Donald Trump feels invincible. He isn’t

The day after the GOP-led Senate acquitted him, Donald Trump held a White House rally packed with all his besties and sycophants to assure Americans he was even crazier than they had remembered. Still seething from the visible shredding of his speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the body blow of being the only president in history to draw a bipartisan conviction vote, Trump vomited venom for more than an hour, spewing words and phrases like, liars and leakers, scum, bullshit, sleazebag, phony, rotten, evil and sick.

By Friday, a newly emboldened Trump initiated his post-acquittal massacre, firing not only Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who provided impeachment testimony regarding his work on the White House National Security Council, but also Vindman's twin brother who similarly worked on the council and then Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who perhaps provided the most damning testimony that all of Trump's top advisors were "in the loop" on the Trump-Giuliani Ukraine scheme.

It's a scary moment for the country, especially as we watched Democrats devolve into mayhem following Monday's caucus. And far from learning some sort of "lesson" from the whole impeachment episode that would rein him in, Trump learned that Senate Republicans were too cowardly to ever provide a check on him. He was now unbridled and free to act on his every impulse without any fear of consequence. 

Worse yet, the media got hung up on one Gallup poll showing Trump at 49% job approval and I'll be damned if that number wasn't bandied about as the absolute truth all week. Between acquittal, that singular poll, and higher job creation than anticipated in January (225,000 jobs v. 158,000 expected), many political analysts declared this one of the best weeks of Trump's presidency.

Not to worry. Trump is already stepping on his coattails with his unhinged rally and campaign of retribution. Instead of basking in the glow of turning the page, letting bygones be bygones, and making a renewed call for unity, Trump is responding like the grievance-ridden, petulant child he always proves to be. Once more, the polling pundits latched onto that's surely pushing Trump to feel especially emboldened is most likely an inflated outlier. His unusually high approval (still low by most standards) is likely being driven by a phenomenon that happens when one party or certain voters suddenly feel enthused, making them more open to talking to pollsters and telling them how they feel.  As researchers at Columbia University write, "Some of that shift can be explained by differential nonresponse: more Republicans and fewer Democrats answering the poll. This explanation for the change is not mentioned in the Gallup report, but we can read between the lines and see it." In fact, you can actually see that differential based on the variation in trend lines between phone polling right now (in gold below) and online polling (in blue), which tends to be a more stable representation of shifting attitudes over time.

Flagging this again: We're seeing very large differences in Trump's approval ratings by poll mode right now � perhaps the biggest of his presidency so far. We have some suggestive evidence that partisan non-response bias is artificially inflating his numbers in some phone polls. pic.twitter.com/H89RFXn47s

— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 5, 2020

It also possible that as we head into an election year, some Republicans are simply starting to come home in the run up to November. Whatever the case, the Trump bump doesn't seem tied to any real appreciation in his standing with most voters. His cultists just appear to be ecstatic at the moment. They really do love those vendetta rallies. ;)

But as Democrats eye November, it's important to be clear-eyed about the over-hyped economy and the very real way in which it's failing the vast majority of Americans. First, it's true that Obama's last three years of job growth all beat Trump's best year so far. And while perception matters, actual pocket books matter a lot more. As Annie Linskey reported this week in a must-read piece for The Atlantic, "Beyond the headline economic numbers, a multifarious and strangely invisible economic crisis metastasized: Let’s call it the Great Affordability Crisis." 

Linskey notes that what Americans are earning only tells half the story. What they had to spend of those earnings is both the other half of the story and arguably the most important part. 

In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars, and child-care centers. For millions, a roaring economy felt precarious or downright terrible. ... Fully one in three households is classified as “financially fragile.”

This is the crux of the matter. No matter what the statistics on the stock market, job creation, or even wage growth suggest, many Americans are still struggling mightily. The average American isn't necessarily experiencing a moment of glorious expansion, instead they're slogging through a wilderness of anxiety producing unknowns.

That truth, as unfortunate as it is, leaves plenty of room for Democrats to reach voters where they actually are and make a more reality-based case for boosting the fortunes of both working- and middle-class Americans to a brighter and more inclusive future.

