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
Westlake Legal Group > new hampshire

Joe Biden’s Campaign Has the Forward Trajectory of a Bag of Jell-O

Westlake Legal Group bidendummy-620x388 Joe Biden’s Campaign Has the Forward Trajectory of a Bag of Jell-O south carolina Politics New Hampshire Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story elections democrats Allow Media Exception 2020 Democrat Primary

I don’t know why anyone ever thought Joe Biden would win. On a good day, when he was sniffing the hair of random women, or telling racist jokes, or lying about his family history, or shaking down banks for large loans he would never have to repay, the best you could say about Joe Biden was that he was inoffensive and could work a small group of elderly voters  in a workmanlike manner. Add to that his age and obvious cognitive impairment, and what you have left is the sad shell of a Democrat apparatchik whose appeal to the Democrat base is somewhere between “it’s my turn” and “I’m not batsh** crazy like those other guys” and to the general electorate is “I’m not Donald Trump.”

While the RCP average (which, let’s be honest, is a lot like averaging apples and oranges and declaring the result to be kumquats) still shows Biden with a 7 point lead, that number is both a) meaningless (as there is no national primary) and b) deceptive. Over the past three weeks we’ve seen a major shift in the landscape with Elizabeth Warren pulling even with Biden.

Westlake Legal Group rcp-average-9-27-620x192 Joe Biden’s Campaign Has the Forward Trajectory of a Bag of Jell-O south carolina Politics New Hampshire Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story elections democrats Allow Media Exception 2020 Democrat Primary

CREDIT: RealClearPolitics Poll

 

Internal polling by Biden’s own campaign shows him in a freefall:

With more than four months until Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucus, there is plenty of time for the dynamics of the race to change. But there’s also cause for some alarm for Biden. In New Hampshire, Tyson’s just-completed 600-likely voter poll shows Warren with 18 percent of the vote and Biden 15 percent in an open-ended ballot question. It’s a dramatic change from his last poll, with Biden dropping 18 points while Warren gained 7 — a 25-point shift.

Biden’s level of support in South Carolina makes it his firewall state, but even in South Carolina there are troubling signs of erosion. While he remains on top, among black voters, who are more than 60 percent of the Democratic electorate, Biden has plummeted 19 points in Tyson’s polls. That’s a potential leading indicator of the problems he could face after South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary when many of the minority-heavy Southeastern states — as well as Texas and California — beginning voting on Super Tuesday, March 3, and thereafter.

Florida, where about 28 percent of the Democratic primary electorate is black, votes March 17. Biden is in first there with 24 percent of the Democratic vote, losing 15 points since May in Tyson’s polls. Warren moved into second with 11 percent, a 6-point increase while Sanders is in third with 5 percent, an 11-point loss since before the first candidate debate.

The percentage of Democratic voters who were undecided also shot up by double-digits in polls of the state.

In Iowa, Warren has pulled ahead of Joe Biden — marginally — for the first time, according to the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll released Saturday. Pollster J. Ann Selzer’s highly regarded survey of caucus-goers showed Warren was benefiting from an enthusiasm gap — 32 percent said they’re “extremely enthusiastic” about caucusing for the Massachusetts senator, compared with 22 percent those who support the former vice president.

My contention was, and is, that the Ukraine silliness is going to mortally wound Biden because no matter how much the left and NeverTrump lecture people on how all the Euros wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he is corrupt no one really believes that while everyone understands Joe Biden using his clout to protect his son. And so long as President Trump continues to hammer on that subject, the narrative will stick to Biden and his core quality that would lead anyone to vote for him–electability–becomes more and more tenuous.

The New York Times reports that Biden’s supporters are running scared and are organizing a Super PAC to staunch the bleeding:

Allies of Joseph R. Biden Jr., concerned about his slipping poll numbers in the Democratic presidential primary and an onslaught of attacks from President Trump, are weighing whether to mobilize a super PAC supporting Mr. Biden and have held conversations with wealthy donors to gauge their interest in contributing money.

I can save you the trouble. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Because that isn’t how any of this works. Biden doesn’t have a massively engaged fan base. He can’t pack arenas for his stump speeches. He was the comfort candidate in the beginning and now he’s dying and it is only going to get worse. No one opens their checkbooks to the kind of donation that is needed to make a difference in a campaign when the candidate is losing momentum and doesn’t seem to understand why the hell he’s even running beyond providing more opportunities for Hunter Biden to grift.

At the bottom of that NYT piece was this rather ominous statement:

The next round of fund-raising reports, due after the end of the month, will also reveal whether Mr. Biden is still in a strong financial position relative to his nearest competitors. In the last quarter, Mr. Biden raised the second-most money of any candidate, trailing only Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind. But he finished June with less money in the bank than Mr. Buttigieg, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Senator Kamala Harris of California.

And this broke earlier in the day.

If Joe Biden loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he can hope all he wants for a South Carolina win but if it is anything less than a blowout, the momentum will be seen to be with Warren. And unless fundraising picks up, Biden won’t be around for South Carolina.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Joe Biden’s Campaign Has the Forward Trajectory of a Bag of Jell-O appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bidendummy-300x188 Joe Biden’s Campaign Has the Forward Trajectory of a Bag of Jell-O south carolina Politics New Hampshire Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story elections democrats Allow Media Exception 2020 Democrat Primary   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another

Westlake Legal Group b-18 Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another YouGov warren Trump The Blog Quinnipiac primary New Hampshire harris democratic biden 2020

Bear in mind, these results are trickling in *before* Democratic voters have digested the allegations of corruption made against Biden in the Ukraine matter. Even if they opt not to believe them, how many will conclude that swing voters will believe them next fall and start discounting Biden’s alleged “electability” advantage?

