hotair--2020-02-05--"Year of the perp" continues with release of major drug dealers in NY

I ’ m sure the residents of Gotham must be feeling safer by the day and sleeping soundly in their beds at night .
On Monday evening , the NYPD obtained a warrant to search an apartment in the Bronx suspected of being involved in drug trafficking .
The results surprised even the veteran law enforcement officers .
Six people were inside and in the process of packaging up three quarters of a million bags of heroin and fentanyl .
No , that wasn ’ t a typo .
They had more than 750,000 bags of potentially lethal drugs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken into custody along with the mountain of evidence .
And the following day , thanks to New York ’ s generous new bail reform laws , all of them were released on their own recognizance without putting up a dime of bail money .
The craziness in New York is indeed reaching new heights .
( NY Daily News ) Six people arrested in connection with a $ 7 million drug trafficking ring based in the Bronx were released late Tuesday without bail under the new state criminal justice reform law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday following a search of an apartment on Sedgewick Ave. in Kingsbridge that seized 750,000 glassine envelopes of heroin and fentanyl .
Under the state ’ s new criminal justice reform laws , nonviolent drug trafficking is not one of the offenses in which a judge can impose bail .
Even though he ’ s based further down the east coast , Senator Tom Cotton even weighed in on the insanity of this situation .
The attorney for one of the drug dealers released a statement praising New York ’ s bail reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ client , who has no criminal record and has not been found guilty of any crime , is on supervised release , the City ’ s own highly successful program , which has been in effect for several years.
” Your client may have “ no criminal record , ” but that ’ s only because he hadn ’ t been caught yet .
That ’ s why we have bail .
The guy was caught red-handed with hundreds of thousands of bags of drugs .
Now he ’ s looking at anywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What possible incentive does he have to stick around and show up for his court date in February ?
As we discussed previously , this new law is driving up costs for taxpayers , particularly in terms of overtime pay for the police .
This is probably another prime example of that effect .
Now that these six are out on the loose and obviously are a flight risk , the cops are going to have to trail them around for the next month to see if they try to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means overtime pay and some number of officers who will not be able to investigate other crimes and keep the city ’ s citizens safe .
Even if you agree with some measure of criminal justice reform along these lines , the original intent of the bill was to prevent nonviolent , small time offenders from being stuck in jail for months because they couldn ’ t afford bail .
These six guys were sitting on seven million dollars worth of dangerous drugs in a neighborhood that suffers drug overdose deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
Does that sound to you like harmless people who have “ been trapped in the criminal justice rabbit hole ?
” ( That ’ s how one proponent of the law described it . )
Last week the Governor suggested that some changes to the law may be coming but that it ’ s an ongoing process .
That ’ s not good enough .
This was a stupid idea that is making New York less safe by the day .
It needs to go .
And any smart people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pack their stuff and get out while they can .

I’m sure the residents of Gotham must be feeling safer by the day and sleeping soundly in their beds at night. On Monday evening, the NYPD obtained a warrant to search an apartment in the Bronx suspected of being involved in drug trafficking. The results surprised even the veteran law enforcement officers. Six people were inside and in the process of packaging up three quarters of a million bags of heroin and fentanyl. No, that wasn’t a typo. They had more than 750,000 bags of potentially lethal drugs in their apartment.
The six suspects were taken into custody along with the mountain of evidence. And the following day, thanks to New York’s generous new bail reform laws, all of them were released on their own recognizance without putting up a dime of bail money. The craziness in New York is indeed reaching new heights. (NY Daily News)
Six people arrested in connection with a $7 million drug trafficking ring based in the Bronx were released late Tuesday without bail under the new state criminal justice reform law, officials said. The suspects were busted Monday following a search of an apartment on Sedgewick Ave. in Kingsbridge that seized 750,000 glassine envelopes of heroin and fentanyl. Under the state’s new criminal justice reform laws, nonviolent drug trafficking is not one of the offenses in which a judge can impose bail.
Even though he’s based further down the east coast, Senator Tom Cotton even weighed in on the insanity of this situation.
Six drug traffickers w/ 750,000 doses of heroin & fentanyl were released without bail because NY now considers this "nonviolent." If these traffickers were willing to poison 750k people, why would they voluntarily show up to court for trial? https://t.co/rvdIAWHOM4 (2/4) — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) February 4, 2020
The attorney for one of the drug dealers released a statement praising New York’s bail reform law. He said, “Our client, who has no criminal record and has not been found guilty of any crime, is on supervised release, the City’s own highly successful program, which has been in effect for several years.”
Your client may have “no criminal record,” but that’s only because he hadn’t been caught yet. That’s why we have bail. The guy was caught red-handed with hundreds of thousands of bags of drugs. Now he’s looking at anywhere from eight to twenty years in prison. What possible incentive does he have to stick around and show up for his court date in February?
As we discussed previously, this new law is driving up costs for taxpayers, particularly in terms of overtime pay for the police. This is probably another prime example of that effect. Now that these six are out on the loose and obviously are a flight risk, the cops are going to have to trail them around for the next month to see if they try to make a break for it and flee the state. That means overtime pay and some number of officers who will not be able to investigate other crimes and keep the city’s citizens safe.
Even if you agree with some measure of criminal justice reform along these lines, the original intent of the bill was to prevent nonviolent, small time offenders from being stuck in jail for months because they couldn’t afford bail. These six guys were sitting on seven million dollars worth of dangerous drugs in a neighborhood that suffers drug overdose deaths at a rate well above the national average. Does that sound to you like harmless people who have “been trapped in the criminal justice rabbit hole?” (That’s how one proponent of the law described it.)
Last week the Governor suggested that some changes to the law may be coming but that it’s an ongoing process. That’s not good enough. This was a stupid idea that is making New York less safe by the day. It needs to go. And any smart people with the resources to manage the feat should pack their stuff and get out while they can.


hotair--2020-02-05--WaPo: "The Democratic five-alarm fire has begun"

Status of panic button : pressed , and it ’ s not just the Washington Post that sees it .
After the collapse of the Iowa Democratic caucuses and perhaps the prospects of their heir presumptive Joe Biden , the 2020 battleground is starting to look like Dieppe more than Normandy for Democrats .
And that was before Donald Trump delivered a disciplined and conventional State of the Union , with Nancy Pelosi ’ s freak-out at the end : President Trump , on the cusp of acquittal by the Senate and with the highest approval rating of his tenure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Union address on Tuesday night .
The Democratic Party ’ s presidential primary has descended into chaos , with early figures showing that its onetime front-runner , a once-formidable former vice president , is politically wounded .
Around the country on Tuesday , Democrats found themselves baffled by the circumstances engulfing their party — even one that is known for , and sometimes takes pride in , its tendency to overreact with worry .
… Democrats , after three-plus miserable years under Trump , hoped this would be a turning point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly abusing his power and Democrats beginning in earnest the campaign to oust him .
But neither process is going as planned , reviving Democratic jitters that Trump is somehow not subject to the ordinary laws of politics .
Just how much Joe Biden ’ s slide plays into this panic — and how much of it is Democrats ’ own fault — is arguable .
Be sure to read Allahpundit ’ s analysis of the latest New Hampshire voting to get a grip on the danger facing the anti-Bernie , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead much there , but he ’ s been fairly constant in the 15-20 % window .
Bernie has the regional advantage in New Hampshire ; the bigger story might be why Elizabeth Warren ’ s not doing better there .
If Biden starts slipping in South Carolina , that might be a bigger problem , but no one expected Biden to dominate in either Iowa or New Hampshire .
That hasn ’ t prevented the Democratic establishment from freaking out over a possible Sanders nomination .
The New York Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s center is panicking , ” and for good reason .
Sanders threatens to take the party so far to the Left that it might fulfill James Carville ’ s prediction of a Labourite implosion : Mr. Biden has run before and lost before , and despite early leads in several important primary polls , he has begun to slip in key states , including Pennsylvania .
Worse , Mr. Biden has become entangled in the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump , with Senator Joni Ernst floating the idea of instigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s dealings in Ukraine .
Part of Mr. Sanders ’ s resilience against centrist attacks stems from his grass-roots movement of small donors , organizers and vocal supporters .
If party leaders openly assail him , they risk alienating Sanders loyalists , only 53 percent of whom say they will certainly support the Democratic nominee if it isn ’ t him .
The problems at the Iowa caucus have instilled even more rancor and suspicion regarding Democratic institutions among his base .
Establishment attacks on Sanders — especially if effective — could result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home in the general election .
Yet if Mr. Sanders ’ s rise continues unimpeded , the party may risk demoralizing fiscally conservative Democrats , though those voters may be more likely to support a Democrat in the general election no matter what than Mr. Sanders ’ s passionate backers .
If they attack Mr. Sanders , “ they ’ re going to get a massive backlash , but if they don ’ t , then they ’ re going to lose the center of the party , ” Jefferson Cowie , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , told me recently .
“ It ’ s a very volatile moment , I think , in the party ’ s history.
” The five-alarm fire is about more than just Sanders ’ polling tenacity , however .
If the other candidates cleared the field , Biden would probably garner the lion ’ s share of delegates in the upcoming contests .
Democrats have much bigger problems than the stumbles of a well-known campaign klutz .
They have a major credibility problem , in part because they pushed Biden knowing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment push over a picayune issue that ended up making things even worse for Biden , and now because of the epic face-plant in Iowa .
That credibility problem is reflected in the most recent polling numbers for Trump , showing his job approval and re-elect levels at new highs .
It ’ s not a coincidence that this bounce comes at the same time as Democrats ’ attempt to remove Trump from office .
Their impeachment has backfired on them at least in the short run , as it ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their hair-pulling over Trump ’ s presidency , even if they ’ re not particularly fond of Trump in other ways .
It ’ s the Democrats who appear to be the biggest threat to normalcy these days , not Trump .
No matter who wins the nomination , their hysterics over Trump and the entire party ’ s embrace of radical Leftism and identity politics has undermined their ability to compete .
That ’ s why Trump chose to offer what most Americans would see as normalcy in last night ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast against the Democrats ’ serial meltdowns : Otherwise , the most remarkable aspect of Trump ’ s State of the Union speech was how it focused entirely on , well … the state of the Union rather than on himself .
To be sure , Trump started out with a laundry list of accomplishments by his administration , but that is the normal form for these speeches .
Trump also listed out his policy goals for the upcoming year — really more of a campaign agenda — but again , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addresses .
So too are the touching personal stories of the president ’ s guests , who are invited to highlight specific policy issues and legislative demands .
That they did with significant emotional impact , on which presidents have long relied to pressure Congresses to bend to their legislative will .
Surprisingly , Trump refrained from even a mention of impeachment .
That possibility had worried some Senate Republicans who fretted that he could upset the delicate balance of negotiations that has taken Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for acquittal .
Nor did he attack the Bidens , or even talk about his presidential campaign .
He stuck to the script , kept his discipline , and finished out his speech in a conventional and personal finale on the spirit of America and the greatness of the country .
“ The best is yet to come , ” he concluded .
At any other time , perhaps a conventional State of the Union address would simply speak for itself .
For this moment , though , it has a greater strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push a legislative agenda .
Trump ’ s speech delivered a response to impeachment on a completely different level — and on the House Democrats ’ turf , no less .
The only one appearing to act like everything ’ s under control is Trump , it seems .
And it will seem that way to a lot of American voters who are starting to wonder whether Democrats want to derail themselves , at least more so than they want to listen to American voters .

