hotair--2020-03-04--A mystery: What happened to New York's GOP primary?

The New York State primaries don ’ t roll around until April 28th .
As usual , that will probably wind up being too late in the calendar to make much of a difference in deciding the eventual Democratic nominee .
( Unless , of course , they somehow fail to get anyone up to 2,000 delegates by then . )
But what about the other primary ?
You know… for the Republicans ?
New York holds closed primaries , so registered Republicans can ’ t engage in any Operation Chaos activities and mess with the Democrats .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump or one of the quixotic challengers hoping to put a dent in his numbers .
Except this year… they won ’ t .
The reason is that the GOP primary has just disappeared from the calendar and all of the state ’ s Republicans can just stop worrying about participating .
( Politico ) New York will not hold a Republican presidential primary this year , guaranteeing that President Donald Trump will win all of the state ’ s delegates .
Nobody besides Trump qualified to appear on the ballot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only if multiple candidates qualify .
Three other Republicans submitted paperwork : former Massachusetts Governor William Weld , businessman Rocky De La Fuente , and former Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois .
The first person I saw commenting on this news on social media was a NeverTrumper claiming that this was another state party trying to prevent any sort of debate over Trump or “ tarnish ” him by having a challenger draw votes away from the incumbent .
But that ’ s not the case at all .
New York has some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written about its peculiarities before .
In this case , state law says that if two or more people don ’ t qualify to be on the ballot , the party doesn ’ t have to waste the money to hold an election when the outcome is already assured .
Bill Weld , Rocky De La Fuente and Joe Walsh all filed paperwork to be on the ballot , but none of them qualified .
( And Walsh has already withdrawn anyway . )
In addition to paying a fee and submitting signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary ballot , candidates also have to submit a slate of 162 delegates who would represent them if they win .
Walsh and De La Fuente didn ’ t submit the names of any delegates and Weld only submitted half of the required amount .
The judge gave him right up until the last possible day to submit the rest of his names , but he never did .
Unfortunately , this could have more of an impact on New York politics than one might guess .
That ’ s because Governor Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same day , citing the cost savings from combining them all .
One of those special elections will decide who replaces Republican Congressman Chris Collins who is currently packing for an April trip to prison for insider trading .
That ’ s a significantly red district out in Western New York , but without Trump ’ s name on the primary ballot to drive his supporters to the polls , it could conceivably give the Democrat a chance to win the seat for the remainder of the year .
So in retrospect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have gotten on the primary ballot , at least from a NY Republican ’ s point of view .
And it wasn ’ t like Trump was in any danger anyway .
His approval among registered Republicans in the state is upwards of 80 % .

The New York State primaries don’t roll around until April 28th. As usual, that will probably wind up being too late in the calendar to make much of a difference in deciding the eventual Democratic nominee. (Unless, of course, they somehow fail to get anyone up to 2,000 delegates by then.) But what about the other primary? You know… for the Republicans? New York holds closed primaries, so registered Republicans can’t engage in any Operation Chaos activities and mess with the Democrats. That means they’ll have to vote for Donald Trump or one of the quixotic challengers hoping to put a dent in his numbers.
Except this year… they won’t. The reason is that the GOP primary has just disappeared from the calendar and all of the state’s Republicans can just stop worrying about participating. (Politico)
New York will not hold a Republican presidential primary this year, guaranteeing that President Donald Trump will win all of the state’s delegates. Nobody besides Trump qualified to appear on the ballot, and primaries in New York are held only if multiple candidates qualify. Three other Republicans submitted paperwork: former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, businessman Rocky De La Fuente, and former Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois.
The first person I saw commenting on this news on social media was a NeverTrumper claiming that this was another state party trying to prevent any sort of debate over Trump or “tarnish” him by having a challenger draw votes away from the incumbent. But that’s not the case at all.
New York has some odd election laws and I’ve written about its peculiarities before. In this case, state law says that if two or more people don’t qualify to be on the ballot, the party doesn’t have to waste the money to hold an election when the outcome is already assured.
Bill Weld, Rocky De La Fuente and Joe Walsh all filed paperwork to be on the ballot, but none of them qualified. (And Walsh has already withdrawn anyway.) In addition to paying a fee and submitting signatures, in order to appear on the primary ballot, candidates also have to submit a slate of 162 delegates who would represent them if they win. Walsh and De La Fuente didn’t submit the names of any delegates and Weld only submitted half of the required amount. The judge gave him right up until the last possible day to submit the rest of his names, but he never did.
Unfortunately, this could have more of an impact on New York politics than one might guess. That’s because Governor Andrew Cuomo scheduled five special elections for the same day, citing the cost savings from combining them all. One of those special elections will decide who replaces Republican Congressman Chris Collins who is currently packing for an April trip to prison for insider trading. That’s a significantly red district out in Western New York, but without Trump’s name on the primary ballot to drive his supporters to the polls, it could conceivably give the Democrat a chance to win the seat for the remainder of the year.
So in retrospect, it might have been better for Weld to have gotten on the primary ballot, at least from a NY Republican’s point of view. And it wasn’t like Trump was in any danger anyway. His approval among registered Republicans in the state is upwards of 80%.


It's on in Alabama -- again: Trump attacks Sessions' lack of "wisdom or courage" after runoff qualifier

All is decidedly not forgiven after all .
Jeff Sessions finished a narrow second to former Auburn football head coach Tommy Tuberville , a somewhat surprising and disappointing result that nevertheless puts Sessions in a runoff for the US Senate nomination for his old seat .
Until now , Sessions has positioned himself as the most MAGA-friendly candidate in the field , helped along in the primary by Donald Trump ’ s silence .
That didn ’ t last even twelve hours after the race was called in Alabama .
First , Trump retweeted an Associated Press update this morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment on a Politico tweet about Sessions falling short .
Sessions ’ former boss didn ’ t mince any words , either : Can we call this an endorsement of Tuberville ?
By Jove , I think we can .
It ’ s a binary choice , after all , and if Trump attacks Sessions , it ’ s at least a tacit endorsement of the alternative .
Trump had studiously avoided issuing any comment on the candidates during the primary phase , which seemed out of character for the president .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing a solid for Sessions ’ pals in the Senate , who urged him to return to the upper chamber .
Now that Sessions was out of his Cabinet , and taking pains to remain as MAGA as ever , people assumed Trump probably didn ’ t care too much about the outcome .
As Trump himself would say … wrong .
So why wait this long to undercut Sessions ?
Why not demolish him in the primary rather than the run-off ?
Perhaps that had more to do with another Republican on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who embarrassed Trump in the runoff election to fill the seat after Sessions left it to become AG .
Despite all of the scandal uncovered by Democrats in the runoff that Doug Jones eventually won , Moore came back for another try , only to be held to less than eight percent of the vote .
Or as our friend Stephen “ RedSteeze ” Miller put it in the Tweet of the Night late yesterday … Ouch , baby , very ouch .
Bradley Byrne might feel most unhappy about today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as this could have boosted him into the runoff instead .
Trump probably didn ’ t want to take any chances that a Sessions collapse would create an opening for Moore ; you can bet that Mitch McConnell didn ’ t want that either .
At any rate , one can imagine that Trump won ’ t leave this at just one tweet between now and the mid-April runoff .
Sessions might have done better to run on a more complete break from Trump , embracing the MAGA agenda but arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could provide in the Senate .
He still would have likely lost , but at least he wouldn ’ t have been nearly as vulnerable to the Tweeter in Chief ’ s vindictiveness .
By trying to pretend that all was well , Sessions set himself up to look like a fool — and set Tuberville up for an open lane to Washington DC .

All is decidedly not forgiven after all. Jeff Sessions finished a narrow second to former Auburn football head coach Tommy Tuberville, a somewhat surprising and disappointing result that nevertheless puts Sessions in a runoff for the US Senate nomination for his old seat. Until now, Sessions has positioned himself as the most MAGA-friendly candidate in the field, helped along in the primary by Donald Trump’s silence.
That didn’t last even twelve hours after the race was called in Alabama. First, Trump retweeted an Associated Press update this morning, and then followed up with a comment on a Politico tweet about Sessions falling short. Sessions’ former boss didn’t mince any words, either:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235181043881299969
Can we call this an endorsement of Tuberville? By Jove, I think we can. It’s a binary choice, after all, and if Trump attacks Sessions, it’s at least a tacit endorsement of the alternative.
Trump had studiously avoided issuing any comment on the candidates during the primary phase, which seemed out of character for the president. The assumption was that Trump might have been doing a solid for Sessions’ pals in the Senate, who urged him to return to the upper chamber. Now that Sessions was out of his Cabinet, and taking pains to remain as MAGA as ever, people assumed Trump probably didn’t care too much about the outcome.
As Trump himself would say … wrong.
So why wait this long to undercut Sessions? Why not demolish him in the primary rather than the run-off? Perhaps that had more to do with another Republican on the same ballot — Roy Moore, who embarrassed Trump in the runoff election to fill the seat after Sessions left it to become AG. Despite all of the scandal uncovered by Democrats in the runoff that Doug Jones eventually won, Moore came back for another try, only to be held to less than eight percent of the vote. Or as our friend Stephen “RedSteeze” Miller put it in the Tweet of the Night late yesterday …
Roy Moore has finally gotten away from the teens. https://t.co/6haTJAVzmg — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 4, 2020
Ouch, baby, very ouch. Bradley Byrne might feel most unhappy about today’s tweet — well, after Sessions anyway — as this could have boosted him into the runoff instead. Trump probably didn’t want to take any chances that a Sessions collapse would create an opening for Moore; you can bet that Mitch McConnell didn’t want that either.
At any rate, one can imagine that Trump won’t leave this at just one tweet between now and the mid-April runoff. Sessions might have done better to run on a more complete break from Trump, embracing the MAGA agenda but arguing that Trump needs a leash that he best could provide in the Senate. He still would have likely lost, but at least he wouldn’t have been nearly as vulnerable to the Tweeter in Chief’s vindictiveness. By trying to pretend that all was well, Sessions set himself up to look like a fool — and set Tuberville up for an open lane to Washington DC.


hotair--2020-03-04--Did Biden really confuse his wife for his sister last night?

