impartially. And, believe it or not, this happens all the time in the United States of America. It’s happened in my own cases.
French reprints a lengthy part of the transcript in which the juror was questioned. She admits she once ran for Congress, and asked about what she knows of Stone and the Russia probe she says, “nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.”
The DOJ’s going to flag that and say that Stone’s lawyers knew the juror was into politics and also knew that she was following the Russia thing casually and had heard Stone mentioned. They could have asked for her to be removed from the jury pool at that point, whether for cause (“she’s too biased to be fair”) or by using one of their peremptory challenges (just because they got a bad vibe from her), but they didn’t. If they ended up with a biased juror because they fell asleep at the switch, that’s their problem. Team Stone will have to show that the juror told a material lie — and if that lie is related to bias, then I assume they’ll also have to show that she was somehow incapable of setting it aside, as she assured the judge she could and would. That’s the key point in French’s analysis, that the court won’t strike a juror for bias automatically. So long as the parties are satisfied that the juror will make a good-faith effort not to let her bias affect her judgment of guilt or innocence, she’s good to go. Would her tweets about Trump fans being racist fatally damage her ability to fairly judge Stone? I don’t know.
French notes that there was also a written jury questionnaire that each juror filled out and that the public hasn’t seen. Maybe there’s something in there that they’re honing in on.
Exit question: The Durham probe is about exposing corruption, not about benefiting the president politically, right? I ask because I got a Ukraine vibe from this bit in a WaPo story last night: “After learning that the Huber investigation [of Hillary Clinton] is not likely to produce charges, Trump has become more insistent that Durham finish his work soon, according to people familiar with the discussions. Trump, these people said, wants to be able to use whatever Durham finds as a cudgel in his reelection campaign.”


hotair--2020-02-17--Topless 'crazy vegans' interrupt Sanders' rally

Sunday , Bernie Sanders held a rally in Carson City Nevada .
The rally was briefly interrupted by a group of female anti-dairy protesters , one of whom seized a microphone while others came on stage topless and poured what looked like strawberry milk over themselves : “ Bernie , I ’ m your biggest supporter and I ’ m here to ask you to stop propping up the dairy industry and stop propping up animal agriculture , ” one protester , Priya Sawhney , said after taking the microphone from Sanders… Three other topless women also crashed the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” written on their chests , before pouring milk cartons full of fake blood on themselves .
The women who were topless were arrested for indecent exposure and are being held on $ 2,500 bond each , according to Direct Action In the video clip below , you can see Priya Sawhney ’ s microphone was cut off pretty quickly .
Sanders left the stage and then made a couple of attempts to return but quickly turned around as one of the topless women approached him .
After the protesters were removed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ This is Nevada , there ’ s always a little bit of excitement.
” He added , “ At no extra cost.
” The protest group behind this published a press release saying the nudity was intended to make a point about the abuse of female bodies ( meaning cows ) in the dairy industry .
A group of women activists with the animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere ( DxE ) disrupted Senator Bernie Sanders as he spoke at a campaign event Sunday , pouring milk cartons with fake blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ LET DAIRY DIE.
” Three women , who were topless with “ Let Dairy Die ” written on their chests , poured bloody “ milk ” over their heads to protest the dairy industry ’ s abuse of female bodies… “ If Bernie truly cares about justice , he will stop propping up the dairy industry , which relies on the abuse of female cows , ” said protester Priya Sawhney .
Sawhney , the woman who grabbed the microphone , is currently facing eight felony charges for previous direct action : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the four elected leaders of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of DxE , an international organization that advocates for animal rights — often by breaking into farms and slaughterhouses to whisk away animals its members think are being raised in crowded and unsafe conditions .
The organization also uses civil disobedience , direct action and the courts to fight for the rights of captive creatures intended for human consumption .
Members contend that the killing of animals is so dire that drastic action is needed to stop it .
Sawhney has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony charges , seven of which stem from protests against poultry and egg farmers in Petaluma in September 2018 .
She and other DxE members chained themselves together outside Petaluma Poultry , an organic poultry production center in Sonoma County that supplies Whole Foods , which is owned by Amazon .
The DxE activists “ rescued ” or “ stole ” nine birds , depending on who is doing the wording .
Sawhney and 58 other activists spent 12 hours in jail .
Sawhney has pleaded not guilty .
A former member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy vegans.
” City Council candidate and former DxE member Aidan Hill challenged the group ’ s actions , alleging that they create a negative reputation for the animal rights movement by associating other activists with groups involving “ crazy vegans ” such as DxE… Some activists , such as Hill , disagree with the effectiveness of such actions .
“ Do I think they ’ re sustainable ?
” Hill said .
“ The answer is no .
They ’ re very dangerous.
” These protesters are a fringe but they aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event because they dislike him , they ’ re showing up because they believe he can be brought over to their side .
This is the kind of thing that , justifiably , makes a lot of centrist Democrats nervous .
Vegetarians make up around 3 percent of the American population and vegans might make up half of one percent .
In short , it ’ s not a winning campaign issue .
And yet , announcing a plan to phase out meat and dairy over the next decade wouldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal .
Maybe Sanders will try it .
That ’ s not even the group ’ s ultimate goal .
What they really want , apparently , is a constitutional amendment saying all species are equal .
Here ’ s the video .
Everything is blurred out in this clip :

