Pages

Saturday, February 29, 2020

South Carolina Results

Biden projected the winner by 29%  (projected results)
Amazing how much faster the results are coming in tonight!

CandidateVotesPercentDelegates*
Biden257,00049.039
Sanders105,00020.014
Steyer60,00011.01
Buttigieg44,0008.00
Warren37,0007.00
Klobuchar17,0003.00

*Projected Delegates

Steyer drops out! I'd change my picture on the side, but he was never in it!
(Will Gabbard follow suit?)

Looks like Biden and Bernie will be pretty close going into Super Tuesday for the delegate lead. Of course it didn't help Buttigieg that he was tied as well after two states. What appears to matter in 2020 is the dynamics and the demographics. We should still look for Bernie to have a delegate lead after Super Tuesday, possibly a large one.
______

Well there are already conspiracies about how Bernie won Nevada by over double his main rival, but there as no calling of the race till it much of the country probably went to bed... versus the fact that the polls barely closed and the South Carolina race is called for Biden (providing some early headlines). It's also amazing that many outlets are already assigning delegates to Biden (14 within 10 minutes of the race being closed).  There seems to be little question that they are pushing hard for a feel good Biden story.

I doubt that any of this will change the momentum of what will happen in three days (especially since many people are not watching the news on a Saturday night). This is why it's well known to try to drop a piece of bad news late on a Friday night when many people will not hear about it till the next Monday. Likewise, Saturday primaries don't gather much momentum either.

I would deem that the person suffering the most from this Biden resurgence will be Michael Bloomberg, who just a week or so ago was calling on Biden and others to drop out and clear the lane for him. Now it seems very unlikely that Biden will drop out of anything.

Here is an interesting stat:
An exit poll question that asked whether a respondent planned to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, regardless of who it is. Overall, four-fifths of voters said they would, but there were some differences among the supporters of the three candidates who had enough support to dig into. Among Biden voters, 86 percent said yes, as did 84 percent of Steyer supporters. But among Sanders supporters, 72 percent said yes and 26 percent said no.
That suggests that attempting to take this away from Bernie at the convention will be a problem (just as it was in 2016). I suspect it will be a bigger problem if he has a delegate lead.

No, the President didn't call Coronavirus a Hoax.

The President called Democratic criticism of his handling a "hoax" - which it is!

Let's be fair here, when this all started the President declared a travel ban on various places (most specifically China) and Democrats were all indignant and critical. Now it looks as though preventing travel from China might be the best reason why the coronavirus is limited and isolated here.

But this is the desperation of Democrats. You see them cheering a stock market decline, almost rooting for the outbreak to spread, and basically using a epidemic that is completely out of the President's control to attack him (as if he personally created the virus).

Now you have the Democratic Candidate on the campaign BLATANTLY LYING about the President and demanding he is calling the virus a "hoax". There is never a point anymore where Democrats can even remotely come close to declaring the higher ground. When you are losing the war of dignity and honesty against, Trump... you know you've hit rock bottom.

Court rules that they cannot compel McGahn to testify

Turley and others argue that this validates the President's position.
But in some ways it makes the opposite case?

I am going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. Sure, Trump won the case. But not necessarily on the "merits" that McGahn could avoid answering questions by citing privilege, but rather because the Court argued that it wasn't their place to settle such a dispute. To some degree, this is affirmation that the House subpoena was not as binding as they argued (or the courts would have rules as such as an obvious matter of law). On the other hand, the courts did sort of punt the issue, making an argument that it was up to the House to and the Administration to handle their own dispute. Such is an implicit argument that impeachment could be one manner to handle it.

However, much of the underlying ideas of the second article was that the House was correct, McGahn and the White House was wrong, and they were just delaying the inevitable (stalling) by going to court. The underlying implication was that the Courts would rule in their favor, thus affirm their legal rights to subpoena McGahn and McGahn's legal obligation to testify. The fact that the courts sided (at least in result) with the President and McGahn make that argument wrong. So one "could" argue (as Turley clearly is) that the basis for article two of impeachment was based on the flawed assumption that going to court was a waste of time and that the House would have prevailed.

