LAS VEGAS (AP) - Republicans looking to unseat Democratic Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada this year plan to use her vote to impeach President Donald Trump against her as she seeks re-election in a swing congressional district, but the freshman congresswoman said Friday she isn’t worried about it.
“I ...
Sen. Mitt Romney will vote in favor of a subpoena seeking records about the work Joe Biden’s son Hunter did for the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, a spokeswoman for the Utah Republican said on Friday.
Romney’s decision comes after several days of expressing dismay over the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s investigation targeting the Bidens, even suggesting on Thursday that the panel shouldn’t even be looking into the issue.
But after securing certain commitments from the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Romney has decided to support the subpoena when the panel votes on it next Wednesday — all but ensuring it will be issued.
“Senator Romney has expressed his concerns to Chairman Johnson, who has confirmed that any interview of the witness would occur in a closed setting without a hearing or public spectacle,” Romney’s spokeswoman Liz Johnson said. “He will therefore vote to let the chairman proceed to obtain the documents that have been offered.”
Romney has said in recent days that the committee’s investigation into the Bidens has the “appearance” of being politically motivated, given Biden’s resurgence in the Democratic presidential primary. Romney was the only Republican who voted to convict President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial last month, saying he believed Trump violated his oath of office when he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.
“There’s no question the appearance is not good,” Romney told reporters on Thursday, later adding: “I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent, nonpolitical body.”
The subpoena seeks documents from a former consultant for Blue Star, a Democratic public affairs firm, as part of the committee’s investigation into conflict-of-interest claims surrounding the younger Biden’s role on the board of Burisma. The ex-consultant, Andrii Telizhenko, has leveled unsubstantiated claims of coordination between the Ukrainian government and the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
The committee has an 8-6 Republican majority, meaning that if Romney were to oppose the subpoena, it would not be issued. The other seven GOP members of the panel are likely to vote in support of the subpoena.
Democrats have said such an investigation is politically motivated and could even aid Russian disinformation efforts. Some Republicans, too, have raised concerns about the type of information the committee receives as part of its probe, including the possibility that some of it is connected to Russian intelligence.
Later Friday, the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sent a letter to Johnson calling for classified briefings about Telizhenko ahead of the subpoena vote. Peters said members of his staff recently “informed the FBI that they had questions about Mr. Telizhenko that could only be asked in a classified setting, and the FBI agreed to provide the committee with that opportunity.”
Peters similarly called for intelligence briefings on whether foreign actors are trying to use the committee’s investigation to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.
Johnson has insisted that his probe has nothing to do with the presidential election. But on Wednesday, a day after Biden’s Super Tuesday rout, he said he would likely release an interim report on the investigation within one to two months.
“If I were a Democrat primary voter, I’d want these questions satisfactorily answered before I cast my final vote,” Johnson said.
And Trump heightened Democrats’ criticisms of the effort when the president said in a Fox News interview earlier this week that he would use the Burisma issue against Biden in the general election if the former vice president becomes the Democratic nominee.
House lawyers argued Friday that an appeals court ruling blocking lawmakers from suing to obtain information from the executive branch would leave Congress with little choice but to exercise extreme options — such as arresting “current and former high-level” officials to get answers to its subpoenas.
“The House could direct its sergeant at arms to arrest current and former high-level executive branch officials for failing to respond to subpoenas, after which the legal issues dividing the branches would then be litigated through habeas actions,” House lawyers wrote in a filing seeking a rehearing of the matter by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “But arrest and detention should not be a prerequisite to obtaining judicial resolution of the enforceability of a congressional subpoena.”
The filing comes a week after an appeals court panel ruled 2-1 that the House may not ask judges to force the White House to make former counsel Don McGahn available for testimony. The panel determined that courts have no place intervening in disputes between Congress and the executive branch, a ruling that would remake the balance of power between the two branches of government if it stands.
The judges in that ruling worried that allowing the House to turn to the courts to resolve a subpoena dispute with the White House would lead to a flood of litigation. Though two of the three judges doubted the White House’s argument that McGahn is “absolutely immune” from testifying to Congress, the opinion said the House lawsuit failed altogether because the courts don’t have a say.