Election security at even higher risk in high-turnout election

High voter turnout is widely predicted in November, which is always good news for democracy. The bad news for democracy? Many voters are worried about election security and might not trust the eventual outcome of the presidential election. Concerns include voting machines that could be hacked, voter suppression, voter fraud, and widespread dissemination of misinformation.

The failure of technology in the Iowa caucuses only adds to that concern. The delay in reporting vote totals because of a new and untested smartphone app was frustrating, especially as cable news channels flooded the caucuses with reporters while talking heads tried to fill hours with new ways of asking, "What's going on?" Many are left asking whether they should trust the results at all.

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is calling for drastic action.

Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass.

— Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 6, 2020

Iowa Democratic officials slogged their way through counting paper preference cards filled in by caucus-goers. But Democratic officials blamed Republican trolls for tying up phone hotlines that were supposed to be used to report vote totals, slowing the process even more. Photos of caucus paperwork featuring the hotline number were posted online, allowing any troublemaker to call. A story on Talking Points Memo summed up the situation as “(a) perfect storm of incompetence, over-reliance on technology, and new reporting requirements have delayed caucus results for days."

As many polls about impeachment show, a majority of voters believe that Donald Trump is encouraging election interference. In addition, a plurality of voters are worried about election security. A recent NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist Poll showed that 41% of voters have a high level of concern that voting in 2020 will not be safe and secure, a figure that has gone up 3 percentage points since September 2018.

Poll respondents answered along party lines: 66% of Democrats say the U.S. is not very prepared or not prepared at all on election security, while only 11% of Republicans had such concerns. Responses from independents were evenly split and matched the overall responses, with 41% landing on either side of the voting security question.

Here were poll respondents' top voting security concerns:

35% of voters fear misleading information. 24% complain of voter fraud. 16% list voter suppression. 15% fear foreign interference. 5% report a fear of possible problems at a polling place, such as long lines, broken voting machines, or an inability to take time off work to vote.

Perhaps voters should be more concerned about problems at polling places.

Recent reports show how easy it is to hack into voting systems, which might have occurred in Georgia in 2016 and 2018. A report to the Senate Intelligence Committee states that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016. When election security experts assembled a group of 100 voting machines at a conference in August 2019, hackers were able to break into all of them. California officials have not yet certified a new electronic voting system in Los Angeles County because of multiple potential vulnerabilities.

It's not just voting machines, according to a Bloomberg News report on cybersecurity.

Election machines are just one way hackers could try to infiltrate an election to change the vote or undermine its credibility. They also could corrupt voter registration rolls or lock up the computers of voting officials with ransomware. Only in the case of voting machines, though, does the safest technology also happen to be simpler and cheaper.

Predictably, 47% of Republicans listed the favorite GOP bugaboo, voter fraud, as a top concern, even though it's practically nonexistent. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School has put voter fraud incident rates at between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent of all votes cast. But facts don't matter to GOP voters who believe Trump's constant lies about "illegal voters" and "rigged elections."

Voter fraud hysteria gives Republican-led states an excuse to pass stricter voting requirements: According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020. Eighteen states ask for a photo ID, while 16 states ask for a non-photo ID.

When voter fraud does occur, it adds fuel to the GOP fire. A technical glitch recently discovered in Illinois meant that several hundred legal immigrants getting driver's licenses were actually registered to vote at the same time. State election officials estimate that only 16 members of that group actually cast ballots in 2018, but the number obviously should have been zero. The state is working with local election authorities "to make sure anyone who was mistakenly registered is taken off the rolls," says a story from Chicago's WGN-TV. Not surprisingly, the state's Republicans are up in arms.

A much bigger problem is voter suppression. In a different report, the Brennan Center found that states purged 16 million voters from voting rolls between 2014 and 2016 alone. Several Republican-led states, such as Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin (just to name a few) have purged or are in the process of purging voters, but even states led by Democrats, such as New York, have purged voters incorrectly, and California is deleting voters as a result of a settlement with the conservative group Judicial Watch. On the federal level, the House of Representatives passed a bill banning voter purging. It's in the Democrats' signature voting rights and election security bill that is now gathering dust on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's desk.

Voting security is only part of the story, though. Voters also are increasingly worried about the spread of disinformation. According to an NPR story about the poll, 59% of respondents said it was hard for them to tell the difference between facts and misleading information. A whopping 82% say it's "likely or very likely" that they will read misleading information on a social media site such as Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. (If ever a poll result should be 100%, it's that response.)

