hotair--2020-02-12--Is Bernie about to become a Trump-like "juggernaut" in the primaries?

Lots of basic good sense from Laura Ingraham in the clip below , warning of the consequences if Democratic moderates don ’ t unite behind a single candidate soon .
And not “ soon ” as in next month .
“ Soon ” as in next week .
Which won ’ t happen , of course .
After all , if there were a way for party leaders to quickly steer voters towards one candidate or the other for strategic reasons they wouldn ’ t be in the situation they ’ re now in , with centrists splintered among four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presumptive nominee , preparing for battle against Trump in the general election .
Watch , then read on .
Does Bernie look like a “ juggernaut ” right now ?
Hard to argue with this takeaway from last night ’ s results : I , er , wonder which other Hillary 2016 opponents benefited from an anti-Clinton protest vote that won ’ t show up again in 2020 .
This number from New Hampshire wasn ’ t encouraging for Sanders either : Bernie ’ s whole pitch is that he can expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t normally pay attention to politics excited to vote .
There ’ s a world of disaffected ( mostly young ) socialists out there , we ’ re told , who just need a candidate who speaks to them to get motivated to turn out .
If that ’ s so , why was Buttigieg the chief beneficiary among 2016 nonvoters last night ?
Right , it ’ s possible that Bernie already converted most of the state ’ s persuadable disaffected leftist nonvoters into Bernie voters back in 2016 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded his appeal much in the four years since .
And , given how much smaller his share of the vote was this time without Hillary on the ballot , it would mean that a lot of those former nonvoters who showed up in 2016 for him ( or at least to vote against Clinton ) weren ’ t still feeling the Bern now .
That would be easy for progressives to explain if Warren had had a big night : “ There ’ s still a humongous progressive vote , it just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Warren didn ’ t have a big night , to put it mildly .
Nor was Democratic turnout explosive , as one might expect from Berniemania if Sanders ’ s argument that he ’ ll expand the electorate is true .
It was up from four years ago , proof that plenty of people who skipped that election showed up for this one .
But that didn ’ t produce a Bernie landslide .
To the contrary , he might well have lost this race if a last-second burst of Klomentum hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg .
The percentage of eligible voters who showed up is closer to 2016 levels than the blockbuster number from 2008 .
The good news for Dems is that there are more Democrats and indies willing to vote in a Democratic primary in New Hampshire now than ever before .
The bad news is that last night ’ s Republican primary was uncompetitive and so those numbers may have been padded by right-leaning indies crossing over to make mischief in the other party ’ s election .
Even with the boost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population and many more candidates in the field with organizations trying to get out the vote , the raw number of votes is only on par with 2008 .
Where ’ s the big turnout eruption that socialism fee-vah is supposed to be generating ?
It gets worse .
“ Youth turnout in the state declined from 2016 to 2020 from 19 to 14 percent , ” notes WaPo .
“ And the candidate seen as most likely to beat President Trump was not Sanders but his 38-year-old rival — former South Bend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to exit polls.
” Sanders ’ s base is young voters ; if there ’ s any yardstick for Berniemania , youth turnout would logically be it .
And if you ’ re losing electability contests to an under-40 gay former mayor of a random midwestern city , you ’ re obviously facing grave doubts within your own party about whether you can win .
And yet .
And yet .
And yet .
Ingraham ’ s logic is remorseless .
The question isn ’ t whether Democrats are excited to nominate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and as I ’ ve shown , there ’ s good reason to doubt so far whether his own base has grown since his 2016 run .
The question is whether the combination of a sharply divided centrist field and the party ’ s proportional delegate rules means it ’ ll be effectively impossible to catch Sanders once he ’ s out to even a small lead .
Nate Silver framed the muddle in the middle this way : A dismal showing in Nevada could marginalize Klobuchar and erode Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he can ’ t win there either , eliminating both by the end of the month .
But I don ’ t see any way that Mayor Pete and Mike Bloomberg aren ’ t major players on Super Tuesday , splitting the centrist vote between them .
It ’ d be one thing if Bloomberg were about to enter the race right now ; if he did well in Nevada and South Carolina , that could essentially finish off Buttigieg and set up a “ Sanders vs. Bloomberg ” race next month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot anywhere in February .
Someone is going to emerge as the highest vote-getter among moderates in NV and SC and it won ’ t be him ; it could even be two different people , especially if Biden ’ s South Carolina support remains solid-ish .
There ’ s no scenario in which Bernie doesn ’ t have the progressive lane to himself on Super Tuesday while the moderate vote splinters to *some* degree .
And that ’ s a big problem under the delegate rules : Some pundits noted last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative to Trump in the 2016 GOP primary since Republicans had lots of winner-take-all states whereas Democrats this year have none .
That meant Trump could build up a big delegate lead despite winning with smallish pluralities of the vote .
That ’ s true — but it cuts both ways .
If , in theory , the party had united behind Ted Cruz after Super Tuesday and Cruz went on a winning streak , he could have caught up to Trump fairly quickly thanks to the winner-take-all system .
Democrats this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since delegates are awarded proportionally throughout .
The bigger his margins are on Super Tuesday , the bigger his delegate lead will be , and the harder it ’ ll be for any candidate to catch him afterward in the later states .
To overtake him they ’ d have to win consistently and by big margins , race after race .
Which is unlikely .
Although Bernie ’ s base is a minority of the party , they ’ re probably a large enough minority to prevent blowout defeats , especially after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum .
Granted , it ’ s possible that as the moderate lane finally winnows the last moderate standing will win enough delegates to deny Bernie a majority .
But that won ’ t matter : If he arrives at the convention with a plurality he ’ ll be the nominee , for the same reason Trump would have been the nominee if he ’ d only had a plurality in 2016 .
The party just can ’ t be seen as “ stealing ” the nomination from a candidate who got the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Defeat in November will be assured .
The moderates need a consensus candidate by Super Tuesday , less than three weeks from today .
There is , as I say , no apparent path for them to arrive at one .
The key is Bloomberg .
Party leaders can ’ t threaten him or bribe him to get out , and he ’ s doing well enough in polls right now that he probably can ’ t be persuaded to quit .
If he were polling at two percent maybe he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar at this point , but at 15 percent or so and rising in some national polls he ’ s going to insist on taking his chances on Super Tuesday .
In which case , maybe the Democratic establishment has no choice but to go all-in on him .
He ’ s the only candidate with the money and organization to keep pace with ( actually , way outpace ) Bernie .
Why roll the dice on flawed candidates like Biden and Buttigieg or switch to someone like Klobuchar who hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bloomberg death star will be operational on Super Tuesday ?
Lefties will hate it , but whatever .
Either you want to stop Bernie or you don ’ t .
Paradoxical exit question : Is the best outcome for Bernie-hating moderates in Nevada and South Carolina a couple of landslide Sanders wins ?
If uniting behind a single candidate is paramount right now to centrists , and if Bloomberg can ’ t be deterred from competing on Super Tuesday , then the logical best-case scenario is for Bernie himself to make Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ridiculous in the remaining early states .
Raise the anxiety about a socialist takeover to a fever pitch and then hope there are enough moderates around to send Bloomberg to sweeping victories on March 3 .