House lawyers said these arguments were bogus and left lawmakers with a menu of unpalatable options to obtain information the White House doesn’t want to provide. In addition to arresting people, the House could “use its appropriations power to shut down the government in response to executive stonewalling.”
“The panel’s belief that Congress can use ‘political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel’ is sorely misguided,” House Counsel Doug Letter wrote in the filing. “Use of the appropriations process to grind the Government to a halt over a subpoena dispute would be extraordinary and immensely damaging to the whole Nation. Appealing to the public in the next election does not aid this Committee in its urgent inquiries. Impeachment is not an appropriate means to obtain information — indeed, President Trump ordered all subpoenaed documents withheld from Congress during the House’s impeachment inquiry.”
“Nor is referring the matter to DOJ for a contempt prosecution — a referral that DOJ has made clear it would not pursue ... a proper substitute for judicial enforcement of subpoenas,” Letter added.
House counsel also noted that in the 2-1 ruling, the judges said impeachment is an option to force the production of information — a position that directly contradicts the argument made by White House lawyers during the impeachment trial that ended last month.
“[T]he panel did not acknowledge that, while this case was pending, President Trump’s White House counsel argued to the Senate that the president could not be impeached for obstruction of Congress because the House had not first sought judicial enforcement of its subpoenas,” the House noted, “a route that the panel has now held would have been futile, at the urging of President Trump’s DOJ.”
Letter also denied that allowing the House to sue for McGahn’s testimony would unleash a tsunami of litigation by Congress, and in fact denying the effort would ensure more stonewalling by Trump or future administrations.
“As this case has proven, such cases may take months or years to resolve; accommodation, wherever possible, is far preferable,” he argued. But without even the possibility of judicial enforcement, “[f]uture Presidents may direct widescale noncompliance with lawful Congressional inquiries, secure in the knowledge that Congress can do little to enforce a subpoena short of directing a Sergeant at Arms to physically arrest an Executive Branch officer ... By encouraging Presidential stonewalling, the court effectively dismantles the accommodation process.”
McGahn was a central witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election — and whether President Donald Trump criminally obstructed the probe. He testified that Trump ordered him more than once to end the investigation and produce a false record about his efforts.
The House sought McGahn’s testimony last May, but the White House asserted that he was “absolutely immune” from complying with a congressional investigation and ordered him not to appear. McGahn complied with that order even though he had left the White House months earlier.
The House sued to force McGahn’s testimony last August and won an initial ruling at the District Court level. The 2-1 appeals court decision reversed that opinion, and now the House is seeking full “en banc” appeals court review to try to wrest back the upper hand.
In its earlier arguments, the House said it needed McGahn’s testimony as part of its impeachment push against Trump, noting that McGahn could speak to a “pattern” of obstructive behavior by the president. Letter even indicated the House could seek McGahn’s testimony during the impeachment trial in order to garner new evidence.
Letter’s latest filing acknowledges the end of the impeachment trial last month, which resulted in a near-party-line acquittal on charges that Trump abused his power and obstructed congressional investigations. But the House counsel indicates that the House still wants McGahn’s testimony in order to consider potential legislation governing the president’s relationship with the Justice Department.
He also says impeachment could be back on the table if McGahn’s testimony reveals evidence of criminal obstruction of justice or other potential high crimes.
“The Committee would have to consider whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” he wrote.
The Washington Post reports that Senator Mitt Romney is poised to join Democrats and vote to squash a subpoena related to Hunter Biden’s work with the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings.
Biden has been accused of leveraging his father Joe Biden’s status as vice president to get a role on the board of Burisma, while the company used that relationship to garner access to the State Department.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee has scheduled a vote next week to issue a subpoena related to the matter. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News that “Joe Biden has never adequately answered these questions,” explaining Republican motivation behind the investigation.
“I’ve said repeatedly, if there’s wrongdoing the American people need to understand that. If there is no wrongdoing, or if it’s not significant, the American people need to understand that,” Johnson added.
Enter Mitt Romney to save another corrupt (allegedly) Democrat …
Mitt Romney may block a subpoena to investigate Hunter Biden & Burisma
He says the investigation “looks political”
…Yet when it comes to the MOST partisan impeachment trial in history, Romney votes to convict President Trump?