Imagine if Trump ends up being impeached for trying to make trouble abroad for a candidate who was never going to be his general election opponent anyway.

A game-changing new poll from Quinnipiac:

Westlake Legal Group q Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another YouGov warren Trump The Blog Quinnipiac primary New Hampshire harris democratic biden 2020

Not only is 27 percent the best Warren’s ever done in a national poll, it’s also the first time she’s led Biden outright in any national poll. As usual, she leads him in enthusiasm too: Fully 70 percent of Dems say they’d be excited to see her as nominee versus 56 percent who say the same of Biden.

The real alarm bell for Grandpa Joe, though, is the split among black voters, as Philip Klein rightly notes:

Back in a July poll, Warren was essentially in a three-way tie for second place, with 15 percent nationally, according to Quinnipiac. In that poll, she was at 20 percent among white voters, but way back at six percent among black voters. In a Wednesday poll, she has vaulted to the top, with 27 percent overall, just edging out Joe Biden, at 25 percent. But now among black voters, she’s in second place, at 19 percent.

In California, it’s a similar story. A new LA Times poll finds Warren jumping to a 29 percent to 22 percent lead in the delegate-rich state overall, but, she’s only trailing Biden 32 percent to 24 percent among black voters. Sen. Kamala Harris, who is both black and from California, was at 18 percent among the group.

Not only is Warren now second to Biden among black voters, trailing him 40/19, but Bernie Sanders has 12 percent of that group. If Bernie fades and black progressives begin drifting towards Warren, suddenly she’d be competitive with Joe among voters who are supposed to be his “firewall,” the group that will offset his losses among other demographics by preferring him overwhelmingly. Blacks no longer prefer him overwhelmingly, according to today’s Quinnipiac data. And given the general drift towards Warren in all polling lately, it’s likely that his lead among them will shrink rather than grow.

Could the Quinnipiac poll be an outlier? Seems unlikely. This new data that dropped this morning from YouGov confirms that the race is a coin flip right now, with Warren and Biden neck and neck in the mid-20s.

When Democratic voters are asked whom they’re considering voting for, Warren leads Biden 54/47. There are other polls lately that look like this too — Emerson recently had Biden up 25/23 and NBC/WSJ had it 31/25 in mid-September. There’s no reason, in other words, to think Quinnipiac and YouGov are “bad polls” for Biden or “good polls” for Warren. They seem to accurately reflect the state of the race at the moment, before the impact of the Ukraine stuff has been felt. In fact, as of today, Warren is the first candidate besides Biden to crack 20 percent in the RCP poll of polls since May. She seems to be for real.

“But wait,” you say, “national polls are interesting but ultimately don’t matter. Iowa and New Hampshire are what matter.” Right, true — but Warren’s surging there too. I already posted this new Monmouth poll of New Hampshire yesterday but it’s worth eyeballing the numbers again:

Westlake Legal Group m-5 Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another YouGov warren Trump The Blog Quinnipiac primary New Hampshire harris democratic biden 2020

She’s just three points behind Biden in the RCP polling average of the state right now. And Iowa? Warren has led the field there in the last two polls taken, 24/16 over Biden in an Iowa State survey taken in mid-September and 22/20 in a Des Moines Register poll conducted a few days later. She’s up 2.7 points in the RCP average.

If you had to make a bet on the Democratic primaries at this particular moment in time, Warren running the table would look like a fairly solid bet. The question is whether South Carolina’s mostly black Democratic electorate would stick with Biden if he lost the first two states or if they’d break for Warren if she won them. The signs there aren’t great for Biden either, per Politico:

Biden’s level of support in South Carolina makes it his firewall state, but even in South Carolina there are troubling signs of erosion. While he remains on top, among black voters, who are more than 60 percent of the Democratic electorate, Biden has plummeted 19 points in Tyson’s polls. That’s a potential leading indicator of the problems he could face after South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary when many of the minority-heavy Southeastern states — as well as Texas and California — beginning voting on Super Tuesday, March 3, and thereafter.

As strange as it is to imagine after the Democratic field initially ballooned to more than 20 candidates, the actual race could be over quickly once Democrats start voting. Which means Trump will never have a chance to use the Ukraine matter against Biden — but Warren will have lots of chances to use it against Trump. Good lord.

Exit question: Kamala Harris is now at three percent nationally, per Quinnipiac? Was even Scott Walker’s 2016 flameout as embarrassing as this?

The post Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-18-300x153 Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another YouGov warren Trump The Blog Quinnipiac primary New Hampshire harris democratic biden 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate

Westlake Legal Group tucker-gun-control-debate-SCREENSHOT-620x323 Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate Vermont Uncategorized Tucker Carlson Politics New Hampshire mass shootings Lori Lightfoot loopholes Indiana Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime Chicago bernard whitman baltimore background checks Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from TheDC Shorts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwX7INeoC2s]

 

I don’t remember seeing this happen before, but it did on Thursday night — Tucker Carlson apologized to his audience for what he considered to be the unacceptable ridiculousness of his guest.

Tucker welcomed to the show former Bill Clinton pollster Bernard Whitman to discuss gun violence in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago.

Tucker asked Bernard:

“Why are the places with gun bans, Chicago and Baltimore, for example, so much more dangerous than places where so-called assault weapons are common like Vermont or New Hampshire?”

Bernard credits surrounding states and their lax gun laws:

“You have to look at where the guns are coming from. In Chicago, 60% of the firearms that Chicago police seize are coming from states like Indiana, with very weak gun laws. In New York City and New York state, 74% of the guns seized are coming from states with weak gun laws. In New York City alone, nine out of 10 guns purchased and used quickly come from states with lax gun control laws.”