Lots of basic good sense from Laura Ingraham in the clip below, warning of the consequences if Democratic moderates don’t unite behind a single candidate soon. And not “soon” as in next month. “Soon” as in next week.
Which won’t happen, of course.
After all, if there were a way for party leaders to quickly steer voters towards one candidate or the other for strategic reasons they wouldn’t be in the situation they’re now in, with centrists splintered among four choices. Joe Biden would already be the presumptive nominee, preparing for battle against Trump in the general election. Watch, then read on.
Does Bernie look like a “juggernaut” right now? Hard to argue with this takeaway from last night’s results:
A simple, but thus far unremarked-upon truth about Bernie Sanders' performance in the NH primary last night: it proves that a huge amount of his primary performance in 2016 wasn't due to true ideological support, but merely as a place to park a protest vote against Hillary. — Jeff B., who on earth is this guy?? (@EsotericCD) February 12, 2020
I, er, wonder which other Hillary 2016 opponents benefited from an anti-Clinton protest vote that won’t show up again in 2020. This number from New Hampshire wasn’t encouraging for Sanders either:
An interesting thing are the nonvoters of 2016 who decided to vote this time. Buttigieg seems to be the big winner there, getting 47% of 2016 nonvoters that decided to vote. The rest were basically split between Klobuchar and Biden (25% each or so) — Lenny Bronner (@lbronner) February 12, 2020
Bernie’s whole pitch is that he can expand the electorate by getting people who don’t normally pay attention to politics excited to vote. There’s a world of disaffected (mostly young) socialists out there, we’re told, who just need a candidate who speaks to them to get motivated to turn out. If that’s so, why was Buttigieg the chief beneficiary among 2016 nonvoters last night? Right, it’s possible that Bernie already converted most of the state’s persuadable disaffected leftist nonvoters into Bernie voters back in 2016, but that would mean he hasn’t expanded his appeal much in the four years since. And, given how much smaller his share of the vote was this time without Hillary on the ballot, it would mean that a lot of those former nonvoters who showed up in 2016 for him (or at least to vote against Clinton) weren’t still feeling the Bern now.
That would be easy for progressives to explain if Warren had had a big night: “There’s still a humongous progressive vote, it just divided between two candidates this time.” But Warren didn’t have a big night, to put it mildly.
Nor was Democratic turnout explosive, as one might expect from Berniemania if Sanders’s argument that he’ll expand the electorate is true. It was up from four years ago, proof that plenty of people who skipped that election showed up for this one. But that didn’t produce a Bernie landslide. To the contrary, he might well have lost this race if a last-second burst of Klomentum hadn’t drawn moderate voters away from Pete Buttigieg.
The wrong way to look at this. 288,672 (# of Dem. Pres. Primary votes) /614,274 (Reg DEM + Undeclared in 2008) = 47% turnout
254,776/641,848 (2016) = 40% turnout
283,791 (AND COUNTING) /683,798 (2020) = 42% turnout Source: @ElectProject + @NHSecretaryhttps://t.co/jHqRdYeti2 https://t.co/aa4nCFXz9T — (((Jonathan Robinson))) (@jon_m_rob) February 12, 2020
The percentage of eligible voters who showed up is closer to 2016 levels than the blockbuster number from 2008. The good news for Dems is that there are more Democrats and indies willing to vote in a Democratic primary in New Hampshire now than ever before. The bad news is that last night’s Republican primary was uncompetitive and so those numbers may have been padded by right-leaning indies crossing over to make mischief in the other party’s election. Even with the boost in turnout from righties and a larger state population and many more candidates in the field with organizations trying to get out the vote, the raw number of votes is only on par with 2008. Where’s the big turnout eruption that socialism fee-vah is supposed to be generating?
It gets worse. “Youth turnout in the state declined from 2016 to 2020 from 19 to 14 percent,” notes WaPo. “And the candidate seen as most likely to beat President Trump was not Sanders but his 38-year-old rival — former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, according to exit polls.” Sanders’s base is young voters; if there’s any yardstick for Berniemania, youth turnout would logically be it. And if you’re losing electability contests to an under-40 gay former mayor of a random midwestern city, you’re obviously facing grave doubts within your own party about whether you can win.
And yet. And yet. And yet.
Ingraham’s logic is remorseless. The question isn’t whether Democrats are excited to nominate Bernie. Clearly they aren’t, and as I’ve shown, there’s good reason to doubt so far whether his own base has grown since his 2016 run. The question is whether the combination of a sharply divided centrist field and the party’s proportional delegate rules means it’ll be effectively impossible to catch Sanders once he’s out to even a small lead. Nate Silver framed the muddle in the middle this way:
I don't know how the "moderate knot" (between Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg) gets untied because they can all make reasonable and fairly non-redundant claims to being the strongest moderate candidate going forward. pic.twitter.com/YyDuPTvsSk — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 12, 2020
A dismal showing in Nevada could marginalize Klobuchar and erode Biden’s support in South Carolina to the point where he can’t win there either, eliminating both by the end of the month. But I don’t see any way that Mayor Pete and Mike Bloomberg aren’t major players on Super Tuesday, splitting the centrist vote between them. It’d be one thing if Bloomberg were about to enter the race right now; if he did well in Nevada and South Carolina, that could essentially finish off Buttigieg and set up a “Sanders vs. Bloomberg” race next month. But Bloomy’s not on the ballot anywhere in February. Someone is going to emerge as the highest vote-getter among moderates in NV and SC and it won’t be him; it could even be two different people, especially if Biden’s South Carolina support remains solid-ish. There’s no scenario in which Bernie doesn’t have the progressive lane to himself on Super Tuesday while the moderate vote splinters to *some* degree.
And that’s a big problem under the delegate rules:
Scenario #1: Bernie’s Super Tuesday vote share is five points ahead of the second candidate (say, 30% to 25%). Bernie would net 96 delegates more than the next-highest-performing candidate. At that point, it would be possible but difficult to overtake Sanders: To become the nominee, that survivor would need to beat Bernie by an average of 53% to 47% in in remaining contests. Scenario #2: Bernie’s Super Tuesday vote share is 10 points ahead of the second candidate (say, 30% to 20%). Bernie would net 198 delegates more than the next-highest-performing candidate. Overtaking Sanders would be unlikely: The field would need to clear, the and survivor would need to win each remaining contest on average 55% to 45% over Bernie.
Some pundits noted last night that Sanders is at a disadvantage relative to Trump in the 2016 GOP primary since Republicans had lots of winner-take-all states whereas Democrats this year have none. That meant Trump could build up a big delegate lead despite winning with smallish pluralities of the vote. That’s true — but it cuts both ways. If, in theory, the party had united behind Ted Cruz after Super Tuesday and Cruz went on a winning streak, he could have caught up to Trump fairly quickly thanks to the winner-take-all system. Democrats this year can’t do that with Bernie since delegates are awarded proportionally throughout. The bigger his margins are on Super Tuesday, the bigger his delegate lead will be, and the harder it’ll be for any candidate to catch him afterward in the later states. To overtake him they’d have to win consistently and by big margins, race after race.
Which is unlikely. Although Bernie’s base is a minority of the party, they’re probably a large enough minority to prevent blowout defeats, especially after he’s built up some early-state momentum. Granted, it’s possible that as the moderate lane finally winnows the last moderate standing will win enough delegates to deny Bernie a majority. But that won’t matter: If he arrives at the convention with a plurality he’ll be the nominee, for the same reason Trump would have been the nominee if he’d only had a plurality in 2016. The party just can’t be seen as “stealing” the nomination from a candidate who got the most delegates. His base will quit. Defeat in November will be assured.
The moderates need a consensus candidate by Super Tuesday, less than three weeks from today. There is, as I say, no apparent path for them to arrive at one.
The key is Bloomberg. Party leaders can’t threaten him or bribe him to get out, and he’s doing well enough in polls right now that he probably can’t be persuaded to quit. If he were polling at two percent maybe he could be convinced to throw his money behind Klobuchar at this point, but at 15 percent or so and rising in some national polls he’s going to insist on taking his chances on Super Tuesday. In which case, maybe the Democratic establishment has no choice but to go all-in on him. He’s the only candidate with the money and organization to keep pace with (actually, way outpace) Bernie. Why roll the dice on flawed candidates like Biden and Buttigieg or switch to someone like Klobuchar who hasn’t managed better than a third-place finish when the Bloomberg death star will be operational on Super Tuesday? Lefties will hate it, but whatever. Either you want to stop Bernie or you don’t.
Paradoxical exit question: Is the best outcome for Bernie-hating moderates in Nevada and South Carolina a couple of landslide Sanders wins? If uniting behind a single candidate is paramount right now to centrists, and if Bloomberg can’t be deterred from competing on Super Tuesday, then the logical best-case scenario is for Bernie himself to make Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden all look ridiculous in the remaining early states. Raise the anxiety about a socialist takeover to a fever pitch and then hope there are enough moderates around to send Bloomberg to sweeping victories on March 3.


hotair--2020-02-12--Vox: Moderate Democrats need to stop worrying and learn to love Bernie Sanders

Vox has made an entire news site out of writing “ Ackshullly… ” articles , by which I mean articles that attempt to undercut the conventional wisdom .
So with many moderate Democrats in a panic about Bernie Sanders , it ’ s not very surprising that Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias has a piece out yesterday arguing that Democrats should just relax .
Yglesias ’ basic pitch is that Sanders isn ’ t nearly as extreme—and therefore unelectable—as his rhetoric makes him sound .
For all the agita around his all-or-nothing rhetoric , his behavior as a longtime member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mayor ) suggests a much more pragmatic approach to actual legislating than some of the wilder “ political revolution ” rhetoric would suggest .
On the vast majority of issues , a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat .
The two biggest exceptions to this , foreign policy and monetary policy , happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic .
Well , if it ’ s just foreign policy and the economy where he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no big deal ?
Let ’ s let Yglesias try to sell this a bit more : The specter of “ socialism ” hangs over the Sanders campaign , terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that when asked about it by pollsters , most Americans reject the idea .
Given that Sanders himself tends to anchor his politics in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal , it seems as though everyone involved would be better off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label .
Yglesias isn ’ t a dumb guy , so this is one of those cases where he ’ s just choosing to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary .
Sanders was arguably a communist into his 30s , one who wanted to nationalize major industries including banks .
He claims he ’ s more moderate than that now , calling himself a Democratic Socialist which ( in his mind ) means advocating for the Scandinavian model here in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real stretch to suggest that Sanders and the Democratic Party that nominates him could “ push back ” on the label of socialist at this point with any real effectiveness .
He ’ s been saying he ’ s a socialist his entire life .
Now is probably a little late to claim otherwise .
All of that to say , this time the Republicans will be absolutely right if they label him a socialist .
Yglesias goes on to point to Sanders ’ convincing wins in Vermont as proof that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not , per se , incredibly impressive .
There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states ( Elizabeth Warren fits that mold ) , as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing ( former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example ) .
Sanders , however , overperforms in his easy races .
Isn ’ t the reason he overperforms in a state like Vermont because he ’ s such a uniquely home-grown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see how Sanders overperforming in Vermont translates to doing well in battleground states where he ostensibly needs to pick up swing voters who voted for Trump four years ago .
If anything , the reason many Democrats are panicking is because it seems very unlikely he can appeal to those voters .
I don ’ t have time to look at Yglesias ’ pitch for Sanders as a disrupter on foreign policy and monetary policy .
I think the more important point is that he would be a disrupter in a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over .
For instance , his approach to the border wouldn ’ t just be a break from Trump , it would be a significant break from Obama as well .
Vox loves to produce “ actually… ” articles but this one isn ’ t terribly convincing .
Bernie Sanders may not be as extreme if elected as he sounds , but that ’ s only because Congress will never pass most of his agenda .
But the bigger problem for Democrats is that , because his agenda is so far left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election .
That ’ s why so many moderates are freaking out and they are right to do so .