Status of panic button: pressed, and it’s not just the Washington Post that sees it. After the collapse of the Iowa Democratic caucuses and perhaps the prospects of their heir presumptive Joe Biden, the 2020 battleground is starting to look like Dieppe more than Normandy for Democrats. And that was before Donald Trump delivered a disciplined and conventional State of the Union, with Nancy Pelosi’s freak-out at the end:
President Trump, on the cusp of acquittal by the Senate and with the highest approval rating of his tenure, marched newly emboldened into the State of the Union address on Tuesday night. The Democratic Party’s presidential primary has descended into chaos, with early figures showing that its onetime front-runner, a once-formidable former vice president, is politically wounded. The Democratic five-alarm fire has begun. Around the country on Tuesday, Democrats found themselves baffled by the circumstances engulfing their party — even one that is known for, and sometimes takes pride in, its tendency to overreact with worry. … Democrats, after three-plus miserable years under Trump, hoped this would be a turning point, with the president facing impeachment for allegedly abusing his power and Democrats beginning in earnest the campaign to oust him. But neither process is going as planned, reviving Democratic jitters that Trump is somehow not subject to the ordinary laws of politics.
Just how much Joe Biden’s slide plays into this panic — and how much of it is Democrats’ own fault — is arguable. Be sure to read Allahpundit’s analysis of the latest New Hampshire voting to get a grip on the danger facing the anti-Bernie, as it were. Biden has not been in the lead much there, but he’s been fairly constant in the 15-20% window. Bernie has the regional advantage in New Hampshire; the bigger story might be why Elizabeth Warren’s not doing better there. If Biden starts slipping in South Carolina, that might be a bigger problem, but no one expected Biden to dominate in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
That hasn’t prevented the Democratic establishment from freaking out over a possible Sanders nomination. The New York Times’ Elizabeth Bruenig says that “the Democratic Party’s center is panicking,” and for good reason. Sanders threatens to take the party so far to the Left that it might fulfill James Carville’s prediction of a Labourite implosion:
Mr. Biden has run before and lost before, and despite early leads in several important primary polls, he has begun to slip in key states, including Pennsylvania. Worse, Mr. Biden has become entangled in the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, with Senator Joni Ernst floating the idea of instigating an investigation into the Biden family’s dealings in Ukraine. Part of Mr. Sanders’s resilience against centrist attacks stems from his grass-roots movement of small donors, organizers and vocal supporters. If party leaders openly assail him, they risk alienating Sanders loyalists, only 53 percent of whom say they will certainly support the Democratic nominee if it isn’t him. The problems at the Iowa caucus have instilled even more rancor and suspicion regarding Democratic institutions among his base. Establishment attacks on Sanders — especially if effective — could result in Mr. Sanders’ base simply staying home in the general election. Yet if Mr. Sanders’s rise continues unimpeded, the party may risk demoralizing fiscally conservative Democrats, though those voters may be more likely to support a Democrat in the general election no matter what than Mr. Sanders’s passionate backers. If they attack Mr. Sanders, “they’re going to get a massive backlash, but if they don’t, then they’re going to lose the center of the party,” Jefferson Cowie, a historian of American class politics at Vanderbilt University, told me recently. “It’s a very volatile moment, I think, in the party’s history.”
The five-alarm fire is about more than just Sanders’ polling tenacity, however. If the other candidates cleared the field, Biden would probably garner the lion’s share of delegates in the upcoming contests. Democrats have much bigger problems than the stumbles of a well-known campaign klutz. They have a major credibility problem, in part because they pushed Biden knowing his flaws, in part because of their impeachment push over a picayune issue that ended up making things even worse for Biden, and now because of the epic face-plant in Iowa.
That credibility problem is reflected in the most recent polling numbers for Trump, showing his job approval and re-elect levels at new highs. It’s not a coincidence that this bounce comes at the same time as Democrats’ attempt to remove Trump from office. Their impeachment has backfired on them at least in the short run, as it’s clear that most Americans don’t share in their hair-pulling over Trump’s presidency, even if they’re not particularly fond of Trump in other ways.
It’s the Democrats who appear to be the biggest threat to normalcy these days, not Trump. No matter who wins the nomination, their hysterics over Trump and the entire party’s embrace of radical Leftism and identity politics has undermined their ability to compete. That’s why Trump chose to offer what most Americans would see as normalcy in last night’s State of the Union — as contrast against the Democrats’ serial meltdowns:
Otherwise, the most remarkable aspect of Trump’s State of the Union speech was how it focused entirely on, well … the state of the Union rather than on himself. To be sure, Trump started out with a laundry list of accomplishments by his administration, but that is the normal form for these speeches. Trump also listed out his policy goals for the upcoming year — really more of a campaign agenda — but again, this is the convention for State of the Union addresses. So too are the touching personal stories of the president’s guests, who are invited to highlight specific policy issues and legislative demands. That they did with significant emotional impact, on which presidents have long relied to pressure Congresses to bend to their legislative will. Surprisingly, Trump refrained from even a mention of impeachment. That possibility had worried some Senate Republicans who fretted that he could upset the delicate balance of negotiations that has taken Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) all the way through to a slam-dunk majority for acquittal. Nor did he attack the Bidens, or even talk about his presidential campaign. He stuck to the script, kept his discipline, and finished out his speech in a conventional and personal finale on the spirit of America and the greatness of the country. “The best is yet to come,” he concluded. At any other time, perhaps a conventional State of the Union address would simply speak for itself. For this moment, though, it has a greater strategic value than just the normal efforts to push a legislative agenda. Trump’s speech delivered a response to impeachment on a completely different level — and on the House Democrats’ turf, no less.
The only one appearing to act like everything’s under control is Trump, it seems. And it will seem that way to a lot of American voters who are starting to wonder whether Democrats want to derail themselves, at least more so than they want to listen to American voters.


hotair--2020-02-05--<span class='red'>Moment of truth: Romney to speak on impeachment around 2 p.m. ET; Update: <i>Romne

Moment of truth: Romney to speak on impeachment around 2 p.m. ET; Update: Romney votes to remove on one count; Update: Sinema on both counts; Update: Manchin too