That’s right in line with Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Lori Lightfoot. As I covered on September 3rd, she blames the Windy City’s problems on Republicans (here):

“60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL — mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth.”



But Tucker had a really great question for Bernard that should maybe be posed to Lori as well:

“[I] have never understood why, if all the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, then why doesn’t Indiana have a similar murder rate?”

Bernard’s answer? Because those states are losin’ all their dadburn guns to Chicago and NYC!

The dude thought he had a real cool comeback:

“Because the guns are leaving. The guns are being shipped to metropolises. … You just made a great argument for federal gun control. That’s exactly why we need federal gun control.”

Tucker:

“We already have federal laws against trans–“

“We have federal loopholes,” Bernard interjected.

Tucker said nope:

“There are no loopholes. Actually, I know a lot about this subject, and there are…the guns moving from Indiana to Chicago are moving by car. … That’s against the law, and the feds don’t do anything about it. It’s not a loophole, it’s unenforced. But you’re not answering my question. There are a lot of guns in Indiana, there are a lot of guns in Vermont, there are a lot of guns in Maine.”

Bernard suggested it’s all about the crowd:

“There’s a lot more people in Chicago, there’s a lot more people in New York City. That’s why the guns go to where the people are. That’s the principle of supply and demand.”

Tucker came back with, “Oh, it’s just population density? But you know that that’s not true. That’s a lie. … There are lots of densely-populated places with guns without a lot of murders. Maybe there’s something else. Maybe it’s not the guns. And you know that that’s true, so why don’t you just say it?”

Talk of background checks ensued.

Back to Tucker, who referenced Tuesday’s horrific execution of a Chicago 4th grader in broad daylight as a strike against the boy’s father’s gang:

“The person who pulled the trigger in this specific case, who was accused of murdering the 9-year-old, had a prior conviction — was not allowed to have a gun under federal law in the first place. And so that’s the point that you ignore every time, which is that people who break the law tend not to obey the law.”

Solid. Bernard went back to loopholes.

You should see for yourself how it ended.

“Might be my last gun control debate,” Tucker uttered to the audience.

“It’s too stupid. I’m sorry to afflict that upon you.”

The Fox host references a riddle no one appears able to answer: A gun ban will take firearms from law-abiding citizens; now how do propose to get them from the criminals?

All of the present plans seem concentrated on disarming those who follow the law. Shouldn’t murderers and robbers be the groups they’re focusing on?

How do you get their guns? They’re the ones, ya know, murderin’.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Brazilian Gang Leader & Drug Trafficker Attempts A Prison Break In One Of The Craziest & Most Hilarious Ways Possible

Victoria’s Secret Grants Your Wish: Its New Underwear Angel Is A Man

Pioneer David Hogg Changes His Tune – The Cause Of Violence In America Is No Longer Guns

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

 

 

The post Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group tucker-gun-control-debate-SCREENSHOT-300x157 Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate Vermont Uncategorized Tucker Carlson Politics New Hampshire mass shootings Lori Lightfoot loopholes Indiana Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime Chicago bernard whitman baltimore background checks Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate

Westlake Legal Group tucker-gun-control-debate-SCREENSHOT-620x323 Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate Vermont Uncategorized Tucker Carlson Politics New Hampshire mass shootings Lori Lightfoot loopholes Indiana Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime Chicago bernard whitman baltimore background checks Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from TheDC Shorts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwX7INeoC2s]

 

I don’t remember seeing this happen before, but it did on Thursday night — Tucker Carlson apologized to his audience for what he considered to be the unacceptable ridiculousness of his guest.

Tucker welcomed to the show former Bill Clinton pollster Bernard Whitman to discuss gun violence in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago.

Tucker asked Bernard:

“Why are the places with gun bans, Chicago and Baltimore, for example, so much more dangerous than places where so-called assault weapons are common like Vermont or New Hampshire?”

Bernard credits surrounding states and their lax gun laws:

“You have to look at where the guns are coming from. In Chicago, 60% of the firearms that Chicago police seize are coming from states like Indiana, with very weak gun laws. In New York City and New York state, 74% of the guns seized are coming from states with weak gun laws. In New York City alone, nine out of 10 guns purchased and used quickly come from states with lax gun control laws.”

That’s right in line with Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Lori Lightfoot. As I covered on September 3rd, she blames the Windy City’s problems on Republicans (here):

“60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL — mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth.”



But Tucker had a really great question for Bernard that should maybe be posed to Lori as well:

“[I] have never understood why, if all the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, then why doesn’t Indiana have a similar murder rate?”

Bernard’s answer? Because those states are losin’ all their dadburn guns to Chicago and NYC!

The dude thought he had a real cool comeback:

“Because the guns are leaving. The guns are being shipped to metropolises. … You just made a great argument for federal gun control. That’s exactly why we need federal gun control.”

Tucker:

“We already have federal laws against trans–“

“We have federal loopholes,” Bernard interjected.

Tucker said nope:

“There are no loopholes. Actually, I know a lot about this subject, and there are…the guns moving from Indiana to Chicago are moving by car. … That’s against the law, and the feds don’t do anything about it. It’s not a loophole, it’s unenforced. But you’re not answering my question. There are a lot of guns in Indiana, there are a lot of guns in Vermont, there are a lot of guns in Maine.”

Bernard suggested it’s all about the crowd:

“There’s a lot more people in Chicago, there’s a lot more people in New York City. That’s why the guns go to where the people are. That’s the principle of supply and demand.”

Tucker came back with, “Oh, it’s just population density? But you know that that’s not true. That’s a lie. … There are lots of densely-populated places with guns without a lot of murders. Maybe there’s something else. Maybe it’s not the guns. And you know that that’s true, so why don’t you just say it?”