Sunday, Bernie Sanders held a rally in Carson City Nevada. The rally was briefly interrupted by a group of female anti-dairy protesters, one of whom seized a microphone while others came on stage topless and poured what looked like strawberry milk over themselves:
“Bernie, I’m your biggest supporter and I’m here to ask you to stop propping up the dairy industry and stop propping up animal agriculture,” one protester, Priya Sawhney, said after taking the microphone from Sanders… Three other topless women also crashed the stage with the words “let dairy die” written on their chests, before pouring milk cartons full of fake blood on themselves. The women who were topless were arrested for indecent exposure and are being held on $2,500 bond each, according to Direct Action
In the video clip below, you can see Priya Sawhney’s microphone was cut off pretty quickly. Sanders left the stage and then made a couple of attempts to return but quickly turned around as one of the topless women approached him. After the protesters were removed from the stage, Sanders returned and joked, “This is Nevada, there’s always a little bit of excitement.” He added, “At no extra cost.”
The protest group behind this published a press release saying the nudity was intended to make a point about the abuse of female bodies (meaning cows) in the dairy industry.
A group of women activists with the animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) disrupted Senator Bernie Sanders as he spoke at a campaign event Sunday, pouring milk cartons with fake blood on themselves and displaying a banner reading “LET DAIRY DIE.” Three women, who were topless with “Let Dairy Die” written on their chests, poured bloody “milk” over their heads to protest the dairy industry’s abuse of female bodies… “If Bernie truly cares about justice, he will stop propping up the dairy industry, which relies on the abuse of female cows,” said protester Priya Sawhney.
Sawhney, the woman who grabbed the microphone, is currently facing eight felony charges for previous direct action:
Sawhney, a Berkeley resident, is one of the four elected leaders of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of DxE, an international organization that advocates for animal rights — often by breaking into farms and slaughterhouses to whisk away animals its members think are being raised in crowded and unsafe conditions. The organization also uses civil disobedience, direct action and the courts to fight for the rights of captive creatures intended for human consumption. Members contend that the killing of animals is so dire that drastic action is needed to stop it. Sawhney has been arrested three times and faces eight felony charges, seven of which stem from protests against poultry and egg farmers in Petaluma in September 2018. She and other DxE members chained themselves together outside Petaluma Poultry, an organic poultry production center in Sonoma County that supplies Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon. The DxE activists “rescued” or “stole” nine birds, depending on who is doing the wording. Sawhney and 58 other activists spent 12 hours in jail. Sawhney has pleaded not guilty.
A former member of the group has described them as “crazy vegans.”
City Council candidate and former DxE member Aidan Hill challenged the group’s actions, alleging that they create a negative reputation for the animal rights movement by associating other activists with groups involving “crazy vegans” such as DxE… Some activists, such as Hill, disagree with the effectiveness of such actions. “Do I think they’re sustainable?” Hill said. “The answer is no. They’re very dangerous.”
These protesters are a fringe but they aren’t showing up at Sanders’ event because they dislike him, they’re showing up because they believe he can be brought over to their side. This is the kind of thing that, justifiably, makes a lot of centrist Democrats nervous. Vegetarians make up around 3 percent of the American population and vegans might make up half of one percent. In short, it’s not a winning campaign issue. And yet, announcing a plan to phase out meat and dairy over the next decade wouldn’t be any more extreme than the Green New Deal. Maybe Sanders will try it. That’s not even the group’s ultimate goal. What they really want, apparently, is a constitutional amendment saying all species are equal.
Here’s the video. Everything is blurred out in this clip:


hotair--2020-02-17--DVD review: <i>Knives Out</i> kills it

DVD review: <i>Knives Out</i> kills it -- in two different ways

Who killed Harlan Thrombey ?
Better yet , who killed it on the state of politics today , especially in its hypocrisy , by gently skewering all sides ?
If you missed the star-studded whodunit Knives Out when it played in theaters last fall , you now have a chance to catch up to what you missed .
Unless you pay close attention to detail in this often hilarious and always intriguing murder mystery , you ’ ll miss out on even more .
Thrombey ( Christopher Plummer ) is a titan of murder mysteries , the head of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is found dead in his neo-Gothic mansion by the housekeeper .
Did he commit suicide , or did someone at his 85th birthday party bump him off ?
Legendary private investigator Benoit Blanc ( Daniel Craig , joyfully employing a Southern accent ) reopens the case with the local police on behalf of a client … whose identity is a mystery to him .
Was it a member of the family , or was it one of the “ help , ” as the family members occasionally call them ?
Rarely does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fun with itself .
The genre tends to indulge in dramatics more than comedy ; the Kenneth Branagh version of Murder on the Orient Express is an excellent film but an apt demonstration of this fact .
The cast of Knives Out has more fun with this material , as does writer/director Rian Johnson ( Looper , The Last Jedi ) , but with the proper balance .
The mystery itself is taken seriously , but the characters ’ eccentricities and hypocrisies provide plenty of laughs along the way .
At times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mystery behind , but then a new twist puts it back front and center .
Without giving too much away , suffice it to say that the big reveal has one of the most , er , unique resolutions in whodunit films .
The final shot is an exquisite bookend to the beginning of the film as well , providing a last laugh — on pretty much everyone , as it turns out .
Despite having so many notable stars in the cast , they work very well together as an ensemble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out one particular performance over another , but Ana de Armas ( Blade Runner 2047 ) delivers on the critical performance of Marta Cabrera , and Chris Evans turns a black-sheep role into something more nuanced .
Everyone ’ s worth watching , including Jamie Lee Curtis , Michael Shannon , Don Johnson , and Toni Collette .
Riki Lindholme doesn ’ t get much to do but makes the most of it .
Knives Out works splendidly on just the whodunit level , but its commentary on politics is worth noting too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include some mild spoilers , we ’ ll put it after the rating and the trailer .
Using the Hot Air scale for films already on home theater platforms , Knives Out gets a 4 : • 2 – Wait for it to come on a TV channel you already get Knives Out is rated PG-13 for language and some blood , but the mild violence isn ’ t worrisome enough to exclude teenagers or perhaps even a mature adolescent .
Younger viewers might not catch all the nuances , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless .
And now , for the slight-spoiler discussion of the film ’ s treatment of politics .
Scroll past the trailer … if you dare !
Normally , conservative moviegoers get uneasy when any political debate erupts in a film , and when the family members fight over Donald Trump and immigration , the shields came fully up for me .
I worried that I ’ d bought a film that would — like many other Hollywood films these days — end up lecturing me and acting as a didactic for Tinseltown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , I ended up pleasantly surprised by Johnson ’ s willingness to skewer all sides of a debate .
This centers on Marta , Harlan ’ s nurse , who was ( supposedly ?
Hmm ) the last to see him alive .
Marta ’ s mother came to the US illegally , although Marta was apparently born in the US .
This kicks off a ( brief ) debate about politics that sounds pretty realistic between the older generation of the family , with the younger generation being on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not exactly equal time , but it ’ s generally far more balanced than what we ’ d expect from most films , especially big-budget productions like Knives Out .
However , that ’ s not the end it by any stretch .
As the film progresses , it becomes clear that despite protestations from all sides of the Thrombey clan that Marta is “ one of the family , ” it becomes clear that all sides see her as an object of manipulation rather than a person .
She gets betrayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side tries to wheedle her into their control .
It becomes apparent that everyone ’ s only in this for themselves and that their political posturing is a veneer for their self-serving hypocrisy .
Johnson ’ s point is political , but it ’ s not partisan — and it scores a direct hit , which makes this film worth it just for the witty way in which this plays out .