Trump's reelection campaign already is spreading disinformation throughout social media, attacking Democrats, twisting people's words using out-of-context clips and quotes, and just flat-out lying. It's $1 billion operation is even being referred to as "the Death Star," according to a story in The Atlantic.

Every presidential campaign sees its share of spin and misdirection, but this year’s contest promises to be different. In conversations with political strategists and other experts, a dystopian picture of the general election comes into view—one shaped by coordinated bot attacks, Potemkin local-news sites, micro-targeted fearmongering, and anonymous mass texting. Both parties will have these tools at their disposal. But in the hands of a president who lies constantly, who traffics in conspiracy theories, and who readily manipulates the levers of government for his own gain, their potential to wreak havoc is enormous.

The Trump campaign is planning to spend more than $1 billion, and it will be aided by a vast coalition of partisan media, outside political groups, and enterprising freelance operatives. These pro-Trump forces are poised to wage what could be the most extensive disinformation campaign in U.S. history. Whether or not it succeeds in reelecting the president, the wreckage it leaves behind could be irreparable.

Several questions must be answered in coming months as officials brace for a predicted avalanche of voters.

How will state and local officials handle a voting surge? Will they guarantee enough polling sites, enough ballots, enough voting machines, and enough election judges? How much will voter suppression tactics, such as voter ID laws, voter purges, and poll closures, especially in areas that skew Democratic, limit voter access, and thus affect outcomes? How will officials guarantee accuracy when votes are being counted on machines that are often bought over the objections of cybersecurity experts?

On the voting rights front, how much will efforts to open up voting, such as same-day registration, automatic voter registration, no-questions-asked absentee ballots, and early voting encourage more people to cast ballots? Right now, 18 states and the District of Columbia have automatic voter registration or are in the process of implementing it, most of them through the process of getting a driver's license or interacting with another state agency. Laws allowing automatic registration have been in effect for only five years but led to a big jump in registered voters: New registrations rose by as high as 94%, according to yet another report from the Brennan Center.

Henry Olsen, a Washington Post conservative columnist, admits that voters are right to be worried.

Our state election systems are almost certainly not prepared for this. We already face complaints that there are too few polling stations, especially in inner-city areas, to accommodate the people who wanted to vote in past years. Imagine if those two-hour waits double to four-hour waits. Affected populations would surely cry foul, leading to even more charges of intentional voter suppression and election manipulation. ...

Imagine what would happen if after an incredibly bitter campaign, millions of people faced insuperable burdens that lead to them either not voting or extending polling hours into the wee hours of the night to accommodate voter demand. Both parties would likely end up crying fraud, with the loser possibly even claiming the election was stolen.

No one wants to wake up on Nov. 4 to election results they don't trust. It's up to all of us to ensure that access to ballots remains fair and that everyone who wants to cast a vote can do so in a timely manner, without hassle, and be assured that their votes were counted fairly.

Democrats seek to make a move in New Hampshire debate: Live coverage #1

Between Iowa’s confusion and unclear result and the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, we have a Democratic debate. Your cast of characters for the evening, in alphabetical order: former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Bernie Sanders, rich guy Tom Steyer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and online fave Andrew Yang.

Per CNN: “The debate will air live nationally on ABC and locally on WMUR-TV. ABC News will livestream the debate on ABC News Live, featured on Apple News, Roku, Hulu, AppleTV, Amazon Fire TV, Xumo, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, the ABC News site and mobile phone apps. WMUR-TV will livestream the debate on www.WMUR.com and WMUR's mobile app.”

Daily Kos will have live coverage.