Manchin hasn ’ t announced his intentions yet but it ’ s clear enough from his interest in a censure resolution that he ’ s uncomfortable voting to remove .
If you doubt that , go back and rewatch his speech from a few days ago , where he makes the case against removal at some length .
He ’ s in the bag for Trump .
There ’ s real suspense around Kyrsten Sinema , who ’ s eager enough to show her independence and bipartisanship that she stood to applaud Trump several times during last night ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That points towards her voting for acquittal too .
Who would give a standing O to a president whose removal they ’ re prepared to support less than 24 hours later ?
But I continue to think that a pol like Sinema who clearly has a national future can ’ t afford to disappoint her party on a vote this big .
Lefties already dislike her for her centrism ; if she votes to acquit , they ’ ll never condone her as a potential president or vice-president .
Maybe she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become viable as a nominee it would mean that the party had already shifted far enough to the center that she ’ d be forgiven a vote to acquit Trump , even if newly marginalized progressives hate her for it .
I ’ ve thought all along she was likely to remove in order to protect her left flank but after last night ’ s applauding it ’ s hard to believe she won ’ t acquit .
Which brings us to you-know-who , the only vote Republicans care about .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in this post last week so read that if you missed it .
I still believe Romney ’ s *slightly* more likely to acquit than convict , although the argument Adam Schiff aimed at him on Monday afternoon — is there one man of courage who ’ ll say “ enough ” ?
— was probably effective .
And I wonder if Doug Jones ’ s decision this morning to ignore his own electoral interests in Alabama and pull the trigger on removal might give Romney the little nudge he might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are some things more important than winning an election , Jones seems to be saying .
( Never mind that he was destined to lose this fall anyway and will earn lots of goodwill from the next Democratic administration with his vote today . )
Plus , sounds like Romney ’ s on the presidential sh*t list no matter what he does : But like I say , read last week ’ s post .
There are reasons why he might not want to cast a meaningless vote to remove even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If he were in the final year of his Senate term , headed for retirement , that would be one thing .
As it is , he has nearly five years left and may have to serve all of them under Trump .
( Increasingly likely , even . )
He ’ ll be a pariah within the caucus for awhile if he votes to remove and a punching bag for his colleagues , as Kelly Loeffler has already demonstrated .
Nothing ’ s stopping him from criticizing Trump in his floor speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so close would be too disruptive to the country or that he can only judge based on the evidence before him and that evidence doesn ’ t include John Bolton ’ s testimony , alas .
It ’ d be easy to justify an acquittal .
Especially since , if he votes the other way , he hands the other party a valuable talking point that in the end they had bipartisan support for removing Trump .
No senator has ever cast a vote to remove a president from his own party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political legacy if he defies that precedent .
Is that the legacy he wants ?
“ The only Republican during the Trump era to support the president ’ s ouster ” ?
We ’ ll know imminently .
In the meantime , here ’ s Jones with a point aimed at no Republican in particular , I ’ m sure .
Update : I didn ’ t think he had it in him .
That ’ s his legacy , whatever else happens from here .
Update : Looks like Romney whispered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Atlantic , because this story went live at 2 p.m. just as he was making his announcement .
In the end , the evidence was inescapable .
“ The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process , ” Romney said .
“ And really , corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one ’ s oath—that I can imagine .
It ’ s what autocrats do.
” … Romney confessed that he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way out would present itself : “ I did not want to get here.
” In fact , that was part of the reason he wanted former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify about what Trump had told him .
“ I had the hope that he would be able to say something exculpatory and create reasonable doubt , so I wouldn ’ t have to vote to convict , ” Romney said .
Still , he found the case presented by the president ’ s defense team unpersuasive .
Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , that Trump had been acting out of a desire to crack down on corruption when he tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
The Bidens ’ alleged conflicts of interest may have been “ ugly , ” Romney said , but it was never established that they warranted a criminal investigation .
“ No crime was alleged by the defense , and yet the president went to an extreme level to investigate these two people … and for what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made sense , he determined , was a political one… “ I get that a lot— ‘ Be with the president , ’ ” Romney told me , sounding slightly perplexed .
“ And I ’ ll say , ‘ Regardless of his point of view ?
Regardless of the issue ?
’ And they say yes .
And … it ’ s like , ‘ Well , no , I can ’ t do that.
’ ” “ I was under the misimpression that what brought Republican voters together was conviction in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , ” he told Coppins at any point , acidly .
That was indeed a misimpression .
The bottom line here is actually simple : If the president were a Democrat and accused of the same things Trump is accused of on the same set of facts , every last vote in the chamber would flip — except Romney ’ s .
That ’ s his real legacy .
Update : I mean , obviously .
Is anyone even pretending otherwise at this point ?
Update : For the moment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to remove Trump is bipartisan and the vote to acquit is not .
I suspect Manchin and Sinema will change that , but Romney ’ s defection gives them a little more cover to vote to remove now if they ’ re willing to do so .
All they have to say to angry Republicans back home is , “ Hey , the case made by House Democrats was strong enough to persuade a member of your own party.
” Update : As I ’ m writing this , Romney is announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the second article of impeachment , obstruction of Congress .
That article was certainly weaker than the first since Democrats never insisted on their constitutional prerogative in some cases , like calling Bolton .
Executive privilege is a legitimate claim in some cases .
House Dems didn ’ t prove that Trump ’ s use of it was illegitimate this time .
They just sort of asserted it .
Effectively this is a vote to censure .
Various Republicans ( Collins , Alexander , Portman ) have accused Trump of having behaved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one has had the nerve to say they ’ d support a formal censure resolution , let alone removal .
Coming soon : A furious Trump tweetstorm , some dutiful on-the-record grumbling by a few Republican senators , and some grudging on-background praise from other Republican senators that he did the right thing .
Some of the senators in each group might be the same people !
Oh , and lots of fulsome praise from Democrats who ’ d never have had the guts to vote the way Romney just did if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dock .
Update : Just to return to an earlier point , this is going to make it even harder for Sinema to acquit .
It ’ s one thing to betray your party to protect your right flank in a reddish state .
It ’ s another thing to do it when there ’ s a Republican from a deep red state willing to risk his own electoral neck by voting against Trump .
Now lefties have a new attack line against her if she flips : “ Mitt Romney had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wrong and our ‘ Democratic ’ senator didn ’ t ?
” Update : Time to go after Romney and Romney ’ s family , just like the Framers would have wanted it .
Update : This is also assuredly true .
All the lefty hacks praising Romney today were flagellating themselves over “ binders full of women ” in 2012 and Mitt ’ s insolent insistence that Russia was our primary international foe .
They ’ ll find something new to hate him for soon enough .
Update : Trump Jr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The RNC is now dutifully attacking a party incumbent even though his vote means nothing to the outcome in the Senate , not even in getting Schumer to 50 votes .
Update : Ben knows that this advice won ’ t be taken but offers it nonetheless .
It ’ s a fair point , but I think Trump and his inner circle will counter that punishment must be inflicted ruthlessly pour encourager les autres .
You let Romney slide and it might give Collins ideas about how much leeway she has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee .
“ Heads on pikes , ” remember ?
That ’ s how you inspire fear .
I mean “ loyalty ” !
Update : I got tripped up by her SOTU applause last night but my initial instinct about Sinema was right .
No matter how friendly she is to Republicans and eager she is to appear independent , a young pol with a future as a Democrat just can ’ t cross the party on this one .
She ’ s voting to remove on both counts , ensuring her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d kill to know when she decided .
Did Romney ’ s decision this afternoon give her the cover she needed to tilt towards removal ?
Manchin is the only remaining undecided as of 3:50 ET .
In the very unlikely event that he votes to remove , Democrats will have managed bipartisan support for removal with only GOP opposition to it .
Update : Senate Republicans are not keen on Trump Jr ’ s advice to oust Romney from the caucus for a non-policy vote .
Update : I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocking to me than Romney ’ s vote .
All I can think is that Schumer went nuclear on him and told him that they absolutely had to have a unified caucus now that Romney had crossed the aisle .
The only “ win ” left for them in this process was the ability to say that the vote to remove was bipartisan while the vote to acquit was not .
In the end , thanks to Romney , it all came down to Manchin .
Which means , in a weird way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up benefiting the GOP .
If his defection forced Manchin and Sinema to walk the plank and support removal , those removal votes might be held against them in their next elections in West Virginia and Arizona , respectively .
They could end up replaced by Republicans .
Whereas Romney will certainly be replaced by a member of his own party when he eventually leaves the Senate .
Reminding you here that Manchin said early in January at one point that failing to call John Bolton to testify would make the trial a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