Who killed Harlan Thrombey? Better yet, who killed it on the state of politics today, especially in its hypocrisy, by gently skewering all sides? If you missed the star-studded whodunit Knives Out when it played in theaters last fall, you now have a chance to catch up to what you missed. Unless you pay close attention to detail in this often hilarious and always intriguing murder mystery, you’ll miss out on even more.
Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is a titan of murder mysteries, the head of an $80 million publishing empire, when he is found dead in his neo-Gothic mansion by the housekeeper. Did he commit suicide, or did someone at his 85th birthday party bump him off? Legendary private investigator Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig, joyfully employing a Southern accent) reopens the case with the local police on behalf of a client … whose identity is a mystery to him. Was it a member of the family, or was it one of the “help,” as the family members occasionally call them?
Rarely does a whodunit succeed while having such obvious fun with itself. The genre tends to indulge in dramatics more than comedy; the Kenneth Branagh version of Murder on the Orient Express is an excellent film but an apt demonstration of this fact. The cast of Knives Out has more fun with this material, as does writer/director Rian Johnson (Looper, The Last Jedi), but with the proper balance. The mystery itself is taken seriously, but the characters’ eccentricities and hypocrisies provide plenty of laughs along the way. At times, it almost appears that Johnson has left the mystery behind, but then a new twist puts it back front and center.
Without giving too much away, suffice it to say that the big reveal has one of the most, er, unique resolutions in whodunit films. The final shot is an exquisite bookend to the beginning of the film as well, providing a last laugh — on pretty much everyone, as it turns out.
Despite having so many notable stars in the cast, they work very well together as an ensemble. It’s tough to pick out one particular performance over another, but Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049) delivers on the critical performance of Marta Cabrera, and Chris Evans turns a black-sheep role into something more nuanced. Everyone’s worth watching, including Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, and Toni Collette. Riki Lindholme doesn’t get much to do but makes the most of it.
Knives Out works splendidly on just the whodunit level, but its commentary on politics is worth noting too. Since that discussion might have to include some mild spoilers, we’ll put it after the rating and the trailer.
Using the Hot Air scale for films already on home theater platforms, Knives Out gets a 4:
4 – Buy the Blu-Ray/DVD
3 – Worth a rental price or pay-per-view
2 – Wait for it to come on a TV channel you already get
1 – Avoid at all costs
Knives Out is rated PG-13 for language and some blood, but the mild violence isn’t worrisome enough to exclude teenagers or perhaps even a mature adolescent. Younger viewers might not catch all the nuances, but it’s entertaining enough to keep their attention regardless.
And now, for the slight-spoiler discussion of the film’s treatment of politics. Scroll past the trailer … if you dare!
Some mild spoilers follow (you’ve been warned!).
Normally, conservative moviegoers get uneasy when any political debate erupts in a film, and when the family members fight over Donald Trump and immigration, the shields came fully up for me. I worried that I’d bought a film that would — like many other Hollywood films these days — end up lecturing me and acting as a didactic for Tinseltown’s progressive politics. This time, however, I ended up pleasantly surprised by Johnson’s willingness to skewer all sides of a debate.
This centers on Marta, Harlan’s nurse, who was (supposedly? Hmm) the last to see him alive. Marta’s mother came to the US illegally, although Marta was apparently born in the US. This kicks off a (brief) debate about politics that sounds pretty realistic between the older generation of the family, with the younger generation being on the extremes in both directions. It’s not exactly equal time, but it’s generally far more balanced than what we’d expect from most films, especially big-budget productions like Knives Out.
However, that’s not the end it by any stretch. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that despite protestations from all sides of the Thrombey clan that Marta is “one of the family,” it becomes clear that all sides see her as an object of manipulation rather than a person. She gets betrayed by one side, while the other side tries to wheedle her into their control. It becomes apparent that everyone’s only in this for themselves and that their political posturing is a veneer for their self-serving hypocrisy. Johnson’s point is political, but it’s not partisan — and it scores a direct hit, which makes this film worth it just for the witty way in which this plays out.


hotair--2020-02-17--Latest Extinction Rebellion stunt: Digging up lawns

The Extinction Rebellion campaigners who shut down major streets and attempted to stop commuter trains last year have taken up a new tactic : Digging holes in the ground .
Today , that took place at Trinity College : Trinity College Cambridge is famed for the perfectly manicured lawns upon which former scholars like Sir Isaac Newton may have ruminated on life ’ s most impenetrable questions .
Today , however , its lawn was the staging post for an Extinction Rebellion protest as activists dug trenches and chained themselves to an apple tree grafted from the one said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Extinction Rebellion who declined to give his last name , said the group arrived at 9am to dig up the lawn and were unopposed by college porters .
“ Doing these symbolic , disruptive actions is one of the ways in which we can drive the conversation into how we respect nature and get off fossil fuels as a country , ” he said .
Here ’ s what it looked like : The digging was intended as a protest against Trinity College ’ s potential sale of farm land for development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the earth was brought to a local Barclay ’ s Bank where it was dumped inside : Walking from Trinity College to the Barclays Bank on St Andrew ’ s Street the group carried the dirt in wheelbarrows before dumping it in the foyer of the bank .
The protesters then proceeded to lie down in the dirt , similar to the ‘ die-in ’ style of protest they hold .
Here ’ s a photo taken by David Johnson and published by Cambridgeshire Live : No one was apparently arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports the action has been “ recorded ” for criminal damage : A Cambridgeshire Police spokeswoman said the force was liaising with the college and that “ a crime has been recorded for criminal damage ” … A Trinity spokeswoman said the college “ respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protesters to leave ” .
But the “ direct action ” did not make a favorable impression on everyone : This isn ’ t the first time Extinction Rebellion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group made news for a similar stunt digging up grass outside the Home Office .
The Telegraph published this video last Thursday :