This was one of the sad but still kind of funny stories making the rounds this morning , dealing with the opening moments of Joe Biden ’ s victory speech last night in Los Angeles .
As Uncle Joe took the stage to raucous applause , he was followed by his wife , Dr. Jill Biden and his younger sister , Valerie Biden Owens .
After waving to the crowd and waiting a moment for the noise levels to drop a bit , Biden opened up his remarks by introducing the two women on stage with him .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start coming off .
( Washington Examiner ) Joe Biden opened up his victory speech on Super Tuesday by confusing his wife for his younger sister .
“ It ’ s a good night .
It ’ s a good night , and it seems to be getting even better , ” the former vice president said Tuesday .
“ They don ’ t call it Super Tuesday for nothing.
” “ This is my little sister Valerie , ” Biden said , pointing to his wife .
He quickly realized his mistake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me !
” When I tossed out a couple of snarky comments about this on Twitter this morning , I quickly had people jumping in to correct me .
My first reaction was to think “ fair enough.
” If the women switched places as they climbed the stairs it would be an easy enough mistake to make in a crowded , noisy hall , right ?
But since you always want to be sure of your facts , I started digging through various videos of the “ gaffe ” that had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them only start at the point where Biden begins speaking , not the moments when he was ascending to the stage .
The best one I found , in the end , is the longer clip found at the Examiner link I included above .
Sadly , it ’ s from a subscription service that I can ’ t embed here , so you ’ ll need to open that link to watch the portion in question .
If you do , you ’ ll see that the explanation being offered doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the five-second mark , you can see Biden climbing the stairs holding the hand of his wife , who is the second one to reach the stage .
His sister is behind them .
Right off the bat , you would imagine that Jill Biden would go to the far side of the lectern , winding up on Joe ’ s right , while the sister would stop sooner and be on his left .
( Which is precisely what they did . )
But who knows ?
Perhaps they had planned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , we could still give Joe the benefit of the doubt .
But now , scan forward in the video to the 14-second mark .
Biden turns his back to the camera to wave to the audience members behind the stage .
At that point , the wife and sister are directly in front of him in his line of sight with Jill Biden to the left side of the stage and Valerie to the right .
Now we proceed forward to the 22-second mark .
Joe has turned back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The crowd is still cheering and he ’ s waiting for them to quiet down a bit more .
At that point , he turns to his right and looks directly at his wife .
Here ’ s a screen capture of that moment .
( Click image for full-size photo ) At no point during this period of time did the two women “ switch sides ” or even come close to it .
Jill Biden proceeded to the left side of the stage ( as seen from the front ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped to the right side of the lectern and remained there .
Seconds later , Biden turns back to the front and says , “ Hello , hello , hello , hello.
” After a couple more introductory comments , at the 45-second mark , Biden again turns slightly to his right , reaches out his right hand and take ’ s his wife ’ s hand and introduces her as “ my little sister Valerie.
” He quickly realizes the error , to his credit , and exclaims that they “ switched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was unaware of a switch in positions that never happened after he turned twice and could obviously see where Jill Biden was standing is rather weak tea .
Does this really matter all that much in the larger scheme of things ?
Probably not .
For most any other candidate of any age , that ’ s the sort of momentary mistake a person could make at such a moment amid all the confusion .
But the fact is that Joe Biden isn ’ t just “ any other candidate.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident .
The fact that so many people could seize on this moment and begin wondering if Joe still has a grasp on the narrative certainly suggests something .
Biden clearly makes more than his fair share of “ mistakes ” when speaking , but is this just a case of momentary stumbles or something more ?
After all , you would think that the Democrats would want to make sure they weren ’ t sending somebody to the Oval Office who ’ s one day going to be asked to list some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the launch codes instead .
A closing note for everyone out there saying it ’ s unfair to talk about such things .
You ’ d be wise to check your history and make sure that you never once joined in with CNN and the rest of the mainstream media over the past three years asking if President Trump ’ s various comments were signs of mental imbalance and/or the need to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment .
As someone remarked to me on Twitter earlier today , “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch the media defend Biden ’ s obvious dementia after questioning Trump ’ s mental health for three years .
”

This was one of the sad but still kind of funny stories making the rounds this morning, dealing with the opening moments of Joe Biden’s victory speech last night in Los Angeles. As Uncle Joe took the stage to raucous applause, he was followed by his wife, Dr. Jill Biden and his younger sister, Valerie Biden Owens. After waving to the crowd and waiting a moment for the noise levels to drop a bit, Biden opened up his remarks by introducing the two women on stage with him. And that’s when the wheels appeared to start coming off. (Washington Examiner)
Joe Biden opened up his victory speech on Super Tuesday by confusing his wife for his younger sister. “It’s a good night. It’s a good night, and it seems to be getting even better,” the former vice president said Tuesday. “They don’t call it Super Tuesday for nothing.” “This is my little sister Valerie,” Biden said, pointing to his wife. He quickly realized his mistake and said, “You switched on me!”
When I tossed out a couple of snarky comments about this on Twitter this morning, I quickly had people jumping in to correct me.
He really didn't. As they ascended the stage, the two women were slightly behind Biden and switched places as they got to the top. He didn't notice them switch and introduced them from the places where he thought they were. — Robert A George (@RobGeorge) March 4, 2020
My first reaction was to think “fair enough.” If the women switched places as they climbed the stairs it would be an easy enough mistake to make in a crowded, noisy hall, right? But since you always want to be sure of your facts, I started digging through various videos of the “gaffe” that had been posted online. Frustratingly, many of them only start at the point where Biden begins speaking, not the moments when he was ascending to the stage.
The best one I found, in the end, is the longer clip found at the Examiner link I included above. Sadly, it’s from a subscription service that I can’t embed here, so you’ll need to open that link to watch the portion in question. If you do, you’ll see that the explanation being offered doesn’t look all that strong. At the five-second mark, you can see Biden climbing the stairs holding the hand of his wife, who is the second one to reach the stage. His sister is behind them.
Right off the bat, you would imagine that Jill Biden would go to the far side of the lectern, winding up on Joe’s right, while the sister would stop sooner and be on his left. (Which is precisely what they did.) But who knows? Perhaps they had planned to do it the other way. At this point, we could still give Joe the benefit of the doubt. But now, scan forward in the video to the 14-second mark. Biden turns his back to the camera to wave to the audience members behind the stage. At that point, the wife and sister are directly in front of him in his line of sight with Jill Biden to the left side of the stage and Valerie to the right.
Now we proceed forward to the 22-second mark. Joe has turned back to face the cameras and the main audience. The crowd is still cheering and he’s waiting for them to quiet down a bit more. At that point, he turns to his right and looks directly at his wife. Here’s a screen capture of that moment. (Click image for full-size photo)
At no point during this period of time did the two women “switch sides” or even come close to it. Jill Biden proceeded to the left side of the stage (as seen from the front) and stayed there. Valerie Biden Owens stopped to the right side of the lectern and remained there.
Seconds later, Biden turns back to the front and says, “Hello, hello, hello, hello.” After a couple more introductory comments, at the 45-second mark, Biden again turns slightly to his right, reaches out his right hand and take’s his wife’s hand and introduces her as “my little sister Valerie.” He quickly realizes the error, to his credit, and exclaims that they “switched places” on him.
So arguing that he was unaware of a switch in positions that never happened after he turned twice and could obviously see where Jill Biden was standing is rather weak tea. Does this really matter all that much in the larger scheme of things? Probably not. For most any other candidate of any age, that’s the sort of momentary mistake a person could make at such a moment amid all the confusion.
But the fact is that Joe Biden isn’t just “any other candidate.” And this isn’t an isolated incident. The fact that so many people could seize on this moment and begin wondering if Joe still has a grasp on the narrative certainly suggests something. Biden clearly makes more than his fair share of “mistakes” when speaking, but is this just a case of momentary stumbles or something more? After all, you would think that the Democrats would want to make sure they weren’t sending somebody to the Oval Office who’s one day going to be asked to list some budget figures and suddenly start rattling off the launch codes instead.
A closing note for everyone out there saying it’s unfair to talk about such things. You’d be wise to check your history and make sure that you never once joined in with CNN and the rest of the mainstream media over the past three years asking if President Trump’s various comments were signs of mental imbalance and/or the need to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment. As someone remarked to me on Twitter earlier today, “It’s going to be fun to watch the media defend Biden’s obvious dementia after questioning Trump’s mental health for three years.”


