Sherrod Brown is Out, as are (to recapitulate last week’s mini-update) Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley. Evidently the clown car was just too crowded for them to contemplate climbing aboard. That leaves Biden and Beto as the only two undecided “big fish.”
A lot of Democratic Presidential hopefuls were in Austin for SXSW: “Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., will speak on Saturday, while former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee will speak Sunday.” And Beto O’Rourke is also there pimping a movie about his failed senate run. John Delany was there as well.
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet: Leaning Toward In. “Mulling 2020 run, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado stops by Jaffrey firm.” That’s Jaffrey, New Hampshire, population 5,457, which does rather suggest he’s still interested in running…
Former Vice President Joe Biden: Leaning Towards Running. In his week’s Hamlet watch, Biden’s chances of running are put at 95%, and is now expected to announce in mid-April.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown: Out. This is a surprise, since he looked like he was getting in. “Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) announced Thursday that he will not run for president in 2020, just after completing a tour of early caucus and primary states. Brown said in a statement that he was confident other candidates would adopt his political mantra — ‘the dignity of work’ — and that he would continue working against President Donald Trump in the Senate instead of joining the crowded Democratic primary field.” Yeah, literally no one is using that as a Democratic Presidential rallying cry. It’s all about the federal government handing out free stuff (Medicare for all, guaranteed basic income, reparations), illegal aliens and social justice warrior garbage.
Former San Antonio Mayor and Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro: In. Twitter. Facebook. He turned the pandering up to 11 and embraced reparations. “If under the Constitution we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property?” Maybe because there is literally no one alive who was a slave in the United States before slavery was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865…
Former First Lady, New York Senator, Secretary of State and losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Out. It was obvious after her humiliating defeat by Donald Trump that she would never be President of the United States of America, and I doubt Grandma Death is up to the physical rigors of a Presidential campaign (she certainly wasn’t last time).
His unorthodox proposals is his belief that the core of the Democratic voter base still lies near the center. He supports a universal health care system, but not Medicare-for-all. He wants to bring back the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has been derided by progressives. He’s cited eliminating the national debt as a priority. He’s also an avowed capitalist. “This primary is going to be a choice between socialism and a more just form of capitalism,” he said in a statement after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy late last month. “I believe in capitalism, the free markets, and the private economy. I don’t believe socialism is the answer and I don’t believe it’s what the American people want.”
From the interview:
Listen, I think Democrats are more right about policy than Republicans are, which is why I’m a strong Democrat. But I’m not walking around saying every Republican I know is a horrible human being who doesn’t have any good ideas or have anything to contribute to our country. It’s ridiculous. But if you listen to the parties, that’s what they’re basically telling us and there’s really been a vacuum of principled leadership.
Former Tallahassee Mayor and failed Florida Senate candidate Andrew Gillum: Out.
California Senator Kamala Harris: In. Twitter. Facebook. She was campaigning in Myrtle Beach. Here’s a write-up on the San Francisco crime lab scandal that occurred under her term as DA. “With the local criminal-justice system at risk of devolving into chaos, Harris took the extraordinary step of dismissing about 1,000 drug-related cases, including many in which convictions had been obtained and sentences were being served.” Also, she thinks America hasn’t had “a real conversation on race.” You know, the conversation where people from the party of Ralph “Klan outfit” Northam and Mary Ann “N-word district” Lisanti get to lecture us about how we’re all racists for not voting for Democrats…
Former Attorney General Eric Holder: Out. Not a surprise. He was so marginal I accidentally omitted him from last week’s roundup and no one noticed.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee: In. Twitter. Facebook. Evidently Inslee’s “climate change” mania is a threat to ethanol, which may not go over well in Iowa.
Virginia Senator and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Vice Presidential running mate Tim Kaine: Out.
Former Obama Secretary of State and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry: Not seeing any sign.
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar: In. Facebook. Twitter. She’s campaigning in Tampa Bay and talking about climate change. The Florida primary is two weeks after Super Tuesday, so it’s rather a leap of faith to assume she’ll still be in the race.
Oregon senator Jeff Merkley: Out. Filing for reelection to the senate instead.
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton: Maybe? He talked about running as a national security-focused candidate, a feat that no Democrat has managed since 1960. “Moulton told me he will run through VFW halls and college campuses, leaning in on a national-security focus which, even in a field this huge, he is all alone in focusing on—a stance that not only differentiates him, but could eventually draw the others out on foreign affairs.” If he got in he would be competing with Biden and Delany for the “surprisingly sane for a Democrat” lane. Upgrade over Doubtful.