The Extinction Rebellion campaigners who shut down major streets and attempted to stop commuter trains last year have taken up a new tactic: Digging holes in the ground. Today, that took place at Trinity College:
Trinity College Cambridge is famed for the perfectly manicured lawns upon which former scholars like Sir Isaac Newton may have ruminated on life’s most impenetrable questions. Today, however, its lawn was the staging post for an Extinction Rebellion protest as activists dug trenches and chained themselves to an apple tree grafted from the one said to have inspired Newton… Nathan, a spokesman for Extinction Rebellion who declined to give his last name, said the group arrived at 9am to dig up the lawn and were unopposed by college porters. “Doing these symbolic, disruptive actions is one of the ways in which we can drive the conversation into how we respect nature and get off fossil fuels as a country,” he said.
Here’s what it looked like.
Extinction Rebellion protesters dig up Trinity College lawn at Cambridge https://t.co/IxyBLbaRgW pic.twitter.com/TTnLncvJif — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) February 18, 2020
The digging was intended as a protest against Trinity College’s potential sale of farm land for development. After digging up the lawn, some of the earth was brought to a local Barclay’s Bank where it was dumped inside:
Walking from Trinity College to the Barclays Bank on St Andrew’s Street the group carried the dirt in wheelbarrows before dumping it in the foyer of the bank. The protesters then proceeded to lie down in the dirt, similar to the ‘die-in’ style of protest they hold.
Here’s a photo taken by David Johnson and published by Cambridgeshire Live:
No one was apparently arrested for destroying the lawn but the BBC reports the action has been “recorded” for criminal damage:
A Cambridgeshire Police spokeswoman said the force was liaising with the college and that “a crime has been recorded for criminal damage”… A Trinity spokeswoman said the college “respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protesters to leave”.
But the “direct action” did not make a favorable impression on everyone:
Local businessman Dr Tim Norman described the action as “counter-productive vandalism”. He said: “[It] seemed to confuse the tourists too, as it wasn’t clear what they were doing it for.”
This isn’t the first time Extinction Rebellion has used this tactic. Last week the group made news for a similar stunt digging up grass outside the Home Office. The Telegraph published this video last Thursday:


hotair--2020-02-17--CNN host: Was it perhaps stupid of me to take Avenatti's presidential chances seriously?

Was it stupid in the abstract , given that this guy ’ s now facing 40 years in prison and still has two more trials to go ?
Perhaps .
Perhaps .
But I understand the impulse after 2016 to take even outlandish longshot candidates semi-seriously , and I think there may be a pro-Trump/anti-Trump divide on that point .
If you ’ re pro-Trump , his victory four years ago holds no lessons for anyone else .
He ’ s a singular figure , a winner to his core , who ran on an unusual right-wing populist platform that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magic can ’ t be duplicated .
So why would his win portend anything for any Democratic “ outsider , ” including and especially Creepy Porn Lawyer ?
Whereas if you ’ re anti-Trump , the shining lesson of 2016 is even the craziest sh*t is now possible .
The guy from “ The Apprentice ” as president of the United States ?
Done .
A no-name under-40 mayor from Indiana finishing right near the top in Iowa and New Hampshire ?
Also done .
A mega-rich former Republican and Wall Street plutocrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s left-wing party ?
Now in progress .
Oprah jumping into the field tomorrow and racing out to a 10-point lead in polling ?
None of us would rule it out .
A pugnacious litigator turned ubiquitous media celebrity energizing Democrats nationally with his legal crusade against Trump , then parlaying that into some interest among voters whose fondest wish is seeing Trump punched in the nose ?
Hmmm .
Not likely .
But remember the shining lesson .
Avenatti was an … imperfect vessel for his strategy but Mike Bloomberg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appeal to Democratic voters .
First , attack Trump relentlessly .
Second , be on television at all times .
Bloomberg manages that with unprecedented ad spending , Avenatti tried to swing it with personal appearances .
They ’ re poles apart in other ways , of course — Bloomberg ’ s not just a three-term former mayor of NYC , he , you know , pays his bills — but I think most of his polling surge thus far is owed to sheer ubiquity plus a demonstrated commitment to attacking Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or government .
That ’ s what proto-candidate Avenatti was eyeing too .
The effect is a bit larger when you can devote a billion dollars to the effort instead of trying to do it all through “ Morning Joe ” interviews , but still .
And Lachlan Markay ’ s right in the clip below about how some Democrats crave a scoundrel who can do to Trump what Trump has done to them .
They feel bullied by him ; they resent that he wriggles out of jam after jam ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rules ” in 2016 and nominated the name-brand establishment politician and saw the election go to President “ Access Hollywood ” anyway .
Are there enough of them out there to have made Avenatti a vaguely plausible-ish contender assuming he hadn ’ t allegedly engaged in a full-blown crime spree ?
Nah .
But there may be enough of them to nominate Mike Bloomberg despite his many flaws as a person and public executive .
I remember writing a few months ago when he announced his candidacy that he was a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
But there ’ s a *big* “ nuke Trump ” constituency .
Avenatti tried to talk his way into their hearts before he blew himself up .
Bloomy ’ s going to try to buy his way in .

Was it stupid in the abstract, given that this guy’s now facing 40 years in prison and still has two more trials to go? Perhaps. Perhaps.
But I understand the impulse after 2016 to take even outlandish longshot candidates semi-seriously, and I think there may be a pro-Trump/anti-Trump divide on that point. If you’re pro-Trump, his victory four years ago holds no lessons for anyone else. He’s a singular figure, a winner to his core, who ran on an unusual right-wing populist platform that galvanized white working-class voters. That special magic can’t be duplicated. So why would his win portend anything for any Democratic “outsider,” including and especially Creepy Porn Lawyer?
Whereas if you’re anti-Trump, the shining lesson of 2016 is even the craziest sh*t is now possible. The guy from “The Apprentice” as president of the United States? Done. A no-name under-40 mayor from Indiana finishing right near the top in Iowa and New Hampshire? Also done. A mega-rich former Republican and Wall Street plutocrat contending for the nomination of America’s left-wing party? Now in progress. Oprah jumping into the field tomorrow and racing out to a 10-point lead in polling? None of us would rule it out. A pugnacious litigator turned ubiquitous media celebrity energizing Democrats nationally with his legal crusade against Trump, then parlaying that into some interest among voters whose fondest wish is seeing Trump punched in the nose? Hmmm.
Not likely. But remember the shining lesson.
Avenatti was an … imperfect vessel for his strategy but Mike Bloomberg’s campaign is following similar instincts in how to appeal to Democratic voters. First, attack Trump relentlessly. Second, be on television at all times. Bloomberg manages that with unprecedented ad spending, Avenatti tried to swing it with personal appearances. They’re poles apart in other ways, of course — Bloomberg’s not just a three-term former mayor of NYC, he, you know, pays his bills — but I think most of his polling surge thus far is owed to sheer ubiquity plus a demonstrated commitment to attacking Trump more so than his record in business or government. That’s what proto-candidate Avenatti was eyeing too. The effect is a bit larger when you can devote a billion dollars to the effort instead of trying to do it all through “Morning Joe” interviews, but still.
And Lachlan Markay’s right in the clip below about how some Democrats crave a scoundrel who can do to Trump what Trump has done to them. They feel bullied by him; they resent that he wriggles out of jam after jam; it gnaws at them that they followed the “rules” in 2016 and nominated the name-brand establishment politician and saw the election go to President “Access Hollywood” anyway. Are there enough of them out there to have made Avenatti a vaguely plausible-ish contender assuming he hadn’t allegedly engaged in a full-blown crime spree? Nah. But there may be enough of them to nominate Mike Bloomberg despite his many flaws as a person and public executive. I remember writing a few months ago when he announced his candidacy that he was a man without any natural constituency — which is true. But there’s a *big* “nuke Trump” constituency. Avenatti tried to talk his way into their hearts before he blew himself up. Bloomy’s going to try to buy his way in.