Vox has made an entire news site out of writing “Ackshullly…” articles, by which I mean articles that attempt to undercut the conventional wisdom. So with many moderate Democrats in a panic about Bernie Sanders, it’s not very surprising that Vox’s Matthew Yglesias has a piece out yesterday arguing that Democrats should just relax. Yglesias’ basic pitch is that Sanders isn’t nearly as extreme—and therefore unelectable—as his rhetoric makes him sound.
For all the agita around his all-or-nothing rhetoric, his behavior as a longtime member of Congress (and before that as a mayor) suggests a much more pragmatic approach to actual legislating than some of the wilder “political revolution” rhetoric would suggest. On the vast majority of issues, a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat. The two biggest exceptions to this, foreign policy and monetary policy, happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic.
Well, if it’s just foreign policy and the economy where he’s dramatically different…I guess that’s no big deal? Let’s let Yglesias try to sell this a bit more:
The specter of “socialism” hangs over the Sanders campaign, terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that when asked about it by pollsters, most Americans reject the idea. Given that Sanders himself tends to anchor his politics in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, it seems as though everyone involved would be better off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern where Republicans call mainstream liberals “socialists” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label.
Yglesias isn’t a dumb guy, so this is one of those cases where he’s just choosing to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Sanders was arguably a communist into his 30s, one who wanted to nationalize major industries including banks. He claims he’s more moderate than that now, calling himself a Democratic Socialist which (in his mind) means advocating for the Scandinavian model here in the U.S.
But it’s a real stretch to suggest that Sanders and the Democratic Party that nominates him could “push back” on the label of socialist at this point with any real effectiveness. He’s been saying he’s a socialist his entire life. Now is probably a little late to claim otherwise. All of that to say, this time the Republicans will be absolutely right if they label him a socialist. Yglesias goes on to point to Sanders’ convincing wins in Vermont as proof that he’s electable.
Winning elections in Vermont is not, per se, incredibly impressive. There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states (Elizabeth Warren fits that mold), as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing (former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example). Sanders, however, overperforms in his easy races.
Isn’t the reason he overperforms in a state like Vermont because he’s such a uniquely home-grown, far-left figure? I don’t see how Sanders overperforming in Vermont translates to doing well in battleground states where he ostensibly needs to pick up swing voters who voted for Trump four years ago. If anything, the reason many Democrats are panicking is because it seems very unlikely he can appeal to those voters.
I don’t have time to look at Yglesias’ pitch for Sanders as a disrupter on foreign policy and monetary policy. I think the more important point is that he would be a disrupter in a lot of other areas that Yglesias is skipping over. For instance, his approach to the border wouldn’t just be a break from Trump, it would be a significant break from Obama as well.
Vox loves to produce “actually…” articles but this one isn’t terribly convincing. Bernie Sanders may not be as extreme if elected as he sounds, but that’s only because Congress will never pass most of his agenda. But the bigger problem for Democrats is that, because his agenda is so far left, he probably can’t win a general election. That’s why so many moderates are freaking out and they are right to do so.


hotair--2020-02-12--Maryland Dem Senator: Yeah, Trump will probably win

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland gave an interview to the Baltimore Sun this week and was asked how he thought the 2020 presidential race was shaping up .
His answer sounded like some combination of defeatism and realism .
He may be willing to help keep the fight going , but he still thinks Donald Trump is the favorite to win , despite being a liar , a cheat and a bully .
Somebody needs to learn to turn that frown upside down , Senator .
U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland said Monday that he believes Democrats face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 presidential election and — at least for now — “ I think Donald Trump is the favorite.
” “ I came to that conclusion a couple months ago , ” the third-term Democrat said .
“ Before that , I thought America would not tolerate a person who lies , cheats , is a bully .
That ’ s against our values .
I didn ’ t think he had any chance at reelection.
” … “ When you see the support base that he has and recognize that the electoral map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it ’ s an uphill battle , ” the senator said during an interview with The Baltimore Sun ’ s editorial board .
Cardin doesn ’ t have much to worry about personally .
He ’ s not up for election again until 2024 , assuming he wants another term .
If so , he ’ s in a very safe seat .
He fended off a primary challenge from Chelsea Manning handily two years ago and won another term with more than 65 % of the vote .
The only way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be if Larry Hogan decided to run against him and that seems unlikely .
Anyway , even if Cardin thinks Trump is going to win , who does he think could do the best against him ?
He hasn ’ t given an official endorsement yet , but during the interview , he speaks very highly of Michael Bloomberg .
Of course , he admits he ’ s a bit biased in that regard because Bloomberg has invested so heavily in Baltimore .
Maryland ’ s primary isn ’ t until the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg might be one of the frontrunners by then .
I ’ m sure he ’ d appreciate Cardin ’ s support .
Of course , Cardin isn ’ t the only one sending up red flags .
Recently , Nate Silver told a reporter from the Atlantic that nobody seems to have learned anything from the 2016 election and Trump would likely win a second term .
And you probably already heard that Michael Moore predicted a Trump victory last month .
Personally , I think it ’ s way too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no idea yet who Trump will be facing .
The unwavering enthusiasm of his supporters ( which showed up in New Hampshire last night ) combined with a strong economy probably makes the President a likely choice as the victor .
But Donald Trump is also unlike any president in the history of our country .
He enjoys breaking the rules on such a regular basis that we might as well throw out the conventional political playbooks .
At least for the moment , however , President Trump is doing well enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a funk .
And Ben Cardin is only one of many examples .

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland gave an interview to the Baltimore Sun this week and was asked how he thought the 2020 presidential race was shaping up. His answer sounded like some combination of defeatism and realism. He may be willing to help keep the fight going, but he still thinks Donald Trump is the favorite to win, despite being a liar, a cheat and a bully. Somebody needs to learn to turn that frown upside down, Senator.
U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland said Monday that he believes Democrats face “an uphill battle” in the 2020 presidential election and — at least for now — “I think Donald Trump is the favorite.” “I came to that conclusion a couple months ago,” the third-term Democrat said. “Before that, I thought America would not tolerate a person who lies, cheats, is a bully. That’s against our values. I didn’t think he had any chance at reelection.” … “When you see the support base that he has and recognize that the electoral map is not the popular map, I think it’s an uphill battle,” the senator said during an interview with The Baltimore Sun’s editorial board.
Cardin doesn’t have much to worry about personally. He’s not up for election again until 2024, assuming he wants another term. If so, he’s in a very safe seat. He fended off a primary challenge from Chelsea Manning handily two years ago and won another term with more than 65% of the vote. The only way he’d have any concerns would be if Larry Hogan decided to run against him and that seems unlikely.
Anyway, even if Cardin thinks Trump is going to win, who does he think could do the best against him? He hasn’t given an official endorsement yet, but during the interview, he speaks very highly of Michael Bloomberg. Of course, he admits he’s a bit biased in that regard because Bloomberg has invested so heavily in Baltimore. Maryland’s primary isn’t until the end of April and for all I know, Bloomberg might be one of the frontrunners by then. I’m sure he’d appreciate Cardin’s support.
Of course, Cardin isn’t the only one sending up red flags. Recently, Nate Silver told a reporter from the Atlantic that nobody seems to have learned anything from the 2016 election and Trump would likely win a second term. And you probably already heard that Michael Moore predicted a Trump victory last month.
Personally, I think it’s way too soon to say, particularly when we have no idea yet who Trump will be facing. The unwavering enthusiasm of his supporters (which showed up in New Hampshire last night) combined with a strong economy probably makes the President a likely choice as the victor. But Donald Trump is also unlike any president in the history of our country. He enjoys breaking the rules on such a regular basis that we might as well throw out the conventional political playbooks.
At least for the moment, however, President Trump is doing well enough to throw many of his political opponents into a funk. And Ben Cardin is only one of many examples.


hotair--2020-02-12--Dem post-impeachment strategy: Let's hit Trump on the economy