Former Texas Representative and failed Senatorial candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke: Maybe. More on his “I’ve made a decision but I’m not going to tell you” game. “Is it Beto?” “No, it is just a boy.” “Beto says he can not come today, but will come tomorrow.”
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Constitutionally ineligible to run in 2020.
Ohio Democratic Representative Tim Ryan: Leaning Toward In? At least he seems to have some inkling of the problem:
“Just watching this economic train wreck happen for 30 years and really not seeing anybody in the democratic party that even gets it and that to me is really frustrating,” said Ryan. “I think our community, and communities like ours, need a voice that understands what happened, how the workers have been left out, and where we need to go. I think I could offer that kind of vision for the country because we’ve been doing it here but also know that if we’re going to move forward, we have to cut these workers in and that’s not part of the conversation right now.”
Ryan says his frustration has been building for years and he’s not hearing and hasn’t heard for a few cycles that democratic candidates are truly connecting with American workers.
“That concern that is here is not being translated to Washington. I try, and there are others that do, but it’s not penetrated this coastal, the coastal domination of the Democratic Party,” said Ryan. “I ran against Nancy Pelosi, primarily because I thought this message is not getting out, no one is listening. President Trump won the presidency because Democrats forgot to talk to workers, people who take a shower after work as opposed to people who just take a shower before work and those are the people that we grow up with here, those are our family members, and I’m upset because their voices aren’t being heard. I want to do something about it, and whether that’s run for President or not, that’s where my heart is.”
Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders: In. Twitter. Facebook. Senate Democrats have warned to Sanders (though evidence suggests the DNC hasn’t). Also, even though Bernie’s running for President, he still has a backup plan:
Bernie Sanders has officially filed for reelection in 2024 as an independent, meaning he's currently running for office under two different party IDs pic.twitter.com/4tBE5aiIfp
California Representative Eric Swalwell: Leaning Toward In. “Eric Swalwell wants to be president, and why the heck not?” I think the words “Eric Swalwell” adequately answer that question. “Now that Swalwell is an-all-but-declared candidate for president, the challenge is getting others to take him seriously.” Does rather sound like he’s getting in…
From what I see, Elizabeth Warren is running the best race so far by miles.
Warren is doing something none of the rest of them are doing. She’s running for president. The others are just positioning. I suppose that’s not necessarily true of Bernie Sanders, who has one gear and we know what it is, and we already know from last time what his positions are (although he has added a wealth tax, which I endorse heartily). But all the others are running for wokest progressive. Warren’s running for president.
What do I mean? She’s put out a bunch of tough, meaty proposals. They mean something. They communicate: “This is what I will do, and it will constitute serious change.” Last week’s proposal to break up the tech companies was ambitious and brave. Most Democrats are afraid of tech money. The Democrats have taken back the House, and they’re going to be holding dozens of good and necessary hearings. But here’s one hearing I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to convene: a panel on regulating Facebook.
But Warren went right at it. Monopoly power. It’s (yet another) huge and under-discussed crisis in this country, a grotesque distortion of the market that hurts consumers in a hundred ways every day. If you want to learn more about monopoly power generally and the tech giants specifically, go visit the website of the fine people at the Open Markets Institute. But suffice it to say for present purposes that Warren has laid out a plan that the anti-monopoly experts say is intelligent and practical.
That’s just the latest example. She’s made a bold proposal to limit shareholder power, and another one calling for universal child care. And of course there was the wealth tax, which my Beast colleague Jonathan Alter praised to the heavens a few weeks back. She’s putting the meat on the bones of new Democratic economic message, and no one else is even a close second so far.
Needless to say, I don’t agree with the writer’s policy positions or his take on the state of the race, but I offer it as a data point.
Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson, a pair of little-known 2020 contenders, both say they are on track to meet the grassroots donation threshold set by the DNC to get into the first debate in June. They’d join Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both African-American ministers and civil rights activists, as the only non-elected officials to make the first Democratic presidential debate in the past 40 years.
To qualify, candidates must get at least 1 percent support in three party-approved public polls — or receive campaign donations from 65,000 individuals with a minimum of 200 donors apiece in 20 states, the DNC said in February. If there are more than 20 candidates who pass one of those thresholds, only candidates who meet both polling and fundraising criteria will be given primacy, with the large debate field randomly split into two groups over two nights.
Talk show host Oprah Winfrey: Out.
Venture capitalist Andrew Yang: Running but no one cares. Twitter. Facebook. See the Marianne Williamson debate bit above. I have a Republican friend who said she donated a dollar to get Yang into the debates to screw with Democrats.
They show North Dakota Democrat incumbent Heidi Heitkamp as gone, which already brings Republicans up to 50 seats with victories in Tennessee (likely) and Texas (even more likely).