Moment of truth: Romney to speak on impeachment around 2 p.m. ET; Update: Romney votes to remove on one count ; Update: Sinema on both counts; Update: Manchin too
Manchin hasn’t announced his intentions yet but it’s clear enough from his interest in a censure resolution that he’s uncomfortable voting to remove. If you doubt that, go back and rewatch his speech from a few days ago, where he makes the case against removal at some length. He’s in the bag for Trump.
There’s real suspense around Kyrsten Sinema, who’s eager enough to show her independence and bipartisanship that she stood to applaud Trump several times during last night’s SOTU while some of her colleagues sat. That points towards her voting for acquittal too. Who would give a standing O to a president whose removal they’re prepared to support less than 24 hours later? But I continue to think that a pol like Sinema who clearly has a national future can’t afford to disappoint her party on a vote this big. Lefties already dislike her for her centrism; if she votes to acquit, they’ll never condone her as a potential president or vice-president. Maybe she’s calculating that for someone like her to become viable as a nominee it would mean that the party had already shifted far enough to the center that she’d be forgiven a vote to acquit Trump, even if newly marginalized progressives hate her for it. I’ve thought all along she was likely to remove in order to protect her left flank but after last night’s applauding it’s hard to believe she won’t acquit.
Which brings us to you-know-who, the only vote Republicans care about.
Inbox: Mitt Romney will speak on the Senate floor ahead of the vote on Articles of Impeachment at 2 p.m. — Grace Segers (@Grace_Segers) February 5, 2020
I have little to add to what I said in this post last week so read that if you missed it. I still believe Romney’s *slightly* more likely to acquit than convict, although the argument Adam Schiff aimed at him on Monday afternoon — is there one man of courage who’ll say “enough”? — was probably effective. And I wonder if Doug Jones’s decision this morning to ignore his own electoral interests in Alabama and pull the trigger on removal might give Romney the little nudge he might be looking for to do the same. There are some things more important than winning an election, Jones seems to be saying. (Never mind that he was destined to lose this fall anyway and will earn lots of goodwill from the next Democratic administration with his vote today.) Plus, sounds like Romney’s on the presidential sh*t list no matter what he does:
With Senate Republicans on track to acquit Donald Trump on Wednesday, Washington is bracing for what an unshackled Trump does next. Republicans briefed on Trump’s thinking believe that the president is out for revenge against his adversaries. “It’s payback time,” a prominent Republican told me last week. “He has an enemies list that is growing by the day,” another source said. Names that came up in my conversations with Republicans included Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mitt Romney, and John Bolton. “Trump’s playbook is simple: go after people who crossed him during impeachment.”
But like I say, read last week’s post. There are reasons why he might not want to cast a meaningless vote to remove even if he feels it’s warranted. If he were in the final year of his Senate term, headed for retirement, that would be one thing. As it is, he has nearly five years left and may have to serve all of them under Trump. (Increasingly likely, even.) He’ll be a pariah within the caucus for awhile if he votes to remove and a punching bag for his colleagues, as Kelly Loeffler has already demonstrated. Nothing’s stopping him from criticizing Trump in his floor speech before lamenting that removal with an election so close would be too disruptive to the country or that he can only judge based on the evidence before him and that evidence doesn’t include John Bolton’s testimony, alas. It’d be easy to justify an acquittal. Especially since, if he votes the other way, he hands the other party a valuable talking point that in the end they had bipartisan support for removing Trump.
No senator has ever cast a vote to remove a president from his own party. That’ll be Romney’s political legacy if he defies that precedent. Is that the legacy he wants? “The only Republican during the Trump era to support the president’s ouster”? We’ll know imminently. In the meantime, here’s Jones with a point aimed at no Republican in particular, I’m sure.
Jones also took a shot at some of his fellow senators over how they have handled the entirety of the impeachment saga. “Candidly, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I fear that moral courage, country before party, is a rare commodity these days” https://t.co/nAIDZr3uaM pic.twitter.com/XUemc8RFzg — POLITICO (@politico) February 5, 2020
Update: I didn’t think he had it in him.
Sen. Romney to vote to convict Trump on charge of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break ranks https://t.co/AchC2DMgsO — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 5, 2020
That’s his legacy, whatever else happens from here.
Update: Looks like Romney whispered his decision in advance to McKay Coppins of The Atlantic, because this story went live at 2 p.m. just as he was making his announcement.
In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one’s oath—that I can imagine. It’s what autocrats do.”… Romney confessed that he’d spent much of the impeachment trial hoping a way out would present itself: “I did not want to get here.” In fact, that was part of the reason he wanted former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify about what Trump had told him. “I had the hope that he would be able to say something exculpatory and create reasonable doubt, so I wouldn’t have to vote to convict,” Romney said. Still, he found the case presented by the president’s defense team unpersuasive. Romney had a hard time believing, for example, that Trump had been acting out of a desire to crack down on corruption when he tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Bidens’ alleged conflicts of interest may have been “ugly,” Romney said, but it was never established that they warranted a criminal investigation. “No crime was alleged by the defense, and yet the president went to an extreme level to investigate these two people … and for what purpose?” The only motive that made sense, he determined, was a political one… “I get that a lot—‘Be with the president,’” Romney told me, sounding slightly perplexed. “And I’ll say, ‘Regardless of his point of view? Regardless of the issue?’ And they say yes. And … it’s like, ‘Well, no, I can’t do that.’”
“I was under the misimpression that what brought Republican voters together was conviction in a certain number of policy points of view,” he told Coppins at any point, acidly. That was indeed a misimpression. The bottom line here is actually simple: If the president were a Democrat and accused of the same things Trump is accused of on the same set of facts, every last vote in the chamber would flip — except Romney’s. That’s his real legacy.
Update: I mean, obviously. Is anyone even pretending otherwise at this point?
Romney: "There's no question that were their names not Biden the president would never have done what he did." — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 5, 2020
Update: For the moment, and probably only for the moment, the vote to remove Trump is bipartisan and the vote to acquit is not. I suspect Manchin and Sinema will change that, but Romney’s defection gives them a little more cover to vote to remove now if they’re willing to do so. All they have to say to angry Republicans back home is, “Hey, the case made by House Democrats was strong enough to persuade a member of your own party.”
Update: As I’m writing this, Romney is announcing that he’s voting to acquit on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress. That article was certainly weaker than the first since Democrats never insisted on their constitutional prerogative in some cases, like calling Bolton. Executive privilege is a legitimate claim in some cases. House Dems didn’t prove that Trump’s use of it was illegitimate this time. They just sort of asserted it.
Update: This is correct:
The fact that Trump was never going to be removed and impeachment functions only as a form of censure makes Romney's vote more important, not less. — Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) February 5, 2020
Effectively this is a vote to censure. Various Republicans (Collins, Alexander, Portman) have accused Trump of having behaved “inappropriately” towards Ukraine but not one has had the nerve to say they’d support a formal censure resolution, let alone removal.
Update: Here’s his full speech.
FULL REMARKS — @SenatorRomney: "The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did." pic.twitter.com/fbIhPG12IO — CSPAN (@cspan) February 5, 2020
Coming soon: A furious Trump tweetstorm, some dutiful on-the-record grumbling by a few Republican senators, and some grudging on-background praise from other Republican senators that he did the right thing. Some of the senators in each group might be the same people! Oh, and lots of fulsome praise from Democrats who’d never have had the guts to vote the way Romney just did if a president from their own party was in the dock.
A visibly emotional Chris Murphy who was in the chamber during Romney’s speech: “That's the hardest thing to do in the world to stand up to your party and to your friends…to just decide to do what's right. I think we all wonder whether we would make the same decision…” — Alan He (@alanhe) February 5, 2020
Update: Just to return to an earlier point, this is going to make it even harder for Sinema to acquit. It’s one thing to betray your party to protect your right flank in a reddish state. It’s another thing to do it when there’s a Republican from a deep red state willing to risk his own electoral neck by voting against Trump. Now lefties have a new attack line against her if she flips: “Mitt Romney had the smarts and guts to say this was wrong and our ‘Democratic’ senator didn’t?”
Update: Time to go after Romney and Romney’s family, just like the Framers would have wanted it.
Per one RNC insider: "Ronna Romney McDaniel better declare her uncle persona non grata or there will be a major push by Trumpers in the RNC to censure the junior senator from Utah and perhaps, just perhaps, oust her." — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 5, 2020
Update: This is also assuredly true. All the lefty hacks praising Romney today were flagellating themselves over “binders full of women” in 2012 and Mitt’s insolent insistence that Russia was our primary international foe. They’ll find something new to hate him for soon enough.
Anyway, will be funny to watch Romney’s eternal “moral hero” status get revoked when he confirms Trump’s next big judicial nominee. — Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) February 5, 2020
Update: Trump Jr is taking the news well.
.@DonaldJTrumpJr on Mitt Romney’s decision to vote to convict President Trump (Yes, this is a real post): pic.twitter.com/SRyUUbTWkU — Paul Cobler (@PaulCobler) February 5, 2020
Update: The RNC is now dutifully attacking a party incumbent even though his vote means nothing to the outcome in the Senate, not even in getting Schumer to 50 votes.
The Republican National Committee is going negative on Mitt Romney pic.twitter.com/Km1lXKhMHx — Reid Wilson (@PoliticsReid) February 5, 2020
Update: Ben knows that this advice won’t be taken but offers it nonetheless.
The White House should simply acknowledge that Romney had his point of view, that they think he's wrong, that the majority of the Senate thinks he's wrong, and move on. Prolonging a firefight the media are DROOLING for would be political malpractice. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 5, 2020
It’s a fair point, but I think Trump and his inner circle will counter that punishment must be inflicted ruthlessly pour encourager les autres. You let Romney slide and it might give Collins ideas about how much leeway she has to vote no on the next SCOTUS nominee. “Heads on pikes,” remember? That’s how you inspire fear. I mean “loyalty”!
Update: I got tripped up by her SOTU applause last night but my initial instinct about Sinema was right. No matter how friendly she is to Republicans and eager she is to appear independent, a young pol with a future as a Democrat just can’t cross the party on this one. She’s voting to remove on both counts, ensuring her national viability in 2024 and beyond.
I’d kill to know when she decided. Did Romney’s decision this afternoon give her the cover she needed to tilt towards removal?
Manchin is the only remaining undecided as of 3:50 ET. In the very unlikely event that he votes to remove, Democrats will have managed bipartisan support for removal with only GOP opposition to it.
Update: Senate Republicans are not keen on Trump Jr’s advice to oust Romney from the caucus for a non-policy vote.
.@byrdinator asked GOP Senators if they agree w Don Jr: “Well I don't," said @SenKevinCramer. "And I don't really know how you expel somebody from the Republican Party."@SenatorBraun: “That’s silly talk.” https://t.co/xXltLubZK1 — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 5, 2020
Update: I’m bowled over. This is more shocking to me than Romney’s vote.
Manchin: "I must vote yes on the articles of impeachment" — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) February 5, 2020
All I can think is that Schumer went nuclear on him and told him that they absolutely had to have a unified caucus now that Romney had crossed the aisle. The only “win” left for them in this process was the ability to say that the vote to remove was bipartisan while the vote to acquit was not. In the end, thanks to Romney, it all came down to Manchin.
Which means, in a weird way, Romney’s vote could end up benefiting the GOP. If his defection forced Manchin and Sinema to walk the plank and support removal, those removal votes might be held against them in their next elections in West Virginia and Arizona, respectively. They could end up replaced by Republicans. Whereas Romney will certainly be replaced by a member of his own party when he eventually leaves the Senate.
Reminding you here that Manchin said early in January at one point that failing to call John Bolton to testify would make the trial a “sham.” I guess he meant it.


