web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Top Hillary advisor: It’s true, she hasn’t ruled out jumping into this presidential race

Westlake Legal Group r-6 Top Hillary advisor: It’s true, she hasn’t ruled out jumping into this presidential race warren Tucker Carlson The Blog run primary Philippe Reines Hillary Clinton democrat buttigieg biden 2020

So the rumors are true. She really is thinking about it.

Normally you could dismiss a tease like this one on grounds that the would-be candidate who’s teasing it is just trying to stay relevant. There’s no publicity like “might run for president” publicity, right? Clinton doesn’t need to head-fake about jumping in to get the media to cover her, though. Every time she dings Trump on Twitter or elsewhere it’s amplified endlessly by the press. Tulsi Gabbard is now running as the anti-Hillary in the field thanks to one 20-second comment Clinton made about her recently in an interview. Any “she might run” publicity has a short shelf life, too: We’re only about three months removed from the Iowa caucuses. No one will believe that Hillary might still be getting in the race if she hasn’t entered by, say, Thanksgiving. The idea that she’s doing this for PR just doesn’t add up.

I think she’s looking for excuses to get in but just hasn’t gotten the clarity she needs from the polls to justify doing so. This new one from Quinnipiac is the most enticing for her to come along in awhile considering it’s the worst number Biden has pulled in a national survey since August:

Westlake Legal Group q-2 Top Hillary advisor: It’s true, she hasn’t ruled out jumping into this presidential race warren Tucker Carlson The Blog run primary Philippe Reines Hillary Clinton democrat buttigieg biden 2020

Note the numbers among women especially. Warren, the lone woman left among the plausible nominees, hasn’t even won a third of Democratic women voters (yet). Biden is down to 20 percent among them. There’s a lot of room potentially there for Hillary. And of course Clinton has always done well with black voters, her firewall against Bernie Sanders in 2016. Would it be unrealistic to expect her to immediately attract, say, a third of all Democratic women and a third of all black Democrats instantly if she were to jump in?

Because if that did happen, she’d be right in the thick of the race on day one.

There are problems, though. For starters, this Quinnipiac survey is unusual in showing Biden fading behind Warren, theoretically creating demand for a new centrist-y candidate to get in. Yesterday CNN published a poll showing him leading the field with 34 percent, fully 15 percent ahead of Warren. Two other polls recently had him at 30 percent or better while others have had him steady at 27 percent, still a respectable number in a field this big. That is, the evidence that Biden is beginning to stagger as Warren supposedly rises inexorably just isn’t there — yet. And given the sort of time window Clinton is looking at to get in, if it doesn’t arrive very soon it’ll be too late.

The other problem is that it’s possible Hillary would have her best day of polling on the day she announced and would begin to sink shortly afterward. All of her vulnerabilities would be publicized by the other candidates. Some Biden fans would resent her for trying to snatch away his chance at the nomination. Progressives would recoil at her attempt to derail the party’s journey towards socialism. Even her fans would be given pause by the inconvenient fact that she already lost once before to the guy they’re spoiling to beat next year.

But there’s this scenario too: She gets in and Biden starts to fade as neoliberals conclude, reluctantly, that he’s “lost a step” and therefore Clinton’s the only game in town. The progressive vote remains split between Bernie and Warren, enabling a surprise Clinton win in Iowa. Or, even if it consolidates behind one of them, enough moderate Democrats end up being spooked by the idea that Sanders and Warren are too radical to beat Trump that they grudgingly swing around to Hillary as the least bad (but still bad) option. There are ways to rationalize the belief that she’d do better against Trump than she did in 2016, too. Her advisor gives you one in the clip below: Trump’s not running as a populist outsider anymore but as an incumbent with a record he’ll need to defend. He’s all but certain to have “impeached” on his resume by the time Election Day arrives. Meanwhile, Hillary’s own chief scandal from 2016, Emailgate, is old news by now. And plenty of Hillary fans will tell you that she only lost to Trump because of Russian meddling. With America less likely to get caught sleeping on the threat of foreign interference next year, that’s less of a worry in 2020. Add all of that up and toss in the fact that Hillary 2020 would surely spend lots more time in the Rust Belt than Hillary 2016 did and is it *possible* that she could win?