Coverage continues here.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:05:42 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And the candidates come onto stage. Elizabeth Warren certainly gets an enthusiastic greeting, as do Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Andrew Yang. That’s not to say that Joe Biden wasn’t welcome, just that his supporters in the room may have been less shouty.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:08:08 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Biden gets the first question—why did Pete and Bernie win in Iowa, and are voters taking a risk going for them. Biden’s response seems a bit hurried and bland, already talking about the “first four” debates. Stephanopoulos forces Biden to take a swing at Bernie and Pete. Which gets a mention of Democratic socialism, and inexperience, but it’s pretty bland.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:10:00 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sanders gets a chance to defend himself, says that Trump shouldn’t be trusted when he says he wants to run against the “democratic socialism” label because “Donald Trump lies all the time.” Sanders is lays claim to Iowa popular, defends a shot from Stephanopoulos about the failure to pump up turnout numbers in Iowa.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:11:06 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Klobuchar rises to Stephanopoulos’ invite to attack the “democratic socialist” label. Klobuchar is clearly a candidate on the bubble here, so it makes sense for her to look for any opportunity to squeeze in.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:12:34 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Steyer gets to talk … and says that we need to get out a diverse base, then claims he’s pulling better numbers with blacks and Latinos than I’ve seen in polling. But at least he can point at the Democratic base.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:13:44 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Yang is the next to get a chance to talk, I’m not sure there was actually a question here. At this point Stephanopoulos seems to be just letting him talk about AI, capitalism, etc. without making him come back to any of the points as he did Biden and Sanders.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:14:56 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

For Warren, Stephanopoulos tries to reframe the questions as “her vs. Bernie,” but Warren pushes past that quickly and says that the issue that Democrats can agree on is fighting against corruption, and that this is something that can bringing in independents and Republicans.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:18:10 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

For Buttigieg, Stephanopoulos makes the question about the word “socialism,” rather than pressing him to attack Sanders … but Stephanopoulos didn’t need to, because Buttigieg goes there on his own by immediately claiming that Sanders “goes all the way to the edge” and says that people shouldn’t even be Democrats if they don’t agree 100%.

Stephanopoulos is clearly happy to see some sparks, and invites Sanders to join in. Sanders does a good job in replying about “bringing people together” with better wages, fair taxes, better healthcare. 

On this exchange, Sanders did much better than Buttigieg.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:20:43 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Stephanopoulos gives Buttigieg another shot to say he will “galvanize and energize but not polarize.” And defends his health care plan.

Then Biden gets a chance to jump on Sanders. Biden gets extremely angry / shouty immediately as he bellows about the cost of Medicare for All. Not a good look, but he definitely paints himself as the guy “who got Obamacare passed.”

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:22:31 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sanders gets the chance to defend Medicare for All, point out the true cost of healthcare as it exists. Stephanopoulos gives Biden a chance to swing again — funny, it already seems like we’ve spent a lot of time allowing Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders to talk.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:25:01 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Klouchar presenting herself as the person who understands “what leadership is about” … which is not providing universal healthcare of making any changes that would seriously change anything.

Warren finally gets a chance to talk again, gets in a slight dig at Klobuchar by saying she can define her plan for herself. And because it’s Elizabeth Warren, she does that.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:28:42 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Buttigieg pushing himself as the “outsider” who is there to fight against the “politics of the past.”

Biden “I don’t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad” rattles off a list of legislative accomplishments. 

Buttigieg gets another chance to reply to Biden, talking about “meeting the moment” without giving specifics.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:30:19 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Klobuchar gets a chance to talk about the impeachment hearing, giving praise to Doug Jones and Mitt Romney and for showing political courage. She drubs Buttigieg for running against Washington, points out that Trump is also the “newcomer” and in general does a helluva job on that response. Points to Klobuchar.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:35:00 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sanders gets the chance to talk again and returns to talking about healthcare, and specifically drug companies. It’s energetic … but it’s kind of a speech. I’m still giving points to Klobuchar for recognizing that this debate isn’t debate #1, or #2, or  #3. 

Steyer “all the healthcare plans are better, a million times better.” Has praise for all the candidates—though takes a knock at Buttigieg’s experience.

Buttigieg’s turn to talk and … wow, did you know he lives in the Midwest? A half point to Buttigieg for mentioning Trump’s National Prayer Breakfast, then take away that point for doing all but jumping into bothsiderism.  

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:35:55 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Yang … makes Yang supporters happy. 

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:42:19 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Warren confronted by charges that she’s being divisive in saying she wants to investigate Trump. Brings it to her “government that works great if you’re [rich / lobbyists / etc]” point and manages to swing her entire pitch into the response. 

Unhappy with the response, Hernandez gives Yang a chance to refute Warren. Which he kind of sorta does.

Sanders gets his chance to respond and does an pretty darn good of talking about the reason Trump needed to be impeached, and the sadness of the Republican rolling over for Trump.