hotair--2020-02-05--More on ACRONYM, the group behind Shadow

The blowback against Shadow , creator of the app which made a mess of the Iowa caucus , and the umbrella company ACRONYM under which Shadow was launched continues today .
Politico reports detractors are angry with ACRONYM CEO Tara McGowan but are also hesitant to speak to the media about it for fear of stoking further division within the party : “ People are really frustrated and skeptical about the structure that Tara has created , ” said one Democratic operative , who did not want to be quoted for risk of alienation .
“ There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , like a nesting doll .
It ’ s moving money around in a way that ’ s unclear to people.
” … Critics of ACRONYM declined to speak on the record because they are concerned about maintaining party unity and retribution from the group ’ s donors .
Allies declined to speak on the record to POLITICO , too , saying they didn ’ t want to become a part of the online firestorm surrounding Shadow .
McGowan is a talented operative who has rapidly built a powerful organization and helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Skeptics in the Democratic Party are unsure why Shadow or Courier Newsroom are being run as separate , for-profit companies , which shields them from even the minimal transparency that ACRONYM is subject to .
When ACRONYM files mandatory tax disclosures , it must reveal top employees ’ salaries and payments to its biggest consultants , and provide assurances that the ACRONYM empire ’ s different arms aren ’ t paying the same people multiple salaries — basic assurances to the nonprofit ’ s donors .
“ Everything may be perfectly above board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be , ” said nonprofit attorney Marcus Owens , a partner at Loeb & Loeb .
Courier Newsroom is another for profit company created by ACRONYM .
McGowan ’ s plan is to create online news outlets in swing states which are there to pump out pro-Democratic content .
However they do that without really revealing the goal is to help Dems win elections .
The news sites created by Courier appear to be non-biased sources , at least to the casual observer .
In essence , ACRONYM is creating fake newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million on that effort .
As Ed pointed out yesterday , ACRONYM had clear connections to Shadow , but in the wake of the Iowa disaster ACRONYM is trying to obscure those connections .
Here ’ s a statement ACRONYM ’ s CEO Tara McGowan released yesterday .
It reads in part , “ ACRONYM is a nonprofit organization and not a technology company .
As such , we have not provided any technology to the Iowa Democratic Party… ” The statement also describes ACRONYM as “ an investor ” in the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are tightly linked .
Both ACRONYM and Shadow share office space .
The Intercept reports internal documents also show a close connection : An internal organizational chart shows digital strategy firm Lockwood Strategy , FWIW Media , and Shadow as part of a unified structure , with Acronym staff involved in the trio ’ s operations .
In an all-staff email sent last Friday , an official with Lockwood Strategy reminded team members about “ COOL THINGS HAPPENING AROUND ACRONYM.
” The list included bullets points such as , “ The Iowa caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team is hard at work , ” and “ Shadow is working on scaling up VAN integration with Shadow Messaging for some Iowa caucus clients.
” ( VAN refers to the widely used Democratic voter file technology firm . )
Acronym staffers also attended the Shadow staff retreat .
As for the claim in the statement above that Shadow has other private investors , the Intercept reports that ACRONYM CEO Tara McGowan said on a podcast just last month that ACRONYM was “ the sole investor ” in the company .
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadow as a new company “ that will exist under the ACRONYM umbrella.
” The announcement has since been removed from ACRONYM ’ s website but still exists on the Internet Archive : So the idea that ACRONYM is merely an investor in Shadow doesn ’ t hold up to much scrutiny .
An unnamed Democratic operative told Politico , “ It ’ s the cover-up that f—ing kills you .
The idea that [ McGowan ] was out there saying no one has any idea who was involved with this .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea the firm she launched was being hired to run this project ?
” With the failure in Iowa and Nevada Democratic Party announcing that it won ’ t be using Shadow ’ s app either , the company ’ s immediate future is looking dim .
ACRONYM is obviously trying to get as far away from that failure as it can , but it really appears the blame should be spread around .

The blowback against Shadow, creator of the app which made a mess of the Iowa caucus, and the umbrella company ACRONYM under which Shadow was launched continues today. Politico reports detractors are angry with ACRONYM CEO Tara McGowan but are also hesitant to speak to the media about it for fear of stoking further division within the party:
“People are really frustrated and skeptical about the structure that Tara has created,” said one Democratic operative, who did not want to be quoted for risk of alienation. “There’s a nonprofit and then there are for-profits below it, like a nesting doll. It’s moving money around in a way that’s unclear to people.”… Critics of ACRONYM declined to speak on the record because they are concerned about maintaining party unity and retribution from the group’s donors. Allies declined to speak on the record to POLITICO, too, saying they didn’t want to become a part of the online firestorm surrounding Shadow. McGowan is a talented operative who has rapidly built a powerful organization and helped the party in 2018, they said… Skeptics in the Democratic Party are unsure why Shadow or Courier Newsroom are being run as separate, for-profit companies, which shields them from even the minimal transparency that ACRONYM is subject to. When ACRONYM files mandatory tax disclosures, it must reveal top employees’ salaries and payments to its biggest consultants, and provide assurances that the ACRONYM empire’s different arms aren’t paying the same people multiple salaries — basic assurances to the nonprofit’s donors. “Everything may be perfectly above board here. Then again, it may not be,” said nonprofit attorney Marcus Owens, a partner at Loeb & Loeb.
Courier Newsroom is another for profit company created by ACRONYM. McGowan’s plan is to create online news outlets in swing states which are there to pump out pro-Democratic content. However they do that without really revealing the goal is to help Dems win elections. The news sites created by Courier appear to be non-biased sources, at least to the casual observer. In essence, ACRONYM is creating fake newspapers. McGowan planned to spend $25 million on that effort.
As Ed pointed out yesterday, ACRONYM had clear connections to Shadow, but in the wake of the Iowa disaster ACRONYM is trying to obscure those connections. Here’s a statement ACRONYM’s CEO Tara McGowan released yesterday. It reads in part, “ACRONYM is a nonprofit organization and not a technology company. As such, we have not provided any technology to the Iowa Democratic Party…” The statement also describes ACRONYM as “an investor” in the company.
Here are the facts about @anotheracronym’s relationship to @ShadowIncHQ, an independent company ACRONYM invested in. We don’t have any information beyond the public statements the IDP has put out + like all of you, eagerly await learning what happened and who won the IA caucus. https://t.co/sWohZqZkPe — Tara McGowan (@taraemcg) February 4, 2020
In reality, the two companies are tightly linked. Both ACRONYM and Shadow share office space. The Intercept reports internal documents also show a close connection:
An internal organizational chart shows digital strategy firm Lockwood Strategy, FWIW Media, and Shadow as part of a unified structure, with Acronym staff involved in the trio’s operations. In an all-staff email sent last Friday, an official with Lockwood Strategy reminded team members about “COOL THINGS HAPPENING AROUND ACRONYM.” The list included bullets points such as, “The Iowa caucus is on Monday, and the Shadow team is hard at work,” and “Shadow is working on scaling up VAN integration with Shadow Messaging for some Iowa caucus clients.” (VAN refers to the widely used Democratic voter file technology firm.) Acronym staffers also attended the Shadow staff retreat.
As for the claim in the statement above that Shadow has other private investors, the Intercept reports that ACRONYM CEO Tara McGowan said on a podcast just last month that ACRONYM was “the sole investor” in the company.
Finally, last January ACRONYM announced it was launching Shadow as a new company “that will exist under the ACRONYM umbrella.” The announcement has since been removed from ACRONYM’s website but still exists on the Internet Archive:
ACRONYM is thrilled to announce the launch of Shadow, a new technology company that will exist under the ACRONYM umbrella and build accessible technological infrastructure and tools to enable campaigns to better harness, integrate and manage data across the platforms and technologies they all use. As part of the launch of Shadow, ACRONYM has acquired Groundbase, a peer-to-peer SMS and CRM tool that helped 75 progressive organizations and campaigns win elections during the 2018 cycle.
So the idea that ACRONYM is merely an investor in Shadow doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. An unnamed Democratic operative told Politico, “It’s the cover-up that f—ing kills you. The idea that [McGowan] was out there saying no one has any idea who was involved with this. You’re telling me she had no idea the firm she launched was being hired to run this project?”
With the failure in Iowa and Nevada Democratic Party announcing that it won’t be using Shadow’s app either, the company’s immediate future is looking dim. ACRONYM is obviously trying to get as far away from that failure as it can, but it really appears the blame should be spread around.


hotair--2020-02-05--Breaking: Doug Jones to vote for conviction on both impeachment counts

And then there were two — or three , depending on where one puts Mitt Romney .
With 52 Senate Republicans on record for acquittal votes this afternoon , the outcome of today ’ s vote on the verdict for Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial will be a majority for acquittal .
The only remaining questions are whether the acquittal and conviction caucuses will be bipartisan or strictly based on party affiliation .
One of the three supposedly persuadable Democrats announced this morning that he ’ s not as persuadable as some thought : “ After many sleepless nights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , ” he said in a statement .
Jones ’ s announcement comes hours before the Senate ’ s votes on the two House-passed articles of impeachment : abuse of power over the delayed Ukraine aid and obstructing Congress ’ s investigations into those actions .
Jones has long been viewed by Republicans , and some of his own colleagues , as one of the few Democratic senators who could vote to acquit Trump on one or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sens .
Joe Manchin ( D-W.Va. ) and Krysten Sinema ( D-Ariz. ) , are viewed as potential swing votes but given no indication about how they will ultimately vote .
Actually , Joe Manchin has given an indication as to when we ’ ll get an indication .
He ’ s keeping mum until he casts his vote : It ’ s impossible to read much into that delay , other than maaaayyyybeeee Manchin is still mulling over his choices .
Kyrsten Sinema , the third potentially persuadable Senate Democrat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the way , will hold a presser at 2 pm ET today to reveal his decision , which Allahpundit will cover in a later post .
This might seem surprising , given Jones ’ electoral position in Alabama , but Jones was always the longest shot of the three to flip .
Jones isn ’ t really a moderate — he ’ s a liberal who got incredibly lucky in a special election in drawing the worst candidate that Republicans could have chosen .
As long as the GOP doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , Jones is toast regardless of how he votes .
He has nothing to gain in letting Trump off the hook , and potentially something to lose — a Cabinet position in a future Democratic administration , or a House seat in a friendlier district , perhaps .
That ’ s why Jones isn ’ t splitting his vote in a pretense of scrupulosity over the nonsensical obstruction charge .
He ’ s all in , and probably has been since Day One .
Manchin and Sinema have more to lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps they want to wait to see what Romney does .
If he flips on Trump , then they have less political cover to cross the aisle .
Even if Romney only flips on the abuse of power charge , it still leaves them twisting in the wind with some of their constituents .
We might end up waiting on them both until 4 pm .