Sure, it’s possible. You’ll never convince me that she’d have the best chance of winning among the Democratic field; a rando like Amy Klobuchar or even Joe Biden in doddering form would be a much safer gamble. But yeah, conceivably she could win. She won the popular vote once before, after all.

She’s not running, though. I think the “Hillary might run again” rumors are nothing more or less than the Clintons clinging to the *theoretical* possibility that their time hasn’t quite passed yet. It’s hard to begrudge a retired player the fantasy that there’s still a chance for them to suit up, take the field, and finally win the Super Bowl. Same here.

The post Top Hillary advisor: It’s true, she hasn’t ruled out jumping into this presidential race appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group r-6-300x159 Top Hillary advisor: It’s true, she hasn’t ruled out jumping into this presidential race warren Tucker Carlson The Blog run primary Philippe Reines Hillary Clinton democrat buttigieg biden 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The DOJ Finally Decides to Prosecute a Federal Official For Leaking

Westlake Legal Group handcuffs-2102488_1280-1-620x349 The DOJ Finally Decides to Prosecute a Federal Official For Leaking Politics partisan NBC News National Security media bias leaker Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story DIA democrats democrat CNBC bill barr Allow Media Exception

A bit of news broke the afternoon involving the arrest of a federal official.

Henry K. Frese, a DIA official, was charged with leaking classified information to two different journalists, one of which he was apparently sleeping with. Remember that the next time the media tell you are virtuous and upstanding they are.

Here’s the report via The Federalist.

An employee at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was arrested Wednesday on federal charges of leaking top-secret classified information to two reporters.

Henry Kyle Frese, a 30-year-old counter-terrorism analyst at the DIA, allegedly leaked classified information to two reporters whose identities were not unveiled by authorities in 2018 and this year, one of which Frese was romantically involved with, according to the indictment.

Federal authorities say one reporter wrote eight articles stemming from at least five leaks from Frese.

While that linked article doesn’t rely the names of the reporters in question, we know who they are. One of them is CNBC’s Amanda Macias, who was in the romantic relationship with Frese. The other was an NBC reporter named Courtney Kube.

Much of what was leaked involved intelligence on foreign weapons capabilities and tests, including Russia and China.

CNBC has already suspended Macias.

We should probably go ahead and congratulate her on her new gig at The New York Times. You know it’s coming.

You also won’t be surprised to learn that Frese’s social media showed him to be rabidly anti-Trump.

I’d assume we are less than a day away from this guy being turned into a #resistance hero and Trump being accused of targeting him for his political views.

While this leaker isn’t directly related to the Trump-Russia fiasco, it does at least show a willingness by the DOJ to pursue these cases when they feel they have enough evidence. This appears to be an open and shut case. Hopefully, there are many more to come in the near future.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post The DOJ Finally Decides to Prosecute a Federal Official For Leaking appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 300e3a-300x146 The DOJ Finally Decides to Prosecute a Federal Official For Leaking Politics partisan NBC News National Security media bias leaker Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story DIA democrats democrat CNBC bill barr Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Go Ahead and Guess What Political Party the “Whistle-Blower” Belongs To

Westlake Legal Group Trump-Shocked-620x323 Go Ahead and Guess What Political Party the “Whistle-Blower” Belongs To whistle-blower Ukraine ryan saavedra Registered Democrat Politics political bias News Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats democrat CNN Allow Media Exception

You might find this filed under the least surprising news of the day.

The current Trump-Ukraine situation is very fluid at the moment, with snippets and assertions being dropped on what seems like an almost hourly basis. As I wrote this morning, Democrats are pushing a set of cherry-picked text messages to try to reinvigorate the idea of a quid pro quo involving a trip to the White House. The goalposts have completely moved from talks of military aid when the “whistle-blower” complaint was first reacted to by Democrats, to more and more tortured allegations.

On the topic of that complaint, a bit of recent news further muddies the waters as we now know one of the reasons why the ICIG noted possible bias on the part of the whistle-blower.

He’s a Democrat.