He is a disgrace to the United States Senate
RT!
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 6, 2020
RELATED: GOP Senator Preparing To Issue First Subpoena In Biden, Burisma Investigation
Romney told the Post that the Republican pursuit of Biden – the lead candidate for the Democrat nomination to the presidency – and his son’s dealings with Burisma, seem political in nature.
“I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent, non-political body,” he claimed. “There’s no question the appearance is not good.”
Romney went on to tell reporters that the investigation “appears political.”
“I think people are tired of these kinds of political investigations.”
In other words, the mighty and righteous Romney is willing to take a stand against pursuits he feels are politically motivated. You know, except for that whole partisan impeachment hack job with which he also chose to team with Democrats.
If party lines hold, Romney’s vote with Democrats would create a 7-7 tie in committee, preventing the subpoena from being issued.
Periodic Reminder that Mitt Romney is a tiny pathetic little man who has betrayed the President at every turn.
And @BetteMidler, I hope you hate this.pic.twitter.com/zyA32iWcLW
— Carpe Donktum
(@CarpeDonktum) March 6, 2020
RELATED: Actor James Woods is Back on Twitter, Immediately Wrecks AOC, Hillary, and Mitt Romney
Is it any wonder the Utah senator lost an easily winnable election against Barack Obama in 2012? In hindsight, how could Obama have possibly failed when he was essentially running against his clone?
Romney, as you well know, was the only Republican to betray the nation and vote with Democrats in their clearly politically motivated impeachment scam.
“The President is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” Romney melodramatically claimed at the time, despite his Democrat colleagues in the House failing to prove Trump was guilty of anything.
Funny though, when it benefitted his career, the one-time actual Republican was more than willing to accept Trump’s endorsement for President in 2012 and for Senate in 2018.
Now he goes well out of his way to stab him in the back.
Romney is a snake. The only difference being, snakes are adept at sneaking up on their prey. You can see Romney’s betrayals coming a mile away.
The post Mitt Romney Indicates He’ll Vote With Dems to Protect Hunter Biden From Subpoena appeared first on The Political Insider.
The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a regular feature at Daily Kos.
It is vital that the networks send science/health reporters and not just political reporters to WH briefings. Don't have enough of them? Hire them. Fire the political shills you have on retainer if you need the money. It's a win-win for America.
Alex Ward/Vox:
The biggest challenge to America’s coronavirus response? Trump.
President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has so far been a disaster….
Yet Trump insists the problem is under control and that he’s doing a fantastic job.
Ask yourself this simple question: Is the WH preparing you for this? My contention is that it is not. In fact, it’s clear from these stories that Trump has totally screwed this up.
BREAKING: By a 20-point margin, Americans say Trump�s handling of the Coronavirus makes them less likely to vote for him.https://t.co/TCyz7frXKx
— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) March 5, 2020
‘Doomed from the Start.’ Experts Say the Trump Administration’s Coronavirus Response Was Never Going to Work
“We have contained this. I won’t say airtight but pretty close to airtight,” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in a television interview on Feb. 25, echoing Trump’s tweeted declaration that the virus was “very much under control” in the United States.
But it wasn’t, and the administration’s rosy messaging was fundamentally at odds with a growing cacophony of alarm bells inside and outside the U.S. government. Since January, epidemiologists, former U.S. public health officials and experts have been warning, publicly and privately, that the administration’s insistence that containment was—and should remain—the primary way to confront an emerging infectious disease was a grave mistake.
In congressional testimony, in medical webcasts and in private discussions with health officials, they warned that the unique features of this flu-like virus made it impossible to control, and that the administration must use any time that containment measures might buy to prepare the country for an inevitable outbreak. The administration was using all its resources to blockade the doors, they warned, but the enemy was likely already in the house.
US grocery chain, Trader Joes is the first company to temporarily change its sick leave policy in light of the Coronavirus. To encourage workers to stay home when ill, all employees regardless of tenure & full-time or part-time status will be paid for their time off. #Health #HR
— Mark C. Crowley (@MarkCCrowley) March 6, 2020
WaPo:
The Trump administration’s greatest obstacle to sending a clear message on coronavirus may be Trump himself
As leading public health experts from across the government have tried to provide clear and consistent information about the deadly coronavirus, they have found their messages undercut, drowned out and muddled by President Trump’s push to downplay the outbreak with a mix of optimism, bombast and pseudoscience.