What's next, Bernie?

Democratic primary voters appeared to conclude that this really is a two-person race yesterday .
They were given a choice between the self-avowed socialist and the guy who may have mistaken his wife for his sister during his victory speech .
Looks like socialism wasn ’ t back on the menu after all , boys .
The narrative of this race changed so often and so quickly over the past week that it was enough to make your head spin .
Up until South Carolina , Joe Biden looked dead in the water .
Bernie was set to win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some by large margins .
There was continual talk of Sanders waking up this morning with an insurmountable lead .
So what happened ?
The Washington Free Beacon summed it up with a two-word title .
Bernie Chokes .
Of course , to hear Bernie tell the story , you ’ d think he won in a clean sweep .
“ Tonight , I tell you with absolute confidence , we ’ re going to win the Democratic nomination , ” Sanders told a crowd of supporters in Vermont , before slamming Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cuts to Social Security .
Sanders also took a veiled swipe at Democratic Party leaders .
“ We ’ re taking on the corporate establishment , but also we ’ re taking on the political establishment , ” he said .
Sanders wasn ’ t completely blown out , but he ’ ll have a lot of questions to answer today .
As I wrote yesterday , he needed to hang on to both California and Texas if he wanted to keep this drive alive .
But he somehow managed to lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State and let Joe Biden sneak away with a narrow victory .
Unfortunately for Bernie , he not only took fewer states than Biden last night , but the margins of victory were such that he ’ s doing even worse than some of the headlines would imply .
If you look at the final splits and delegate counts , California was really the only bright spot for Sanders .
He held onto a solid lead and will take an estimated 65 % of the delegates compared to Biden ’ s haul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the states where Bernie won , the news wasn ’ t nearly as good .
In Colorado , Biden , Bloomberg and Warren combined to take 60 % of the vote , leaving Bernie with the win , but a much smaller number of delegates .
Sanders posted solid margins of victory in Utah and Vermont , but those states also send much smaller numbers of people to the convention .
By contrast , Biden ran up the score in states like Virginia ( over 50 % ) , Tennessee ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 % ) and Alabama ( 63 % !
! )
.
He ’ ll wind up with a large slice of the pie in some of the states with more delegates to offer .
There will be some changes in the days and weeks to come , but at the moment we have these projections .
So instead of an “ insurmountable lead ” in the delegate race , Sanders appears to be dropping into second place .
That ’ s hardly a reason to drop out because there are plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a candidate like Joe Biden , it ’ s still entirely possible he could shoot himself in the foot and open the door for a Bernie comeback .
But at least for the moment , the Sanders “ revolution ” appears to have largely stalled .

Democratic primary voters appeared to conclude that this really is a two-person race yesterday. They were given a choice between the self-avowed socialist and the guy who may have mistaken his wife for his sister during his victory speech. Looks like socialism wasn’t back on the menu after all, boys.
The narrative of this race changed so often and so quickly over the past week that it was enough to make your head spin. Up until South Carolina, Joe Biden looked dead in the water. Bernie was set to win the vast majority of Super Tuesday states, some by large margins. There was continual talk of Sanders waking up this morning with an insurmountable lead. So what happened? The Washington Free Beacon summed it up with a two-word title. Bernie Chokes.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) fell short of expectations on Super Tuesday, failing to prevent former vice president Joe Biden from fighting his way back into contention in the Democratic primary. Decisive victories in several key states, fueled by a series of coordinated endorsements from former rivals and party establishment figures, make it likely that Biden will mount a serious challenge to Sanders’s socialist insurgency.
Of course, to hear Bernie tell the story, you’d think he won in a clean sweep.
“Tonight, I tell you with absolute confidence, we’re going to win the Democratic nomination,” Sanders told a crowd of supporters in Vermont, before slamming Biden over his support for the Iraq war and cuts to Social Security. Sanders also took a veiled swipe at Democratic Party leaders. “We’re taking on the corporate establishment, but also we’re taking on the political establishment,” he said.
Sanders wasn’t completely blown out, but he’ll have a lot of questions to answer today. As I wrote yesterday, he needed to hang on to both California and Texas if he wanted to keep this drive alive. But he somehow managed to lose a commanding lead in the Lone Star State and let Joe Biden sneak away with a narrow victory. Unfortunately for Bernie, he not only took fewer states than Biden last night, but the margins of victory were such that he’s doing even worse than some of the headlines would imply.
If you look at the final splits and delegate counts, California was really the only bright spot for Sanders. He held onto a solid lead and will take an estimated 65% of the delegates compared to Biden’s haul of barely 20%. But in the rest of the states where Bernie won, the news wasn’t nearly as good. In Colorado, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren combined to take 60% of the vote, leaving Bernie with the win, but a much smaller number of delegates. Sanders posted solid margins of victory in Utah and Vermont, but those states also send much smaller numbers of people to the convention.
By contrast, Biden ran up the score in states like Virginia (over 50%), Tennessee (41%), North Carolina (43%) and Alabama (63%!!). He’ll wind up with a large slice of the pie in some of the states with more delegates to offer. There will be some changes in the days and weeks to come, but at the moment we have these projections.
So instead of an “insurmountable lead” in the delegate race, Sanders appears to be dropping into second place. That’s hardly a reason to drop out because there are plenty of states left to vote. And against a candidate like Joe Biden, it’s still entirely possible he could shoot himself in the foot and open the door for a Bernie comeback. But at least for the moment, the Sanders “revolution” appears to have largely stalled.


hotair--2020-03-04--Trump: Schumer should 'pay a severe price' for threatening Supreme Court Justices

Ed wrote about Schumer ’ s threats earlier today and Allahpundit wrote about Schumer ’ s follow up statement claiming he was being misconstrued ( or something ) .
Now President Trump has weighed in with this tweet : I ’ m sure someone is going to argue that Trump saying Schumer “ must pay a severe price ” is exactly the same thing as Schumer saying “ Kavanaugh , you have released the whirlwind !
And you will pay the price !
” Here ’ s why that person would be wrong .
It ’ s not unusual for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other side of the fence that they will ‘ pay a price ’ for this or that statement or position .
No one takes that as a physical threat because we all know what they mean .
They mean that voters who are listening to what is being said will hold it against them and they ’ ll pay a price during the next election .
Maybe in some cases they mean that the institution ( Congress ) will investigate and possibly censure them .
And eventually , that will cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in either case the price they will pay has to do with losing their job because they ’ ve crossed some line .
That ’ s clearly how Trump seems to mean his use of this phrase .
Schumer should a ) have this held against him by voters or b ) maybe have it held against him by the Senate .
What Schumer said earlier today was different .
Supreme Court Justices aren ’ t elected ; they are appointed for life .
They won ’ t face the voters ever .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what will hit you ” clearly can ’ t be a reference to the Justices being surprised at their comeuppance in the next election .
In fact , the only way Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will leave the Court is if they a ) resign or b ) die .
Obviously it ’ s more than a bit problematic to suggest either of those two things will be made to happen if they vote the wrong way on an abortion case .
So while I agree with Ed that Chuck Schumer isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t be very credible if he did , I do think he ’ s making another kind of threat , one akin to the mob behavior we ’ ve seen on college campuses , i.e .
do what we want or we ’ ll shut you down .
Frankly , that seems well within the realm of possibility .
In the age of call-out culture and harassing people in restaurants and at their homes with bullhorns , I don ’ t think it ’ s that much of a stretch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court Justices .
And when they do , there will be people on the left ( and probably a few hosts on CNN ) saying they deserve it .
Even if you don ’ t think Schumer intended to take it that far , his statements clearly seem to be encouraging confrontational behavior .
He ’ s encouraging the crowd to boo the Justices like cartoon villains .
So imagine this case or the next abortion case doesn ’ t go the way Planned Parenthood hopes .
Imagine some people start hounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making death threats ( which again seems more like a certainty to me ) .
Schumer ’ s language today wouldn ’ t discourage that .
On the contrary , it seems like he ’ s threatening just such a campaign as he speaks to a bunch of riled up abortion defenders .
If that ’ s not what Schumer intended , he could have simply corrected himself .
Instead he came up with a lie about what he said that almost no one believes .
I ’ m glad to see at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not falling for it and are instead saying Chuck crossed a line .
It ’ s something but I really don ’ t think the threat was idle or impotent as Hayes claims .
The left is more than willing to go to extremes for Roe v. Wade .
Schumer may not personally try to shut down the Supreme Court or harass Justices at their homes , but some of the people listening to him might and if so they ’ ll take his words today for encouragement .