Steyer says “is he a crook? I knew that two years ago. Is he going to be more of a crook? Of course he is.” Steyer has really had some pretty good lines tonight, but keeps coming back to an electability issue that doesn’t really favor him.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:43:26 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Buttigieg is pitched the idea that Biden shouldn’t be nominated because Republicans are threatening to investigate Hunter Biden. Buttigieg gives an emphatic response. His best of the night by far.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:44:30 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Biden brings up Lt. Col. Vindman and encourages the whole room to stand and applaud Vindman. It’s a little bit of a stunt, but also not a bad move.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:45:34 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

I’m going to credit Buttigieg with that response on Hunter Biden. With it, some of the tension seems to have broken and there’s more camaraderie in the room as Klobuchar handles the next issue.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:49:04 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Klobuchar talks up her ability to “work with people” and the newspaper endorsements she has received.

Sanders notes that he doesn’t get many newspaper endorsements. He moves past a Hillary moment quickly, saying that he hopes that everyone will look to 2020 rather than 2016. Speaks a moment to his own claims of being able to work across the aisle.

Saturday, Feb 8, 2020 · 1:51:54 AM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Muir’s first question to Buttigieg speaks to the war in Iraq, Trump’s killing of Soleimani, and the situation in the Middle East. Buttigieg gets in several good lines here, and handles the issue well.

Muir comes right back to Buttigieg and give him more time to expand on this, and again Buttigieg is doing a good job on the issues of intelligence and military.

Trump’s next retribution ax falls on European Union Ambassador Sondland

Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, was fired by impeached president Donald Trump Friday, hours after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was forced out of his national security job at the White House.

I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union," Sondland announced in a statement issued soon after the Vindman firing. He thanked Trump "for having given me the opportunity to serve." The New York Times even sees this for what it is, "a campaign of retribution against those he blames for his impeachment." That campaign of retribution extended to family; Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who was also on the NSC staff, was fired Friday as well.

Trump's rendition of the Friday night massacre is on the heads of every Republican senator who voted to cover up his crime. That acquittal unleashed this monster, and in the case of the Vindman's made our nation that less secure.

Pete has a wall. Bernie has a ceiling. Biden hit the floor. Warren has a path

One would never know it by the post-Iowa media narrative of the Democratic race, but there is a fourth candidate in the top four coming out of Iowa. That candidate finished third, over-performing expectations and beating out the national front-runner. Wow! Who’s that?, you say. She’s a woman, tall and a touch lanky. She’s got a famous dog. Oh … right!

Seriously, the mainstream media counted Elizabeth Warren out before Iowa happened. Then when she claimed one of the three tickets heading out of Iowa, they counted her out again. The only stories I have seen for a solid four days now are about the jostling for first between Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders and then an onslaught of stories perseverating over whether Joe Biden can rise from the dead. Since the mainstream media won’t write a single thing about Warren, I’m going to because, while Warren isn’t getting the post-Iowa boost that Buttigieg and Sanders are, I still think she’s got the best chance of building a coalition that can appeal to the broadest range of voters.

Here’s why: Buttigieg is gaining in New Hampshire and might pull out a first or second place win there. But he’s still nowhere with people of color. He’s got a wall once he hits more diverse states, South Carolina, in particular. Could that change? Perhaps, but we haven’t seen any evidence of that yet and his efforts to broaden his appeal have fallen flat so far. 

Bernie’s theory of the case has always been that he can beat Trump because he will motivate more people to the polls, including an army of youth and other nontraditional voters, to vote for his revolution, as he calls it. He has continually polled strongest among voters under 30 and, to his credit, across a range of demographics. He was well organized in Iowa and his campaign predicted turnout there would rival that of 2008, when Barack Obama drew a whole new generation of voters to the polls. "I will tell you this without a shadow of a doubt,” Sanders said, heading into Iowa, “If there is a large voter turnout—if working people and young people come out in large numbers—we will win and win big." Sanders campaign spokesperson Mike Casca told Politico, “If there's a huge voter turnout, you can turn off your TV—Bernie won.”