Speaking almost daily to the public about an outbreak that has spread across states and rocked the markets, Trump has promoted his opinions and at times contradicted the public health experts tasked with keeping Americans safe.
The president has repeatedly misstated the number of Americans who have tested positive for the virus and claimed it would “miraculously” disappear in the spring. He has given a false timeline for the development of a vaccine, publicly questioned whether vaccinations for the flu could be used to treat the novel coronavirus and dismissed the World Health Organization’s coronavirus death rate estimate, substituting a much lower figure and citing a “hunch.”
it might be a good idea to have Pence back off and let Birx, Fauci and CDC do the talking it might be life saving https://t.co/LGdUT7fusQ
— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) March 6, 2020
Maggie Koerth/FiveThirtyEight:
Politicians Are The Last People Americans Want Fighting Coronavirus
It all starts with trust — something politicians just don’t have. On the list of people and groups Americans trust, politicians are right down at the bottom, lower even than journalists. Even among the most trusting Americans, only 46 percent have any confidence our elected officials will make decisions in our best interest. Americans’ trust in government itself is at its lowest point since we started systematically measuring it. Only one-fifth of us trust the federal government to do the right thing.
And trust — in politicians and the government they represent — turns out to be a pretty important part of effectively responding to an epidemic. For example, in a 2006 survey that came out after the SARS epidemic, Blendon and his colleagues found that Americans were less likely to trust their government to tell them accurate information about an outbreak than citizens of Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan — and that those lower trust scores were correlated with less support for wearing face masks, getting a vaccine or agreeing to have their temperature taken before they enter a public building.
Nurses Said They Can't Protect Themselves And Hospitals Are Unprepared For Coronavirus, Survey Reports https://t.co/IKnDfcqSe8 via @skbaer
— Virginia Hughes (@virginiahughes) March 5, 2020
Greg Sargent/WaPo:
Trump’s latest coronavirus lies have a galling subtext
Why is it falling to House Democrats to do this?
As experts tell CNN’s John Harwood, Trump is shirking on a basic presidential responsibility to inform the American people. And this could have serious consequences.
Now, none of this necessarily casts doubt on the hard work that administration professionals are doing to manage the crisis. Indeed, if anything, by misleading the public, Trump is surely making this task harder for his own health officials. He’s putting out misinformation that requires correction by them.
Democrats are trying to pick up the slack. But on top of all this, by telling his supporters — millions of Americans — that everything Democrats say is about damaging him, Trump is also telling them not to believe any such correctives.
This was completely and totally predictable. In fact, I predicted it. Bloomberg:
U.S. to Miss Rollout Goal This Week on Virus Tests, Senators Say
The Trump administration won’t be able to meet its promised timeline of having a million coronavirus tests available by the end of the week, senators said after a briefing Thursday from health officials.
“There won’t be a million people to get a test by the end of the week,” Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida said. “It’s way smaller than that. And still, at this point, it’s still through public health departments.”…
The Trump administration has come under criticism for the test-kit shortage, which local public health officials have said hampers their ability to survey the U.S. population for the virus.
“Our single greatest challenge is the lack of fast federal action to increase testing capacity -- without that, we cannot beat this epidemic back,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement Thursday as he announced two additional cases diagnosed in the city.
�The truth is a better antidote to fear.� https://t.co/vdRjoCfmnv
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 5, 2020
Joanne Kenan/Politico:
Trump’s coronavirus musings put scientists on edge
The president’s habit of favoring his own judgments over those of the experts is vastly complicating efforts to fight the outbreak.
“Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this,” Trump said, going on to peg the real figure as “way under 1 percent.”
Public health experts have noted the WHO’s estimate may change as more is learned about the spread of the virus; thousands of non-fatal cases likely have gone undetected. But while the death rate may dip below 3.4 percent, everything that’s known so far suggests it won’t plummet to a level that’s not alarming. And it’s already hitting some populations, like the elderly, disproportionately hard.