Ed wrote about Schumer’s threats earlier today and Allahpundit wrote about Schumer’s follow up statement claiming he was being misconstrued (or something). Now President Trump has weighed in with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1235370217712300038
I’m sure someone is going to argue that Trump saying Schumer “must pay a severe price” is exactly the same thing as Schumer saying “Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind! And you will pay the price!” Here’s why that person would be wrong.
It’s not unusual for elected officials to say of some opponent on the other side of the fence that they will ‘pay a price’ for this or that statement or position. No one takes that as a physical threat because we all know what they mean. They mean that voters who are listening to what is being said will hold it against them and they’ll pay a price during the next election. Maybe in some cases they mean that the institution (Congress) will investigate and possibly censure them. And eventually, that will cost them in the next election. But in either case the price they will pay has to do with losing their job because they’ve crossed some line. That’s clearly how Trump seems to mean his use of this phrase. Schumer should a) have this held against him by voters or b) maybe have it held against him by the Senate.
What Schumer said earlier today was different. Supreme Court Justices aren’t elected; they are appointed for life. They won’t face the voters ever. So saying “you don’t know what will hit you” clearly can’t be a reference to the Justices being surprised at their comeuppance in the next election. In fact, the only way Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will leave the Court is if they a) resign or b) die. Obviously it’s more than a bit problematic to suggest either of those two things will be made to happen if they vote the wrong way on an abortion case.
So while I agree with Ed that Chuck Schumer isn’t making a physical threat and wouldn’t be very credible if he did, I do think he’s making another kind of threat, one akin to the mob behavior we’ve seen on college campuses, i.e. do what we want or we’ll shut you down. Frankly, that seems well within the realm of possibility. In the age of call-out culture and harassing people in restaurants and at their homes with bullhorns, I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to imagine some progressives might go there with Supreme Court Justices. And when they do, there will be people on the left (and probably a few hosts on CNN) saying they deserve it.
Even if you don’t think Schumer intended to take it that far, his statements clearly seem to be encouraging confrontational behavior. He’s encouraging the crowd to boo the Justices like cartoon villains. So imagine this case or the next abortion case doesn’t go the way Planned Parenthood hopes. Imagine some people start hounding the justices at their homes or even making death threats (which again seems more like a certainty to me). Schumer’s language today wouldn’t discourage that. On the contrary, it seems like he’s threatening just such a campaign as he speaks to a bunch of riled up abortion defenders.
If that’s not what Schumer intended, he could have simply corrected himself. Instead he came up with a lie about what he said that almost no one believes. I’m glad to see at least a few people on the left are not falling for it and are instead saying Chuck crossed a line.
These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable. Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office. https://t.co/xbNnUeznRR — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) March 4, 2020
Having watched the Schumer clipa few times, it really was out of line! Not just for norms reasons (though I think those matter) but also because idle threats are dumb and expose impotence. Also the intelligence community stuff was weird and bad too. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) March 5, 2020
It’s something but I really don’t think the threat was idle or impotent as Hayes claims. The left is more than willing to go to extremes for Roe v. Wade. Schumer may not personally try to shut down the Supreme Court or harass Justices at their homes, but some of the people listening to him might and if so they’ll take his words today for encouragement.
Finally, here’s the full speech from Schumer:


hotair--2020-03-04--"Out of line": GOP chair responds as Donna Brazile doubles down

As the stress of Super Tuesday bubbled up for Democrats and their surrogates on cable news stations , Fox News contributor Donna Brazile told the RNC chairwoman to “ Go to hell ” .
Her harsh words were in response to Ronna McDaniel ’ s completely accurate description of 2016 ’ s Democrat primary process .
McDaniel said that the DNC “ rigged ” the DNC convention in favor of Hillary Clinton .
That is exactly what happened , as anyone paying attention to the Democrat process in 2016 can tell you .
It was Hillary ’ s turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donna Brazile , who was co-chair of the DNC , were expected to make it happen for her .
Brazile lost control of her temper on national television over the word “ rigged ” .
That brought about her ugly tirade , which left the show anchors stunned .
Brazile even accused McDaniel of reciting Russian talking points against the Democrats .
I wondered about two things as that scene played out – would Brazile be disciplined by FNC ?
How would Ronna McDaniel respond ?
I knew McDaniel would be given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent guest on the cable news network ’ s shows .
Ronna tweeted a rather mild response at first .
Brazile , apparently will not suffer any consequences from FNC .
She participated in Super Tuesday coverage as the evening wore on .
She was on a panel with Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum .
When Baier asked her about the earlier interview she offered no apology for losing her cool , only a defiant explanation .
She began by calling herself “ a forgiving kind of person ” indicating that if anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be McDaniel , not her .
“ I must tell you the secret , I ’ m a forgiving kind of person , ” Brazile replied before thanking several veteran members of the Fox News team for speaking to her after her earlier remarks went viral .
“ I want to thank Chris Wallace and Brit Hume and Juan Williams .
Yes , all three men , ” she continued .
“ Juan gave me the fist bump .
Chris gave me the talk .
And Brit reminded me that , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you shouldn ’ t call people out right.
” “ But let me just say this , as long as I ’ m alive , I ’ m going to speak truth to power , ” Brazile added .
“ And I want to make sure that the chairwoman , I know what her job is like , but I want her to understand , to respect the process on the Democratic side .
He knows , Karl and I talk about this all the time .
Democracy is messy , but do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party is trying to rig it for one candidate .
We ’ re trying to make sure everybody gets a delegate.
” Soooo , Ronna McDaniel was a guest on Shannon Bream ’ s show later Tuesday night .
Her response that time was stronger than the earlier tweet .
“ It ’ s never fun to have your teenagers come home from school and say , ‘ Hey mom you ’ re trending on social media because some woman said you should go to heck , ’ but that being said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think she was out of line with her response , ” she explained .
“ Of course , we all recognize that the Democrats did put their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton in 2016 because of Donna , because of the book that she wrote , she exposed that.
” McDaniel added , “ I felt very in my lane saying that this is happening .
I don ’ t think it ’ s something we can ’ t discuss , and I think her response was a little out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier today.
” It ’ s good that Ms. McDaniel spoke up for herself .
She was saying the same thing that both Republicans and Democrats say about the 2016 election .
Donna Brazile admitted to the corruption of the process in her own book written after the election .
The “ rigged ” language wasn ’ t a Russian talking point and the DNC was in bed with Hillary ’ s campaign , big time , including financial agreements .
Brazile was on Fox and Friends Wednesday morning .
She was more @ @ @ @ @ @ @

As the stress of Super Tuesday bubbled up for Democrats and their surrogates on cable news stations, Fox News contributor Donna Brazile told the RNC chairwoman to “Go to hell”. Her harsh words were in response to Ronna McDaniel’s completely accurate description of 2016’s Democrat primary process. McDaniel said that the DNC “rigged” the DNC convention in favor of Hillary Clinton.
That is exactly what happened, as anyone paying attention to the Democrat process in 2016 can tell you. It was Hillary’s turn to be coronated and loyal establishment Democrats like Donna Brazile, who was co-chair of the DNC, were expected to make it happen for her. Brazile lost control of her temper on national television over the word “rigged”. That brought about her ugly tirade, which left the show anchors stunned. Brazile even accused McDaniel of reciting Russian talking points against the Democrats.
I wondered about two things as that scene played out – would Brazile be disciplined by FNC? How would Ronna McDaniel respond? I knew McDaniel would be given the opportunity on FNC because she is a frequent guest on the cable news network’s shows. Ronna tweeted a rather mild response at first.
It’s ok, @donnabrazile. I’d be having a bad day too if my party was still hopelessly divided. Talk of a brokered convention and the DNC trying to stop Bernie obviously hit a little close to home. — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) March 3, 2020
Too tepid, right?
Brazile, apparently will not suffer any consequences from FNC. She participated in Super Tuesday coverage as the evening wore on. She was on a panel with Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. When Baier asked her about the earlier interview she offered no apology for losing her cool, only a defiant explanation. She began by calling herself “a forgiving kind of person” indicating that if anyone should make an apology, it should be McDaniel, not her.
“I must tell you the secret, I’m a forgiving kind of person,” Brazile replied before thanking several veteran members of the Fox News team for speaking to her after her earlier remarks went viral. “I want to thank Chris Wallace and Brit Hume and Juan Williams. Yes, all three men,” she continued. “Juan gave me the fist bump. Chris gave me the talk. And Brit reminded me that, you know, sometimes you don’t, you shouldn’t call people out right.” “But let me just say this, as long as I’m alive, I’m going to speak truth to power,” Brazile added. “And I want to make sure that the chairwoman, I know what her job is like, but I want her to understand, to respect the process on the Democratic side. He knows, Karl and I talk about this all the time. Democracy is messy, but do not tell the world that the Democratic Party is trying to rig it for one candidate. We’re trying to make sure everybody gets a delegate.”
Soooo, Ronna McDaniel was a guest on Shannon Bream’s show later Tuesday night. Her response that time was stronger than the earlier tweet.
“It’s never fun to have your teenagers come home from school and say, ‘Hey mom you’re trending on social media because some woman said you should go to heck,’ but that being said, politics is a contact sport, and I think she was out of line with her response,” she explained. “Of course, we all recognize that the Democrats did put their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton in 2016 because of Donna, because of the book that she wrote, she exposed that.” McDaniel added, “I felt very in my lane saying that this is happening. I don’t think it’s something we can’t discuss, and I think her response was a little out of line and disproportionate to my comments earlier today.”
It’s good that Ms. McDaniel spoke up for herself. She was saying the same thing that both Republicans and Democrats say about the 2016 election. Donna Brazile admitted to the corruption of the process in her own book written after the election. The “rigged” language wasn’t a Russian talking point and the DNC was in bed with Hillary’s campaign, big time, including financial agreements.
Brazile was on Fox and Friends Wednesday morning. She was more subdued in demeanor but still unapologetic.


hotair--2020-03-04--Would Warren staying in the race be a good thing for ... Bernie?