Good luck with that .
Now that impeachment has failed to dent Donald Trump where he ’ s weakest — on his comportment — Democrats have to find another strategy before November ’ s elections .
Politico reports that Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders have a new project in mind .
They will attack Trump where he ’ s strongest by convincing voters that the economy is much poorer than they think .
Let Operation Us Or Your Own Lying Eyes commence !
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to make a sharp pivot ¨from the heated politics of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key area : the economy .
In a series of private meetings this week , Pelosi has all but explicitly told her members that with the election just nine months away , it ’ s time for Democrats to shift the spotlight away from the Ukraine scandal and other controversies ensnaring Trump .
To further underscore that point , Pelosi hosted a special speaker ’ s meeting on Tuesday with a top Obama economics adviser to explain to Democrats why the economy isn ’ t actually as strong as Trump claims and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … “ Impeachment didn ’ t move the needle … so continuing to focus on that target , you ’ re not going to convince anyone at this point , ” said Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin , who represents a Trump-district .
It ’ s not as if Democrats have a lot of choice in this strategy .
Presidential elections get won or lost in voters ’ wallets more than any other part of their lives .
James Carville ’ s famous exhortation that “ it ’ s still the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , and Democrats will have to fashion some kind of economic message to remain competitive .
Unfortunately for Democrats , that means fighting a battle on turf that Trump dominates — and not just because of his relentless messaging .
Americans feel better than they have in years about the economy and their own lives in it , Gallup reports today : Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago , a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2004 election cycles , exactly half said they were better off .
In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle , an average of 45 % said they were better off .
The current results , from a Jan. 16-29 Gallup poll , echo record highs , measured earlier in January , in Americans ’ satisfaction with the way things are going in their personal life and in their assessments of their personal finances .
Relatedly , 52 % of U.S. adults say it is easier for them to “ go and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was three years ago , higher than in the 1992 , 1996 and 2004 election cycles , when the figures were closer to 40 % .
The party gap on these numbers is also the widest it ’ s been in decades , too .
In previous incumbent-reelect cycles , the highest number had been 2012 ’ s 33 points .
In this poll , it ’ s sixty points , with 89 % of Republicans believing they ’ re better off now , and only 29 % of Democrats agreeing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more optimistic point of view , which is the highest number among independents in any cycle since Gallup started polling on the question in 1992 .
By ten points .
Pair this up with Gallup ’ s similar survey last week which also focused on finances but on a year-to-year basis .
Americans felt better off than a year earlier 59/20 , a record high in the 41-year history of this survey series .
The 20 % figure was also a record low in the series , with the only other result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close was the 58/21 result in 1999 — in the middle of the dot-com boom .
On financial futures , the number of Americans anticipating better results next year hit a new series high of 74/12 .
Optimism reigns supreme , in other words .
Until something significant happens to dent that optimism , any debate over the economy will only serve to strengthen Trump ’ s argument to stay the course .
If Democrats want to throw him in that briar patch , Trump might not even feign a protest at it @

Good luck with that. Now that impeachment has failed to dent Donald Trump where he’s weakest — on his comportment — Democrats have to find another strategy before November’s elections. Politico reports that Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders have a new project in mind. They will attack Trump where he’s strongest by convincing voters that the economy is much poorer than they think.
Let Operation Us Or Your Own Lying Eyes commence!
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to make a sharp pivot ¨from the heated politics of impeachment and lash President Donald Trump in another key area: the economy. In a series of private meetings this week, Pelosi has all but explicitly told her members that with the election just nine months away, it’s time for Democrats to shift the spotlight away from the Ukraine scandal and other controversies ensnaring Trump. To further underscore that point, Pelosi hosted a special speaker’s meeting on Tuesday with a top Obama economics adviser to explain to Democrats why the economy isn’t actually as strong as Trump claims and how they can message that to voters. … “Impeachment didn’t move the needle … so continuing to focus on that target, you’re not going to convince anyone at this point,” said Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who represents a Trump-district.
It’s not as if Democrats have a lot of choice in this strategy. Presidential elections get won or lost in voters’ wallets more than any other part of their lives. James Carville’s famous exhortation that “it’s still the economy, stupid” remains in force more than ever, and Democrats will have to fashion some kind of economic message to remain competitive.
Unfortunately for Democrats, that means fighting a battle on turf that Trump dominates — and not just because of his relentless messaging. Americans feel better than they have in years about the economy and their own lives in it, Gallup reports today:
Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running. In the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, exactly half said they were better off. In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle, an average of 45% said they were better off. The current results, from a Jan. 16-29 Gallup poll, echo record highs, measured earlier in January, in Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in their personal life and in their assessments of their personal finances. Relatedly, 52% of U.S. adults say it is easier for them to “go and buy things in the stores” than it was three years ago, higher than in the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, when the figures were closer to 40%.
The party gap on these numbers is also the widest it’s been in decades, too. In previous incumbent-reelect cycles, the highest number had been 2012’s 33 points. In this poll, it’s sixty points, with 89% of Republicans believing they’re better off now, and only 29% of Democrats agreeing. However, 60% of independents take the more optimistic point of view, which is the highest number among independents in any cycle since Gallup started polling on the question in 1992. By ten points.
Pair this up with Gallup’s similar survey last week which also focused on finances but on a year-to-year basis. Americans felt better off than a year earlier 59/20, a record high in the 41-year history of this survey series. The 20% figure was also a record low in the series, with the only other result over the previous four decades to come close was the 58/21 result in 1999 — in the middle of the dot-com boom. On financial futures, the number of Americans anticipating better results next year hit a new series high of 74/12.
Optimism reigns supreme, in other words. Until something significant happens to dent that optimism, any debate over the economy will only serve to strengthen Trump’s argument to stay the course. If Democrats want to throw him in that briar patch, Trump might not even feign a protest at it.


hotair--2020-02-12--Rasmussen: Plurality of Republican voters oppose expelling Romney from the party, 39/43

Yesterday ’ s poll out of Utah surprised me but this national poll surprises me more .
Especially since it comes from a Trump-friendly pollster in Rasmussen and involves a sample of likely voters , not Republicans generally .
Likely voters are the people who are most amped up to defend the president , you ’ d expect .
Which is not to say this is a “ good ” poll for Romney , exactly .
Republican voters dislike him .
Just not enough to formally excommunicate him .
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney should be expelled from the Republican Party .
Only slightly more ( 43 % ) disagree , while nearly one-in-five ( 18 % ) are undecided .
Sixty-four percent ( 64 % ) of Republicans now have an unfavorable opinion of the man who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 , with 38 % who view him Very Unfavorably .
That compares to 47 % and 29 % respectively last October .
Thirty percent ( 30 % ) still share a favorable view of the Utah senator , down from 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % with a Very Favorable one… Romney , during the 2016 presidential campaign and since his election to the Senate in 2018 , has been a consistent Trump critic .
But 63 % of GOP voters think their party should be more like Trump than like Romney .
Thirty percent ( 30 % ) say it should be more like Romney .
He ’ s at 48/43 favorability nationally thanks to a predictable surge in support from Democrats but he ’ s hurt himself within the party without question .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the share of GOPers who said the party should be more like him instead of like Trump would have been no higher than 10-15 percent or so given Trump ’ s sky-high job approval among Republicans lately .
That helps explain why the numbers against expulsion are higher than expected : Right off the top , nearly a third of the GOP believes Romney is a better exemplar of Republicanism than the president is .
Whether that ’ s due to character differences or to a personal preference for business-class Republicanism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former .
For all his populist bravado , Trump ’ s been pretty good to the business class .
What accounts for the rest of the 43 percent opposed to kicking Romney out , though ?
There ’ s probably some segment of “ soft ” Trump supporters who think his vote on impeachment was wrong on the merits but who , like the Utahns in yesterday ’ s poll , respect him for having had the nerve to cast it knowing how it would cost him within the party .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalty to the president from Congress .
But some meaningful minority may find the sheer toadyism of congressional Republicans towards Trump unworthy of respect , even if they prefer to have party unity on most issues .
Or is that too optimistic ?
The truth could be simpler — when the Senate is as tight as 53/47 , you just don ’ t have the luxury of forcing Romney to become an independent .
Republicans may be willing to punish him but they ’ re not willing to shoot themselves in the foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another hidden factor here .
Although Republicans in Congress usually reliably parrot Trump ’ s talking points , they ’ ve been noticeably shy about laying into Romney .
The usual suspects in the House have done it , but among his colleagues in the Senate the harshest thing anyone has had to say is that they ’ re “ disappointed ” before changing the subject .
At the first closed-door party lunch since the impeachment trial , there wasn ’ t a single word uttered about Romney ’ s stunning decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of the public trust.
” … “ The president ’ s going to do what he ’ s going to do .
That ’ s his M.O .
when it comes to politics , and that ’ s not going to change no matter what any of us think or feel , ” Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) said .
“ But it won ’ t change [ Romney ’ s ] standing in the Senate.
” “ Everybody understands that occasions are going to arise invariably where they are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to make them an outlier for the conference .
I think we all respect that , ” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) said .
Even Thom Tillis went to bat for Romney when asked .
He ’ s facing a tough election this fall in purplish North Carolina and has clung tightly to Trump for the past two years , believing that strong populist turnout is his only hope of winning , but not this time : “ Go back and objectively look at Mitt ’ s record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good standing.
” Why Republican senators are pulling their punches is itself a complicated question .
Possibly it ’ s a matter of pure comity ; possibly it ’ s Romney ’ s reward for not accusing those who voted for acquittal of doing Trump ’ s bidding ; possibly it ’ s because they secretly agreed with his vote to remove and/or at least respect his willingness to cast that vote ; possibly it ’ s because they know the day may come when they feel compelled for reasons of conscience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too and don ’ t want to be a punching bag when they do .
( Nah , I ’ m kidding .
None of them except Romney would ever do that . )
In any case , in an alternate dimension where the likes of McConnell and Graham and Ted Cruz are beating the drum on Fox News every day to expel Romney , I bet these numbers would be higher .
Which itself is a minor surprise : Like most people , I tend to assume that Republican voters take all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s mostly true , but amplification of his message by other party leaders may matter at the margins — enough to ensure plurality opposition to Romney ’ s expulsion in this case .
There may , of course , be another reason why they ’ re pulling their punches .
Romney isn ’ t the influencer within the party that he was circa 2012 , to put it mildly , but he has a lot lot lot of rich Republican friends by dint of his business career and the extensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign eight years ago .
In fact , he flew down to Florida for a fundraiser on behalf of the NRSC just last weekend and claimed there was no awkwardness at the event , even though Mike Pence was also there .
( He said his recent meeting with Republican leaders back home in Utah was a little different . )
If you ’ re a Senate Republican inclined to bash him , you run the risk of alienating some of his fatcat buddies who might otherwise be willing to cut a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC .
Best to play nice and try to stay on everyone ’ s good side .
Here ’ s Trump reacting Trumpishly when Romney ’ s name was mentioned by reporters in yesterday ’ s Oval Office gaggle .