I sense a theme here.
A good q, answered:
.@DrMikeRyan adds that it�s clear animals don�t play big role in spreading #covid19, but that there often areisolated cases of animals being infected with new pathogens. "This is not an unusual or unprecedented finding. It happens regularly with emerging diseases"
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) March 5, 2020
Speaking of pets:
Bailey only did what every reporter at these events thinks about doing. WE ARE ALL BAILEY. #solidarity � https://t.co/7epFYBqjQo
— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) March 5, 2020
From AP, horrible job on an important topic:
A disconnect between Trump and health officials on virus
Whom to believe on the coronavirus threat — the president saying one thing or the public health officials standing beside him and saying something a little different?
President Donald Trump’s breezy talk Tuesday of a virus that’s “got the world aflutter” contrasts with the gravity and caution conveyed by federal scientists as Americans look to the government not just for reassurance, but for realism.
Public-health leaders are walking a fine line in laying out the facts without angering a president who speaks in rosier tones than they do about a contagion that’s infected more than 100 people from coast to coast.
This is not a ‘both sides’ topic. Whom to believe??????
A shift like this in such a short period of time makes sense when the electorate wants to move on from the primary and focus on beating Trump. Nonetheless, truly unprecedented in our politics. pic.twitter.com/6fxUCzSQBE
— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) March 5, 2020
Jeremy Faust/Slate:
COVID-19 Isn’t As Deadly As We Think
Don’t hoard masks and food. Figure out how to help seniors and the immunosuppressed stay healthy.
Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest. Even some lower estimates, such as the 1 percent death rate recently mentioned by the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely substantially overstate the case….
But the most straightforward and compelling evidence that the true case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is well under 1 percent comes not from statistical trends and methodological massage, but from data from the Diamond Princess cruise outbreak and subsequent quarantine off the coast of Japan.
A quarantined boat is an ideal—if unfortunate—natural laboratory to study a virus. Many variables normally impossible to control are controlled. We know that all but one patient boarded the boat without the virus. We know that the other passengers were healthy enough to travel. We know their whereabouts and exposures. While the numbers coming out of China are scary, we don’t know how many of those patients were already ill for other reasons. How many were already hospitalized for another life-threatening illness and then caught the virus? How many were completely healthy, caught the virus, and developed a critical illness? In the real world, we just don’t know.
Again, all these numbers and stats are the early exit polls of coronavirus. They’re interesting, important and probably wrong.
Completely understand how hard it must be to pull the plug on something like this. But this seems really ill-advised. https://t.co/8INgIPZti7
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 5, 2020
Tough decisions ahead.
On politics:
Warren in call with her campaign staff: Campaigns "are a reflection of the people who work on them. ... I am so proud of how you all fought this fight alongside me: you fought it with empathy and kindness and generosity � and of course, with enormous passion and grit."
— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) March 5, 2020
Molly Jong-Fast/Daily Beast:
With Warren, The Dream of a Female President Dies Again
Hopes were high last year, with so many well-qualified female candidates. Now we’re down to one, and she’s on her way out. What happened?
There were so many astonishingly brilliant female candidates. There were four accomplished senators, or three in Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand. The fourth, Kamala Harris, was new to the Senate but had been a prosecutor and had already shown great promise. Surely one of them, or all of them, had what it took.
By last July, I was pretty sure that Elizabeth Warren and her “plan for that” would snag the nomination. But as the fall dragged on, Warren started to lose momentum. By November, she was down by 6 points, instead of up by 6 as she had been in September. The selfie lines were no longer cutting it. It seemed as if the Democratic base no longer wanted “systemic change in this country” or if they wanted it, they wanted it from Bernie Sanders and not from Warren.
And then they started dropping out. First was Gillibrand in August and even though I didn’t think I liked her, I realized after the following Gillibrand-less debate that she actually added a lot to the conversation, especially about childcare. In December, Harris dropped out, and I was kind of heartbroken, but we still had two women in the race.