This argument by Philip Klein is defensible but counterintuitive .
One thing we learned last night is that “ the lanes are real , ” as Jonathan Last put it , with Biden piling up unexpected numbers of votes after Buttigieg and Klobuchar quit the race .
For the past year we ’ ve been analyzing the race as a contest between the “ progressive lane ” and the “ moderate lane , ” knowing all the while that that ’ s a gross simplification of how actual people vote .
For instance , some Bernie fans had Biden as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because they preferred a nominee with working-class appeal more so than someone who matches them closely on ideology .
Some Klobuchar fans had Warren as their number two , and vice versa , because they thought it was important to have a woman nominee this time .
People don ’ t fall in love politically for neat little reasons like “ X is more supportive of raising taxes on the rich than Y.
” It ’ s complicated .
The “ lane ” interpretation of the race is … not complicated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming out of nowhere to win Klobuchar ’ s home state of Minnesota and the southern states where Bloomberg had competed aggressively .
As the centrist “ lane ” collapsed behind him , his numbers skyrocketed .
There are lanes !
But I wonder if maybe the lanes all along weren ’ t “ progressives ” and “ moderates ” so much as “ socialists ” and “ not socialists.
” There ’ s only ever been one candidate in the socialist lane .
And there are only two remaining in the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this at 4 p.m .
ET .
If Warren , one of those two ( nominal ) non-socialists , hangs in there , are we sure she ’ d take more votes from Bernie than she would from Joe ?
Klein makes another point : If Biden , not Bernie , is now the frontrunner in the race , isn ’ t it paramount to keep his delegate totals as low as possible so that he doesn ’ t clinch a majority before the convention ?
Unquestionably , Warren will be hoarding some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race ( although maybe not as many as she hoards from Bernie ) .
Those votes may end up being the difference between an outright Joe win and a contested convention .
Following his huge Super Tuesday , Biden is in strong position to win the most delegates in the Democratic primaries , if not an outright majority .
And if Biden falls short of a majority , the good news is that as things stand now , most of the remaining delegates ( i.e .
those not won by him or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now endorsing him .
With results still pouring in from California , the New York Times Upshot model is projecting that Biden will come out of the big day with 45 % of the delegates .
But if you add the projected totals of recent Biden endorsers Bloomberg ( 104 delegates ) , Pete Buttigieg ( 26 delegates ) and Amy Klobuchar ( 7 delegates ) , then he actually ends up with a majority .
Put another way , if Biden is close to a majority but not quite there going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a total of 137 pledge delegates would be asking their delegates to vote Biden on the first ballot and prevent a contested convention .
If Warren drops out now , according to the same model , she would only have 97 delegates — so she wouldn ’ t be in as much of a position to help Sanders .
However , if she remains in the race , she could still keep amassing delegates .
Were delegates to be split three ways instead of two in a number of contests , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority .
At some point , maybe as soon as next week , she could pass the Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar total , giving her more influence then them if no candidate receives a majority .
She could also help Bernie by teaming up with him against Biden at the next debate , Klein notes .
Here ’ s an interesting number : *If* you assume that all of the Warren voters with Buttigieg or Klobuchar as their second choice would now go to Biden ( which they wouldn ’ t , although most probably would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race is withholding 44 percent of her voters from Biden versus just 40 percent from Bernie .
It ’ s a net gain for Sanders — which makes sense when you think about it .
Warren ’ s remaining left-wing supporters have had every reason to this point to abandon ship and join the Bernie brigades : He ’ s led her in the polls for three months , he won three early states while she was an also-ran , he ’ s raised huge sums of money while she struggled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ’ s corner are obviously skittish about Sanders to have resisted the pressures to switch to him for so long .
It ’ s no sure thing that there ’ ll be mass defections to his campaign if she quits .
Even if she drops out , the Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar preferences among her voters will ensure that Biden gets a healthy cut of her support , largely offsetting Bernie ’ s windfall .
Remember , Warren has been selling herself as a goldilocks candidate , a less socialist Bernie to centrists and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has some centrist support .
That support ’ s probably going to Joe once she ’ s out .
Which means her exit could have a negligible effect on the race , especially if Joementum continues to burst in next week ’ s primaries .
One question about Klein ’ s scenario , though .
Is there any outcome going forward , realistically , in which Bernie ’ s and Warren ’ s combined delegate total exceeds that of Biden plus everybody else ?
Klein is imagining Biden finishing with 45 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 43 percent , and Warren finishing with eight percent .
Joe would say he deserves to be the nominee by dint of his plurality but Sanders and Warren would counter that Bernie deserves to be nominee by dint of the combined 51 percent of delegates who voted for an ardent progressive .
Such is the theory .
How likely is it , though , that Warren will retain enough support to take meaningful bites out of Biden ’ s ( and Sanders ’ s ) haul in state after state , month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have concluded that this is a two-man race ?
Nate Silver wonders : She doesn ’ t need to formally withdraw for her voters to abandon her .
Meanwhile , it may be that Biden is now enough of a juggernaut that he ’ ll never relinquish the national delegate lead even if that lead remains modest : A three-point deficit is not a daunting handicap , certainly not when Mr. Biden was polling 20 points lower just a few days ago .
But the Super Tuesday results do not augur well for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it off .
He remained so competitive on Super Tuesday in part because of the large number of early and absentee voters who cast ballots before it became apparent that Mr. Biden was the viable moderate candidate .
The rest of the country may not be so favorable to Mr. Sanders , either .
With Texas and California off the board , most of the remaining populous states lie in the East , where Mr. Sanders tended to lose , often badly .
They also tend to have a below-average Latino share of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters do represent roughly an average share of the electorate do not seem likely to be as favorable to Mr. Sanders as California or Texas .
Where does the “ Bernie comeback ” happen , exactly ?
Even if Warren hung in there and helped hold Biden below a majority of delegates before the convention , try to imagine a scenario in which Joe arrives in Milwaukee with a plurality and the Biden-friendly establishment at the convention decides to nominate … a second-place socialist with a heart condition and weak African-American support over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never happen .
A Joe plurality will be enough to ensure his nomination .
So Warren might as well quit , endorse Bernie , and try to repair relations with progressives who momentarily hate her for having drawn votes away from Sanders last night .
One more point .
I disagree with this : I ’ ll never believe that Bernie would have tacked to the center even if he had had all the political space he could have asked for to do it .
His entire identity as a politician is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beliefs , even when it ’ s in his political interest to do so .
WYSIWYG .
Douthat ’ s point is truer in reverse : If Sanders hadn ’ t run this year , Warren would have had more room to finesse her support for Medicare for All .
As it was , she had to stick to it to appease progressive voters for fear that they ’ d come to view her as a sellout if she tried to move to the center for electability reasons .
In the end they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile her support for M4A poisoned her appeal to centrists .
Bernie killed the Warren campaign by running in 2020 much more so than Warren killed Bernie .
Here he is this afternoon , trying not to pressure her to quit and endorse him .