Talk of background checks ensued.

Back to Tucker, who referenced Tuesday’s horrific execution of a Chicago 4th grader in broad daylight as a strike against the boy’s father’s gang:

“The person who pulled the trigger in this specific case, who was accused of murdering the 9-year-old, had a prior conviction — was not allowed to have a gun under federal law in the first place. And so that’s the point that you ignore every time, which is that people who break the law tend not to obey the law.”

Solid. Bernard went back to loopholes.

You should see for yourself how it ended.

“Might be my last gun control debate,” Tucker uttered to the audience.

“It’s too stupid. I’m sorry to afflict that upon you.”

The Fox host references a riddle no one appears able to answer: A gun ban will take firearms from law-abiding citizens; now how do propose to get them from the criminals?

All of the present plans seem concentrated on disarming those who follow the law. Shouldn’t murderers and robbers be the groups they’re focusing on?

How do you get their guns? They’re the ones, ya know, murderin’.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Brazilian Gang Leader & Drug Trafficker Attempts A Prison Break In One Of The Craziest & Most Hilarious Ways Possible

Victoria’s Secret Grants Your Wish: Its New Underwear Angel Is A Man

Pioneer David Hogg Changes His Tune – The Cause Of Violence In America Is No Longer Guns

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

 

 

The post Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group tucker-gun-control-debate-SCREENSHOT-300x157 Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate Vermont Uncategorized Tucker Carlson Politics New Hampshire mass shootings Lori Lightfoot loopholes Indiana Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime Chicago bernard whitman baltimore background checks Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: House Dems weighing contempt charge against Corey Lewandowski over Tuesday’s hearing

Westlake Legal Group l Report: House Dems weighing contempt charge against Corey Lewandowski over Tuesday’s hearing white house The Blog Senate privilege pelosi New Hampshire nadler lewandowski inherent House hearing executive contempt

The beginning of this CNN story reads like a satire of how timid Democrats are about confronting Trump. Quote: “The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to take initial steps to potentially hold former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in contempt over his refusal to answer questions at this week’s hearing before the panel, multiple sources tell CNN.”

“Preparing” to take “initial steps” to “potentially” hold him in contempt?

I would have gone with “Dems are preparing to consider possibly deliberating on first steps towards beginning a contempt charge” for maximum ambivalence.

There’s a fun Democratic civil-war subplot hiding behind this news, though.

[I]t is a process that could take weeks: First, a letter is expected to be sent to Lewandowski asking him to answer questions and warning him he can be held in contempt if he doesn’t answer. Then, they may offer a contempt resolution, officially notice a committee vote and then hold a vote in committee before any floor action.

Some Democrats have been irked by the failure to hold Lewandowski in contempt immediately during the hearing, according to Democratic sources. That flies in the face of current House rules that would have made the process quite cumbersome to immediately hold him in contempt at the hearing…

During Tuesday’s hearing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler accused the White House of orchestrating “an absolute cover-up” by blocking some witnesses from appearing at the public session and trying to restrict Lewandowski’s testimony based on “crony privilege.”

“Crony privilege” is a good term for the idea that a guy like Lewandowski who’s never worked in the executive branch might have a constitutional right not to answer questions from Congress. Being friends with the president doesn’t generate a legal privilege against testifying. I’m frankly surprised there’s not more of a push among lefties to change the contempt rules described in the excerpt, given how eager progressives have been to upend other norms in order to thwart Trump. They’re willing to pack the Court; they’re prepared to nuke the Senate filibuster once they’re back in charge there; it would stand to reason that they’d want to uncuff the majority’s power to charge uncooperative witnesses with contempt given how many Trump associates have refused to answer questions. Maybe the Lewandowski standoff will jumpstart that effort.

Especially since the White House is laughing in Pelosi’s face about how reluctant she is to play hardball with the president and his associates:

Trump and White House officials, meanwhile, are reveling in Democrats’ difficulties. In fact, the president — who watched Lewandowski’s testimony from Air Force One on Tuesday — was laughing and joking about the hearing, arguing that Democrats have no idea what they’re doing and that no one cared about the Mueller report anymore, according to one person who spoke with him…

Two White House officials suggested that the administration could defy congressional requests because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has made it clear she is reluctant about impeachment. They also have calculated that there won’t be a public price to pay for stonewalling Congress, in part because the clock is running out.

There have been no consequences so far in telling Democrats to get bent when they demand information so that’s what POTUS will continue to do. Pelosi’s strategy of refusing to challenge him, especially via impeachment, in the belief that that makes Democratic victory more likely next fall had better pay off for her sake; if it doesn’t, her political legacy within her party may shift from “first woman Speaker” and “overseer of ObamaCare’s passage” to “weak-willed Trump enabler.” She’s gambling a lot here.

But back to that civil-war subplot I mentioned. Nancy’s getting tired of being criticized as the weak link in the caucus because she keeps holding back on impeachment while other Dems, starting with Jerry Nadler, keep signaling that they’re raring to go. So when Nadler let Lewandowski run roughshod over him this week, she was reportedly eager to point it out to her colleagues:

The Judiciary Committee’s decision to proceed against Lewandowski comes after Pelosi told lawmakers in a private meeting Wednesday night that that no witness should be able to treat members of Congress like Lewandowski did during a Tuesday hearing before the committee, according to three people familiar with the exchange who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.

“I would have held him in contempt right then and there,” Pelosi told members.