Yesterday’s poll out of Utah surprised me but this national poll surprises me more. Especially since it comes from a Trump-friendly pollster in Rasmussen and involves a sample of likely voters, not Republicans generally. Likely voters are the people who are most amped up to defend the president, you’d expect.
Which is not to say this is a “good” poll for Romney, exactly. Republican voters dislike him.
Just not enough to formally excommunicate him.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 39% of Likely Republican Voters think Romney should be expelled from the Republican Party. Only slightly more (43%) disagree, while nearly one-in-five (18%) are undecided. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Republicans now have an unfavorable opinion of the man who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, with 38% who view him Very Unfavorably. That compares to 47% and 29% respectively last October. Thirty percent (30%) still share a favorable view of the Utah senator, down from 41% four months ago, including 17% with a Very Favorable one… Romney, during the 2016 presidential campaign and since his election to the Senate in 2018, has been a consistent Trump critic. But 63% of GOP voters think their party should be more like Trump than like Romney. Thirty percent (30%) say it should be more like Romney.
He’s at 48/43 favorability nationally thanks to a predictable surge in support from Democrats but he’s hurt himself within the party without question. On the other hand, I’d have guessed that the share of GOPers who said the party should be more like him instead of like Trump would have been no higher than 10-15 percent or so given Trump’s sky-high job approval among Republicans lately. That helps explain why the numbers against expulsion are higher than expected: Right off the top, nearly a third of the GOP believes Romney is a better exemplar of Republicanism than the president is. Whether that’s due to character differences or to a personal preference for business-class Republicanism is hard to say, but probably more the former. For all his populist bravado, Trump’s been pretty good to the business class.
What accounts for the rest of the 43 percent opposed to kicking Romney out, though? There’s probably some segment of “soft” Trump supporters who think his vote on impeachment was wrong on the merits but who, like the Utahns in yesterday’s poll, respect him for having had the nerve to cast it knowing how it would cost him within the party. Some Republicans, maybe most, want blind loyalty to the president from Congress. But some meaningful minority may find the sheer toadyism of congressional Republicans towards Trump unworthy of respect, even if they prefer to have party unity on most issues.
Or is that too optimistic? The truth could be simpler — when the Senate is as tight as 53/47, you just don’t have the luxury of forcing Romney to become an independent. Republicans may be willing to punish him but they’re not willing to shoot themselves in the foot to do it.
There may be another hidden factor here. Although Republicans in Congress usually reliably parrot Trump’s talking points, they’ve been noticeably shy about laying into Romney. The usual suspects in the House have done it, but among his colleagues in the Senate the harshest thing anyone has had to say is that they’re “disappointed” before changing the subject.
At the first closed-door party lunch since the impeachment trial, there wasn’t a single word uttered about Romney’s stunning decision to find Trump “guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.”… “The president’s going to do what he’s going to do. That’s his M.O. when it comes to politics, and that’s not going to change no matter what any of us think or feel,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. “But it won’t change [Romney’s] standing in the Senate.” “Everybody understands that occasions are going to arise invariably where they are going to have to vote their conscience and it’s going to make them an outlier for the conference. I think we all respect that,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.
Even Thom Tillis went to bat for Romney when asked. He’s facing a tough election this fall in purplish North Carolina and has clung tightly to Trump for the past two years, believing that strong populist turnout is his only hope of winning, but not this time: “Go back and objectively look at Mitt’s record. He’s been a member in good standing.” Why Republican senators are pulling their punches is itself a complicated question. Possibly it’s a matter of pure comity; possibly it’s Romney’s reward for not accusing those who voted for acquittal of doing Trump’s bidding; possibly it’s because they secretly agreed with his vote to remove and/or at least respect his willingness to cast that vote; possibly it’s because they know the day may come when they feel compelled for reasons of conscience to oppose Trump in a big spot too and don’t want to be a punching bag when they do. (Nah, I’m kidding. None of them except Romney would ever do that.)
In any case, in an alternate dimension where the likes of McConnell and Graham and Ted Cruz are beating the drum on Fox News every day to expel Romney, I bet these numbers would be higher. Which itself is a minor surprise: Like most people, I tend to assume that Republican voters take all of their political cues from Trump nowadays. That’s mostly true, but amplification of his message by other party leaders may matter at the margins — enough to ensure plurality opposition to Romney’s expulsion in this case.
There may, of course, be another reason why they’re pulling their punches. Romney isn’t the influencer within the party that he was circa 2012, to put it mildly, but he has a lot lot lot of rich Republican friends by dint of his business career and the extensive donor network he cultivated for his national campaign eight years ago. In fact, he flew down to Florida for a fundraiser on behalf of the NRSC just last weekend and claimed there was no awkwardness at the event, even though Mike Pence was also there. (He said his recent meeting with Republican leaders back home in Utah was a little different.) If you’re a Senate Republican inclined to bash him, you run the risk of alienating some of his fatcat buddies who might otherwise be willing to cut a couple of checks to your campaign and Super PAC. Best to play nice and try to stay on everyone’s good side.
Here’s Trump reacting Trumpishly when Romney’s name was mentioned by reporters in yesterday’s Oval Office gaggle.


hotair--2020-02-12--OU professor: "Ok, boomer" is just like using the n-word

A Tuesday morning ethics seminar conducted by a professor at the University of Oklahoma ’ s Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication ended in controversy .
Peter Gade , director of graduate studies and Gaylord Family Endowed Chair conflated a racial slur to the use of “ ok , boomer ” and it did not end well for him .
Gade ’ s class , Journalism , Ethics and Democracy , is the only capstone course for journalism majors .
The discussion centered around the changes in journalism related to technology and social media .
Gade falls on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of journalism , which apparently sounded out-dated to some of the students .
One student said journalists have to keep up with the younger generations as they continue to change .
Gade then made the unfortunate mistake of comparing her opinion to using the n-word .
He said her statement was the equivalent of saying “ OK , boomer ” to him .
When one student spoke up and said the professor shouldn ’ t have said that , Gade tried to justify his use of the word and then changed the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said journalists have to keep up with the younger generations as they continue to change .
Gade said the student ’ s comment was the equivalent of saying “ OK , boomer ” to him .
The class broke into light laughter but was interrupted by Gade ’ s next comment .
“ Calling someone a boomer is like calling someone a n—– , ” Gade said .
Molly Kruse , The Daily ’ s assistant culture editor , told Gade during the class that was not a word he should use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then changed the subject .
That escalated quickly .
Multiple employees of The Daily , an independent , student-produced newspaper at the University of Oklahoma , were in the classroom .
The comparison was shocking to students because this professor has no history of controversial remarks .
He has been on the faculty since 1998 and is well-respected .
He has helped write and edit multiple books on journalism .
Gade is co-editor of “ Changing the News : The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times , ” and co-author of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of People ’ s Journalism.
” Some students left the classroom immediately afterward , and others left once class ended and Gade kept talking over the scheduled time for the class .
Students present at that time said he told the class he was sorry if he offended anyone .
Ed Kelley , dean of Gaylord College , said the first thing they wanted to do in Gaylord was meet with students , so he , associate dean David Craig and assistant dean Yvette Walker met with five students from the class afterward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ( type of language ) does ( have a place in the classroom ) , ” Kelley said .
“ Perhaps it did once upon a time .
Perhaps he was using it as an educational tool .
We have no record at all of Dr. Gade , a distinguished professor who ’ s been on the faculty here for more than 20 years , of him ever using this term , much less any kind of other racially inflamed language.
” The n-word is a racial slur , to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , boomer ” ( with or without an eyeroll ) is not at all the same thing .
“ Ok , boomer ” is an ageist remark , one meant to mock a baby boomer or older person seen as out of touch with today ’ s world .
It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity or anything else other than age .
The response is popular on social media and has been diluted down to including any out-of-touch statement , regardless of the age of the people in the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take it as a slap at age .
This comparison has been made before , though .
Also , the “ joke ” phrase has been pointed to as age discrimination in the Supreme Court if it is used in the hiring process .
Popularized by teenagers on TikTok last year , “ OK boomer ” quickly became a one-size-fits-all retort for millennials and members of Generation Z to deploy against older adults .
( It even made its way into a debate over climate change in New Zealand ’ s Parliament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ began garnering mainstream attention from the likes of the New York Times , conservative radio host Bob Lonsberry was widely criticized for tweeting that “ boomer ” was “ the n-word of ageism.
” The phrase casts baby boomers as out of touch and irrelevant , highlighting the divide between younger generations and those whom they blame for social and environmental problems .
“ We now use boomer two ways : as a term for someone born in a certain era , but increasingly as a stand-in for power , selfishness or comfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ages , ” Holly Scott , a history professor at Piedmont Virginia Community College , wrote in The Washington Post in November .
While its proponents call it a lighthearted joke and a way of blowing off frustration , plenty of others say that singling out baby boomers is ageist .
That argument even made its way to the Supreme Court in January , when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked attorneys arguing an employment law case if using the phrase could be considered age discrimination .
( The lawyers argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of a hiring decision , the answer was yes . )
OU ’ s Black Emergency Response Team ( what ? )
tweeted out the incident .
There may be trauma involved here .
A statement was issued by the National Association of Black Journalists .
They weren ’ t surprised “ that people still don ’ t understand that insults like ‘ OK boomer ’ do not create the same uneasiness that the historical slur [ n—– ] does.
” The irony that this professor taught ethics was noted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campus in recent years but they have been within the sorority and fraternity communities .
The university ’ s interim president , Joseph Harroz Jr. noted the professor ’ s First Amendment rights and academic freedom but said , the remark was “ fundamentally offensive and wrong.
” Gade sent an apology in an email to students Tuesday evening , calling his behavior “ inexcusable.
” That ’ s really all he can do at this point .
We ’ ll see if he gets canceled by the outrage mob or @ @ @ @ @ @ @