Friday, February 28, 2020

South Carolina tomorrow!

What everyone needs:

Slow Joe Biden: Certainly there are a lot of Joe eggs in this particular basket. The polling has moved in his favor (for some fairly unknown reason) and this will be make or break. In some ways, polling showing him up 15-20 points sort of sets those expectations. If he wins, but only by single digits, it may end up being a disappointment. So I think Biden need a big double digit win, and ideally enough delegates to propel him into second place in delegate count. Anything short of that, and Biden will be wobbling into Super Tuesday, rather than marching.


Bernie Sanders: Bernie has this a little bit easier. He probably just needs a reasonable second place finish, where he isn't totally blown out of the water. Ideally something within ten points, where the third place finisher is struggling to garner delegates. At this point, Bernie needs to continue to rack up the delegates, and that would be best done by splitting the bulk of the delegates two ways instead of three or four.

Pete Buttigieg: Technically, Buttigieg resides in second place and has done remarkably well so far (finishing 1, 2, and 3). But in reality Buttigieg (like everyone besides Bernie, Slow Joe, and Billionaire Bloomberg) is on life support. Ideally a third place finish garnering some valuable delegates would be a good result that he can probably live with. But if he were to finish behind Steyer, Warren, or god forbid Klobuchar/Gabbard, then it might be a death blow.

Michael Bloomberg: Not competing in this State, but it still matters. Ideally he would like Buttigieg, Biden and Steyer to under-perform. Obviously another big result for Bernie would make the Socialist's path to victory stronger, but before Bloomberg can deal with Bernie, he needs to clear his lane. That means Buttigieg, Biden and Steyer have to go. As long as he is competing for that "moderate lane" he will not catch up to Sanders.

Tom Steyer: Tom needs a third place finish and some delegates pledged to his campaign. He's invested heavily in this state, and he needs some sort of results to continue to believe he is even reasonably viable. He may choose to go into Super Tuesday either way (he obviously has no money problems), but it would be much less embarrassing for him to do so with a good finish in South Carolina.

And the rest:  Obviously there are not much expectation for any of the remaining females in South Carolina. Warren "once" polled in double digits, but that was only once. Klobuchar and Gabbard have a snow balls chance in hell of coming out with delegates. The question for all three will be what to do after Super Tuesday. I know both Warren and Klobuchar have been running ads in Super Tuesday state (and I believe Klobuchar is leading here in Minnesota). Gabbard just doesn't drop out. So you get the feeling that they are just bypassing South Carolina at this point as if it doesn't matter (and it probably doesn't for them).


Iran's Vice President and Health Minister both have Coronavirus?

Iran’s Vice President Has Coronavirus
Today came news that Iran’s vice president, the highest-ranking woman in the government and a notorious member of the 1979 hostage-takers at the U.S. embassy, is also sick with COVID-19. Here she is yesterday at a cabinet meeting. Click the second image and you’ll find her about 10 feet away from the president, Rouhani, who’s wearing a white headdress:
 
Before we go further, watch this clip. This isn’t the vice president, it’s Iran’s health minister at a briefing a few days ago at which he reassured the public that they have the coronavirus outbreak under control. Shortly afterward he was diagnosed with coronavirus. You’re watching him here in the early throes of the disease, right in front of the media. It’s plays like a twisted joke about the sinister mendacity of authoritarian regimes — Baghdad Bob, the pandemic edition.

So this is the deal here folks. The entire world cannot figure out how to control this particular virus. No cure, no vaccine, no treatment. But just remember, if we elect a few more Democrats and tax the wealthy at a slightly higher rate, these same leaders demand that they can change the earth's climate.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Tale of two stories!