This argument by Philip Klein is defensible but counterintuitive. One thing we learned last night is that “the lanes are real,” as Jonathan Last put it, with Biden piling up unexpected numbers of votes after Buttigieg and Klobuchar quit the race. For the past year we’ve been analyzing the race as a contest between the “progressive lane” and the “moderate lane,” knowing all the while that that’s a gross simplification of how actual people vote. For instance, some Bernie fans had Biden as their number two, and vice versa, because they preferred a nominee with working-class appeal more so than someone who matches them closely on ideology. Some Klobuchar fans had Warren as their number two, and vice versa, because they thought it was important to have a woman nominee this time. People don’t fall in love politically for neat little reasons like “X is more supportive of raising taxes on the rich than Y.” It’s complicated. The “lane” interpretation of the race is … not complicated.
Yet there was Joe last night, coming out of nowhere to win Klobuchar’s home state of Minnesota and the southern states where Bloomberg had competed aggressively. As the centrist “lane” collapsed behind him, his numbers skyrocketed. There are lanes!
But I wonder if maybe the lanes all along weren’t “progressives” and “moderates” so much as “socialists” and “not socialists.” There’s only ever been one candidate in the socialist lane. And there are only two remaining in the “not socialist” lane as I write this at 4 p.m. ET. If Warren, one of those two (nominal) non-socialists, hangs in there, are we sure she’d take more votes from Bernie than she would from Joe? Klein makes another point: If Biden, not Bernie, is now the frontrunner in the race, isn’t it paramount to keep his delegate totals as low as possible so that he doesn’t clinch a majority before the convention? Unquestionably, Warren will be hoarding some votes from Biden if she remains in the race (although maybe not as many as she hoards from Bernie). Those votes may end up being the difference between an outright Joe win and a contested convention.
Following his huge Super Tuesday, Biden is in strong position to win the most delegates in the Democratic primaries, if not an outright majority. And if Biden falls short of a majority, the good news is that as things stand now, most of the remaining delegates (i.e. those not won by him or Sanders) have gone to people who are now endorsing him. With results still pouring in from California, the New York Times Upshot model is projecting that Biden will come out of the big day with 45% of the delegates. But if you add the projected totals of recent Biden endorsers Bloomberg (104 delegates), Pete Buttigieg (26 delegates) and Amy Klobuchar (7 delegates), then he actually ends up with a majority. Put another way, if Biden is close to a majority but not quite there going into the convention, other candidates with a total of 137 pledge delegates would be asking their delegates to vote Biden on the first ballot and prevent a contested convention. If Warren drops out now, according to the same model, she would only have 97 delegates — so she wouldn’t be in as much of a position to help Sanders. However, if she remains in the race, she could still keep amassing delegates. Were delegates to be split three ways instead of two in a number of contests, it will become harder for Biden to achieve a majority. At some point, maybe as soon as next week, she could pass the Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar total, giving her more influence then them if no candidate receives a majority.
She could also help Bernie by teaming up with him against Biden at the next debate, Klein notes. Here’s an interesting number:
-If- Warren Does Drop Out, Here's The Most Recent Second Choice Support For Warren Voters From Morning Consult: Sanders: 40%
Biden: 16%
*Buttigieg: 16%
*Klobuchar: 12% *Dropped Out Morning Consult / February 27, 2020 / Online — Polling USA (@USA_Polling) March 4, 2020
*If* you assume that all of the Warren voters with Buttigieg or Klobuchar as their second choice would now go to Biden (which they wouldn’t, although most probably would), then Warren’s presence in the race is withholding 44 percent of her voters from Biden versus just 40 percent from Bernie. It’s a net gain for Sanders — which makes sense when you think about it. Warren’s remaining left-wing supporters have had every reason to this point to abandon ship and join the Bernie brigades: He’s led her in the polls for three months, he won three early states while she was an also-ran, he’s raised huge sums of money while she struggled until very recently. Some progressives in Warren’s corner are obviously skittish about Sanders to have resisted the pressures to switch to him for so long. It’s no sure thing that there’ll be mass defections to his campaign if she quits.
Even if she drops out, the Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar preferences among her voters will ensure that Biden gets a healthy cut of her support, largely offsetting Bernie’s windfall. Remember, Warren has been selling herself as a goldilocks candidate, a less socialist Bernie to centrists and a more socialist Biden to progressives. She has some centrist support. That support’s probably going to Joe once she’s out. Which means her exit could have a negligible effect on the race, especially if Joementum continues to burst in next week’s primaries.
One question about Klein’s scenario, though. Is there any outcome going forward, realistically, in which Bernie’s and Warren’s combined delegate total exceeds that of Biden plus everybody else? Klein is imagining Biden finishing with 45 percent of all delegates, say, Bernie finishing with 43 percent, and Warren finishing with eight percent. Joe would say he deserves to be the nominee by dint of his plurality but Sanders and Warren would counter that Bernie deserves to be nominee by dint of the combined 51 percent of delegates who voted for an ardent progressive. Such is the theory. How likely is it, though, that Warren will retain enough support to take meaningful bites out of Biden’s (and Sanders’s) haul in state after state, month after month, long after Democratic voters have concluded that this is a two-man race? Nate Silver wonders:
That is, the Warren supporters who really like Bernie (or Biden) will probably go to to Bernie (or Biden) *whether or not she drops out*. Many of them likely already have, in fact. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 4, 2020
She doesn’t need to formally withdraw for her voters to abandon her. Meanwhile, it may be that Biden is now enough of a juggernaut that he’ll never relinquish the national delegate lead even if that lead remains modest:
A three-point deficit is not a daunting handicap, certainly not when Mr. Biden was polling 20 points lower just a few days ago. But the Super Tuesday results do not augur well for Mr. Sanders’s odds of pulling it off. He remained so competitive on Super Tuesday in part because of the large number of early and absentee voters who cast ballots before it became apparent that Mr. Biden was the viable moderate candidate. The rest of the country may not be so favorable to Mr. Sanders, either. With Texas and California off the board, most of the remaining populous states lie in the East, where Mr. Sanders tended to lose, often badly. They also tend to have a below-average Latino share of the vote. The states where Latino voters do represent roughly an average share of the electorate do not seem likely to be as favorable to Mr. Sanders as California or Texas.
Where does the “Bernie comeback” happen, exactly? Even if Warren hung in there and helped hold Biden below a majority of delegates before the convention, try to imagine a scenario in which Joe arrives in Milwaukee with a plurality and the Biden-friendly establishment at the convention decides to nominate … a second-place socialist with a heart condition and weak African-American support over their favored candidate. It’ll never happen. A Joe plurality will be enough to ensure his nomination. So Warren might as well quit, endorse Bernie, and try to repair relations with progressives who momentarily hate her for having drawn votes away from Sanders last night.
One more point. I disagree with this:
But I think Jilani is right that if Sandersistas want to blame Warren for something, it isn’t that she stayed in the race too long; it’s that she drove a progressive arms race that seems to have hurt both of their chances in the end. — Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 4, 2020
I’ll never believe that Bernie would have tacked to the center even if he had had all the political space he could have asked for to do it. His entire identity as a politician is that he won’t compromise on his beliefs, even when it’s in his political interest to do so. WYSIWYG. Douthat’s point is truer in reverse: If Sanders hadn’t run this year, Warren would have had more room to finesse her support for Medicare for All. As it was, she had to stick to it to appease progressive voters for fear that they’d come to view her as a sellout if she tried to move to the center for electability reasons. In the end they viewed her as a sellout anyway and meanwhile her support for M4A poisoned her appeal to centrists. Bernie killed the Warren campaign by running in 2020 much more so than Warren killed Bernie.
Here he is this afternoon, trying not to pressure her to quit and endorse him.


hotair--2020-03-04--Schumer doubles down: Why didn't Roberts call out Trump for criticizing Sotomayor and Ginsburg?

A simple “ I regret my poor decision to threaten two Supreme Court justices ” would have worked fine here , but eh .
Let ’ s go in order .
Schumer ’ s comments earlier weren ’ t a reference to “ the political price Senate Republicans will pay ” for confirming Gorsuch and Kavanaugh .
It ’ s insulting to our collective intelligence for him to claim that it was .
He couldn ’ t have been clearer that he was addressing the justices directly , not Republicans .
“ You , Gorsuch !
” “ You , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dudes in the Senate named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that I don ’ t know about ?
There ’ s no better evidence of how badly he messed up than that his own spokesman is forced to resort to a blatantly untrue interpretation of what happened to find some sort of not-terrible spin for it .
“ You won ’ t know what hit you ” also makes no sense except as a threat when aimed at a Supreme Court justice .
What do Gorsuch and Kavanaugh care if they unleash a “ major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
They ’ re life-tenured .
They ’ re not going to be voted out .
There ’ s no “ price ” to pay , unless Schumer means stringing them up .
If he ’ s talking about a political “ price , ” the worst-case scenario is that Democrats ride the backlash against pro-life decisions to total control of government , appoint a bunch of liberals to fill Court vacancies , and we end up with a constitutional regime in which abortion on demand is legal at every stage of pregnancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have now .
“ Roberts does not call balls and strikes ” ?
Well , he ’ s called out Trump before for criticizing federal judges who ’ ve ruled against him , and Trump was far more genteel in those cases than Schumer ’ s “ you will pay the price ” garbage today .
Trump critics frequently ask “ What if Obama did it ?
” to point out righty hypocrisy about some misdeed that Trump ’ s committed , but today we can play “ What if Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments .
What if Trump dropped a “ you won ’ t know what hit you ” on the Notorious RBG ?
We ’ d be in for days of whither our norms ?
coverage .
And that coverage would be justified .
I agree with Ed that Schumer ’ s threat is an empty one .
The man is a putzhead , as Al D ’ Amato once famously said , and the left is never more feral and bloodthirsty than when abortion is involved but I doubt he seriously meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught up in the moment — standing in front of the Court , whipping up a crowd about the cherished right of infanticide that ’ s not actually enshrined in the Constitution , still a little high from last night ’ s establishment demolition of Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday .
He may have been reaching for a rhetorical flourish to express that the left will rally if Roe is overturned .
“ You ’ ll hear from us at the polls !
” became “ You will pay the price !
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” because , well , that ’ s what happens when a putzhead tries to orate .
But “ he probably didn ’ t mean it ” wouldn ’ t get Trump off the hook for saying something like this , so why should it get Schumer off ?
Let him wear it every time the Democrats lecture about norms going forward .
Especially if he won ’ t forthrightly apologize .