Pelosi’s spokesman assured WaPo that that wasn’t meant as a dig at Nadler but “several lawmakers” reportedly took it that way. For good reason: A feud has been brewing between the two for months, with Pelosi so pissed off at Nadler and his committee for trying to race ahead on impeachment that she tore into them at a closed-door Dem meeting last week and invited people in the room to leak what she said. She may have enjoyed the spectacle of Lewandowski sneering at Nadler almost as much as Trump did. For once, by letting Corey get away with it, he was the one who looked weak, not her.

Maybe they’ll join hands now on a contempt resolution, as Lewandowski is likely to be an irresistible target. Normally when House Democrats try to haul in a Trump associate to testify, like Don McGahn, they run into various problems — a potentially valid claim of executive privilege, for starters, plus the fact that McGahn is so little-known among average Americans that it’s difficult to turn him into a political villain capable of galvanizing their base. They don’t have either problem with Corey. His privilege claim is dubious and he’s already a villain to the left by dint of his work on Trump’s 2016 campaign and subsequent cronyism. Not only that but he’s probably running for Senate in New Hampshire, where he may very well be more of a liability to the local GOP than an asset. Democrats thus have every reason to elevate him and have this fight with him. All they stand to lose by holding him in contempt is handing him a few weeks of martyr status on Fox News, and in the meantime they’ll make a lot of lefties happy by having punched one of the less likable Trump hangers-on in the face. I’m surprised they didn’t start the contempt process before the hearing, knowing how it was certain to go.

The post Report: House Dems weighing contempt charge against Corey Lewandowski over Tuesday’s hearing appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group l-300x153 Report: House Dems weighing contempt charge against Corey Lewandowski over Tuesday’s hearing white house The Blog Senate privilege pelosi New Hampshire nadler lewandowski inherent House hearing executive contempt   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Is Kamala Harris still campaigning?

Westlake Legal Group k-2 Is Kamala Harris still campaigning? The Blog south carolina poll New Hampshire nbc kamala harris Iowa hillyard early states

Per NBC, the answer appears to be “technically yes but actually no.” She’s not out of the race, she’s just … doing other stuff right now.

Much of that stuff is fundraising, I realize, but the flaw in doing that instead of hitting the trail is that dollars tend to dry up once your polling lands in the toilet because no one in the early states ever sees you anymore. Money follows popularity in political campaigns, not vice versa.

Maybe Harris is running the ol’ Giuliani 2008 strategy of skipping all of the early states and focusing entirely on Florida.

When Harris returns to Iowa this weekend for the Polk County Democrats’ Steak Fry, it’ll be her first trip to the state in over a month. She’s visited just 18 of Iowa’s 99 counties so far.

It’s been more than two months since her last visit to South Carolina, where Harris, who is African American, is counting on a robust showing among black voters who make up the majority of the state’s Democratic primary voters.

And Harris has been in New Hampshire just once in the last two months.

Old Man Biden’s made seven trips to the early states in the past six weeks or so and has already visited more counties in Iowa than she has despite having entered the race much later. Someone drag Officer Harris out of the donut shop and tell her to get back on the beat.

Or don’t. It’s already too late. Let her enjoy her cruller.

Kamala Harris’ support is plunging in Iowa, where she’s seen a 13-point drop since July, according to a new poll.

Notably, the survey, commissioned by Focus on Rural America and taken after the third presidential debate in Houston, was conducted by Harris’ chief pollster, David Binder

The new survey, conducted Sept. 14-17, shows Harris sliding into sixth place at 5 percent, with Biden at 25 percent retaking the lead he lost over the summer. Harris recently embarked on a statewide bus tour and was the first in the field to run ads in Iowa. The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Between this and yesterday’s NBC survey, there’s a distinct “Scott Walker 2016” stench coming off of her right now. But I think she’ll soldier on, believing that she could rocket into the top tier again at any moment if Biden has a lethal rhetorical stumble of some sort and black voters in South Carolina are suddenly in play.

If nothing else, it’ll be interesting to see how she uses her time at the next few debates. Her only big moment of the race to date came at Biden’s expense at the first one but trying to reprise that would be perilous for her. Realistically, Harris should be playing for a VP spot at this point, and realistically, the only type of nominee whom she’d “balance” demographically on the ticket is a white male, i.e. Bernie Sanders or Biden himself. The obvious strategy for her now is to go easy on Joe to ingratiate herself to him and maybe even start carrying his water by trying to damage Elizabeth Warren on his behalf. That’s risky too, though, since Warren is probably the “true” frontrunner — she outpolls Biden when Dem voters’ first and second choices are combined, she’s the only candidate in the race drawing very enthusiastic crowds, and the overwhelmingly white electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire play to her demographic strengths. Harris won’t be VP to Warren (I think?) since Democrats would worry how an all-woman ticket would be received, but Attorney General in a Warren administration, God help us, seems feasible.

As long as she doesn’t hit Warren too hard on the stump this fall, that is. So what does Harris do?

Anyway, she’s leaving the donut shop soon:

While you mull that, via the Free Beacon, here’s NBC not sugarcoating the state of her campaign. “Rather bleak, rather uncertain” about sums it up.

The post Is Kamala Harris still campaigning? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group k-2-300x153 Is Kamala Harris still campaigning? The Blog south carolina poll New Hampshire nbc kamala harris Iowa hillyard early states   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What were Dems thinking when they invited Corey Lewandowski to testify?

Westlake Legal Group cl What were Dems thinking when they invited Corey Lewandowski to testify? Trump The Blog Senate run New Hampshire nadler Media lie judiciary House grandstand Corey Lewandowski CNN

It was a freak show all the way through, with Lewandowski mocking failed 2020 candidate Eric Swalwell at one point by calling him “President Swalwell,” goofing on Sheila Jackson Lee for ranting instead of asking questions, and playing dumb when questioned by Jerry Nadler by asking for a copy of the Mueller Report to refresh his memory about what he told the Special Counsel.