By January, the “woman can’t win” story dropped. It wasn’t entirely clear who leaked the story of Sanders telling Warren that a woman couldn’t win the presidency, but many of Sanders’ supporters blamed Warren. Then came the snake emojis, which some Sanders supporters used to express their displeasure at what they considered to be a double cross from Bernie’s closest progressive allies. Things got real heated real fast between the two.
Warren's support was even more ideologically concentrated at the very liberal end than Bernie's, but it is demographically closer to those groups that have recently moved toward Biden: more suburban, white, & educated & more women. Both have some opening to draw her supporters.
— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) March 5, 2020
Respect to every Elizabeth Warren voter and advocate. She didn’t just represent women, she hired them. The best person doesn’t always win.
The most progressive thing a committed progressive can do is win. Ideology without power, plans without the ability to implement is just wishful thinking. To produce change we must win.
— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) March 5, 2020
In Israel:
YouTube Videounlock achievement: 3rd and final form of boss defeated https://t.co/w7kvxCHy90
— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) March 5, 2020
Of course, with Bibi there is a 4th form.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson in February 1868 failed to remove him from office; the Senate acquitted him in May. But his unfitness for office was so clearly exposed that he failed to win re-election. In fact, he couldn�t even get the Democratic Party to nominate him. https://t.co/jjlBFRG89q
— David Priess (@DavidPriess) March 5, 2020
Tim Miller/Bulwark:
Truth, Lies, and the Nonsense Trump-Biden-Ukraine False Equivalency
One of these guys was pressuring Ukraine to help him out in an election. The other was pressuring Ukraine to end corruption. They are not the same.But despite the frustrating reality, the only way to combat or change this cycle is to disrupt it. So consider this is a humble attempt to do just that and provide some clarity to those of you who are too busy to bathe in the minutiae of the Ukranian prosecutor’s office and might be susceptible to throwing up your hands and placing a pox on both their houses.
(1) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did take consulting work for a Ukrainian oil company, Burisma, that was under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for the work under the prior Russian-allied regime. This is where the true part of the Trump disinformation comes to an end.
(2) The problem was that Shokin actively stood in the way of international investigations that the U.S. and other democratic reformers were pursuing.
(3) Vice President Biden, U.S. diplomats, and our E.U. allies all called on the prosecutor to be fired so the corrupt oligarchs could be investigated MORE AGGRESSIVELY. This includes the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine calling out by name Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who ran the company Hunter Biden worked for, as someone this prosecutor was letting off the hook.
(4) Donald Trump was allegedly pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate a domestic political foe on a bogus conspiracy for personal gain. Joe Biden was pressuring the Ukrainian government to root out corruption in their own country and bring about democratic reforms.
(5) For the kids in the back:
PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE ON YOUR BEHALF IN DOMESTIC ELECTIONS = VERY BAD.
PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE CROOKS = GOOD.
Money? Feh.
Two things that explain why '20's Dem electorate became more pragmatic & less "revolutionary:" 1) In rural WWC areas, '16 Sanders voters who defected to Trump are...still w/ Trump, not Sanders 2) In upscale burbs, many '16 Kasich/Rubio voters are now...Dem/Biden primary voters
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) March 5, 2020
Isn’t there an “eats your face on live TV” party? Oh yeah… it’s leopards.
.@maggiekb1: "There�s probably not enough money in the world to make people vote for you if one of your competitors eats your face on live TV." https://t.co/odC9O9FxRY
— Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) March 5, 2020
Read all of this:
Growing up, my family only talked revolutionary politics. I didn't go to school until age 12 so I didn't know about political parties. (I swear this is true) I thought "Democrats" was a religion. My grandma would pop u in the mouth if you said anything bad about a Dem. Here's why
— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) March 6, 2020
A lot of them don't even care about Biden's relationship with Obama, as some people claim. He has another 40-year relationship that is more important: That D" beside his name. To them, that's the "establishment" they trust. They all they got
— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) March 6, 2020
And a final unity message:
Trump does not have enough support to get reelected. His only path is disunity among the voters who oppose him. The election is a toss up even if they don't get on the same page. But if they do get on the same page, it may not even be close: https://t.co/6eLUqIjVNO
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) March 5, 2020
Much more on Elizabeth Warren tomorrow (Saturday), featuring mostly women’s voices.