Democratic megadonor urges Pelosi and Schumer to pick a candidate in a bid to stop Bernie Sanders
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders, particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to encourage them to back a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of Sen. Bernie Sanders
“We should know who is the best person to beat Donald Trump, and with all due respect, Bernie Sanders cannot beat Trump,” he explained, describing the message he has relayed to the two Democratic leaders.
Pelosi says she'd be comfortable with Sanders at top of ticket
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said she would be comfortable with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as the Democratic presidential nominee in November.
The congresswoman was asked the question as she was leaving a closed-door meeting in the House basement Wednesday morning. She replied with one word: "Yes."

This, of course is the dilemma for the Democrats. They do not want Bernie Sanders as their candidate (that much is obvious) but they also do not want to go full throttle "against" Bernie, in case he wins the nomination. This is very similar to what was taking place during the 2016 Republican primary season. It ended up tearing the Party apart into two (albeit one very small and one very large) segments of the Party. In fact, one could argue that the nomination of Trump turned certain Republicans into Democrats.

We'll see what happens if Bernie gets the nod. One thing is for certain, and that is that there will be some Democrats (and plenty of Independents) who will simply not want to vote for someone who is an open socialist and pushes the far left policies that Bernie stands for. Trump may have been a lot of things, but he is still pretty much GOP mainstream as it pertains to policy.

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Sanders out to a "huuuuge" lead in California!

Bloomberg battling it out with Klobuchar for fifth place?

Highest Approvals Yet!

Trump slowly but surely getting up to where he needs to be for reelection!
(wouldn't bet against him if his approvals remain over 46%)


Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Democratic Debate Tonight!

So we got pictures of Bloomberg with Weinstein, Bloomberg surrogates are claiming that Bernie believes toddlers should run around naked and touch each other's genitals, and of course it's only one week from "Super Tuesday"!


Are Democrats panicking?

A third think Democratic Party is headed in right direction, plurality believes they lose in 2020 
There are more alarming findings for establishment leaders in the Democratic Party: Morning Consult numbers also reveal that only one-third of Democratic voters say their party is “headed in the right direction.”
“A 46% plurality in the latest poll said they believe Trump will defeat the Democratic nominee later this year, roughly matching responses collected after Iowa and New Hampshire,” Mr. Yokley says.

What happens when your Party faithful lose faith in the Party! Well we may just find out. The question will be not whether or not the Party faithful come out and vote (they likely will for both Democrats and Republicans), the question will be whether or not the Democrats can field a candidate that will be able to outreach to new, less excited voters?

This is what Trump was able to to in 2016, much to the dismay of many never-Trumpers who believed that the Party was better off with old school establishment people than with the new Trump supporters (even if it meant losing).  Never-Trumpers "almost" beat Trump in 2016, by simply demanding that they would rather lose an election that no longer be in charge of the Party.

This is sort of where many Democrats are at today. They quite obviously do not want to lose to Donald Trump in 2020, but many establishment Democrats (think, Pelosi, Schumer, Liberal Media Moguls, big donors, rank and file traditional Demorats) are also loath to turn the Democratic Party over to Sanders, Ocasio Cortez, and the Squad.

People like James Carville in 2020 sound an awful lot like Bill Kristol in 2016. Carville may or may not come along if Bernie wins the nomination. But don't be surprised if may former establishment Democrats (especially those tied to the Clintons) take a step back from the Party (just as many of those Republicans tied closely to Bush did in 2016).

Monday, February 24, 2020

Weinstein found guilty! guilty!

India Loves Trump! MIGA!

Has Bloomberg stalled?

Last four polls show Bloomberg in third or lower

Polling Data

PollDateSampleSandersBidenBloombergWarrenButtigiegKlobucharSteyerGabbardSpread
RCP Average2/13 - 2/22--29.317.215.313.29.86.32.21.4Sanders +12.1
CBS News/YouGov2/20 - 2/226498 LV2817131910521Sanders +9
ABC News/Wash Post2/14 - 2/17408 RV321614128721Sanders +16
Emerson2/16 - 2/18573 LV292214128634Sanders +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl2/14 - 2/17426 LV2715141413721Sanders +12
SurveyUSA2/13 - 2/171022 LV291818101242--Sanders +11
NPR/PBS/Marist2/13 - 2/16527 RV311519128920Sanders +12

It may or may not be a sign of things to come on Super Tuesday, as the Bloomberg ads might be more of a factor in the 14 states than they would be nationally. That being said, a portion of what Bloomberg has been running is certainly for a national audience, and most certainly people are aware of his poor debate performance.