Now, you might ask yourself why CNN would report this. The answer is simple. It’s called getting ahead of a story to help frame it. We’ve seen this over and over when damaging information that could possibly help Donald Trump is on the verge of being exposed. Instead of letting it drop, legacy news agencies run and get anonymous quotes to try to get the information out there while presenting it in the best possible light.

Remember when there were rumors of intel assets being run against the Trump campaign and then The New York Times wrote a piece admitting it happened, basing it on anonymous FBI sources? That was done so the Times could spin it as justified, which they dutifully tried to do.

The goal here is to get the political affiliation of the whistle-blower out there early so that when more evidence of bias drops, Democrats can claim it’s old news and not relevant to the complaint.

Games are being played here. Don’t be fooled.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Go Ahead and Guess What Political Party the “Whistle-Blower” Belongs To appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group shocked-300x199 Go Ahead and Guess What Political Party the “Whistle-Blower” Belongs To whistle-blower Ukraine ryan saavedra Registered Democrat Politics political bias News Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats democrat CNN Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Chris Matthews: Shouldn’t Democrats be looking at impeaching Mike Pence too?

Westlake Legal Group t-4 Chris Matthews: Shouldn’t Democrats be looking at impeaching Mike Pence too? zelensky Ukraine Trump The Blog republicans remove pence pelosi impeach House gop democrat

Via Newsbusters, this is a fun gotcha to ask Senate Democrats because there’s an obvious answer to his question but it’s an answer Democrats can’t say out loud.

The answer is that no matter how dirty Pence’s hands turn out to be in this Ukraine mess, Democrats can’t make a move on him. Trump is already screaming about a “coup,” trying to turn Americans against the impeachment process; the rebuttal to that from the left is that if they were going to stage a coup, it sure as heck wouldn’t end with Mike Pence as president, which is what’ll happen if their impeachment effort succeeds. Start talking about *Pence* being impeached and removed too, though, and suddenly the “coup” argument becomes more tenable. Democrats are trying to get rid of both Republicans in order to make Nancy Pelosi president. Any small, tentative support Dems currently enjoy among moderate Republicans would go up in smoke if that perception took hold. And of course Senate Republicans would never, ever allow it. In some worst-case scenario where both Trump and Pence were impeached, they’d find a reason not to remove Pence in the name of maintaining Republican control of the White House.

But as I say, Democrats can’t say “It’s Trump we hate, it’s Trump we’re after, and so we’re giving Mike Pence a completely free pass for political reasons, to reassure Republican voters that they’ll still rule the executive branch.” Instead they’ll be forced to concoct excuses for the VP when the media coughs up stories like this:

[T]he president used Pence to tell Zelensky that U.S. aid was still being withheld while demanding more aggressive action on corruption, officials said. At that time — following Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelenksy — the Ukrainians probably understood action on corruption to include the investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Officials close to Pence insist that he was unaware of Trump’s efforts to press Zelensky for damaging information about Biden and his son, who had served on the board of an obscure Ukrainian gas company, when his father was overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine.

Pence’s activities occurred amid several indications of the president’s hidden agenda. Among them were the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Kiev; the visible efforts by the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to insert himself in the U.S.-Ukraine relationship; as well as alarms being raised inside the White House even before the emergence of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint about Trump’s conduct.

Perhaps most significantly, one of Pence’s top advisers [national security advisor Keith Kellogg] was on the July 25 call and the vice president should have had access to the transcript within hours, officials said.

Trump had also told Pence earlier in the year not to attend Zelensky’s inauguration. And WaPo’s White House sources claim that Pence “probably” would have had the notes of Trump’s famous phone call with Zelensky in his briefing book when he traveled to Poland to meet the Ukrainian president in September. Between those notes and Kellogg’s personal awareness of what was said on the call (supposedly Kellogg didn’t see the call “as unusual or flag any concerns about it to the vice president”) and the inauguration cancellation and the mysterious hold-up in military aid and the other things mentioned in the excerpt, Democrats could argue that Pence should have realized — and probably did realize — what was going on when Trump sent him to Warsaw and had him press Zelensky on unspecified “corruption.” It was a pressure campaign, with a very particular result in mind.