A Tuesday morning ethics seminar conducted by a professor at the University of Oklahoma’s Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication ended in controversy. Peter Gade, director of graduate studies and Gaylord Family Endowed Chair conflated a racial slur to the use of “ok, boomer” and it did not end well for him.
Gade’s class, Journalism, Ethics and Democracy, is the only capstone course for journalism majors. The discussion centered around the changes in journalism related to technology and social media. Gade falls on the side of sticking to more traditional roots of journalism, which apparently sounded out-dated to some of the students. One student said journalists have to keep up with the younger generations as they continue to change. Gade then made the unfortunate mistake of comparing her opinion to using the n-word. He said her statement was the equivalent of saying “OK, boomer” to him. When one student spoke up and said the professor shouldn’t have said that, Gade tried to justify his use of the word and then changed the subject.
Gade then called on a student who said journalists have to keep up with the younger generations as they continue to change. Gade said the student’s comment was the equivalent of saying “OK, boomer” to him. The class broke into light laughter but was interrupted by Gade’s next comment. “Calling someone a boomer is like calling someone a n—–,” Gade said. Molly Kruse, The Daily’s assistant culture editor, told Gade during the class that was not a word he should use, and he attempted to defend it and then changed the subject.
That escalated quickly. Multiple employees of The Daily, an independent, student-produced newspaper at the University of Oklahoma, were in the classroom. The comparison was shocking to students because this professor has no history of controversial remarks. He has been on the faculty since 1998 and is well-respected. He has helped write and edit multiple books on journalism. Gade is co-editor of “Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times,” and co-author of “Twilight of Press Freedom: The Rise of People’s Journalism.”
Some students left the classroom immediately afterward, and others left once class ended and Gade kept talking over the scheduled time for the class. Students present at that time said he told the class he was sorry if he offended anyone. Ed Kelley, dean of Gaylord College, said the first thing they wanted to do in Gaylord was meet with students, so he, associate dean David Craig and assistant dean Yvette Walker met with five students from the class afterward. “I’m not sure that (type of language) does (have a place in the classroom),” Kelley said. “Perhaps it did once upon a time. Perhaps he was using it as an educational tool. We have no record at all of Dr. Gade, a distinguished professor who’s been on the faculty here for more than 20 years, of him ever using this term, much less any kind of other racially inflamed language.”
The n-word is a racial slur, to point out the obvious, and saying “ok, boomer” (with or without an eyeroll) is not at all the same thing. “Ok, boomer” is an ageist remark, one meant to mock a baby boomer or older person seen as out of touch with today’s world. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity or anything else other than age. The response is popular on social media and has been diluted down to including any out-of-touch statement, regardless of the age of the people in the conversation. Baby boomers (ahem!) take it as a slap at age. This comparison has been made before, though. Also, the “joke” phrase has been pointed to as age discrimination in the Supreme Court if it is used in the hiring process.
Popularized by teenagers on TikTok last year, “OK boomer” quickly became a one-size-fits-all retort for millennials and members of Generation Z to deploy against older adults. (It even made its way into a debate over climate change in New Zealand’s Parliament.) In November, after the meme began garnering mainstream attention from the likes of the New York Times, conservative radio host Bob Lonsberry was widely criticized for tweeting that “boomer” was “the n-word of ageism.” The phrase casts baby boomers as out of touch and irrelevant, highlighting the divide between younger generations and those whom they blame for social and environmental problems. “We now use boomer two ways: as a term for someone born in a certain era, but increasingly as a stand-in for power, selfishness or comfortable cluelessness — traits found in people of all ages,” Holly Scott, a history professor at Piedmont Virginia Community College, wrote in The Washington Post in November. While its proponents call it a lighthearted joke and a way of blowing off frustration, plenty of others say that singling out baby boomers is ageist. That argument even made its way to the Supreme Court in January, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked attorneys arguing an employment law case if using the phrase could be considered age discrimination. (The lawyers argued that if the wisecrack was made in the context of a hiring decision, the answer was yes.)
OU’s Black Emergency Response Team (what?) tweeted out the incident. There may be trauma involved here.
In addition, we expect accommodation be made for the students who have experienced trauma because of this. (2/2) — BERT (@BERT_OU) February 11, 2020
A statement was issued by the National Association of Black Journalists. They weren’t surprised “that people still don’t understand that insults like ‘OK boomer’ do not create the same uneasiness that the historical slur [n—–] does.” The irony that this professor taught ethics was noted.
There have been racial incidents on OU’s campus in recent years but they have been within the sorority and fraternity communities. The university’s interim president, Joseph Harroz Jr. noted the professor’s First Amendment rights and academic freedom but said, the remark was “fundamentally offensive and wrong.”
Gade sent an apology in an email to students Tuesday evening, calling his behavior “inexcusable.”
“I realize the word was hurtful and infuses the racial divisions of our country, past and present,” Gade said in the email. “Use of the word is inappropriate in any — especially educational — settings. I offer my deepest and most sincere apologies. In the coming weeks, I will strive to show you that I am an instructor and teacher who is trustworthy and respectful of all. Please give me that opportunity.”
That’s really all he can do at this point. We’ll see if he gets canceled by the outrage mob or if he remains in his position.


hotair--2020-02-12--Taliban supposedly close to "reduction of violence" deal, but don't buy it

There ’ s another wrinkle in the seemingly endless tale of America ’ s longest war .
Representatives from the Taliban have issued an ultimatum to Washington , saying they want an answer on their offer to have a seven-day “ reduction of violence ” in that nation or they ’ re just going to give up on the negotiations entirely .
This is a rather different tone than they were taking only a week ago when our Secretary of State was saying that we were getting close to some sort of deal with them .
( Associated Press ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington after weeks of talks with a U.S. peace envoy , demanding a reply on their offer of a seven-day reduction of violence in Afghanistan , or they would walk away from the negotiating table , two Taliban officials said Wednesday .
A reduction in violence deal for a very short period is sought by the Taliban because they don ’ t want to commit to a formal cease-fire until other components of a final deal are in place .
They have previously said a cease-fire could blunt their battlefield momentum if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The development comes as Washington said late Tuesday that an agreement on the insurgents ’ “ reduction of violence ” offer was days away .
Also , Afghan President Ashraf Ghani tweeted that he had received a phone call from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling him of “ notable progress ” in the talks with the Taliban .
The Taliban is obviously getting bolder in their demands .
Notice that they ’ re not even offering an actual ceasefire .
What does a “ reduction of violence ” even mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops on even-numbered days ?
Any offer they wind up making probably isn ’ t worth the paper it ’ s printed on anyway .
There are spokesmen for the Taliban doing the talking , but they don ’ t control the actions of all of their fighters around the country .
And it ’ s not as if there ’ s been any reduction in their efforts this year .
Only three days ago we lost two more of our troops with an additional six being injured in yet another ambush attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing the uniform of our supposed allies over there who perpetrated the attack .
It ’ s hard to watch these developments without getting the sense that the Taliban smells blood in the water and believes that they have the upper hand now .
They know that we ’ re not going to stay in their country forever and we ’ ve already opened the door to pulling out by starting negotiations with them .
They don ’ t have to offer us very much because they know that we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And whatever they do offer will almost certainly be reneged on as soon as we ’ re out of the country .
I have no doubt that the Taliban spokesman is saying that they ’ ll respect the new government we helped establish , but that ’ s surely nonsense as well .
The moment we ’ re gone , Ashraf Ghani is probably toast and things will go back to the way they ’ ve always been in that country .
The only real question left to answer is how much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to take on the world stage when things completely implode .
But as I ’ ve written here in the past , it was almost inevitable that this is how the war in Afghanistan would end .
Nobody every conquers Afghanistan permanently .
And that country ’ s denizens know full well that all they have to do is wait long enough and the invaders will eventually go home .
That ’ s how it ’ s always worked in the past .