He will get another chance in the South Carolina debate, but as they say... there is never a second chance to make a good first impression, and the Nevada debate was certainly Bloomberg's first impression on a lot of voters. Can't imagine it was a good one to much of anyone.

Meanwhile, most of the state polling still shows Bernie at or near the top in most every state. There may be a state or two that Bloomberg might be ahead in, and a state or two that Biden might be ahead in and Klobuchar might run well in Minnesota, etc, etc... but the key to garnering a majority (or plurality) of delegates will be a consistent run through the 14 states. Right now, Bernie is the only one consistently polling in every state.

Another thing to consider is that most all of the candidates are now buying ads in the Super Tuesday States, and this will provide Bloomberg with his first competition there. Certainly, these ad buys for these other candidates could cause Bloomberg to take some polling hits in these Super Tuesday states.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Democratic Candidates on the value of winning the popular vote!

When asked if the popular vote should determine the Democratic nominee:
  • Biden: “No, let the process work its way out.”
  • Buttigieg: “Not necessarily, not till there’s a majority.”
  • Klobuchar: “Let the process work.” 
  • Bloomberg: “Whatever the rules of the Democratic Party are, they should be followed.”
  • Warren: “The convention working its will means people have the delegates that are pledged to them and they keep those delegates until you come to the convention, all of the people.”
The only candidate who supported the idea of the popular vote being taken into consideration was Bernie Sanders, who is likely to be leading in the popular vote come convention time. Seems like as a matter or principle, Democrats love to push the "popular vote" and following the "will of the people", at least as it pertains to the general election.


But here, in their own nomination process, where they actually control the rules of these elections, they all (but Bernie) take a different approach. In this case, they all want the chance to ultimately win, even if they didn't receive the most votes. How can any of these candidates be taken seriously on their claims that they want to abolish the electoral college over some sort of "fairness" argument, when they won't allow that same "fairness" argument to guide their own contest? 

The reality is that there is no real guiding principle other than what is good for (in this case) each individual candidate, and what is good for their Party in a general election. I remember many Democrats praising the idea of the electoral college back in 2000 when many polls had Bush winning the popular vote, but Gore winning the electoral college. (It turned out to be the opposite, and then the opposite arguments took hold). Arguments of convenience, over arguments of principle. Once again it all boils down to the same thing... 

Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism...  but maybe not socialism? 

Or is it just all about what's good for me and mine?

Nevada Caucus Results!

Nevada Caucus 55% reporting (36 delegates)

CandidateVotesPercent2nd RoundPercentCounty DelegatesDelegates
Sanders2069434.02412240.5352313
Biden1056617.31108718.614962
Buttigieg958715.71075018.011721
Warren796013.1692511.67730
Klobuchar58289.643347.33640
Steyer53528.821303.63100
Gabbard2200.460.140


The numbers are sort of all over the board, and not even being reported consistently. It's as if AP is getting certain caucus results, while Decision Desk is getting different numbers, and CNN is getting a third completely different set of results. I suspect that each are getting their own reporting of certain caucus results and adding them to what is officially reported.

It does look like Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg will get delegates here. It appears that Bernie will get the majority of the delegates, but splitting them three ways will be different than splitting them two ways. It could be that Bernie would have preferred a few extra delegates, but in the end, perhaps this continues to keep the boot on the neck of Joe Biden, who could have claimed more momentum had he been able to split delegates and possibly pass up Buttigieg in the delegate count.

Sunday Funnies!



























Saturday, February 22, 2020

Final polling Nevada!