But they’re not going to argue that. Maybe some of their 2020 candidates will try to drag Pence into it as a way of virtue-signaling to the left that they’re ready to impeach anyone and everyone in the Trump administration, but party leaders will seize any excuse available to ignore Pence’s role in this. “I can believe that Mike Pence was so disengaged from what his own government is doing that he failed to recognize what was going on under his nose.” Or “As much as I dislike Mike Pence, I think we need to focus on the mastermind here.” Or even some meritorious excuses — “We can’t be sure Pence was in on it since he never specifically mentioned Biden to Zelensky.” Or “I blame Keith Kellogg, who was on the call, instead of Pence for not bringing the call to Pence’s attention.”

Worst-case scenario for Pence here, realistically, is that the impeachment push somehow gains momentum and Democrats end up censuring him in the House. Imagine how annoyed Pelosi must be, though, to see the friendly confines of MSNBC raising this uncomfortable question for her at a moment when she’s trying to convince the public that Trump — and only Trump — must go.

The post Chris Matthews: Shouldn’t Democrats be looking at impeaching Mike Pence too? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-4-300x159 Chris Matthews: Shouldn’t Democrats be looking at impeaching Mike Pence too? zelensky Ukraine Trump The Blog republicans remove pence pelosi impeach House gop democrat   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tulsi Gabbard: On second thought, we need an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s Ukraine conduct

Westlake Legal Group tg-5 Tulsi Gabbard: On second thought, we need an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s Ukraine conduct zelensky Ukraine tulsi gabbard Trump The Blog power impeach democratic democrat abuse

My first thought upon reading this was for poor Tucker Carlson, her nationalist admirer at Fox, whose heart must be breaking. If Gabbard’s not going to shill for Trump when the chips are down, of what use is she ultimately to Fox News and MAGA Nation? Right, great, she dealt a heavy blow to Kamala Harris at the second debate. Protecting Trump from impeachment matters much more.

I pointed out on Tuesday when she sounded like a no on impeachment that she was placing herself in an awkward position politically. She just qualified for the October presidential debate, after all; she’s going to be onstage next month on national television at a moment when her party is racing towards impeaching the president with near-unanimous support among its own base. She was certain to be asked about her stance at that debate. Anything she might conceivably say about the drawbacks of impeachment — it’s divisive, it’s another blow to political norms, it’s proceeding without due deliberation — would be interpreted by lefties as treason against the party. She’d wreck her political future at the tender age of 38.

She needed to climb down, and so today she did.

“However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine’s President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.

“If we allow the President to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top to bottom. We will turn into a banana republic, where people in positions of power—from the president all the way down to the traffic cop—will feel it’s okay to abuse their power with no consequences.

“This is not the kind of country that any of us want to see.”

She’s not calling for impeachment but for an impeachment inquiry, the same sort of hedge Pelosi has used lately. Democrats aren’t committed to impeaching the president (officially) but they are now committed to investigating the Ukraine matter in the expectation that it’ll lead to impeachment if the claims are substantiated. Gabbard hedges a bit more for the MAGA fans in her base when she goes on to say that the Democrats’ inquiry “must be swift, thorough, and narrowly-focused” and “cannot be turned into a long, protracted partisan circus.” She even uses the word “unfortunate” not once but twice in her statement to signal her deep, deep misgivings about taking this position — although, in fairness, she also notes Trump’s own comments about the Ukraine matter as a contributing factor in her reversal. I wonder which comments, specifically. These, maybe?

And so we come to the question: Wha’ happened? Did Gabbard flip-flop because she really was persuaded by the whistleblower complaint that there might be corruption here? Was it a simple matter of her knowing her position would be untenable onstage at the next debate?

Or was it something else? Meet Kai Kehele, Democrat and candidate for office in Hawaii’s Second District. That’s Gabbard’s district. He’s challenging her in the primary and he’s been playing her reluctance to impeach Trump, which she had called “divisive,” to the hilt on Twitter this week:

As of this morning, just 12 Democrats in the House still opposed an impeachment inquiry into the Ukraine matter. Eleven of the 12 come from purplish districts, many won by Trump in 2016. Opposing the president under those circumstances is risky. The only exception: Tulsi Gabbard, whose home district in Hawaii broke for Hillary Clinton by more than 30 points. Her stance is — or was — waaaay out of step with the partisan tendencies of her home state. If Gabbard had stuck to her guns on opposing impeachment and been confronted about it on a national stage at the next debate, donations from outraged lefties would have begun flowing in to Kehele’s campaign from across America. Gabbard would have been at risk of losing her House seat. At the end of the day, Tulsi’s enough of a conventional politician to protect her own career when she has reason to believe it’s in peril.