There’s another wrinkle in the seemingly endless tale of America’s longest war. Representatives from the Taliban have issued an ultimatum to Washington, saying they want an answer on their offer to have a seven-day “reduction of violence” in that nation or they’re just going to give up on the negotiations entirely. This is a rather different tone than they were taking only a week ago when our Secretary of State was saying that we were getting close to some sort of deal with them. (Associated Press)
The Taliban have issued an ultimatum to Washington after weeks of talks with a U.S. peace envoy, demanding a reply on their offer of a seven-day reduction of violence in Afghanistan, or they would walk away from the negotiating table, two Taliban officials said Wednesday. A reduction in violence deal for a very short period is sought by the Taliban because they don’t want to commit to a formal cease-fire until other components of a final deal are in place. They have previously said a cease-fire could blunt their battlefield momentum if the U.S. or Kabul renege on their promises. The development comes as Washington said late Tuesday that an agreement on the insurgents’ “reduction of violence” offer was days away. Also, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani tweeted that he had received a phone call from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling him of “notable progress” in the talks with the Taliban.
The Taliban is obviously getting bolder in their demands. Notice that they’re not even offering an actual ceasefire. What does a “reduction of violence” even mean? They’ll only attack our troops on even-numbered days?
Any offer they wind up making probably isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on anyway. There are spokesmen for the Taliban doing the talking, but they don’t control the actions of all of their fighters around the country. And it’s not as if there’s been any reduction in their efforts this year. Only three days ago we lost two more of our troops with an additional six being injured in yet another ambush attack. And it was once again someone wearing the uniform of our supposed allies over there who perpetrated the attack.
It’s hard to watch these developments without getting the sense that the Taliban smells blood in the water and believes that they have the upper hand now. They know that we’re not going to stay in their country forever and we’ve already opened the door to pulling out by starting negotiations with them. They don’t have to offer us very much because they know that we’re going to be leaving sooner or later. And whatever they do offer will almost certainly be reneged on as soon as we’re out of the country.
I have no doubt that the Taliban spokesman is saying that they’ll respect the new government we helped establish, but that’s surely nonsense as well. The moment we’re gone, Ashraf Ghani is probably toast and things will go back to the way they’ve always been in that country. The only real question left to answer is how much of a diplomatic black eye we’re willing to take on the world stage when things completely implode.
But as I’ve written here in the past, it was almost inevitable that this is how the war in Afghanistan would end. Nobody every conquers Afghanistan permanently. And that country’s denizens know full well that all they have to do is wait long enough and the invaders will eventually go home. That’s how it’s always worked in the past.


hotair--2020-02-12--Weinstein takes 5: Defense rests without his testimony

According to his attorneys , Harvey Weinstein was “ ready , willing , able , and anxious ” to take the stand in his own defense .
His attorneys apparently thought otherwise about his wisdom in doing so .
The defense rested yesterday in the New York sexual assault case without Weinstein taking the opportunity to explain himself — or prosecutors an opportunity to tear him to shreds : Cowardly dodge or smart strategy ?
Probably a bit of both , but it also might be an indication that the defense thinks they ’ ve introduced enough reasonable doubt as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Weinstein and his lawyers met in a private room ; he expressed a desire to tell his side of the story while they advised him not to risk it , according to his spokesman .
But ultimately , Mr. Weinstein and his lawyers returned to the courtroom and told the judge that the defense was resting its case , setting the stage for closing arguments on Thursday .
Later , as he left court , Mr. Weinstein was asked if he had considered taking the stand .
“ I wanted to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have argued that Mr. Weinstein ’ s accusers used him and engaged in consensual sexual encounters to advance their careers .
But if Mr. Weinstein were to take the stand , prosecutors would quite likely have tried to elicit testimony that would have portrayed him as a bullish , overbearing figure who had used his influence in the industry to coerce women into unwanted sexual encounters .
Generally speaking , attorneys are loathe to put a client on the witness stand .
They lose control of the situation on cross-examination , and clients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careless phrase or a poor attitude on the stand .
Previously excluded evidence and testimony could suddenly be made relevant for the prosecution , and the jury might take a strong dislike to a defendant during cross-examination .
Sometimes clients will refuse to take that advice from a burning need to rebut what has been said in court , but clients are poor judges of effective legal strategy .
It sounds as if Weinstein was just smart enough to finally take his attorneys ’ advice … or to pose as if he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s still a risky strategy .
In a he said/she said , juries will want to hear what he said for themselves , not through a defense attorney .
The Fifth Amendment means the jury can ’ t take his lack of testimony officially into consideration when determining guilt or innocence , but that ’ s only officially .
His lack of response to the claims will still undoubtedly nag at the jurors after all the emotional testimony from the women who leveled allegations of sexual assault against Weinstein .
Closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attorneys will argue that there ’ s all sorts of reasonable doubt about these claims .
Phelim McAleer , who ’ s been attending the trial and producing the daily verbatim podcast of it , told me yesterday on The Ed Morrissey Show that Weinstein ’ s defense has been very effective at punching some holes in the prosecutors ’ case .
Whether that is enough for the jury to overcome that emotional testimony is another question , but Phelim thinks a surprise might be in the works in the jury room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed that story over the last few weeks .
That makes the decision to rest and go to arguments look more like confidence in their strategy than worry over Weinstein .
If the defense succeeds , though , expect a cultural meltdown over the verdict that might rival the O.J .
Simpson trial outcome .
It will also put enormous pressure on prosecutors in Los Angeles to finish the job on Weinstein .

According to his attorneys, Harvey Weinstein was “ready, willing, able, and anxious” to take the stand in his own defense. His attorneys apparently thought otherwise about his wisdom in doing so. The defense rested yesterday in the New York sexual assault case without Weinstein taking the opportunity to explain himself — or prosecutors an opportunity to tear him to shreds:
The defense has rested at the sex assault trial of Harvey Weinstein without putting the former movie mogul on the witness stand. pic.twitter.com/N7Kk0jYLnK — TODAY (@TODAYshow) February 12, 2020
Cowardly dodge or smart strategy? Probably a bit of both, but it also might be an indication that the defense thinks they’ve introduced enough reasonable doubt as it is:
For 30 minutes, Mr. Weinstein and his lawyers met in a private room; he expressed a desire to tell his side of the story while they advised him not to risk it, according to his spokesman. But ultimately, Mr. Weinstein and his lawyers returned to the courtroom and told the judge that the defense was resting its case, setting the stage for closing arguments on Thursday. Later, as he left court, Mr. Weinstein was asked if he had considered taking the stand. “I wanted to,” he said. … His lawyers have argued that Mr. Weinstein’s accusers used him and engaged in consensual sexual encounters to advance their careers. But if Mr. Weinstein were to take the stand, prosecutors would quite likely have tried to elicit testimony that would have portrayed him as a bullish, overbearing figure who had used his influence in the industry to coerce women into unwanted sexual encounters.
Generally speaking, attorneys are loathe to put a client on the witness stand. They lose control of the situation on cross-examination, and clients can destroy neatly constructed strategies with a careless phrase or a poor attitude on the stand. Previously excluded evidence and testimony could suddenly be made relevant for the prosecution, and the jury might take a strong dislike to a defendant during cross-examination. Sometimes clients will refuse to take that advice from a burning need to rebut what has been said in court, but clients are poor judges of effective legal strategy.
It sounds as if Weinstein was just smart enough to finally take his attorneys’ advice … or to pose as if he wanted to testify for the media later.
It’s still a risky strategy. In a he said/she said, juries will want to hear what he said for themselves, not through a defense attorney. The Fifth Amendment means the jury can’t take his lack of testimony officially into consideration when determining guilt or innocence, but that’s only officially. His lack of response to the claims will still undoubtedly nag at the jurors after all the emotional testimony from the women who leveled allegations of sexual assault against Weinstein.
Closing arguments start tomorrow, and Weinstein’s attorneys will argue that there’s all sorts of reasonable doubt about these claims. Phelim McAleer, who’s been attending the trial and producing the daily verbatim podcast of it, told me yesterday on The Ed Morrissey Show that Weinstein’s defense has been very effective at punching some holes in the prosecutors’ case. Whether that is enough for the jury to overcome that emotional testimony is another question, but Phelim thinks a surprise might be in the works in the jury room — and that the media has largely missed that story over the last few weeks.
That makes the decision to rest and go to arguments look more like confidence in their strategy than worry over Weinstein. If the defense succeeds, though, expect a cultural meltdown over the verdict that might rival the O.J. Simpson trial outcome. It will also put enormous pressure on prosecutors in Los Angeles to finish the job on Weinstein.


hotair--2020-02-12--While nobody was looking Trump shattered primary records in New Hampshire