And it was all predictable. Lewandowski is what you get when you subtract policy from Trumpism. Trump displayed the same sort of relentless pugnacious bravado towards political enemies on the trail in 2016 but Trump also had some novel (by 2016 GOP standards) ideas about trade, immigration, and foreign policy. He wasn’t exclusively about Liberal Tears, he was about bringing jobs back to the Rust Belt (in theory). Corey’s political persona has nothing to do with any of that. He’ll genuflect towards Trumpist policy ideas as needed but his core shtick is undistilled “but he fights!” roundhousing at the left’s villains.

And so we come to the question in the headline: What did Democrats on the Judiciary Committee think they were going to get when they called him to testify and put him on TV? Corey is always performing for an audience of one in the White House, knowing that his relationship with Trump is his ticket to everything — influence within the party, lobbying cash, maybe even a Senate seat in New Hampshire. That last part especially should have given Nadler a reason to hold the hearing in closed session, or to cancel it altogether; Lewandowski was obviously going to treat the event as a campaign commercial for a possible Senate primary in NH (he even tweeted out the link to a campaign-ish website during a break in testimony) and do whatever he could with his time before the mic to earn Trump’s endorsement. That meant maximum grandstanding and combativeness. It worked:

The answer to the question in the headline, presumably, is that it was worth putting Lewandowski under oath in case he had something meaningful to reveal about Trump allegedly asking him to tell Jeff Sessions in 2017 that he should interfere in Mueller’s investigation. But that almost gives Corey too much credit: If he was put in a position, even under oath, between telling the truth and betraying Trump, what reason is there to think he would choose the truth? In fact, he was asked at yesterday’s hearing by the Democrats’ lawyer whether he had lied about the Sessions incident in an interview with MSNBC and his answer, bluntly, was that he feels no obligation to tell the truth to the media since they often don’t tell the truth themselves. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a congressional witness admit that he’s prone to lie in public about the subject of the hearing that’s being held.

You can hear gasps after his answer. So, again: What was Nadler expecting? Even an anti-Trumper as hardcore as Rick Wilson thinks Lewandowski “won” yesterday’s confrontation by turning it into a circus and demonstrating that Dems didn’t have the nerve to challenge him aggressively on his completely preposterous claims of executive privilege.

I kept wondering, “How is it you guys can just let this go? How is it you can just take this overt contempt and lying?” He has no privilege or immunity from testifying. He was always a private citizen. The White House letter ordering his omerta isn’t worth a damn…

Democrats should have adopted the “Sergeant at Arms, take that man into custody” strategy. Power is held by those who use it; it’s always a depreciating asset. A surly, arrogant Lewandowski taken into custody over the contempt and deception shown to a co-equal branch of government would be great entertainment and the kind of shock politics the Democrats need to break through…

By letting him escape the consequences of contempt, the House Democrats send the clear signal that ANYONE from the WH can slap them, spit on the floor, and effectively say, “F*** you.”

The best I can do as a theory for why Dems staged this circus is that they want to encourage Lewandowski’s Senate aspirations. Trump lost New Hampshire in 2016, remember — by a hair’s breadth, granted, but it was one of the few swing states that remained blue enough to prefer Hillary to him. Trump is facing a heavier lift in the state next year since his opponent is sure to be viewed more favorably by voters than Clinton was. If NH wasn’t willing to support him in 2016, odds are they’ll be unwilling to support a Trump mini-me for Senate in the person of Lewandowski, who has plenty of personal baggage Democrats can exploit and who’ll be facing an incumbent in Jeanne Shaheen with a 54 percent approval rating. Having Lewandowski on the ballot won’t even help mobilize Trump fans for the Senate race since they’ll already be turning out en masse for the presidential election. All Corey can do potentially is scare off moderate Republican voters who find him obnoxious and would be willing to support a more pedestrian Susan-Collins-type Republican.

So maybe House Dems wanted to give Lewandowski a campaign commercial yesterday. Tempt him into the race, then sit back and watch Shaheen cruise. Maybe he’ll repel so many centrist voters that it’ll help tip the state to Democrats in the presidential race again too.

Here he is this morning being interviewed by CNN, not one full day after testifying under oath that he lies to the media. I understand why Fox News has Lewandowski on, as it has an interest in serving Trump and his cronies. I don’t understand why CNN does unless Jeff Zucker has decided that POTUS is so good for ratings that he might as well use his network to try to get second-tier Trumpy celebrities elected to office too. In lieu of a single exit question, go read 33 separate exit questions from Jonathan Last stemming from yesterday’s Corey testimony. The most basic one: If Lewandowski is willing to lie to “the media,” by definition he’s willing to lie to the public that consumes that media. That being so, why should anyone believe he’s not lying at any given moment? And that being so, why should the media ever have him on?

The post What were Dems thinking when they invited Corey Lewandowski to testify? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cl-300x153 What were Dems thinking when they invited Corey Lewandowski to testify? Trump The Blog Senate run New Hampshire nadler Media lie judiciary House grandstand Corey Lewandowski CNN   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

I’ve Said Some Very Unkind Things About Corey Lewandowski and I Take Them All Back

Westlake Legal Group lewandowski-house-judiciary-committee-620x317 I’ve Said Some Very Unkind Things About Corey Lewandowski and I Take Them All Back Special Counsel republicans Politics New York New Hampshire Jerry Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell donald trump democrats Corey Lewandowski California Allow Media Exception

Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager for President Donald Trump, references a copy of the Mueller Report that he requested to be brought to him, as he testifies to the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee as chaired by Fat Jerry Nadler was revealed to the world for the collection of lackwits that it is. The proximate cause of this revelation was Nadler’s insistence on obtaining televised testimony of former Trump aide and occasional campaign manager and New Hampshire senate candidate Corey Lewandowski. My colleague, Elizabeth Vaughn, has the full story in Lewandowski Trolls Lawmakers At House Judiciary Committee Hearing; Calls Eric Swalwell ‘President Swalwell’.