By the way, the DNC announced today that the entire field of 12 candidates will be onstage together at the October debate instead of splitting into two groups of six, which means another opportunity for Gabbard to take it to Kamala Harris in a big spot. Maybe she’ll end up back in Trump Nation’s good graces after that. In lieu of an exit question, re-read her statement and note that Gabbard’s standard of potentially impeachable offenses appears to involve “abuses of power,” not statutorily defined crimes. That’s a point that’s already popped up in Trump’s defense among his supporters, including on her friend Tucker’s show: If impeachment is supposed to focus on “high crimes and misdemeanors,” what specific “crime” is Trump guilty of? Gabbard appears to be of the view that abuse of power is enough of a crime to justify an inquiry, another point of division between her and Trumpers.

The post Tulsi Gabbard: On second thought, we need an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s Ukraine conduct appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tg-5-300x153 Tulsi Gabbard: On second thought, we need an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s Ukraine conduct zelensky Ukraine tulsi gabbard Trump The Blog power impeach democratic democrat abuse   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cory Booker’s campaign: If we don’t raise $1.7 million in the next 10 days, he’s essentially done

Westlake Legal Group c-1 Cory Booker’s campaign: If we don’t raise $1.7 million in the next 10 days, he’s essentially done The Blog south carolina money kamala harris Fundraising democrat Cory Booker campaign manager biden Addisu Demissie

Ed calls this approach the Oral Roberts school of fundraising. If Cory doesn’t get $1.7 million by the end of the month, God’s going to call his campaign home.

If you don’t like that analogy, he offers another: It’s the 2020 equivalent of National Lampoon’s (in)famous “Buy this magazine or we’ll shoot this dog” cover.

Does this mean that Booker’s dropping out if he falls short of his target by October 1? There are three major Democratic gatherings in the first half of the month, Axios notes — an MSNBC town hall on the 2nd devoted to gun safety, a CNN town hall about LGBT issues on the 8th, and then the fourth Democratic debate on the 15th. Certainly Booker could afford to stick around for those and give ’em his best shot in hopes of making a splash. His campaign manager even acknowledged today that they could keep operating on their current scale if they had to, albeit stressing that that’s not good enough to win anymore.

Now that he’s declared his campaign effectively hopeless if he misses his fundraising number, though, how would he justify his decision to continue if he misses it?

While we invested early in building an outstanding organization in our Newark headquarters and the February early states, other campaigns have, in recent weeks, surpassed us in scale and begun spending on paid persuasion efforts online and on television.

Between that and the likely increase in the DNC’s debate-qualifying thresholds, which would require significant funds to meet, it is probable there are only four campaigns in this race with the money necessary to build and sustain the national organization needed to win the nomination

September is traditionally one of the strongest fundraising months for presidential campaigns. But after a surprisingly positive August, we simply have not witnessed the expected uptick in fundraising over the last three weeks.

To put it bluntly, we need to scale our operation up in October and November to remain competitive and need a strong September to make that happen.

“I want to be clear: This isn’t an end-of-quarter stunt or another one of those memos from a campaign trying to spin the press,” campaign manager Addisu Demissie added. I believe him. I don’t think they would have frankly acknowledged that their fundraising thus far this month has been disappointing if this were a stunt. And certainly they wouldn’t have staked the viability of the campaign on hitting a particular number knowing how the media will spin it now if Booker doesn’t reach that number.