A simple “I regret my poor decision to threaten two Supreme Court justices” would have worked fine here, but eh.
NEW stmt from Schumer spox: “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen Schumer said, while remaining silent when Pres Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor & Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.” pic.twitter.com/9908ZAeNkz — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) March 4, 2020
Let’s go in order. Schumer’s comments earlier weren’t a reference to “the political price Senate Republicans will pay” for confirming Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. It’s insulting to our collective intelligence for him to claim that it was. He couldn’t have been clearer that he was addressing the justices directly, not Republicans.
Did Senate Democrat leader Schumer just threaten two conservative justices? Where is the media? “I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price”pic.twitter.com/MellytNNp5 — Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) March 4, 2020
“You, Gorsuch!” “You, Kavanaugh!” Do we have two dudes in the Senate named Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that I don’t know about?
There’s no better evidence of how badly he messed up than that his own spokesman is forced to resort to a blatantly untrue interpretation of what happened to find some sort of not-terrible spin for it.
“You won’t know what hit you” also makes no sense except as a threat when aimed at a Supreme Court justice. What do Gorsuch and Kavanaugh care if they unleash a “major grassroots movement” in favor of abortion? They’re life-tenured. They’re not going to be voted out. There’s no “price” to pay, unless Schumer means stringing them up. If he’s talking about a political “price,” the worst-case scenario is that Democrats ride the backlash against pro-life decisions to total control of government, appoint a bunch of liberals to fill Court vacancies, and we end up with a constitutional regime in which abortion on demand is legal at every stage of pregnancy. Which is what we, um, have now.
“Roberts does not call balls and strikes”? Well, he’s called out Trump before for criticizing federal judges who’ve ruled against him, and Trump was far more genteel in those cases than Schumer’s “you will pay the price” garbage today. Trump critics frequently ask “What if Obama did it?” to point out righty hypocrisy about some misdeed that Trump’s committed, but today we can play “What if Trump did it?” about Schumer’s comments. What if Trump dropped a “you won’t know what hit you” on the Notorious RBG? We’d be in for days of whither our norms? coverage.
And that coverage would be justified.
Schumer's threat to the Court that "you will pay the price" is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts. I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 4, 2020
I agree with Ed that Schumer’s threat is an empty one. The man is a putzhead, as Al D’Amato once famously said, and the left is never more feral and bloodthirsty than when abortion is involved but I doubt he seriously meant to propose physical harm. He probably got caught up in the moment — standing in front of the Court, whipping up a crowd about the cherished right of infanticide that’s not actually enshrined in the Constitution, still a little high from last night’s establishment demolition of Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday. He may have been reaching for a rhetorical flourish to express that the left will rally if Roe is overturned. “You’ll hear from us at the polls!” became “You will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you!” because, well, that’s what happens when a putzhead tries to orate.
But “he probably didn’t mean it” wouldn’t get Trump off the hook for saying something like this, so why should it get Schumer off? Let him wear it every time the Democrats lecture about norms going forward. Especially if he won’t forthrightly apologize.


hotair--2020-03-05--Bill Clinton: Monica was a way to 'manage my anxieties'

There ’ s a new docu-series about Hillary Clinton that will be airing on Hulu soon .
One of the topics that comes up in the four-part series is Bill ’ s affair with Monica Lewinsky .
According to the Daily Mail , Bill blames his poor decision making on anxiety : Asked why he took such a risk with his family , his marriage and his country , Bill said he wasn ’ t thinking about those things when he cheated .
Instead , the pressures of being in the White House led him to seek a distraction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ staggering around , you ’ ve been in a 15 round prize fight that was extended to 30 rounds and here ’ s something that will take your mind off it for a while , that ’ s what happens .
‘ Because there , whatever life – not just me .
Everybody ’ s life has pressures and disappointments , terrors , fears of whatever .
‘ Things I did to manage my anxieties for years .
I ’ m a different , totally different person than I was , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ he said… In the Hulu documentary , Bill said : ‘ Maybe it ’ s just getting older but I hope it was also going through a lot of this .
But whatever , what I did was bad but it wasn ’ t like – how can I think about the most stupid thing I could and do it .
He specifically feels terrible about what happened to Monica : There ’ s one obvious problem with Bill claim that he ’ s a “ totally different person ” than he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago he was being asked about this same topic while he was on a book tour for the thriller novel he co-wrote with James Patterson .
At the time , Bill got angry when he was asked and went on a long tangent about his record promoting women in Arkansas .
Here ’ s how Erin Gloria Ryan at the Daily Beast described it at the time : Instead of remorse , Clinton offered a brand of sleazy obfuscation that has come to personify the gaudy detachment political elites still have from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was the self-pity ( “ I left the White House $ 16 million in debt ” ) , the argumentum ad populum ( “ Two-thirds of the American people sided with me ” ) , and the clever , vague distractions ( “ you typically have ignored gaping facts in describing this ” ) .
There was even the misdirection .
“ I ’ ve apologized to everybody in the world , ” he said when asked whether he ’ d expressed sorrow to Monica Lewinsky… But above all , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its purest form , is just a ham-fisted attempt to avoid taking responsibility .
How could he , Bill Clinton , have been bad to Monica Lewinsky if he , Bill Clinton , had been so good for women elsewhere ?
In that same interview , Bill was also explicit about not owing Monica an apology : “ I asked if you ’ d ever apologized and you said you had , ” NBC News ’ Craig Melvin said .
“ I have , ” Clinton said adding , “ I apologized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you feel that you owe her an apology ?
” Melvin asked .
“ No…I do…I , I do not…I have never talked to her , but I did say publicly on more than one occasion that I was sorry , ” Clinton fumbled .
“ That ’ s very different , ” Clinton added with a big grin .
“ The apology was public.
” “ And you don ’ t think a private apology was owed ?
” Melvin asked .
At that point , James Patterson stepped in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think this thing has been—It ’ s 20 years ago .
Come on .
Let ’ s talk about JFK .
Let ’ s talk about LBJ .
Stop already.
” One of two things are true .
Either Bill is really different than he was 20 years ago in which case it ’ s very hard to explain why he sounded so angry and unapologetic in June of 2018 .
The other possibility is that Bill learned from the blowback he got in 2018 that his defensive , ‘ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go over well and this newfound regret is purely for public consumption .
I ’ m pretty sure which one is true but I ’ m sure some people will continue to believe the best about this creep .
Speaking of which , do the credible allegation of rape against Bill Clinton get a mention in the new Hillary series ?
I ’ m going to guess the answer is no .
I wonder if the producers agreed ahead of time not to mention it or if they just decided on their @ @ @ @ @ @

There’s a new docu-series about Hillary Clinton that will be airing on Hulu soon. One of the topics that comes up in the four-part series is Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. According to the Daily Mail, Bill blames his poor decision making on anxiety:
Asked why he took such a risk with his family, his marriage and his country, Bill said he wasn’t thinking about those things when he cheated. Instead, the pressures of being in the White House led him to seek a distraction. ‘You feel like you’re staggering around, you’ve been in a 15 round prize fight that was extended to 30 rounds and here’s something that will take your mind off it for a while, that’s what happens. ‘Because there, whatever life – not just me. Everybody’s life has pressures and disappointments, terrors, fears of whatever. ‘Things I did to manage my anxieties for years. I’m a different, totally different person than I was, a lot of that stuff 20 years ago,’ he said… In the Hulu documentary, Bill said: ‘Maybe it’s just getting older but I hope it was also going through a lot of this. But whatever, what I did was bad but it wasn’t like – how can I think about the most stupid thing I could and do it. ‘It’s not a defense, it’s an explanation. I feel awful’.
He specifically feels terrible about what happened to Monica:
‘I feel terrible about the fact that Monica Lewinsky’s life was defined by it, unfairly I think. ‘Over the years I’ve watched her trying to get a normal life back again, but you’ve got to decide how to define normal’.
There’s one obvious problem with Bill claim that he’s a “totally different person” than he was 20 years. Less than two years ago he was being asked about this same topic while he was on a book tour for the thriller novel he co-wrote with James Patterson. At the time, Bill got angry when he was asked and went on a long tangent about his record promoting women in Arkansas. Here’s how Erin Gloria Ryan at the Daily Beast described it at the time:
Instead of remorse, Clinton offered a brand of sleazy obfuscation that has come to personify the gaudy detachment political elites still have from the moment in which we live. There was the self-pity (“I left the White House $16 million in debt”), the argumentum ad populum (“Two-thirds of the American people sided with me”), and the clever, vague distractions (“you typically have ignored gaping facts in describing this”). There was even the misdirection. “I’ve apologized to everybody in the world,” he said when asked whether he’d expressed sorrow to Monica Lewinsky… But above all, there was the moral preening that, when distilled to its purest form, is just a ham-fisted attempt to avoid taking responsibility. How could he, Bill Clinton, have been bad to Monica Lewinsky if he, Bill Clinton, had been so good for women elsewhere?
In that same interview, Bill was also explicit about not owing Monica an apology:
“I asked if you’d ever apologized and you said you had,” NBC News’ Craig Melvin said. “I have,” Clinton said adding, “I apologized to everybody in the world.” “But you didn’t apologize to her,” Melvin asked. “I haven’t talked to her,” Clinton said. “Do you feel that you owe her an apology?” Melvin asked. “No…I do…I, I do not…I have never talked to her, but I did say publicly on more than one occasion that I was sorry,” Clinton fumbled. “That’s very different,” Clinton added with a big grin. “The apology was public.” “And you don’t think a private apology was owed?” Melvin asked. At that point, James Patterson stepped in to defend the former president, “I think this thing has been—It’s 20 years ago. Come on. Let’s talk about JFK. Let’s talk about LBJ. Stop already.”
One of two things are true. Either Bill is really different than he was 20 years ago in which case it’s very hard to explain why he sounded so angry and unapologetic in June of 2018. The other possibility is that Bill learned from the blowback he got in 2018 that his defensive, ‘I’m the real victim’ attitude didn’t go over well and this newfound regret is purely for public consumption. I’m pretty sure which one is true but I’m sure some people will continue to believe the best about this creep.
Speaking of which, do the credible allegation of rape against Bill Clinton get a mention in the new Hillary series? I’m going to guess the answer is no. I wonder if the producers agreed ahead of time not to mention it or if they just decided on their own to leave it out.
Update: Will they?


hotair--2020-03-05--Romney: This new Biden/Burisma probe by Senate Republicans sure does smell political