Unfortunately for Democrats as a party, turnout was nowhere near ‘08 levels (roughly 240,000 caucusers), rather it was closer to 2016 levels (roughly 170,000 caucusers). The record-level turnout that the Sanders camp hyped doesn’t seem to have materialized. Perhaps to Sanders’ credit, turnout among voters under 30 appears to have increased slightly from 2008 levels. The Sanders camp also put serious energy into increasing participation with nontraditional voters by organizing satellite caucuses, which the campaign argues could still help Sanders edge out Buttigieg in the state delegate equivalent count. But any way you slice it, turnout was underwhelming and perhaps even concerning given the necessity of beating Donald Trump.

What that suggests is that bringing more voters into the fold as Sanders aimed to do isn’t enough. On the other hand, nominating someone who alienates Democrats’ most loyal voting bloc, as Buttigieg seems to, could produce exactly the type of turnout problems in the Rust Belt states that hobbled Hillary Clinton in ’16, not to mention the fact that it would make expanding the map very difficult for Democrats. 

And while Joe Biden on paper seems to be the perfect candidate to hit both of those notes, on the stump he has proven to be uninspiring, which is exactly why he finished fourth in Iowa. Once voters really start paying attention to Biden, he fails to make the conversion. That was true even though both he and Buttigieg had a wide open state for two weeks while Sanders, Warren, and Amy Klobuchar were all stuck in Washington at Trump’s impeachment trial. Buttigieg was able to capitalize on that advantage, Biden wasn’t and it’s telling.

So who, you ask, could put together a coalition that motivates progressives, working class voters, and people of color, while still drawing cross-over votes among never-Trumpers? Warren. While Warren did not dominate hardly any counties across Iowa, her numbers were strong enough among a wide variety of voters and regions of the state that she pulled off a third-place finish. The fact that Warren actually outperformed expectations in Iowa is a story that has been completely ignored. She also remains third in national polling and third in FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 forecast behind Sanders (who got the biggest bump) and Biden for securing a majority of delegates to win the nomination.

Warren still edges out Buttigieg in the forecast, albeit by a single percentage point. As Nate Silver put it, “The case for Warren is that she's in 3rd place, more or less, and the Top 2 candidates aren't that far ahead of the pack and have big vulnerabilities.” All of which is to say, her complete erasure from the political discussion is curious to say the least. But as Democrats continue their quest for a candidate who can beat Trump, they need one that doesn’t turn off voters in any direction while having the fire in their belly for a fight over the long haul. Unless and until voting patterns and polling suggests otherwise, Warren is that person.

Warren’s overall appeal was apparent in two pre-Iowa polls: one showing that given the choice of nominating a candidate through the wave of a magic wand, voters chose Warren over every other Democratic candidate, which was also true in June 2019; and the other showing that Warren would be the least likely candidate to alienate Democrats if she were to win the nomination.

If you're a Democrat and could wave a magic wand�that would nominate any candidate for 2020, who you would pick? New polling by @Civiqs @DataProgress says: ***Elizabeth Warren*** That was true in June 2019, as well. Write up by @markhw_ https://t.co/UWVz9mRGjK pic.twitter.com/IfGKPzPWrJ

— meredith conroy (@sidney_b) February 3, 2020

If this poll is accurate @ewarren would be the most unifying nominee for Democratic voters. https://t.co/e6sFaUOihy

— Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) January 29, 2020

It's not that I think Warren is the perfect candidate, no candidate is ever perfect, as the recent exit of several staffers of color in her Nevada campaign demonstrates. It's just that I believe she has the best path to pull from all the demographics Democrats need to beat Trump, which includes both motivating nontraditional voters and attracting votes from high-propensity voters who don’t necessarily identify as Democrats. We will need every single vote we can get and, at this point, Warren bridges those gaps better than any other candidate in the field.

But whether Warren gets through the next few contests where other candidates have advantages is still an open question. Buttigieg is already getting a sizable bump in New Hampshire polling and Sanders just proved that he’s a fundraising juggernaut with a $25 million haul in January alone. Warren’s chances will likely depend on perhaps outperforming in one of the next several contests with a first- or second-place finish and remaining viable through Super Tuesday. But if Warren really does have a chance, don’t expect the mainstream media to let you know.

‘Disgraceful’: Steve Scalise Slams Pelosi for Ripping Up Trump’s Speech

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise blasted Speaker Nancy Pelosi for ripping up President Trump’s speech after his address was over on Tuesday night, calling her actions “disgraceful.”