The most noteworthy line in the memo has to do with other campaigns. There are just four, Demissie claims, that have the financial wherewithal to compete nationally right now. That would be Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Pete Buttigieg, who led the field in fundraising in the second quarter. In other words, Demissie seems to think Kamala Harris is in a predicament not unlike Booker’s, and even says elliptically at one point, “Cory Booker might not be in this race for much longer — the same is true for other important voices in the field.” Is the Democratic Party of 2019 really on the brink of producing a final four in which all are white and three of the four are men? “We have the most diverse Democratic field in history and I think it would be a shame if that diversity was not reflected in the candidates who end up competing for the nomination once people actually start voting come next spring,” said Demissie to the Daily Beast. Given the state of Harris’s polling lately, it’s anyone’s guess right now whether she’ll be in the race on January 1st.

Booker dropping out would be a big deal because he’s the only candidate outside the top tier who still has breakout potential, I think. Harris got her look from voters in late June and now seems to have been tossed away. Beto’s tried everything he can think of to get noticed and continues to plod along at three or four percent. Castro seemed to have potential but then made everyone mad at him with his dig at Biden’s forgetfulness at the last debate. Klobuchar is a total nonfactor and Yang is a gimmick candidate with his UBI pitch. Booker’s the one person who seems like he might be broadly acceptable to different Democratic constituencies if he caught a few breaks — he’s African-American, he’s progressive-ish, he has charm on the stump. He’s embraced some radical ideas, like O’Rourke’s mandatory buyback proposal, but has a knack for not seeming radical. If Biden suddenly imploded, Booker might find himself a destination for black voters currently supporting Grandpa Joe, which would instantly make him a top-tier candidate. But for whatever reason, he hasn’t caught on. I checked RCP this afternoon and was surprised to find that Booker has never touched five percent in a national primary poll since April. Not once. He has reached four percent a few times but even that’s infrequent.

If he has to quit because he can’t raise enough dough and Harris continues to crawl along at four percent, it’ll mean the two black candidates in the race — both well-known U.S. senators, both formidable when the race began — were sidelined months before voting began in Iowa. That would be genuinely shocking. And it would be a huge boon to Biden, who worried from the start about Booker and Harris potentially wooing away black voters from him. A final four of Joe, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg, with the last three fighting over progressives and young adults and leaving Biden left to consolidate African-Americans and older voters, is about as favorable a battlefield as Biden could have hoped for when the race began.

The post Cory Booker’s campaign: If we don’t raise $1.7 million in the next 10 days, he’s essentially done appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-1-300x153 Cory Booker’s campaign: If we don’t raise $1.7 million in the next 10 days, he’s essentially done The Blog south carolina money kamala harris Fundraising democrat Cory Booker campaign manager biden Addisu Demissie   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Are Never Trumpers ready for President Biden?

Westlake Legal Group b-14 Are Never Trumpers ready for President Biden? Trump The Blog never trumper mcmullin gop finn Election drucker democrat biden

Speaking personally, no. Nothing’s getting my big fat RINO ass off my big fat RINO couch next Election Day, even if Democrats nominate the most centrist candidate in the crop.

Old Man Biden may be a moderate relative to the competition but he’s still plenty left-wing on abortion, spending, amnesty, and so on. Even his “moderate” health-care proposal, adding a public option to ObamaCare, would deliver a total government takeover of health care sooner rather than later.

But I don’t speak for all Never Trumpers. And it stands to reason that some anti-Trump righties are more willing to pull the lever for a genial center-left known quantity like Biden than they are a would-be revolutionary like Elizabeth Warren. So, sure, it can safely be said, I think, that Biden will do better among Never Trumpers than any other Democratic candidate. How much better is debatable, but the difference could be meaningful in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Some Republican operatives active in Never Trump circles are discussing the timing and what form support for Biden might take. Groups such as Stand Up Republic, co-founded by prominent Never Trump Republicans Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn, could target disaffected GOP voters in key micro-battlegrounds with finely tailored advertising in a bid to boost Biden in the Democratic primary…

“If it’s Elizabeth Warren, that presents a real problem because she may have a lot of plans, but most of them are terrible,” said Sarah Longwell, a veteran GOP operative and outspoken anti-Trump Republican. “Being Never Trump doesn’t mean abandoning conservative sensibilities,” she said.