And then there were two — or three, depending on where one puts Mitt Romney. With 52 Senate Republicans on record for acquittal votes this afternoon, the outcome of today’s vote on the verdict for Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will be a majority for acquittal. The only remaining questions are whether the acquittal and conviction caucuses will be bipartisan or strictly based on party affiliation.
One of the three supposedly persuadable Democrats announced this morning that he’s not as persuadable as some thought:
“After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” he said in a statement. Jones’s announcement comes hours before the Senate’s votes on the two House-passed articles of impeachment: abuse of power over the delayed Ukraine aid and obstructing Congress’s investigations into those actions. Jones has long been viewed by Republicans, and some of his own colleagues, as one of the few Democratic senators who could vote to acquit Trump on one or both articles of impeachment. Two others, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.), are viewed as potential swing votes but given no indication about how they will ultimately vote.
Actually, Joe Manchin has given an indication as to when we’ll get an indication. He’s keeping mum until he casts his vote:
STILLNOT SAYING: when I asked Senator Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, how he’s going to vote today he responded “4 o clock” three times on his way into a committee — Lauren Fox (@FoxReports) February 5, 2020
It’s impossible to read much into that delay, other than maaaayyyybeeee Manchin is still mulling over his choices. Kyrsten Sinema, the third potentially persuadable Senate Democrat, is likewise staying mum. Romney, by the way, will hold a presser at 2 pm ET today to reveal his decision, which Allahpundit will cover in a later post.
This might seem surprising, given Jones’ electoral position in Alabama, but Jones was always the longest shot of the three to flip. Jones isn’t really a moderate — he’s a liberal who got incredibly lucky in a special election in drawing the worst candidate that Republicans could have chosen. As long as the GOP doesn’t renominate Roy Moore to run against Jones this year, Jones is toast regardless of how he votes. He has nothing to gain in letting Trump off the hook, and potentially something to lose — a Cabinet position in a future Democratic administration, or a House seat in a friendlier district, perhaps. That’s why Jones isn’t splitting his vote in a pretense of scrupulosity over the nonsensical obstruction charge. He’s all in, and probably has been since Day One.
Manchin and Sinema have more to lose, potentially, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps they want to wait to see what Romney does. If he flips on Trump, then they have less political cover to cross the aisle. Even if Romney only flips on the abuse of power charge, it still leaves them twisting in the wind with some of their constituents. We might end up waiting on them both until 4 pm.


hotair--2020-02-05--Uh oh: Two new polls of New Hampshire find Biden slipping

He would have been okay finishing second in Iowa to Bernie .
He even would have been okay-ish finishing third behind Bernie and Warren .
Either result would have set Biden up to deliver this sales pitch to the rest of the Democratic electorate : “ You now have a clear choice between pragmatism and socialism , between electability and purity .
I ’ m the only electable pragmatist left in town .
Choose.
” But finishing behind Buttigieg , as he ’ s certain to do , deprives him of that argument .
Biden needed a result that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a referendum on Sanders , with Joe the obvious beneficiary of the “ Not Bernie ” vote .
For the moment , he can ’ t do that .
And if New Hampshire and Nevada don ’ t give him a way to do it , Mike Bloomberg is waiting to step into Biden ’ s shoes and make that argument instead .
Here ’ s a handy visualization of the last five polls in New Hampshire .
Pay close attention to the trends and the dates , bearing in mind that Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was reasonably clear even amid the Democrats ’ vote-counting clusterfark that Biden hadn ’ t done well .
Biden ’ s a clear number two — until yesterday , when the Emerson and Suffolk polls started picking up post-Iowa reaction in New Hampshire .
Suddenly Grandpa Joe is either tied with Buttigieg or trailing him with a dismal 13 percent .
Either way , his vote share has ticked down noticeably in the past 48 hours .
An obvious possibility : Moderate Dems in NH who had thought Biden really was the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reconsider that , with some of them shifting to Mayor Pete as the Great Anti-Socialist Hope .
Freeman and Morgan agreed that Biden needs to finish in the top 3 in New Hampshire and ideally as the top moderate .
That reflects what had been the quiet hope of Biden ’ s team heading into Monday ’ s caucuses .
They didn ’ t necessarily expect to win outright .
But they hoped that they could emerge from Iowa as the clear alternative to Sanders , a democratic socialist and leader of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An effectively two-person race between Sanders and the former vice president , Biden confidants believed , would open the financial spigot , firm up his advantages among nonwhite voters and win over skeptical white moderates now aligned with Buttigieg or Klobuchar .
We do not have a two-person race at the moment and the New Hampshire polling suggests we won ’ t have one after next week ’ s vote .
We might have one after Nevada the following week : That ’ s when the state electorates start turning more diverse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate in the Democratic caucus there .
The last poll taken of the state in mid-January showed Biden and Sanders neck-and-neck with Buttigieg stuck in single digits .
That ’ s a golden opportunity for Biden to reestablish himself as essentially the only true alternative to Bernie in the race .
But Buttigieg is likely to stick around now , encouraged by Iowa and New Hampshire .
And his strong showings there might get him a little momentum in Nevada .
If Mayor Pete were to finish ahead of Biden in Nevada I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of total collapse .
He might win South Carolina anyway due to his strength with black voters but I think he ’ d need to do it convincingly at that point to have it matter .
Even if he did , his weakness in whiter states would point to a long campaign and the rising possibility of a contested convention .
He doesn ’ t have many chances to try to clear the field of centrist opponents and he ’ s already blown one .
And consider this : Given the high likelihood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after finishing fifth in New Hampshire plus the fact that it looks like lots of Amy supporters switched to Pete before the final alignment in Iowa a few days ago , Klobuchar ’ s loss could be ( mostly ) Buttigieg ’ s gain in Nevada .
Team Biden assured donors this morning on a conference call that they ’ re going to win Nevada and South Carolina , which is probably half-true at least .
But the poor showing in Iowa has some wondering if his organization is up to snuff : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had warned for months that Biden did not have the kind of campaign they ’ d expect of a national frontrunner and anticipated a poor showing .
Into the fall , the campaign ’ s state director , Jake Braun , did not live full time in the state .
Biden ’ s campaign also had a less robust internal data operation across the state , leaving them flat-footed on caucus night and unable to efficiently gather data from precinct captains , a source familiar with his team ’ s operations said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was run with a sense of entitlement , with many potential supporters and activists feeling brushed aside .
The campaign ultimately lost the endorsement of a state senator , Tony Bisignano , who supported Biden in his last two bids , but switched to supporting Buttigieg after he felt ignored by the Biden campaign .
He did fewer daily events in the final weeks before the vote than Buttigieg did and “ there was rarely a sense of overflowing enthusiasm ” at them , per Bloomberg News .
Meanwhile , Politico reported a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire is smaller than that of some of his rivals and that he hadn ’ t run any ads on TV there since New Year ’ s .
That was strategic since New Hampshire is Bernie country and Biden understandably wouldn ’ t want to waste scarce resources there in a futile attempt to win when he could finish a comfortable second instead .
But the problem post-Iowa is that he might not finish second after all , and if he doesn ’ t it ’ ll be received as another bad omen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to unload nearly a million bucks in new ad spending to try to keep him competitive .
If it doesn ’ t work and he finishes third or — gulp — fourth , the “ do or die in Nevada for Biden ?
” media coverage will sprout like weeds .
Consider all of this a backdrop to Jazz ’ s post earlier about the South Carolina GOP launching an “ Operation Chaos ” endeavor to try to benefit Bernie at Biden ’ s expense in their upcoming primary .
If that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden off and put Republicans in roughly the same position as Democrats were in May 2016 when they started popping the champagne at getting to face an “ unelectable ” populist outsider like Trump that fall .
I ’ m sure it ’ ll all work out .
Exit question : This story from Politico finds little appetite among Senate Republicans for committee investigations of the Bidens and Burisma in the wake of Joe ’ s Iowa debacle .
Any theories why ?
We ’ ve been reliably assured that the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposing corruption , not about helping himself in the upcoming election .
If that ’ s true , electoral results should have no bearing on the GOP ’ s interest in pursuing Biden .
Really weird .