All eyes were on the Democratic primary in New Hampshire last night for obvious reasons , but the GOP had their own primary as well .
Sure , there was little reason to be paying attention because President Trump was swamping the small field of people running against him .
In fact , they called the race only moments after the polls closed .
But what might be giving the Democrats pause this morning is the margin of victory .
Trump didn ’ t just win… he set a record in modern history for incumbents in the Granite State .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeated his remaining GOP challenger in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night .
Trump cruised to victory with about 83 percent of the vote and just 8 percent of precincts reporting .
Bill Weld , the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts , was a distant second , though he was able to capture just over 12 percent of the vote in the early results .
The race was called just after the last polls closed in the state , and about an hour after most polls closed .
Trump ran up a staggering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drain off roughly 12 % of the vote .
( Joe Walsh was still on the ballot despite having dropped out , but he didn ’ t have any impact on the race . )
So let ’ s put Trump ’ s margin of victory in perspective .
With virtually all precincts reporting , President Donald Trump received 110,717 votes .
For a trip down memory lane , Barack Obama got 49,080 votes in 2012 .
George W. Bush in 2004 managed a bit better with 52,962 votes .
The only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Bill Clinton who nabbed 76,797 in 1996 .
Trump bested that number by more than 35,000 .
Back in 1992 , Bush 41 took 92,271 votes , but that figure should probably have an asterisk next to it because he was facing a pretty strong challenge from Pat Buchanan , who took 37 % of the vote .
Still , it was a strong showing , despite the fact that Bush would go on to lose the general election .
So what does this mean ?
I ’ d say that none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire for granted in November , despite the recent demographic shifts we discussed yesterday .
While the outcome was never in doubt , what we ’ re looking at here is voter enthusiasm .
New Hampshire Republicans turned out in record numbers on a blustery February day to cast their votes for Trump in a primary election that was completely meaningless .
If Trump ’ s base in New Hampshire is willing to turn out at those levels in the primary , what ’ s going to happen in November ?
The numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t show very much heat .
And CNN was just reporting this morning that the turnout among voters under age 25 was well down from previous years .
That ’ s the heart of the Democrats ’ base in New Hampshire .
It sounds to me as if Trump ’ s approval rating in the state ( he was underwater by 12 points last month ) isn ’ t going to matter all that much if the Democrats can ’ t build some excitement around their candidate and the President ’ s base @ @ @ @ @

All eyes were on the Democratic primary in New Hampshire last night for obvious reasons, but the GOP had their own primary as well. Sure, there was little reason to be paying attention because President Trump was swamping the small field of people running against him. In fact, they called the race only moments after the polls closed. But what might be giving the Democrats pause this morning is the margin of victory. Trump didn’t just win… he set a record in modern history for incumbents in the Granite State. (Politico)
President Donald Trump handily defeated his remaining GOP challenger in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night. Trump cruised to victory with about 83 percent of the vote and just 8 percent of precincts reporting. Bill Weld, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, was a distant second, though he was able to capture just over 12 percent of the vote in the early results. The race was called just after the last polls closed in the state, and about an hour after most polls closed.
Trump ran up a staggering number, despite Bill Weld managing to drain off roughly 12% of the vote. (Joe Walsh was still on the ballot despite having dropped out, but he didn’t have any impact on the race.)
So let’s put Trump’s margin of victory in perspective. With virtually all precincts reporting, President Donald Trump received 110,717 votes. For a trip down memory lane, Barack Obama got 49,080 votes in 2012. George W. Bush in 2004 managed a bit better with 52,962 votes. The only one who came remotely close to this number was Bill Clinton who nabbed 76,797 in 1996. Trump bested that number by more than 35,000.
Back in 1992, Bush 41 took 92,271 votes, but that figure should probably have an asterisk next to it because he was facing a pretty strong challenge from Pat Buchanan, who took 37% of the vote. Still, it was a strong showing, despite the fact that Bush would go on to lose the general election.
So what does this mean? I’d say that none of the Democrats should be taking New Hampshire for granted in November, despite the recent demographic shifts we discussed yesterday. While the outcome was never in doubt, what we’re looking at here is voter enthusiasm. New Hampshire Republicans turned out in record numbers on a blustery February day to cast their votes for Trump in a primary election that was completely meaningless.
If Trump’s base in New Hampshire is willing to turn out at those levels in the primary, what’s going to happen in November? The numbers on the Democrats’ side don’t show very much heat. And CNN was just reporting this morning that the turnout among voters under age 25 was well down from previous years. That’s the heart of the Democrats’ base in New Hampshire. It sounds to me as if Trump’s approval rating in the state (he was underwater by 12 points last month) isn’t going to matter all that much if the Democrats can’t build some excitement around their candidate and the President’s base shows up in droves.


hotair--2020-02-12--Gut punch redux. What's up, Uncle Joe?

Gut punch redux. What's up, Uncle Joe?

If Iowa was a “ gut punch ” for Joe Biden , New Hampshire was probably a kick to a spot a little lower on the anatomy .
By the time the dust settled last night , Biden wasn ’ t just losing to Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg ( who basically split the vote ) .
He was beaten by Amy Klobuchar and even Elizabeth Warren .
While the winners were giving victory speeches , the former Vice President had already fled the state and taken up residence in South Carolina .
Given the rules of the Granite State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a single delegate out of that primary .
So is this the beginning of the end for Uncle Joe and his third time failing in a presidential bid ?
Well… that depends on who you ask .
Olivia Nuzzi of New York Magazine says that Biden ’ s campaign “ has taken on the stench of death.
” And as for Elizabeth Warren , her campaign ’ s on life support and her relatives are eyeing the plug on the respirator .
“ They ’ ve both taken on the stench of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival campaign told me .
“ Biden has lurched between different messages each of the last few days and delivered them to rooms so quiet you could hear a pin drop , ” the staffer said .
“ His events have all the enthusiasm of a wake.
” “ Warren has been squeezed — she was never going to out-Bernie Bernie , ” the staffer added , “ and she ’ s struggled with how exactly to position herself .
Given that she ’ s from Massachusetts and shares a massive media market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to imagine how anything but a first- or second-place showing could be good for her campaign.
” Frankly , I think Nuzzi might be a bit off the mark here and reports of the death of the Biden campaign are probably premature .
Both Iowa and New Hampshire always take on outsized importance every four years , but we should remember that the two current frontrunners ( Sanders and Buttigieg ) each have a grand total of earned delegates that are barely above two dozen .
Biden has six from Iowa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rounding error when it comes to the number you need to secure the nomination at the convention .
Biden told supporters last night that he ’ s “ not going anywhere ” and there ’ s really no reason for him to drop out… yet .
I ’ ll believe that Joe is in trouble when I see his numbers go soft in South Carolina .
The most recent polling we have there ( admittedly a week old ) still shows Biden lapping the field , with Tom Steyer surprisingly sucking a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room for second place .
And while we haven ’ t had any polling out of Nevada since Iowa , Biden and Sanders were running neck and neck last month .
And then there ’ s Super Tuesday .
Sanders is poised to do very well in California , but there are plenty of states up for grabs .
That includes Texas , where Biden still had a big lead as of two weeks ago .
Yes , it would be surprising to see anyone come back from two beatings like Biden took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure the nomination , but it ’ s still well within the realm of possibility .
Joe has enough campaign cash in the bank to remain active well past Super Tuesday , and his zombie campaign may still rise from the dead .

If Iowa was a “gut punch” for Joe Biden, New Hampshire was probably a kick to a spot a little lower on the anatomy. By the time the dust settled last night, Biden wasn’t just losing to Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg (who basically split the vote). He was beaten by Amy Klobuchar and even Elizabeth Warren. While the winners were giving victory speeches, the former Vice President had already fled the state and taken up residence in South Carolina.
Given the rules of the Granite State primary, neither Biden nor Warren will get a single delegate out of that primary. So is this the beginning of the end for Uncle Joe and his third time failing in a presidential bid? Well… that depends on who you ask. Olivia Nuzzi of New York Magazine says that Biden’s campaign “has taken on the stench of death.” And as for Elizabeth Warren, her campaign’s on life support and her relatives are eyeing the plug on the respirator.
“They’ve both taken on the stench of death,” a staffer on a rival campaign told me. “Biden has lurched between different messages each of the last few days and delivered them to rooms so quiet you could hear a pin drop,” the staffer said. “His events have all the enthusiasm of a wake.” “Warren has been squeezed — she was never going to out-Bernie Bernie,” the staffer added, “and she’s struggled with how exactly to position herself. Given that she’s from Massachusetts and shares a massive media market with New Hampshire, it’s hard to imagine how anything but a first- or second-place showing could be good for her campaign.”
Frankly, I think Nuzzi might be a bit off the mark here and reports of the death of the Biden campaign are probably premature. Both Iowa and New Hampshire always take on outsized importance every four years, but we should remember that the two current frontrunners (Sanders and Buttigieg) each have a grand total of earned delegates that are barely above two dozen. Biden has six from Iowa. Those numbers aren’t even a rounding error when it comes to the number you need to secure the nomination at the convention.
Biden told supporters last night that he’s “not going anywhere” and there’s really no reason for him to drop out… yet. I’ll believe that Joe is in trouble when I see his numbers go soft in South Carolina. The most recent polling we have there (admittedly a week old) still shows Biden lapping the field, with Tom Steyer surprisingly sucking a lot of the remaining oxygen out of the room for second place. And while we haven’t had any polling out of Nevada since Iowa, Biden and Sanders were running neck and neck last month.
And then there’s Super Tuesday. Sanders is poised to do very well in California, but there are plenty of states up for grabs. That includes Texas, where Biden still had a big lead as of two weeks ago. Yes, it would be surprising to see anyone come back from two beatings like Biden took in Iowa and New Hampshire and still secure the nomination, but it’s still well within the realm of possibility. Joe has enough campaign cash in the bank to remain active well past Super Tuesday, and his zombie campaign may still rise from the dead.