“Never Trump means what it says: Never Trump. Under no circumstances can you embrace that man coming back to the White House,” countered Jerry Taylor, who runs the Niskanen Center, a centrist Washington think tank that has become a gathering spot for anti-Trump Republicans. “Most Never Trump Republicans that I traffic with are of the mind that any electoral outcome that doesn’t return Donald Trump to the White House is a good outcome, save for the wild card of Bernie Sanders.”…

What interests Republican operatives opposed to Trump, in addition to Biden’s relative moderation, is the former vice president’s strength against Trump in key 2020 battlegrounds. In hypothetical match-ups in heartland states such as Michigan and emerging swing states such as Arizona, Biden has led Trump and tends to outperform Warren and Sanders.

To people like Longwell and Taylor, I’d imagine that Biden’s age is actually a virtue. The goal, after all, is to rid the country of Trump and the party of Trumpism, not to institute a two-term Democratic stranglehold on the White House. An elderly Dem who’s unlikely to make any sudden moves in office and then retire after a single term, clearing the way for a Republican renaissance in 2024, would be just what the doctor ordered.

As for Grandpa Joe’s supposed greater electability relative to the competition, yeah. Look no further than yesterday’s Fox News poll for the latest evidence:

Westlake Legal Group f-3 Are Never Trumpers ready for President Biden? Trump The Blog never trumper mcmullin gop finn Election drucker democrat biden

A ceiling of 40 percent for Trump against the entire Democratic top tier ain’t great. We remain 14 months away from Election Day, of course, and will live a thousand political lifetimes between now and then but Dem pollster Will Jordan caught my attention last night when he posted a bit of bizarre, fluky historical data. It turns out that in each of the last three elections, the polling on hypothetical popular-vote match-ups between the two eventual nominees 14 months out from the election turned out to be shockingly accurate. In 2008 it had Obama beating McCain by seven points and in 2016 it had Hillary beating Trump by three. 2012 wasn’t quite as accurate, but it still had Obama defeating Romney (by one point). I can guarantee that Trump won’t lose to Biden by anything like 14 points, but an incumbent doesn’t want to be staring at numbers like this even with the vote still more than a year away.

That’s not the only bad news in the poll, either: “In counties where the 2016 vote was close (Hillary Clinton and Trump within 10 points), Biden is ahead by 21 points.” Twenty-one points. And this is a Fox News poll! If stuff like this is still coming out in January showing Biden decimating Trump in swing districts, I think even many Warren fans will make a break for him. As lackluster as he is, Democrats aren’t going to pass on what appears to be a sure thing.

And needless to say, if he’s polling anywhere near those levels next year, he won’t need Never Trumpers.

For sheer bananas “how crazy will this election be?” results, though, nothing tops this:

Fifty-nine percent of voters are extremely interested in the 2020 presidential election. That’s a number typically only seen right before an election.

It’s 27 points higher than around this same time in the last presidential cycle — and only one point off the record 60 percent extremely interested the week before Election Day in 2008.

In addition, more Democrats (65 percent) than Republicans (60 percent) are extremely interested in the election and more Democrats (69 percent) than Republicans (63 percent) are extremely motivated about voting in 2020. That helps Democratic candidates top President Donald Trump in potential head-to-head matchups.

We’re 14 months out from the vote … and already one point away from matching the election-eve enthusiasm of the race that sent the first black president to the White House after the exhaustion of the Bush years. People are going to be brawling in the streets by next summer.

The post Are Never Trumpers ready for President Biden? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-14-300x153 Are Never Trumpers ready for President Biden? Trump The Blog never trumper mcmullin gop finn Election drucker democrat biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters?

With current polls putting her at around five percent, Kamala Harris is pinning all of her hopes on Iowa.

Politico reports that Harris “is planning to make weekly visits to the state and nearly double the size of her 65-person ground operation” after being absent from the state since her 17-stop bus tour in August.

Then there are completely candid moments  like that that she definitely didn’t expect the press to report on, while being completely aware that their job is to follow her around and report on what she says.

Amazing that the press just happened to catch that, isn’t it? What luck!

If Iowa is her last hope, there’s one big thing missing from her messaging- corn. Iowa is the largest producer of corn in the United States year after year (and the United States is the largest producer of corn in the world). So, why isn’t she talking about ethanol?

She’s in a tough spot.