hotair--2020-02-17--Steyer: People can't be trusted to judge their own economic situation, or something

How do Donald Trump ’ s opponents , both in Congress and in the presidential election , beat him on the economy ?
“ Democrats are going to have to take him on directly , ” Tom Steyer told Martha Raddatz yesterday on ABC ’ s This Week , but Steyer tried nothing but misdirection in attempting to answer Raddatz ’ actual question .
When Raddatz caught him at it , Steyer ’ s stumbles showed just how hard it will be to sell an economic crisis in 2020 : RADDATZ : Mr. Steyer , you say that you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the latest Quinnipiac national poll again released just this week says 70 percent of voters describe the nation ’ s economy as excellent or good .
So how do you convince them that a change is needed when they think they ’ re doing so well under Donald Trump ?
STEYER : I think if you take a look at what he says , everything he says superficially sounds right but is actually a lie .
So when he says the economy is growing , I can show that , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to rich people .
When he says unemployment is low , which is true , I can show that the wages people are getting don ’ t support a family .
And when he says the stock market is up , these are his three big statistics , it ’ s largely because of the huge tax break he gave to big corporations , but it also is — doesn ’ t matter that much because most of the stocks — 85 percent of the stocks are held by the top 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the richest Americans .
Does Donald Trump lie about the economy ?
He certainly brags about it a lot , sometimes hyperbolically , but Americans overwhelmingly see their own economic situation as not just good but getting better too .
And that was the actual question , Raddatz reminded Steyer — how do you convince 70 % of Americans who feel that the status quo works for them to change horses in midstream ?
Steyer , refusing to answer the question , accuses Raddatz of covering for Trump .
Huh ?
RADDATZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to that 70 percent number .
STEYER : So it ’ s — this has been — RADDATZ : You talk — you talk about the wealthy .
They ’ re not all wealthy people .
Seventy percent say the economy is good and they ’ re doing well .
STEYER : Well , I ’ m just saying to you , here we are on a show and you ’ re standing up for Mr. Trump ’ s version of the economy .
And I ’ m telling you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
And so — RADDATZ : I ’ m telling you about a national poll .
I ’ m not standing up for anybody .
I ’ m telling — I ’ m telling you about a national poll .
It ’ s not just Quinnipiac , either .
Gallup released two polls over the last two weeks that have a similar result .
When asked about their economic position since Trump won the presidency , 61 % say they are better off than in 2016 .
That ’ s a record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eleven points higher than the previous record .
The Gallup poll from the previous week showed 59 % felt better about their own personal economy than a year ago , and 74 % expected to do even better in 2020 — both new record highs in the 41-year series .
Steyer says that Democrats need to tell “ a different story of this economy , ” which should be an interesting exercise in cognitive dissonance : STEYER : And what I ’ m saying is this , there is a different story of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be told .
Mr. Trump has to be faced down about what he ’ s saying on the economy because he is running on the economy .
That ’ s exactly what he ’ s going to say .
He ’ s going to say , I ’ m great on the economy and Democrats stink .
STEYER : I can take him on , on that because it has to be shown that this economy actually isn ’ t working for the vast bulk of Americans and this president is dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of health care and in terms of retirement .
That ’ s not being told .
Democrats are going to have to take him on directly .
And you thought I was kidding when I called this Operation Us Or Your Own Lying Eyes !
Steyer never does answer Raddatz ’ question , nor will Democrats be able to answer it in 2020 absent an actual economic crisis .
If this status quo extends to November , they won ’ t have an economic case to make .
They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that won ’ t work anywhere except within the progressive echo chamber .

How do Donald Trump’s opponents, both in Congress and in the presidential election, beat him on the economy? “Democrats are going to have to take him on directly,” Tom Steyer told Martha Raddatz yesterday on ABC’s This Week, but Steyer tried nothing but misdirection in attempting to answer Raddatz’ actual question. When Raddatz caught him at it, Steyer’s stumbles showed just how hard it will be to sell an economic crisis in 2020:
ABC News’ Martha Raddatz shuts down Tom Steyer on President Trump's strong economy: 70% rate the “economy as excellent or good” pic.twitter.com/X4bYcO1IMQ — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 16, 2020
RADDATZ: Mr. Steyer, you say that you can take on Donald Trump on the economy. But the latest Quinnipiac national poll again released just this week says 70 percent of voters describe the nation’s economy as excellent or good. So how do you convince them that a change is needed when they think they’re doing so well under Donald Trump? STEYER: I think if you take a look at what he says, everything he says superficially sounds right but is actually a lie. So when he says the economy is growing, I can show that, in fact, all the money’s going to rich people. When he says unemployment is low, which is true, I can show that the wages people are getting don’t support a family. And when he says the stock market is up, these are his three big statistics, it’s largely because of the huge tax break he gave to big corporations, but it also is — doesn’t matter that much because most of the stocks — 85 percent of the stocks are held by the top 10 percent of — 10 — ten percent of the richest Americans.
Does Donald Trump lie about the economy? He certainly brags about it a lot, sometimes hyperbolically, but Americans overwhelmingly see their own economic situation as not just good but getting better too. And that was the actual question, Raddatz reminded Steyer — how do you convince 70% of Americans who feel that the status quo works for them to change horses in midstream?
Steyer, refusing to answer the question, accuses Raddatz of covering for Trump. Huh?
RADDATZ: But — but I want to go back to that 70 percent number. STEYER: So it’s — this has been — RADDATZ: You talk — you talk about the wealthy. They’re not all wealthy people. Seventy percent say the economy is good and they’re doing well. STEYER: Well, I’m just saying to you, here we are on a show and you’re standing up for Mr. Trump’s version of the economy. And I’m telling you, what he’s saying is not true. And so — RADDATZ: I’m telling you about a national poll. I’m not standing up for anybody. I’m telling — I’m telling you about a national poll.
It’s not just Quinnipiac, either. Gallup released two polls over the last two weeks that have a similar result. When asked about their economic position since Trump won the presidency, 61% say they are better off than in 2016. That’s a record high in an incumbent re-elect cycle — eleven points higher than the previous record. The Gallup poll from the previous week showed 59% felt better about their own personal economy than a year ago, and 74% expected to do even better in 2020 — both new record highs in the 41-year series.
Steyer says that Democrats need to tell “a different story of this economy,” which should be an interesting exercise in cognitive dissonance:
STEYER: And what I’m saying is this, there is a different story of this economy and this country that has to be told. Mr. Trump has to be faced down about what he’s saying on the economy because he is running on the economy. That’s exactly what he’s going to say. He’s going to say, I’m great on the economy and Democrats stink. RADDATZ: So how do you — STEYER: I can take him on, on that because it has to be shown that this economy actually isn’t working for the vast bulk of Americans and this president is dangerous to them in terms of money and in terms of health care and in terms of retirement. That’s not being told. Democrats are going to have to take him on directly.
And you thought I was kidding when I called this Operation Us Or Your Own Lying Eyes!
Steyer never does answer Raddatz’ question, nor will Democrats be able to answer it in 2020 absent an actual economic crisis. If this status quo extends to November, they won’t have an economic case to make. They’ll be selling socialism to capitalists, and that won’t work anywhere except within the progressive echo chamber.