“I thought it was disgraceful. It’s unbecoming of a speaker,” Scalise told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for “The Takeout” podcast. “Frankly, Speaker Pelosi should apologize as well, because it’s not the image she should want to portray as the speaker of the House.”

RELATED: Trump Holds Up ‘Acquitted’ Headlines Next to Pelosi Attending Prayer Breakfast

Did Pelosi’s Stunt Disrespect the President’s Guests?

When Garrett mentioned to Scalise that Pelosi said she was justified in ripping the speech because she believed it was a “manifesto of mistruths,” Scalise wondered if her stunt actually represented Democrats disrespecting White House guests present at the speech, including a former Tuskegee airman and a soldier who was reunited with his family.

“I think she at a minimum owes a deep apology to the president and the country,” Scalise said.

Scalise said he believes Trump will be reelected by a wide margin in the Electoral College, and that the President could also win the popular vote in 2020, after losing that vote by 3 million votes in 2016.

Scalise Says Trump Will be Re-Elected

“The popular vote’s a different situation, but look, it’s possible,” Scalise said, before downplaying the importance of the popular vote. “Ultimately, it’s like the Super Bowl. You don’t get the trophy for getting more yards than the other team. You get the trophy for getting more points.”

Scalise also voiced his dissatisfaction with Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander who voted to acquit President Trump during his impeachment trial, but also believed the president’s behavior had been “inappropriate.” Scalise insisted that Mr. Trump had done nothing inappropriate or wrong when he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate a political rival.

“The president’s done his job,” Scalise said.

RELATED: Pelosi Blames Trump for Bombs, But Was Appalled When Democrats Were Blamed for Scalise Shooting

On Wednesday, Scalise tweeted in support of Republican Congresswoamn Kay Granger’s resolution to condemn Pelosi’s actions.

“Ripping up the President’s official State of the Union speech with the nation watching is beneath the dignity of the House of Representatives,” Scalise tweeted. “JUST NOW → @RepKayGranger introduced a resolution to condemn Nancy Pelosi’s disgraceful behavior.”

“She must be held accountable,” he added.

The post ‘Disgraceful’: Steve Scalise Slams Pelosi for Ripping Up Trump’s Speech appeared first on The Political Insider.

Susan Collins, now a national laughingstock, has concerns

Congratulations, Sen. Susan Collins! You've become national figure! Unfortunately for you, it’s as a laughingstock. First she appeared in a Saturday Night Live skit and then in a Stephen Colbert monologue, in which he described her as "the senator who has most successfully talked herself into believing that she believes in something."

Proving Colbert’s point, Collins went on WMTW, Portland's ABC affiliate, to say she "did what I felt was right" in her votes in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, and that this was an even more consequential vote than the one on putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because "removing a president from office" is "overturning an election and preventing the president from appearing in the ballot this fall." About this fall, and if she'll vote for Trump this time around? "You know, I'm not going to discuss presidential politics at a time like this." A time like this being before the filing deadline for Maine's primary. She already made her decision clear, however, in the only vote that really counts—on Trump’s impeachment.

Collins has chosen her side, and Maine knows it. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

She's still trying to convince Mainers that she'll vote to "curb the president's powers." She left out the part about needing to have Mitch McConnell's permission to cast those votes. She also said that she would disapprove of retribution by Trump against anyone who testified. She will tell every reporter she can talk to that she is very concerned when Trump fires Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council after he testified in House impeachment hearings, or when Attorney General Bill Barr starts investigating House Democratic leadership.

She told Maine reporters after a Friday meeting of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association that she wished there had been witnesses in the Senate trial, proving that her wishes are about as effective as her hopes.

Barr tightens grip on FBI, saying any 2020 candidate investigations must first get AG approval

There won't be any investigations of Donald Trump this campaign season. Attorney General William Barr sent a memo Wednesday to the FBI and U.S. attorneys across the nation instructing them to get his approval before opening any new inquiries during the 2020 election cycle, according to The New York Times.

Barr used the backdrop of 2016 and the inspector general's report criticizing some aspects of the FBI's investigation into Trump's campaign as justification for his new decree. The department, he wrote, had a responsibility to safeguard against "improper activity or influences" in the election. “In certain cases, the existence of a federal criminal or counterintelligence investigation, if it becomes known to the public, may have unintended effects on our elections,” Barr wrote.