Ethanol isn’t environmentally friendly and, as such, is very anti-Green New Deal, who was an original co-sponsor of the Sen. Markey’s original legislation. We know that the environment is a huge issue for Democrat party voters- CNN even held a 7-hour townhall on that alone, something they haven’t done for any other single issue.

Harris could court those voters by talking about wind, for example. It’s now more cost-effective than many fossil fuels, and it even matters to Iowa. As one of the largest wind-producing states in America, it is fueling their new tech industry. She’s not talking about that either, though, just going after fossil fuels.

Still, Iowa is farm country, and they rely on corn. She could still win Iowa if she took on a stance that supported free trade, since other countries like Brazil are happy to buy our ethanol. Ted Cruz won Iowa while running against Renewable Fuel Standards (the EPA’s requirement that fuel contain renewable fuels like ethanol) so it’s possible, but you have to stand for something.

Kamala won’t commit to anything, and that’s the real problem here.

The post Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-TH-300x153 Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters? Uncategorized Iowa Caucuses Iowa Caucus Iowa Front Page Stories Featured Story farm ethanol democratic nomination democrat caucus agriculture 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters?

With current polls putting her at around five percent, Kamala Harris is pinning all of her hopes on Iowa.

Politico reports that Harris “is planning to make weekly visits to the state and nearly double the size of her 65-person ground operation” after being absent from the state since her 17-stop bus tour in August.

Then there are completely candid moments  like that that she definitely didn’t expect the press to report on, while being completely aware that their job is to follow her around and report on what she says.

Amazing that the press just happened to catch that, isn’t it? What luck!

If Iowa is her last hope, there’s one big thing missing from her messaging- corn. Iowa is the largest producer of corn in the United States year after year (and the United States is the largest producer of corn in the world). So, why isn’t she talking about ethanol?

She’s in a tough spot.

Ethanol isn’t environmentally friendly and, as such, is very anti-Green New Deal, who was an original co-sponsor of the Sen. Markey’s original legislation. We know that the environment is a huge issue for Democrat party voters- CNN even held a 7-hour townhall on that alone, something they haven’t done for any other single issue.

Harris could court those voters by talking about wind, for example. It’s now more cost-effective than many fossil fuels, and it even matters to Iowa. As one of the largest wind-producing states in America, it is fueling their new tech industry. She’s not talking about that either, though, just going after fossil fuels.

Still, Iowa is farm country, and they rely on corn. She could still win Iowa if she took on a stance that supported free trade, since other countries like Brazil are happy to buy our ethanol. Ted Cruz won Iowa while running against Renewable Fuel Standards (the EPA’s requirement that fuel contain renewable fuels like ethanol) so it’s possible, but you have to stand for something.

Kamala won’t commit to anything, and that’s the real problem here.

The post Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-TH-300x153 Kamala Is All-In On Iowa, Why Won’t She Talk About A Key Issue For Their Voters? Uncategorized kamala harris Kamala Iowa Caucuses Iowa Caucus Iowa Front Page Stories Featured Story farm ethanol democratic nomination democrat caucus agriculture 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

LISTEN: The Democratic Primary, The Race To Keep A Democratic Governor In A Republican State, And More

 

Westlake Legal Group democrat-debate1-620x317 LISTEN: The Democratic Primary, The Race To Keep A Democratic Governor In A Republican State, And More primary Media Louisiana governor Front Page Stories democrat Allow Media Exception 2020

From left, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Andrew Yang, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio are introduced before the second of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Wednesday, July 31, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Listen in live at 8:10 this morning as I join KPEL 96.5 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to discuss the Democratic primary, Louisiana’s gubernatorial race (featuring an at-risk Democratic Governor), and much more in the realm of politics.

 

 

Fair warning: There’s also a chance we’ll talk football (alas, poor Saints) and whatever else we can think of.

Consider this an open thread.

 

The post LISTEN: The Democratic Primary, The Race To Keep A Democratic Governor In A Republican State, And More appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group democrat-debate1-300x153 LISTEN: The Democratic Primary, The Race To Keep A Democratic Governor In A Republican State, And More primary Media Louisiana governor Front Page Stories democrat Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com