He would have been okay finishing second in Iowa to Bernie. He even would have been okay-ish finishing third behind Bernie and Warren. Either result would have set Biden up to deliver this sales pitch to the rest of the Democratic electorate: “You now have a clear choice between pragmatism and socialism, between electability and purity. I’m the only electable pragmatist left in town. Choose.”
But finishing behind Buttigieg, as he’s certain to do, deprives him of that argument. Biden needed a result that would let him frame the coming primaries as a referendum on Sanders, with Joe the obvious beneficiary of the “Not Bernie” vote. For the moment, he can’t do that. And if New Hampshire and Nevada don’t give him a way to do it, Mike Bloomberg is waiting to step into Biden’s shoes and make that argument instead.
Here’s a handy visualization of the last five polls in New Hampshire. Pay close attention to the trends and the dates, bearing in mind that Iowa voted on February 3 and that it was reasonably clear even amid the Democrats’ vote-counting clusterfark that Biden hadn’t done well.
Things to consider when looking at poll volatility in #NHPrimary: * This is art + science
* It's ok for voters to change mind, they often do
* Classic telephone method response ~6%
* Likely voter pool ~250k
* More polls in NH than IA = 1000s more attempts to find fatigued voters pic.twitter.com/ad712X8rpV — John Della Volpe (@dellavolpe) February 5, 2020
Biden’s a clear number two — until yesterday, when the Emerson and Suffolk polls started picking up post-Iowa reaction in New Hampshire. Suddenly Grandpa Joe is either tied with Buttigieg or trailing him with a dismal 13 percent. Either way, his vote share has ticked down noticeably in the past 48 hours. An obvious possibility: Moderate Dems in NH who had thought Biden really was the only centrist game in town now have reason to reconsider that, with some of them shifting to Mayor Pete as the Great Anti-Socialist Hope.
Biden donors are squirming:
Freeman and Morgan agreed that Biden needs to finish in the top 3 in New Hampshire and ideally as the top moderate. That reflects what had been the quiet hope of Biden’s team heading into Monday’s caucuses. They didn’t necessarily expect to win outright. But they hoped that they could emerge from Iowa as the clear alternative to Sanders, a democratic socialist and leader of the left’s progressive base. An effectively two-person race between Sanders and the former vice president, Biden confidants believed, would open the financial spigot, firm up his advantages among nonwhite voters and win over skeptical white moderates now aligned with Buttigieg or Klobuchar.
We do not have a two-person race at the moment and the New Hampshire polling suggests we won’t have one after next week’s vote. We might have one after Nevada the following week: That’s when the state electorates start turning more diverse, with a large Latino minority sure to participate in the Democratic caucus there. The last poll taken of the state in mid-January showed Biden and Sanders neck-and-neck with Buttigieg stuck in single digits. That’s a golden opportunity for Biden to reestablish himself as essentially the only true alternative to Bernie in the race. But Buttigieg is likely to stick around now, encouraged by Iowa and New Hampshire. And his strong showings there might get him a little momentum in Nevada.
If Mayor Pete were to finish ahead of Biden in Nevada I think Joe would be on the cusp of total collapse. He might win South Carolina anyway due to his strength with black voters but I think he’d need to do it convincingly at that point to have it matter. Even if he did, his weakness in whiter states would point to a long campaign and the rising possibility of a contested convention. He doesn’t have many chances to try to clear the field of centrist opponents and he’s already blown one. And consider this: Given the high likelihood that Klobuchar will drop out next week after finishing fifth in New Hampshire plus the fact that it looks like lots of Amy supporters switched to Pete before the final alignment in Iowa a few days ago, Klobuchar’s loss could be (mostly) Buttigieg’s gain in Nevada.
Team Biden assured donors this morning on a conference call that they’re going to win Nevada and South Carolina, which is probably half-true at least. But the poor showing in Iowa has some wondering if his organization is up to snuff:
[M]any Iowa Democratic insiders had warned for months that Biden did not have the kind of campaign they’d expect of a national frontrunner and anticipated a poor showing. Into the fall, the campaign’s state director, Jake Braun, did not live full time in the state. Biden’s campaign also had a less robust internal data operation across the state, leaving them flat-footed on caucus night and unable to efficiently gather data from precinct captains, a source familiar with his team’s operations said. Iowa Democrats say Biden’s operation was run with a sense of entitlement, with many potential supporters and activists feeling brushed aside. The campaign ultimately lost the endorsement of a state senator, Tony Bisignano, who supported Biden in his last two bids, but switched to supporting Buttigieg after he felt ignored by the Biden campaign.
He did fewer daily events in the final weeks before the vote than Buttigieg did and “there was rarely a sense of overflowing enthusiasm” at them, per Bloomberg News. Meanwhile, Politico reported a week ago that his operation in New Hampshire is smaller than that of some of his rivals and that he hadn’t run any ads on TV there since New Year’s. That was strategic since New Hampshire is Bernie country and Biden understandably wouldn’t want to waste scarce resources there in a futile attempt to win when he could finish a comfortable second instead. But the problem post-Iowa is that he might not finish second after all, and if he doesn’t it’ll be received as another bad omen. So a pro-Biden Super PAC is about to unload nearly a million bucks in new ad spending to try to keep him competitive. If it doesn’t work and he finishes third or — gulp — fourth, the “do or die in Nevada for Biden?” media coverage will sprout like weeds.
Consider all of this a backdrop to Jazz’s post earlier about the South Carolina GOP launching an “Operation Chaos” endeavor to try to benefit Bernie at Biden’s expense in their upcoming primary. If that were successful, it really would finish Biden off and put Republicans in roughly the same position as Democrats were in May 2016 when they started popping the champagne at getting to face an “unelectable” populist outsider like Trump that fall. I’m sure it’ll all work out. Exit question: This story from Politico finds little appetite among Senate Republicans for committee investigations of the Bidens and Burisma in the wake of Joe’s Iowa debacle. Any theories why? We’ve been reliably assured that the president’s interest in pressuring Ukraine was about exposing corruption, not about helping himself in the upcoming election. If that’s true, electoral results should have no bearing on the GOP’s interest in pursuing Biden. Really weird.


hotair--2020-02-05--Update: Montana lawmaker rejects calls for resignation, receives threats

Montana State Rep. Rodney Garcia has been asked to resign .
Republican leaders in the Montana House of Representatives sent a letter with that request to Garcia signed by Speaker of the House Greg Hertz ; E. Wylie Galt , the speaker pro tem ; and House Majority Leader Brad Tschida , all Republicans .
Garcia is not having it .
Monday I wrote about Rep. Garcia ’ s headline-grabbing claim that socialists can be shot or jailed because , he said , the Constitution allows it .
While his frustration with the growing trend of normalizing socialism in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no such clause in the Constitution .
Not only does that deny freedom of speech , but it also denies differences in political philosophy .
The proper reaction , especially from an elected official , is to encourage political debate and discussions , not talking in terms of violence .
The latter only serves to divide and turn off those who might otherwise be open to hearing both sides .
The debate on capitalism versus socialism is a very real one today .
Garcia ’ s claim sent the Montana Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a statement was released by the state GOP and a counter-statement was issued by the Montana State Democrats .
Both parties denounced Garcia ’ s remarks on Saturday .
Then on Monday , the Speaker of the House sent a letter to Garcia and posted it on Facebook .
Rep. Greg Hertz admits he has no power , as Speaker , to remove Garcia from office .
The only vehicle for removal is a recall vote by voters in his district .
Representative Garcia from Billings made some very reckless and un-American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House and also joined by Majority Leader Tschida and Speaker Pro-tem Galt we have issued the following letter .
As Speaker , I have no authority to remove him from office and since we are not in session until January 2021 the Montana House of Representative can take no action .
He currently serves on no interim committees .
However , he could be recalled by voters in his district .
The letter got right to the point – his immediate resignation is requested .
“ Your reckless and un-American remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do not represent the values of the Republican Party , Montana House of Representatives or the people of our great state , ” House Speaker Greg Hertz , Speaker Pro Tempore E. Wylie Galt and House Majority Leader Brad Tschida wrote in the letter .
“ Your actions have irreparably undermined the body in which you serve and irrevocably broken the trust of those you were elected to represent .
We believe it is clear that you can no longer effectively discharge the duties of the office you hold ; therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your resignation with immediate effect.
” Not long after I wrote the post on Monday , I was texting with one of my sisters .
She lives in Billings , the same city as Garcia .
She had the same reaction that many Republicans in the room last Friday reportedly had when Garcia first made his remarks – she laughed it off .
The state party clearly wants to nip it in the bud and move away from the publicity .
House Majority Leader Brad Tschida notes that this isn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks .
Garcia told the AP on Monday he ’ s not resigning .
Garcia isn ’ t going anywhere , at least not now .
He ’ s doubling down and he plans to run for the state senate .
The seat is now held by a Democrat .
Rep. Garcia says that Republicans may be calling for his resignation publicly but privately it is another story .
No one in the party leadership said anything to him Friday when he made the initial remarks and now he points to threats he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership didn ’ t confront him Friday after the remarks .
“ I ’ m getting my head so big from people saying , ‘ Thank you , Rodney , for bringing this up , ' ” he said .
“ If people don ’ t want me in the Senate they can say : ‘ Well , I ’ m not going to vote for ya.
’ That ’ s their prerogative.
” Garcia also told the Associated Press also received some threats .
“ They can ’ t come up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to shoot me , ” Garcia said .
“ That ’ s fine , but if you miss , I won ’ t. ” If there is no allowable action other than a recall vote , it looks like Garcia will remain in office .
We ’ ll see how he does in his senate race .
The House Majority Leader doesn ’ t expect party leadership to get involved in his race , like fielding a primary opponent .