There were epic moments. We have Lewandowski calling Eric Swawell “Presidnent Swalwell.”

We have Mensa-reject, Sheila Jackson Lee referring to “Volume Eleven” of the Mueller Report”

And getting nothing at all from Lewandowski

Nadler refused to allow a GOP member any opportunity to question Lewandowski and gave a highly paid consultant and major Democrat donor thirty minutes.

All this blow-tried toad was able to elicit from Lewandowski was that he doesn’t feel under any obligation to tell the media the truth. [Insert “shocked face” emoji.]

Somehow this is a major revelation to the same people who pushed lie after lie upon the American people with the Russia Hoax.

In short, I doubt that there was ever a witness before any House committee who was more richly in contempt of the membership and the process than was Lewandowski. And it was only fair. Nadler and his fluffers have worked long and hard to reach the level of assclownishness they have achieved and they should not be deprived of their reward.

This morning, CNN had Lewandowski on to be interviewed by one of it dimmer bulbs (this, in a universe of talent that includes Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Brian Stelter is not much of a distinction), Alisyn Camerota. It went about as well as could have been expected given Camerota’s lack of talent.

The left seems to think that Camerota drew blood because Lewandowski says he never read the Mueller report, but this is the real blood being drawn. CNN is belaboring Lewandowski for lying to the media (I really don’t get why this is a revelation to sane people) while they employ a contributor who is facing indictment for making false statements to the DOJ IG. Not quite credible.

Yesterday he walked into a hostile hearing and left a Category 4 hurricane trail of wreckage behind him. He went on CNN this morning and gave a performance that will haunt Camerota’s dreams for a decade or so…I wouldn’t be surprised to encounter her at a PTSD clinic…or on Skid Row scoring crack.

During the 2015-2106 season, I said some bad things about Lewandowski. They were justified, mind you, but perhaps overly harsh. Based on his performance yesterday and today, I take them all back. I’ll even send some money to his Senate campaign.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post I’ve Said Some Very Unkind Things About Corey Lewandowski and I Take Them All Back appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lewandowski-house-judiciary-committee-300x153 I’ve Said Some Very Unkind Things About Corey Lewandowski and I Take Them All Back Special Counsel republicans Politics New York New Hampshire Jerry Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee Front Page Stories Featured Story eric swalwell donald trump democrats Corey Lewandowski California Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bernie Sanders Campaign Shakes Up New Hampshire Operation

Westlake Legal Group 15sanders-nh-facebookJumbo Bernie Sanders Campaign Shakes Up New Hampshire Operation Shakir, Faiz (1980- ) Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire

Senator Bernie Sanders has overhauled his New Hampshire state operations, as his campaign fights to maintain support in a state he won by more than 22 percentage points in 2016.

In a series of moves, the campaign has replaced the New Hampshire state director, Joe Caiazzo, with Shannon Jackson, who is deeply enmeshed in Mr. Sanders’s inner circle and who led the senator’s re-election campaign in Vermont last year. Mr. Caiazzo, who was Mr. Sanders’s political director in Massachusetts and Rhode Island during the 2016 campaign, has been named state director in Massachusetts.

The moves were announced to the campaign’s New Hampshire staff on Sunday.

“We feel really good about where we stand in New Hampshire right now,” said Faiz Shakir, the Sanders campaign manager. “The poll numbers, the volunteer capacity, the crowds that we have been getting at these events all suggest to us that we are in a very good position.”

He added: “Obviously, much work to do to continue that trend.”

The Sanders campaign also recently shook up its top leadership, promoting both Ari Rabin-Havt, the chief of staff, and Arianna Jones, the communications director, to the position of deputy campaign manager and bringing on a new senior communications adviser.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign said the moves in New Hampshire and elsewhere are an attempt to expand his operations and organize supporters in the northeast as they look beyond the early states toward Super Tuesday, when several other New England states, including Senator Elizabeth Warren’s state of Massachusetts, will vote. The campaign recently hired a Maine state director, Ben Collings, a member of the Maine Legislature who ran Maine for Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign.

“This campaign is building up and spreading out over the next few months,” Mr. Shakir said.

But Mr. Sanders’s decision to shake up his campaign in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire, a state he almost certainly must win to have a chance at the nomination, underscores the challenges he faces in recreating the formula from his landslide victory there against Hillary Clinton.

Without the same mix of New Hampshire’s anti-establishment and progressive voters all to himself this time, he has fallen into the 20s in most polls, bunched up with Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ms. Warren at the top of the surveys in the state.

The rise of Ms. Warren, in particular, has created difficulties for Mr. Sanders because, like him, she is from a neighboring state and, also like him, appeals to much of the party’s left. Potentially even more threatening, she represents a new alternative for the voters who were mostly aligned with Mr. Sanders in 2016 to oppose Mrs. Clinton.

What gets less attention, but which some New Hampshire Democrats say helps explain Mr. Sanders’s challenges there, are the long shot candidates: Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Marianne Williamson, the best-selling self-help author, are drawing attention from the sort of avant-garde voters who had no such alternative options last cycle other than the Vermont senator.

New Hampshire Democrats said Mr. Caiazzo, who grew up in Massachusetts and last year ran the re-election campaign of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, was a traditional party operative and always something of an unusual fit for Mr. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist whose campaign is about upending the establishment.