Polling Data


PollDateSampleSandersButtigiegBidenWarrenKlobucharSteyerGabbardSpread
RCP Average2/19 - 2/21--32.516.016.014.09.59.02.0Sanders +16.5
Data for Progress (D)2/19 - 2/211010 LV35151616882Sanders +19
KLAS-TV/Emerson2/19 - 2/20425 LV3017161211102Sanders +13
Data for Progress (D)2/12 - 2/15766 LV351514169102Sanders +19
Las Vegas Review-Journal2/11 - 2/13413 LV251018131011--Sanders +7

Nevada Caucuses today!

Everyone is getting ready!

Friday, February 21, 2020

Oh about that Russian interference story!

From Jake Tapper: 
A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told, and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment. What's been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again. But the intelligence doesn't say that,” the official says...


“The problem is Shelby" -- Pierson, the elections threats executive in the intelligence community -- "said they developed a preference for Trump. A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that.... It's more that they understand the president is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker. But not that they prefer him over Sanders or Buttigieg or anyone else. So it may have been mischaracterized by Shelby" at the House Intel briefing last week...
"And by the way,” the official says, “both Democrats and Republicans were challenging this at the briefing."
Then there’s the matter of the tense meeting between President Trump and erstwhile Acting Director of National Intelligence Admiral Maguire... “The President was upset that he had to hear about an intelligence conclusion from a Member of the House Republicans rather than from the intelligence community. So he was out of joint with Maguire on that process."
None of this disputes that Trump desires to replace those who have Intel expertise with partisan loyalists, or dismisses the larger issues and concerns about Russia and how the president seeks help from abroad. Just that there seems to be more to this particular story.

So bottom line... there is literally no actual evidence that the Russians are attempting to manipulate the 2020 election in favor of Trump. Nor did Trump fire anyone because of this particular assessment getting out. The only thing that intelligence suggests is that Russia is looking to get involved in the election again (well duh). Moreover, the reason the President fired Maguire was because he was not keeping the President in the loop on issues that were making their way (albeit incorrectly) to the NY Times prior to making their way to him. I would fire this person too for that very reason.

It's little more than like the 250th fake NYT news story attacking the President. Not sure why anyone takes the Times any more seriously than the National Enquirer anymore.


Just imagine if Bloomberg ends up as the Candidate!

Liz Warren provided Donald Trump with the greatest political ad ever!



This one would run wall to wall and pretty much undercut any idea that Mayor Bloomberg is somehow a man of great virtue who will be a wonderful step up from Donald Trump in terms of character. The fact that this comes from a Democratic Candidate for President who is more representative of the liberal base (especially women involved in the #MeToo movement) it's likely that this sort of ad would harm Bloomberg from both sides. You could see many Bernie Brohs and Warren fans embracing a more liberal third Party Candidate.

The real question is whether or not Warren understands how much this debate tactic undermines Bloomberg if he becomes the candidate, or if that is just sort of the plan. To show everyone exactly how open to these sorts of attacks he would be if he became the actual candidate. Or at the very least, it would take treatment of women attacks and many "Billionaire" character attacks against the President away from Democrats, and make it "just" about policy. Of course with the economy raging and things going well, it would be difficult to undermine the President on policy issues that really matter to people.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

But does this even appeal to liberals?

It's a clever edit of something that in real life took all of six seconds...

I think this is a winner if he was running in a Republican primary and was the only one to have started a business. But in the liberal "you didn't build that" world, being a multi-billionaire businessman with 64 sexual harassment lawsuits against you... isn't all Bloomberg is cracking it up to be.

Liberal Justice...

Post debate analysis?

Bernie rises to over 50% in betting odds. Bloomberg drops 10 points overnight! 

What does it say when the so called woke hip Party of the millennial and younger voters have their two 78 year old white front runners arguing about what sort of stent was put in their hearts following their heart attacks.


The biggest take away from this is that Bloomberg was not impressive for a variety of reasons. He didn't respond well to attacks. He provided absolutely zero personality. You wonder if he ever told a joke that wasn't actually just a sexist comment. He seems smug. He lacked self awareness (does he actually believe that he has 60 billion dollars because he worked that much harder than everyone else). But most importantly there was almost a presence about him that seemed like he didn't actually want to be there. As if either it was a waste of his time or that it was beneath him?