Montana State Rep. Rodney Garcia has been asked to resign. Republican leaders in the Montana House of Representatives sent a letter with that request to Garcia signed by Speaker of the House Greg Hertz; E. Wylie Galt, the speaker pro tem; and House Majority Leader Brad Tschida, all Republicans. Garcia is not having it.
Monday I wrote about Rep. Garcia’s headline-grabbing claim that socialists can be shot or jailed because, he said, the Constitution allows it. While his frustration with the growing trend of normalizing socialism in the United States is understandable and justified, there is no such clause in the Constitution. Not only does that deny freedom of speech, but it also denies differences in political philosophy. The proper reaction, especially from an elected official, is to encourage political debate and discussions, not talking in terms of violence. The latter only serves to divide and turn off those who might otherwise be open to hearing both sides. The debate on capitalism versus socialism is a very real one today.
Garcia’s claim sent the Montana Republican leadership scrambling to act. At first, a statement was released by the state GOP and a counter-statement was issued by the Montana State Democrats. Both parties denounced Garcia’s remarks on Saturday. Then on Monday, the Speaker of the House sent a letter to Garcia and posted it on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/181025218640118/photos/a.192507277491912/2686561838086431/?type=3&theater
Rep. Greg Hertz admits he has no power, as Speaker, to remove Garcia from office. The only vehicle for removal is a recall vote by voters in his district.
Representative Garcia from Billings made some very reckless and un-American comments on Friday 01/31/20. As Speaker of the House and also joined by Majority Leader Tschida and Speaker Pro-tem Galt we have issued the following letter. As Speaker, I have no authority to remove him from office and since we are not in session until January 2021 the Montana House of Representative can take no action. He currently serves on no interim committees. However, he could be recalled by voters in his district.
The letter got right to the point – his immediate resignation is requested.
“Your reckless and un-American remarks are beneath that of a public official and do not represent the values of the Republican Party, Montana House of Representatives or the people of our great state,” House Speaker Greg Hertz, Speaker Pro Tempore E. Wylie Galt and House Majority Leader Brad Tschida wrote in the letter. “Your actions have irreparably undermined the body in which you serve and irrevocably broken the trust of those you were elected to represent. We believe it is clear that you can no longer effectively discharge the duties of the office you hold; therefore, it is our request that you submit your resignation with immediate effect.”
Not long after I wrote the post on Monday, I was texting with one of my sisters. She lives in Billings, the same city as Garcia. She had the same reaction that many Republicans in the room last Friday reportedly had when Garcia first made his remarks – she laughed it off. The state party clearly wants to nip it in the bud and move away from the publicity.
House Majority Leader Brad Tschida notes that this isn’t the first time Garcia has overstepped in his remarks.
“There have been other comments Rodney has made, not nearly as horrifying as this one might have been, that we talked to him about and asked him to really curb his tongue,” Tschida said in a Monday phone interview. He said that he hasn’t heard directly from Garcia, but that Hertz contacted Garcia about resigning.
Garcia told the AP on Monday he’s not resigning.
“They can ask me to step down, but, no, I don’t think so,” Garcia told The Associated Press. “I’m going to run for the Senate and I’m going to win. People are going to have to eat their words.”
Garcia isn’t going anywhere, at least not now. He’s doubling down and he plans to run for the state senate. The seat is now held by a Democrat.
Garcia will be up for election in November 2020, before the next regular legislative session in 2021. On Friday, Garcia filed for election in Senate District 26. That office is held by Democrat Margie MacDonald, who first won it in 2016. She previously served four terms in the Montana House.
Rep. Garcia says that Republicans may be calling for his resignation publicly but privately it is another story. No one in the party leadership said anything to him Friday when he made the initial remarks and now he points to threats he is receiving.
Garcia said that party leadership didn’t confront him Friday after the remarks. “I’m getting my head so big from people saying, ‘Thank you, Rodney, for bringing this up,'” he said. “If people don’t want me in the Senate they can say: ‘Well, I’m not going to vote for ya.’ That’s their prerogative.” Garcia also told the Associated Press also received some threats. “They can’t come up to me and talk to me, but they want to shoot me,” Garcia said. “That’s fine, but if you miss, I won’t.”
If there is no allowable action other than a recall vote, it looks like Garcia will remain in office. We’ll see how he does in his senate race.
Montana law allows for recall elections of legislators on the grounds of “physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense.” There is no mechanism for legislators to force their colleagues from office.
The House Majority Leader doesn’t expect party leadership to get involved in his race, like fielding a primary opponent.


hotair--2020-02-05--The South Carolina GOP's "Operation Chaos"

I realize we still need to finish up business in New Hampshire before moving on , but a report out this morning indicates that there ’ s something afoot in South Carolina that we ’ ll probably want to keep an eye on .
Up until now , the smart money has been on Joe Biden to score his first big win there , largely due to his strong support from Black voters in the Palmetto State .
As of this week , Uncle Joe ’ s RCP average is more than 13 points ahead of his nearest competitor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that race pretty much in the bag ?
Perhaps not , thanks to a plan being hatched by the Republicans .
They ’ re going to be encouraging all of the GOP voters to turn out on primary day and vote for Bernie Sanders .
And it wouldn ’ t take all that big of a slice of the state Republican pie to flip that race over and take a sorely needed win away from the former Vice President .
( Post and Courier ) A group of prominent Upstate Republicans are preparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to encourage GOP voters across South Carolina to vote for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Feb. 29 Democratic primary , The Post and Courier has learned .
The Republican plan to meddle in the Democratic race , emerging just weeks before the “ First in the South ” primary , has two goals : Boost the candidate who the Republicans believe presents the weakest general election threat to President Donald Trump and pressure Democrats to support closing state primaries in the future .
This idea is pretty much identical to Rush Limbaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2008 , where he encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton and keep her in the race to sow division between her and Barack Obama .
That didn ’ t wind up delivering too much of an effect , but it ’ s probably easier to manage in a single state than across the entire nation .
The only reason this could work is that South Carolina has an open primary .
Nobody is required to register with any party and everyone is free to vote in whichever primary they like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s primary for some time now , but the Democrats have resisted the idea .
State GOP leaders are obviously not blind to the panic currently setting in at the DNC over a potential Sanders nomination and view Bernie as the easiest candidate for Trump to beat in November .
( I can ’ t say I disagree . )
And since the state GOP voted to cancel their primary this year , it ’ s not as if Republican voters have anything else to keep them occupied .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of basic math can paint the picture for us .
In 2016 , both parties held primaries .
The turnout for the Democrats was roughly 370,000 while the Republicans counted double that amount at 740,000 .
If the Democrats turn out the same numbers and they vote at roughly the same ratio as predicted by the current polling , Biden would pull in somewhere around 113,000 votes with Bernie getting about 63,000 .
That ’ s a deficit of around 50,000 .
So if the GOP can convince just seven percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going out and voting for Sanders , they could probably hand the victory to Bernie .
If Joe Biden winds up losing South Carolina he would almost certainly end up going zero for four in the early states , and that could turn out to be a crippling blow .
That ’ s particularly true if Bernie does as well in California on Super Tuesday as current models predict .
The other opportunity for the South Carolina GOP here is that this sort of operation could finally convince the Democrats to agree to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to registered voters of each party .
That ’ s a better system in any event , at least in my opinion .
And not just because it would largely prevent schemes like the one under discussion here .
Primaries are not actual elections to create a government .
They are beauty contests to allow the parties to pick their candidates .
If you ’ re not a participant in the party , then why should you have a say in who is picked to run ?
I ’ ll finish this up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll wager quite a few of you are already feeling as well .
Yes , I agree that Bernie Sanders would probably be a nightmare of a candidate for the Democrats and he ’ s probably the weakest one to field against Trump .
But Donald Trump is still underwater in most polls ( even though he ’ s doing better in the swing states ) and his reelection is still far from a sure thing .
If we jump on the bandwagon and help Bernie over the finish line in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November ?
Then we ’ re stuck with him for four years , assuming his heart holds out that long .
And the Republican Party would have helped make it happen .
There ’ s some nasty food for thought for you .

I realize we still need to finish up business in New Hampshire before moving on, but a report out this morning indicates that there’s something afoot in South Carolina that we’ll probably want to keep an eye on. Up until now, the smart money has been on Joe Biden to score his first big win there, largely due to his strong support from Black voters in the Palmetto State. As of this week, Uncle Joe’s RCP average is more than 13 points ahead of his nearest competitor. (Bernie Sanders.)
So is that race pretty much in the bag? Perhaps not, thanks to a plan being hatched by the Republicans. They’re going to be encouraging all of the GOP voters to turn out on primary day and vote for Bernie Sanders. And it wouldn’t take all that big of a slice of the state Republican pie to flip that race over and take a sorely needed win away from the former Vice President. (Post and Courier)
A group of prominent Upstate Republicans are preparing to launch a wide-scale effort this week to encourage GOP voters across South Carolina to vote for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Feb. 29 Democratic primary, The Post and Courier has learned. The Republican plan to meddle in the Democratic race, emerging just weeks before the “First in the South” primary, has two goals: Boost the candidate who the Republicans believe presents the weakest general election threat to President Donald Trump and pressure Democrats to support closing state primaries in the future.
This idea is pretty much identical to Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” idea from 2008, where he encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton and keep her in the race to sow division between her and Barack Obama. That didn’t wind up delivering too much of an effect, but it’s probably easier to manage in a single state than across the entire nation.
The only reason this could work is that South Carolina has an open primary. Nobody is required to register with any party and everyone is free to vote in whichever primary they like. The GOP has been pushing to close the state’s primary for some time now, but the Democrats have resisted the idea. State GOP leaders are obviously not blind to the panic currently setting in at the DNC over a potential Sanders nomination and view Bernie as the easiest candidate for Trump to beat in November. (I can’t say I disagree.) And since the state GOP voted to cancel their primary this year, it’s not as if Republican voters have anything else to keep them occupied.
So how realistic is this idea? A bit of basic math can paint the picture for us. In 2016, both parties held primaries. The turnout for the Democrats was roughly 370,000 while the Republicans counted double that amount at 740,000. If the Democrats turn out the same numbers and they vote at roughly the same ratio as predicted by the current polling, Biden would pull in somewhere around 113,000 votes with Bernie getting about 63,000. That’s a deficit of around 50,000. So if the GOP can convince just seven percent of their primary voters from 2016 to bother going out and voting for Sanders, they could probably hand the victory to Bernie.
If Joe Biden winds up losing South Carolina he would almost certainly end up going zero for four in the early states, and that could turn out to be a crippling blow. That’s particularly true if Bernie does as well in California on Super Tuesday as current models predict.
The other opportunity for the South Carolina GOP here is that this sort of operation could finally convince the Democrats to agree to close the primary and restrict the races to registered voters of each party. That’s a better system in any event, at least in my opinion. And not just because it would largely prevent schemes like the one under discussion here. Primaries are not actual elections to create a government. They are beauty contests to allow the parties to pick their candidates. If you’re not a participant in the party, then why should you have a say in who is picked to run?
I’ll finish this up by expressing the same dark hesitancy that I’ll wager quite a few of you are already feeling as well. Yes, I agree that Bernie Sanders would probably be a nightmare of a candidate for the Democrats and he’s probably the weakest one to field against Trump. But Donald Trump is still underwater in most polls (even though he’s doing better in the swing states) and his reelection is still far from a sure thing. If we jump on the bandwagon and help Bernie over the finish line in the primary… what if he wins in November? Then we’re stuck with him for four years, assuming his heart holds out that long. And the Republican Party would have helped make it happen. There’s some nasty food for thought for you.