hotair--2020-02-17--Brace yourselves. Weinstein could wind up walking

The trial of noted pervert Harvey Weinstein is drawing to a close and , from the beginning , I thought we all knew how it would end .
The guy is guilty as hell , right ?
He ’ ll probably spend the rest of his life in jail .
Well… not so fast .
Miranda Devine at the New York Post brings up a disturbing possibility .
Trials are always unpredictable and in a case like this , most of the alleged crimes are so old that there was essentially no physical evidence available .
Everything the prosecutors had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely on witness/victim testimony .
Devine suggests that the case may just be too weak to result in a guilty verdict and Weinstein could still walk free .
The trial of Harvey Weinstein has provided ample evidence that he is a grotesque pig lacking empathy for the many women he preyed upon , but probably not enough to prove he should be convicted as a rapist .
Prepare for an acquittal or a deadlock after the jury goes out Tuesday , because anyone who has sat through the trial can see the prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Weinstein does walk , it will be a tragedy for his accusers , who at the very least were degraded by their association with him and have suffered brutal courtroom cross-examination .
Devine goes on to say that if Weinstein isn ’ t convicted it would serve as a “ well-overdue check on the power of the # MeToo movement.
” I ’ ll get back to that in a moment , but first it ’ s worth pointing out that we may be about to witness one of the simultaneously crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What the prosecution has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Weinstein did indeed spend most of his career behaving like a disgusting pig who used people like his personal playthings and assumed that his fame and power left him untouchable and unaccountable for his actions .
What they may not have proven – and his defense team did a blistering job of creating doubt – is that any of his actions rose to the level of rape as defined in our statutes .
Several of the witnesses confirmed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various levels of sexual assault failed to report it at the moment and even continued to associate with him after the fact .
Some even made light of the encounters , allowing the defense to claim that this showed they might have given some form of consent to further their careers even if they were disgusted by him .
If at least some members of the jury are swayed by that argument , the reality is that they will have no choice but to support acquittal .
That ’ s just how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much we may think we “ know ” Weinstein is guilty , the people still have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers .
Going back to Devine ’ s assertion about the # MeToo movement , this is something I ’ ve been expressing concerns about from the beginning .
On the one hand , this moment allowed many victims of assault and rape to come forward with their stories after years of feeling that they had no voice in this debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of terrible things were held to account , at least in the court of public opinion .
But at the same time , the # MeToo movement pushed forward a theme best summed up by the meme of believe all women .
And the reality is that not all women ( nor all men , obviously ) can always be reliably believed .
Some people , either maliciously or through simple misinterpretation , will occasionally get the story wrong .
But in this environment , we created a new standard of guilty until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now how the framers intended our legal system to operate .
The sad fact is that my perception of Harvey Weinstein ’ s grotesque behavior doesn ’ t matter here .
If he walks free , the system will have worked as intended whether we like it or not .
I think , in this regard , Miranda Devine has hit the nail on the head here .

The trial of noted pervert Harvey Weinstein is drawing to a close and, from the beginning, I thought we all knew how it would end. The guy is guilty as hell, right? He’ll probably spend the rest of his life in jail. Well… not so fast. Miranda Devine at the New York Post brings up a disturbing possibility. Trials are always unpredictable and in a case like this, most of the alleged crimes are so old that there was essentially no physical evidence available. Everything the prosecutors had to bring to the jury was based entirely on witness/victim testimony. Devine suggests that the case may just be too weak to result in a guilty verdict and Weinstein could still walk free.
The trial of Harvey Weinstein has provided ample evidence that he is a grotesque pig lacking empathy for the many women he preyed upon, but probably not enough to prove he should be convicted as a rapist. Prepare for an acquittal or a deadlock after the jury goes out Tuesday, because anyone who has sat through the trial can see the prosecution has struggled to prove its case. If Weinstein does walk, it will be a tragedy for his accusers, who at the very least were degraded by their association with him and have suffered brutal courtroom cross-examination.
Devine goes on to say that if Weinstein isn’t convicted it would serve as a “well-overdue check on the power of the #MeToo movement.” I’ll get back to that in a moment, but first it’s worth pointing out that we may be about to witness one of the simultaneously crucial and frustrating aspects of our legal system. What the prosecution has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Weinstein did indeed spend most of his career behaving like a disgusting pig who used people like his personal playthings and assumed that his fame and power left him untouchable and unaccountable for his actions.
What they may not have proven – and his defense team did a blistering job of creating doubt – is that any of his actions rose to the level of rape as defined in our statutes. Several of the witnesses confirmed that some of the women accusing Weinstein of various levels of sexual assault failed to report it at the moment and even continued to associate with him after the fact. Some even made light of the encounters, allowing the defense to claim that this showed they might have given some form of consent to further their careers even if they were disgusted by him.
If at least some members of the jury are swayed by that argument, the reality is that they will have no choice but to support acquittal. That’s just how the system is designed. No matter how much we may think we “know” Weinstein is guilty, the people still have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.
Going back to Devine’s assertion about the #MeToo movement, this is something I’ve been expressing concerns about from the beginning. On the one hand, this moment allowed many victims of assault and rape to come forward with their stories after years of feeling that they had no voice in this debate. And many men who were clearly guilty of terrible things were held to account, at least in the court of public opinion.
But at the same time, the #MeToo movement pushed forward a theme best summed up by the meme of believe all women. And the reality is that not all women (nor all men, obviously) can always be reliably believed. Some people, either maliciously or through simple misinterpretation, will occasionally get the story wrong. But in this environment, we created a new standard of guilty until proven innocent, and that’s now how the framers intended our legal system to operate.
The sad fact is that my perception of Harvey Weinstein’s grotesque behavior doesn’t matter here. If he walks free, the system will have worked as intended whether we like it or not. I think, in this regard, Miranda Devine has hit the nail on the head here.