And increasingly, Mr. Sanders, in New Hampshire and beyond, is focused less on winning over traditional Democratic activists than he is in mobilizing volunteers as well as new supporters, particularly individuals who have not participated in past primaries, including independents and disaffected Republicans. New Hampshire Democrats also believe that Mr. Sanders did not have the sort of organization befitting the candidate who had won the state so overwhelmingly three years ago.

Mr. Jackson, who was previously the Sanders campaign’s northeast regional director, has worked with Mr. Sanders for years, including in his senate office in Burlington, Vt. He also helped start Our Revolution, the senator’s political advocacy group.

In a statement, Mr. Jackson said he was “honored to be taking on a more direct role in this critically important state” and praised the team there.

The campaign said it had recently added a campus outreach director and labor outreach director in New Hampshire as well.

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CBS poll: Biden now trailing in New Hampshire and Nevada, barely ahead in Iowa

Westlake Legal Group jb CBS poll: Biden now trailing in New Hampshire and Nevada, barely ahead in Iowa warren The Blog south carolina sanders poll New Hampshire Nevada Iowa frontrunner CBS biden

Just how soft is Biden’s frontrunner status? Pretty soft even according to people who support him. Politico reported this weekend that a top state senator in New Hampshire who’s backing Grandpa Joe was so concerned about his low-energy campaign events in the state that he drove more than an hour to meet Biden in hopes of staging an intervention. Another piece up at the site today has Biden cheerleader Ed Rendell acknowledging fear among colleagues that his lead may be fragile, a house of cards that’ll eventually collapse under the weight of his gaffes and age-related concerns:

“There’s a clear worry among Biden supporters that he can’t be the front-runner from June of 2019 through July of 2020 … that eventually, the gaffes will pile up and he’ll come down,” said Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and one of Biden’s most vocal supporters…

“It’s a deceptive lead, because it really doesn’t get tested until we get down to a narrower race in which, at some stage, people are going to have to say, ‘Is he our guy or not?’” said Paul Maslin, a top Democratic pollster who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean…

Biden’s appeal to Democrats is so tightly tied to his perceived ability to defeat Trump that if he appears likely to suffer an early loss, one veteran Democratic strategist in Iowa said, “if you take any drop in [polling] support, you might bleed.”

Right, essentially Biden’s edge in the race is self-reinforcing. He’s the “electable guy”; the evidence of his electability is his lead in the polls (and head to head against Trump); but perceptions of electability are themselves contributing to his polling. If Warren or Sanders starts to outpoll him and air begins leaking out of the Biden “electability” balloon, how much might it deflate? An unnamed Dem who works for a rival campaign pointed Politico to Hillary’s sudden collapse in South Carolina in 2008 after Obama shocked the party by winning Iowa. She went from a huge lead to a blowout loss practically overnight, once it became clear to voters there that her nomination wasn’t inevitable. Once the balloon was punctured in the early states, it couldn’t hold air anymore.

Which brings us to the new early-state polls from CBS:

South Carolina is the one early state with a majority-black primary electorate and, not coincidentally, it’s the one state where Biden continues to run rings around the competition. He’s in trouble everywhere else, though — three points ahead in Iowa, behind in Nevada and New Hampshire. In every state except SC, Bernie is within three points of him or less. In fact, if not for Kamala Harris’s collapse, Biden might not have an edge on Bernie. He picked up 15 percent of Harris’s supporters since the last CBS poll (Elizabeth Warren picked up 29 percent!), helping to buoy him up against Sanders.

How long can that last, though? What if Harris has another good debate on Thursday night, or Biden a bad one? Certainly Warren’s going to come hard at him too. CBS went on to note that if you aggregate its polling from all four early states, including South Carolina, it’s not Joe who leads overall. It’s Warren, with 26 percent to Biden’s 25. She’s way ahead of him too when early-state voters are asked if they’d be enthusiastic if she/he became the party’s nominee, 46/29,

What kind of “frontrunner” is actually behind among the voters who matter most?

The standard dismissal of a survey like this one is that It’s Just One Poll and that other early-state results for Biden are better. Yes and no. It’s true that most polling in the early states shows Biden with a lead, but it’s also true that his leads there tend to be smaller than his national lead is. He leads by 11.7 points today at RCP in the national average but in Nevada his lead is closer to six points and in New Hampshire he’s actually down by less than a point in a three-way race with Warren and Sanders. The three polls of Iowa since July have each had him up, but two of those placed him in the three- to five-point range. If he were strong on the stump, you might treat all of those numbers as promising, with room for growth. For a candidate who’s weak on the stump, they seem tenuous.

Maybe the real takeaway from the CBS numbers is how resilient Bernie is in the early states. Biden, Warren, and Harris have gotten all the hype over the past few months, the first because of his frontrunner status, the second because of her steady polling rise, the third because of her collapse. But there’s Bernie, plugging away, poised for victory in every state except South Carolina. If he surprises the field by out-organizing everyone in Iowa and wins there, then leverages that momentum for victory in New Hampshire, he might cause a stampede of voters from Warren to him as the new progressive hope, giving him a commanding lead in the race. That’s the bind he and Warren are in right now — since it’s plausible that either one of them could win early and consolidate the other’s support, there’s no incentive for either to get out and endorse the other. They’re going to split progressives. The only question is whether Biden can capitalize.

Exit quotation from Warren, referring to persons who shall not be named: “We can’t choose a candidate we don’t believe in because we’re scared.”

The post CBS poll: Biden now trailing in New Hampshire and Nevada, barely ahead in Iowa appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-300x153 CBS poll: Biden now trailing in New Hampshire and Nevada, barely ahead in Iowa warren The Blog south carolina sanders poll New Hampshire Nevada Iowa frontrunner CBS biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com