Campaigns are way more than advertising. You have to connect with people in these sort of environments. In fact, I would offer that anyone who saw Bloomberg's performance will be extra skeptical of his ads and the rhetoric he is tossing around on his own terms. I simply cannot imagine that this is the guy I want to put up against Trump in any sort of debate setting. The fact that Bloomberg comes off as timid, slow on his feet, and disinterested would be inflated as he stood next to someone who is a good 6-8 inches taller and 100 lbs bigger. I know that is only optics, but optics are what this is about sometimes.

This turned out to be a pretty good debate for Bernie and Biden, simply because they were not under fire as they would otherwise had been if not for Bloomberg. Bernie got out without much harm, and Biden (although still appearing confused and such at times) did not endure much for attacks. Warren played the pit bull, and I am sure that helped consolidate her with her own crowd, but I wonder if she helps gain any new appeal. Buttigieg and Klobuchar appeared to have their own little thing going on down at the end of the line. Almost felt like two people on the Island, and knowing that one of them is about to be voted off, so they leveled their attacks against each other. They certainly appeared to be also rans (in spite of finishing 2-3 in New Hampshire). 

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Democratic Debate: Bloomberg not ready for prime time!

First question: Did Bloomberg actually prepare? At all?



Second question: Was this a debate or an all star wrestling show?

Third question: On a scale from one to ten, how much did they gang up on Bloomberg


Fourth question: Do any of these people even remotely scare Trump?

This made my day!


Are 30 million more people "really" uninsured since Trump became President

Not exactly sure where this got started, but you hear it a lot. Somewhere, someone suggested that Trump is responsible for thirty million Americans losing their insurance. The reality is that this is hardly possible. With approximately 190 million adult Americans who would be too young to qualify for Medicare, that relates to a 16% rise in the uninsured. Looking at this graph, it clearly shows that such a thing is not even in the ball park. In fact, the rate of uninsured is still historically low.



The real number of people who "dropped" insurance looks to be more in the range of approximately five million at most, and would include the millions who dropped out of coverage voluntarily, after no longer being forced to enroll based on the insurance mandate (due to courts ruling it unconstitutional). So while Democrats may argue that these people "lost" insurance, they know where it is, they just no longer choose to pay exorbitant rates that was being required. 

Moreover other people have made determinations of more people uninsured, but not even in the range that some are claiming. Here, they are talking about a number between 1.2 and 2 million, which would barely cover those who dropped insurance voluntarily. 

How many people are uninsured?
For the second year in a row, the number of uninsured increased. In 2018, 27.9 million nonelderly individuals were uninsured, an increase of nearly 500,000 from 2017. Since 2016 when the number of uninsured reached historic lows, the number of people who lack health insurance coverage has grown by 1.2 million. Despite these recent increases, the uninsured rate remains substantially lower than it was in 2010, when the first ACA provisions went into effect and prior to the full implementation of Medicaid expansion and the establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. Data show substantial gains in public and private insurance coverage and historic decreases in the number of uninsured people under the ACA, with nearly 20 million gaining coverage.

Number of uninsured Americans rises for the first time since Obamacare
The number of Americans lacking health insurance ticked up slightly last year, marking the first annual increase in the uninsured rate in nearly a decade, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday. The uninsured rate rose from 7.9 percent in 2017 to 8.5 percent last year, amounting to nearly 2 million more uninsured people, as experts said the Trump administration's efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act were partly to blame.
The reality is that Trump has done little to undermine Obamacare other than not punishing those who choose not to purchase it. In fact, it would be a better argument that Trump had nothing to do with that either, since it was the Courts (not Trump) that ruled the mandate unconstitutional. The uninsured rates still remain remarkably low, and they are no longer artificially lower based on forcing people to purchase something that they do not.

Nope, this is just another a very long list of inaccurate or dishonest attacks on the President. Here is to hoping that the rest of the Country is not as dumb as the Democratic brown shirts who lock step to everything their leadership tells them without question!