hotair--2020-02-17--Fareed Zakaria: 'The Sanders green energy plan is magical thinking'

CNN ’ s Fareed Zakaria said something yesterday that few people in the media have mentioned : Bernie Sanders plans to deal with climate change don ’ t make any sense .
According to Sanders , climate change is “ a global emergency ” that needs to be addressed immediately .
And Sanders ’ plan to do that is the Green New Deal which he describes with 14 bullet points on his web site .
The very first bullet point is moving to all-renewable power by 2030 : There is no reason the United States , the wealthiest country in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy , like wind , solar , and geothermal .
We have more than enough capacity to produce ample reliable , affordable electricity from sustainable resources .
We must pass a Green New Deal to achieve 100 percent sustainable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and to fully decarbonize the economy by 2050 at the latest .
The federal government electrified America as part of the New Deal .
The United States of America put people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can sure as hell transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewables today and create millions of jobs in the process .
Except we almost certainly can ’ t do that the way Sanders wants to do it , i.e without natural gas and without nuclear power .
There is simply not enough solar and wind power on the grid and even if there were , those sources are intermittent , meaning you need some way to store energy for use overnight and when the wind isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the means to store electricity on a massive scale , such as in batteries , there would be no longer [ any ] need for backup power , ” Zakaria said .
He continued , “ But we are not even close to having the kind of storage capacity we would need to make this work .
“ One example : The clean air task force calculated that just for California to reach 100 percent electricity from renewables it would need 36.3 million MWh of energy storage .
The whole state currently has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ d need to multiply the current storage by about 250 times to cover the need in California .
And it ’ s a safe bet that states where solar energy is less plentiful have even less storage to start with .
There is another way to reduce carbon output that isn ’ t dependent on batteries : Nuclear power .
But Sanders says that ’ s off the table .
Zakaria concludes , “ The Sanders green energy plan is magical thinking .
It presumes that we can reduce emissions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years while simultaneously shutting down the only two low-emissions , always available sources of power that collectively provide nearly 60 percent of America ’ s electricity today .
“ And that makes me wonder : Is the real problem that Bernie Sanders will lose or that he might win.
” Zakaria deserves credit for making this point because I don ’ t see many others in the media willing to acknowledge that Sanders ’ big climate goal is unrealistic .
And that ’ s without even looking at his plan for decarbonizing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion on grants for people to buy electric cars .
The biggest fantasy of all is that , if we did everything Sanders wants , global carbon output will necessarily decline .
That ’ s not necessarily true because , as Megan McArdle pointed out last year , America is not the planet : Today , the United States accounts for 4.3 percent of the world ’ s population , roughly 25 percent of its economic output and 15 percent of its carbon emissions from fuel combustion .
Meanwhile China , with 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has 15 percent of its gross domestic product and 28 percent of its emissions .
And India , with a population almost as big as China ’ s , produces only about 3 percent of global GDP and 6 percent of emissions .
Looking at these three countries brings the scale of the problem into focus .
There is a small , rich world that lives in comfort and plenty , and a much larger , poor one that wants to get rich .
To do so , those billions of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their developing industries are much dirtier than their highly regulated rich-world counterparts .
The global emissions problem is likely to get much worse before it gets any better .
It ’ s not going to be nearly enough to spend trillions on solar panels , batteries , and electric cars in the U.S. For Bernie ’ s plan to really work , we ’ ll need to do the same for China and India as well .
And I don ’ t think even Bernie Sanders thinks we can afford to do that @

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said something yesterday that few people in the media have mentioned: Bernie Sanders plans to deal with climate change don’t make any sense.
According to Sanders, climate change is “a global emergency” that needs to be addressed immediately. And Sanders’ plan to do that is the Green New Deal which he describes with 14 bullet points on his web site. The very first bullet point is moving to all-renewable power by 2030:
There is no reason the United States, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, cannot transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy, like wind, solar, and geothermal. We have more than enough capacity to produce ample reliable, affordable electricity from sustainable resources. We must pass a Green New Deal to achieve 100 percent sustainable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and to fully decarbonize the economy by 2050 at the latest. The federal government electrified America as part of the New Deal. The United States of America put people on the moon 50 years ago. We can sure as hell transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewables today and create millions of jobs in the process.
Except we almost certainly can’t do that the way Sanders wants to do it, i.e without natural gas and without nuclear power. There is simply not enough solar and wind power on the grid and even if there were, those sources are intermittent, meaning you need some way to store energy for use overnight and when the wind isn’t blowing.
“If we had the means to store electricity on a massive scale, such as in batteries, there would be no longer [any] need for backup power,” Zakaria said. He continued, “But we are not even close to having the kind of storage capacity we would need to make this work.
“One example: The clean air task force calculated that just for California to reach 100 percent electricity from renewables it would need 36.3 million MWh of energy storage. The whole state currently has just 150 thousand MWh of storage.”
We’d need to multiply the current storage by about 250 times to cover the need in California. And it’s a safe bet that states where solar energy is less plentiful have even less storage to start with. There is another way to reduce carbon output that isn’t dependent on batteries: Nuclear power. But Sanders says that’s off the table.
Zakaria concludes, “The Sanders green energy plan is magical thinking. It presumes that we can reduce emissions in electricity and transport to zero in ten years while simultaneously shutting down the only two low-emissions, always available sources of power that collectively provide nearly 60 percent of America’s electricity today.
“And that makes me wonder: Is the real problem that Bernie Sanders will lose or that he might win.”
It’s the latter.
Zakaria deserves credit for making this point because I don’t see many others in the media willing to acknowledge that Sanders’ big climate goal is unrealistic. And that’s without even looking at his plan for decarbonizing the transportation sector which includes spending $2 trillion on grants for people to buy electric cars.
The biggest fantasy of all is that, if we did everything Sanders wants, global carbon output will necessarily decline. That’s not necessarily true because, as Megan McArdle pointed out last year, America is not the planet:
Today, the United States accounts for 4.3 percent of the world’s population, roughly 25 percent of its economic output and 15 percent of its carbon emissions from fuel combustion. Meanwhile China, with 18 percent of the world’s population, has 15 percent of its gross domestic product and 28 percent of its emissions. And India, with a population almost as big as China’s, produces only about 3 percent of global GDP and 6 percent of emissions. Looking at these three countries brings the scale of the problem into focus. There is a small, rich world that lives in comfort and plenty, and a much larger, poor one that wants to get rich. To do so, those billions of people will pass through an intermediate stage when their developing industries are much dirtier than their highly regulated rich-world counterparts. The global emissions problem is likely to get much worse before it gets any better.
It’s not going to be nearly enough to spend trillions on solar panels, batteries, and electric cars in the U.S. For Bernie’s plan to really work, we’ll need to do the same for China and India as well. And I don’t think even Bernie Sanders thinks we can afford to do that.