In other words, Trump is still really pissy about the Russia probe—even though it was never public—and wants to ensure that none of the other corrupt activities he is surely engaged in will interfere in his election, not to mention get investigated at all.

Barr, a man who skewed the rollout of the Mueller report in Trump's favor and declined to investigate Trump Ukraine call for criminal violations, advised, "we also must be sensitive to safeguarding the department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality and nonpartisanship.” Whatever reputation the Justice Department had for delivering fairness is already long gone under Barr's leadership.

In the big picture, this is just one more move by Barr to consolidate power. During the Senate impeachment trial, Barr also installed a loyalist as the new U.S. attorney in D.C., the largest U.S. attorney’s office in the country that also happens to handle many of the most politically sensitive cases in Washington. In another recent development, the Justice Department, which had recently sought six months of jail time for former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, is now saying probation time would be acceptable. 

In ways both obvious and cunning, Barr continues to prove his commitment to doing Trump’s bidding, no matter the task. 

Trump finds new Senate favorite, because she’s been ‘downright nasty and mean’ for him

The newest Republican senator, Kelly Loeffler, has quickly risen to be a favorite of impeached president Donald Trump. The Georgia Republican, who was appointed to fill out retired Sen. Johnny Isakson's term, received high praise from Trump in Thursday's acquittal/Festivus "celebration." He gave Loeffler praise that her fellow Republican Sen. Martha McSally must be seething over. Loeffler has "been so supportive and she's been downright nasty and mean about the unfairness to the president," Trump said.

It probably also didn't go over too well with Rep. Doug Collins, the Republican who glued himself to Trump through the House impeachment process and has been counting on Trump to boost his own run for the Senate in the primary for Loeffler’s seat. He got another dagger to the heart today with the report that Loeffler kicked in $5 million to her own campaign this week. There's more where that came from, too. She's got so much money, she's charging her own campaign interest on that loan. She could make as much as $120,000 back in interest! No wonder Trump is impressed: That's the kind of grift he pulls every day, except of course he's doing it to the taxpayers. She's just doing it to potential donors. Charging yourself interest on your campaign loans isn't against the law, but as Beth Rotman, director of money in politics and ethics at Common Cause, says, it's awfully tacky.

Another billionaire is screwing up the Senate. Help fight back. Please give $3 to our nominee fund to bury them and help Democrats take the Senate back.

At his rally Thursday, Trump did give some props to Collins, calling him an "unbelievable" friend. He also said he's working on a compromise between the two. "Something's going to happen that's going to be very good. I don't know; I haven't figured it out yet," he said. Of course he hasn't, because the idea occurred to him right there on the spot.

But somebody who has no applicable qualifications to speak of is going to get a plum job from Trump any day now.

YouTube Video

Moscow Mitch heaped with praise by Trump in ‘victory’ rally for making it all possible

Moscow Mitch McConnell featured big in impeached-for-life president Donald Trump's unhinged White House campaign rally on Thursday. "And Mitch McConnell, I want to tell you, you did a fantastic job," Trump said. "He understood this was crooked politics. This was crooked politics." Yes, if there's one thing the destroyer of the Senate and beneficiary of Russian largesse understands, it's being crooked.

"This guy is great, and I appreciate it, Mitch," Trump said later. He's "the greatest poker player," said the guy who has no impulse control. "Somebody said, 'You know, Mitch is quiet.' I said, 'He's not quiet.' […] He doesn't want people to know him." That might be the closest thing to truth Trump said. McConnell has worked very hard at keeping the depth of his evil from public view. "And they said, 'Is Mitch smart?' And I said, 'Well, let's put it this way: For many many years […] people have been trying to take his place, and to the best of my knowledge, I've never even heard the subject come up because they've been wiped out so fast."

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

What's Moscow Mitch doing now, besides basking in the sickly orange glow of his Dear Leader? Advancing five more judicial nominations to make sure that even the courts won't be available to rein in the newly anointed dictator.

We need to make sure that Trump is defeated, but just as critical, we need to make sure that McConnell never again has the power to use the Senate to create another Trump.