I don ’ t know what he ’ s talking about .
Just because congressional Republicans took zero interest in the Bidens for two years , until Joe entered the race last spring and suddenly the president and his lawyer were scrambling to pressure Ukraine into reopening an investigation into Burisma ?
What smells political about that ?
Why , it ’ s just a big coincidence .
The rote denials that there are partisan motives behind these clearly partisan investigations irritates me at this point more than the investigations themselves do .
Democrats never would have followed through on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves that they ’ d benefit on Election Day by doing so ; Republicans wouldn ’ t waste a moment on Biden and Burisma if they didn ’ t think it ’ d be useful in holding down Joe ’ s numbers in swing states this fall .
But each has to pretend that they care only for The Republic at a moment when the entire political leadership class seems never to have given less of a collective sh*t about the country .
Publicly , I mean ; privately , TrumpWorld is pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re going to try to use Burisma to weaken Biden .
Ron Johnson , who ’ s leading this effort , has taken to spinning it as something for which the opposition should be grateful : “ If I were a Democrat primary voter , I ’ d want these questions satisfactorily answered before I cast my final vote.
” I ’ d respect him more if he answered questions about the timing by simply saying , “ Politics ain ’ t beanbag.
” House Democrats have spent the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes of a payoff in November .
The favor ’ s now being returned .
The Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to vote next Wednesday on a subpoena for records from a Democratic public relations firm related to the panel ’ s investigation of conflict-of-interest allegations against the Bidens .
But Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , a member of the panel , has hinted that he could vote against issuing the subpoena , noting the committee ’ s investigation might look political in nature given Biden ’ s resurgence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become the Democratic presidential nominee… Republicans hold a slim 8-6 majority , and if just one GOP senator joins all Democrats , it would mean a 7-7 tie that would result in a failure to issue the subpoena .
“ I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent , nonpolitical body , ” said Mitt .
Okay , but that logic ’ s not going to fly with righties .
Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department gave Trump a clean bill of legal health last September within days of the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stop House Democrats from launching a months-long investigation .
If Democrats won ’ t treat the DOJ ’ s verdict on wrongdoing as gospel , why should Republicans ?
Of course , Democrats would say that the DOJ under Barr isn ’ t an “ independent , nonpolitical body ” in any meaningful sense , in which case ( a ) House Dems had to investigate Ukraine themselves and ( b ) there ’ s no reason to believe they ’ d be evenhanded in investigating Burisma .
And Romney might say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t refrain from highly politicized investigations of the president is no reason for the GOP to stoop to the same depths .
( A key difference between Romney Republicanism and Trump Republicanism . )
Although given that Romney was the one Republican in Congress to actually validate the impeachment probe by voting to remove , that ’ d be an awkward argument for him , huh ?
I ’ m intrigued at the possibility that he might block the subpoena , just because a second vote to handicap Trump so soon after his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet that Romney intends to operate as a right-leaning independent for the remainder of the Trump presidency , if not beyond .
I stress : A right-leaning independent… …but an independent nonetheless .
He voted in Utah ’ s presidential primary on Tuesday night and was asked afterwards whom he voted for .
“ A Republican , ” he answered .
Trump , he was asked ?
“ Not saying , ” he answered .
Ahem .
He may end up getting some political cover on blocking the subpoena from an unlikely source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burr , chairman of the Senate Intel Committee , had huddled recently with Johnson to warn him to be careful with the Biden probe : Even a Trump loyalist as devoted as Lindsey Graham has expressed concerns about Russian disinformation ending up as part of Rudy Giuliani ’ s “ fact-finding ” efforts in Ukraine .
Romney could try to justify a vote against the subpoena on grounds that he ’ s worried it ’ ll end up as a tool to inject more Kremlin nonsense into the country ’ s information bloodstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” something like that .
Exit question : What do we make now of the hot takes that were circulating three weeks ago that Trump ’ s Ukraine gambit had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams , tempting Democrats into an impeachment saga that ended up promoting the Burisma stuff and ultimately badly damaging Biden ’ s campaign ?
My read on it was that Burisma hadn ’ t hurt Biden much ; rather , his campaign was failing because he was an underwhelming candidate who ’ d never proved his national viability in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks later the guy is posed for a 50-point win in Florida .
Pretty safe to say that Burisma hasn ’ t hurt Joe much .
Yet .

I don’t know what he’s talking about. Just because congressional Republicans took zero interest in the Bidens for two years, until Joe entered the race last spring and suddenly the president and his lawyer were scrambling to pressure Ukraine into reopening an investigation into Burisma?
What smells political about that? Why, it’s just a big coincidence.
The rote denials that there are partisan motives behind these clearly partisan investigations irritates me at this point more than the investigations themselves do. Democrats never would have followed through on impeachment if they hadn’t convinced themselves that they’d benefit on Election Day by doing so; Republicans wouldn’t waste a moment on Biden and Burisma if they didn’t think it’d be useful in holding down Joe’s numbers in swing states this fall. But each has to pretend that they care only for The Republic at a moment when the entire political leadership class seems never to have given less of a collective sh*t about the country. Publicly, I mean; privately, TrumpWorld is pretty open about the fact that, yes, they’re going to try to use Burisma to weaken Biden.
Sen. Romney: “There's no question but that the appearance of looking into Burisma and Hunter Biden appears political, and I think people are tired of these kind of political investigations…" pic.twitter.com/a2F2NvoIX8 — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) March 5, 2020
Ron Johnson, who’s leading this effort, has taken to spinning it as something for which the opposition should be grateful: “If I were a Democrat primary voter, I’d want these questions satisfactorily answered before I cast my final vote.” I’d respect him more if he answered questions about the timing by simply saying, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” House Democrats have spent the past 14 months conducting investigations of Trump with hopes of a payoff in November. The favor’s now being returned.
Unless Mitt Romney stops it:
The Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to vote next Wednesday on a subpoena for records from a Democratic public relations firm related to the panel’s investigation of conflict-of-interest allegations against the Bidens. But Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a member of the panel, has hinted that he could vote against issuing the subpoena, noting the committee’s investigation might look political in nature given Biden’s resurgence and the increasing likelihood that he’ll become the Democratic presidential nominee… Republicans hold a slim 8-6 majority, and if just one GOP senator joins all Democrats, it would mean a 7-7 tie that would result in a failure to issue the subpoena.
“I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent, nonpolitical body,” said Mitt. Okay, but that logic’s not going to fly with righties. Bill Barr’s Justice Department gave Trump a clean bill of legal health last September within days of the Ukraine story breaking big and that didn’t stop House Democrats from launching a months-long investigation. If Democrats won’t treat the DOJ’s verdict on wrongdoing as gospel, why should Republicans? Of course, Democrats would say that the DOJ under Barr isn’t an “independent, nonpolitical body” in any meaningful sense, in which case (a) House Dems had to investigate Ukraine themselves and (b) there’s no reason to believe they’d be evenhanded in investigating Burisma. And Romney might say that just because House Democrats won’t refrain from highly politicized investigations of the president is no reason for the GOP to stoop to the same depths. (A key difference between Romney Republicanism and Trump Republicanism.)
Although given that Romney was the one Republican in Congress to actually validate the impeachment probe by voting to remove, that’d be an awkward argument for him, huh?
I’m intrigued at the possibility that he might block the subpoena, just because a second vote to handicap Trump so soon after his removal vote would be the clearest sign yet that Romney intends to operate as a right-leaning independent for the remainder of the Trump presidency, if not beyond. I stress: A right-leaning independent…
Say what you want about Romney, but who else is trying to hold the administration accountable on #EVerify? I'm hearing the long-awaited WH immigration bill not only doesn't mandate E-Verify, but guts it. https://t.co/w9gVtxqGcH — Mark Krikorian (@MarkSKrikorian) March 5, 2020
…but an independent nonetheless. He voted in Utah’s presidential primary on Tuesday night and was asked afterwards whom he voted for. “A Republican,” he answered. Trump, he was asked? “Not saying,” he answered. Ahem.
He may end up getting some political cover on blocking the subpoena from an unlikely source. Politico reported last week that Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, had huddled recently with Johnson to warn him to be careful with the Biden probe:
In a Dec. 5 meeting, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told the leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Finance committees — Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, respectively — that their probe targeting Biden could aid Russian efforts to sow chaos and distrust in the U.S. political system, according to two congressional sources familiar with the meeting.
Even a Trump loyalist as devoted as Lindsey Graham has expressed concerns about Russian disinformation ending up as part of Rudy Giuliani’s “fact-finding” efforts in Ukraine. Romney could try to justify a vote against the subpoena on grounds that he’s worried it’ll end up as a tool to inject more Kremlin nonsense into the country’s information bloodstream. “One dossier is enough,” something like that.
Exit question: What do we make now of the hot takes that were circulating three weeks ago that Trump’s Ukraine gambit had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, tempting Democrats into an impeachment saga that ended up promoting the Burisma stuff and ultimately badly damaging Biden’s campaign? My read on it was that Burisma hadn’t hurt Biden much; rather, his campaign was failing because he was an underwhelming candidate who’d never proved his national viability in three runs for the presidency. Three weeks later the guy is posed for a 50-point win in Florida. Pretty safe to say that Burisma hasn’t hurt Joe much. Yet.