hotair--2020-02-17--New Bloomberg ad goes after ... Bernie fans

A strange departure for a candidate who ’ d wisely trained his fire on Trump up to this point .
Sanders took a hard shot at Bloomberg yesterday… …so Bloomberg took a shot of his own — not at Bernie but at his boorish Internet cult , which advocates zealously for their man : Populism craves messiahs and Sanders ’ s more excitable fans spend a lot of time online protecting their chosen one .
The intensity of their devotion has been written about lots lately , inspired by the backlash the Nevada Culinary Union received when they put out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Medicare for All plan would mean the end of their union-provided health-care coverage .
( That issue has dogged Sanders in the past , leading him to add a carve-out to his M4A proposal for unions . )
The Culinary Union has tens of thousands of members and is tremendously influential in Nevada politics ; that flier poses a real risk to Sanders ’ s chances to win the caucuses .
Berniebros didn ’ t react well to it , but then they rarely do .
With union leaders complaining of harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) taking an interest , Sanders had to issue a perfunctory statement reminding everyone that harassment is bad mmkay : “ Harassment of all forms is unacceptable to me , and we urge supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks , ” Sanders , a front-runner in the Democratic primary race , said .
“ Our campaign is building a multi-generational , multi-racial movement of love , compassion , and justice .
We can certainly disagree on issues , but we must do it in a respectful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Bloomberg ad .
But … who ’ s the audience for it ?
Most Democratic voters have no clue about this drama and doubtless wouldn ’ t care if they did .
Posting the ad to Twitter is a weird choice as well given how Very Online so many of Bernie ’ s fans are .
They ’ ll see it and feel antagonized ; how many prospective Bloomberg voters will see it and feel encouraged to vote for Mike because of it ?
I could understand if Bloomy were aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nudging them to punish Sanders at the caucuses by voting for him instead .
But Bloomberg ’ s not on the ballot in Nevada .
Even under the best political circumstances , the Bernie cult would be the group least likely to turn out in the fall for Bloomberg as nominee .
But he ’ d get a few , purely on “ Anyone But Trump ” grounds .
Attacking Sanders will shrink that number , although attacking him is probably unavoidable as the race goes on .
Attacking Sanders ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrink it even more and is wholly avoidable .
What is he thinking ?
Just showing that he ’ s a “ fighter , ” willing to come right at the dregs of the DSA ?
Trying to suck media oxygen out of the room for Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar by giving the press something Bloomberg-related to write about ?
I don ’ t get it .

A strange departure for a candidate who’d wisely trained his fire on Trump up to this point. Sanders took a hard shot at Bloomberg yesterday…
The simple truth is that Mayor Bloomberg, with all his money, will not create the kind of excitement and energy we need to defeat Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/9azeuWjLap — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 16, 2020
…so Bloomberg took a shot of his own — not at Bernie but at his boorish Internet cult, which advocates zealously for their man:
We need to unite to defeat Trump in November. This type of "energy" is not going to get us there. https://t.co/bPuUZMs2d6 pic.twitter.com/Tdp6mpWjcX — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 17, 2020
Populism craves messiahs and Sanders’s more excitable fans spend a lot of time online protecting their chosen one. The intensity of their devotion has been written about lots lately, inspired by the backlash the Nevada Culinary Union received when they put out an informational flier noting that Bernie’s Medicare for All plan would mean the end of their union-provided health-care coverage. (That issue has dogged Sanders in the past, leading him to add a carve-out to his M4A proposal for unions.) The Culinary Union has tens of thousands of members and is tremendously influential in Nevada politics; that flier poses a real risk to Sanders’s chances to win the caucuses. Berniebros didn’t react well to it, but then they rarely do.
With union leaders complaining of harassment and the media (and Joe Biden) taking an interest, Sanders had to issue a perfunctory statement reminding everyone that harassment is bad mmkay:
“Harassment of all forms is unacceptable to me, and we urge supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks,” Sanders, a front-runner in the Democratic primary race, said. “Our campaign is building a multi-generational, multi-racial movement of love, compassion, and justice. We can certainly disagree on issues, but we must do it in a respectful manner.”
That’s the inspiration for the Bloomberg ad. But … who’s the audience for it? Most Democratic voters have no clue about this drama and doubtless wouldn’t care if they did. Posting the ad to Twitter is a weird choice as well given how Very Online so many of Bernie’s fans are. They’ll see it and feel antagonized; how many prospective Bloomberg voters will see it and feel encouraged to vote for Mike because of it? I could understand if Bloomy were aiming it at members of the Culinary Union, nudging them to punish Sanders at the caucuses by voting for him instead. But Bloomberg’s not on the ballot in Nevada.
Even under the best political circumstances, the Bernie cult would be the group least likely to turn out in the fall for Bloomberg as nominee. But he’d get a few, purely on “Anyone But Trump” grounds. Attacking Sanders will shrink that number, although attacking him is probably unavoidable as the race goes on. Attacking Sanders’s fans, though, is apt to shrink it even more and is wholly avoidable. What is he thinking? Just showing that he’s a “fighter,” willing to come right at the dregs of the DSA? Trying to suck media oxygen out of the room for Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar by giving the press something Bloomberg-related to write about? I don’t get it.