The races they have as tossups are:
Arizona: The late John McCain’s seat. I expect former fighter pilot and Republican Martha McSally to beat Kyrsten “Meth Lab of Democracy” Sinema based on the latter’s baggage and blunders, and the importance of border control to Arizona residents.
Florida: Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson is in a very tough fight with Republican Governor Rick Scott, but Republican turnout seems to be surging. Keep in mind that in 2014, Scott beat the odious Charlie Crist by only 64,000 votes. It being Florida, it may not be decided until the recount.
Indiana: Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly (D), the last of the Stupak Block Flipper still in office, has been in a virtual tie with Republican challenger Mike Braun. Trump walloped Hillary by 19 points in 2016, while Donnelly managed to eek out 50.04% of the vote in the very Democrat-friendly year of 2012. I think he’s toast and Braun wins.
Missouri: Republican challenger Josh Hawley has lead polls against incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill ever since the Kavanaugh vote in a state Trump won by 18 points in 2016. Stick a fork in her.
Montana: Incumbent Democrat Jon Tester should be in deep trouble in a state Trump won by 21 points, but polls show him with a small but sustained lead over challenger Matt Rosendale. Chalk this up as the toss-up Senate race Republicans are most likely to see slip away.
Nevada: Polls show Republican incumbent Dean Heller slightly behind challenger Jacky Rosen. See the mention of big crowds at Trump rallies further down in a state Hillary won by just over two points. Heller eked out a two point win in face of Obama’s big 2012, and I think he survives by the skin of his teeth this year as well.
West Virginia: You would think that Democratic incumbent Joe Manchin would be in deep trouble in a state where Trump walloped Hillary by 42 points, but he’s maintained a small but persistent lead over challenger Patrick Morrisey. The Last Blue Dog may survive 2018, but I suspect this one will go down to the wire.
Any “Likely Democrat” races Republicans can pull an upset off in? Maybe New Jersey where, despite substantial leads, Democrats have been pouring last minute funds in to save indicted sleazebag Robert Menendez. But that’s a pretty high mountain for Republican challenger Bob Hugin to climb.
Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root, who correctly predicted Trump’s upset win two years ago, similarly sees another GOP win in the offing:
Don’t look now, but it’s all happening again. Nate Silver says Democrats have a 80%+ chance of winning the House. Cook Report says Democrats will win the House by 40 seats. All the experts say it’s over- Democrats will win. I’ll go out on a limb and disagree again.
I see Florida Democrat Governor candidate Andrew Gillum holding a rally with Bernie Sanders and the whole place is empty.
Barack Obama could not fill a high school gym in Milwaukee.
I witnessed firsthand Joe Biden and Obama at separate events here in Las Vegas playing to small crowds.
Meanwhile I was opening speaker for President Trump’s event in Las Vegas last month- with 10,000 waiting in line for hours in a place where no one cares much about politics. This is a phenomenon.
Does that sound like the GOP is losing 40 seats? Dream on delusional Democrats.
One of the seats he see’s flipping is the Texas 32nd Congressional District, currently held by Republican Pete Sessions. The district went very narrowly (1.9%) for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but went for Romney by over 15 points in 2012. I tend to think Sessions barely wins reelection, based on a strong economy, the long-time Republican nature of the district, and incumbency.
My prediction: Republicans keep the Senate, and we won’t actually know if they keep the House until most of the recounts are done.
Pretty soon we won’t have Robert “Bobby” Francis O’Rourke (AKA “Beto”) to kick around anymore, so let’s do a roundup of all his campaign’s most recent missteps, shall we?
First up, front and center, are the Project Veritas sting videos that have O’Rourke staffers on camera admitting they’re diverting campaign funds to transport illegal alien caravan members to the United States:
I believe the technical term for that is “campaign finance fraud.” Unless you prefer the term “embezzlement.”
(Also, is it just me, or is there a distinct like of activity in those shots from O’Rourke field headquarters. No phone-calling, no envelope-stuffing, just…kicking back and hanging out. Evidently having more money than any senate candidate ever doesn’t buy you motivated staffers…)
Then there’s that New York Times piece that, instead of the now-standard hagiography, actually reported on how O’Rourke got to where he is today: wealthy and powerful relatives, and a healthy dose of political self-dealing:
At a special City Council meeting in 2006, a billionaire real estate investor unveiled his vision for redeveloping downtown El Paso. To replace tenements and boarded-up buildings, he proposed restaurants, shops and an arts walk rivaling San Antonio’s River Walk.
Representative Beto O’Rourke, one of hundreds attending, wasn’t exactly a disinterested party.
Not only had he married the investor’s daughter, but as a member of City Council, he represented the targeted area, including a historic Mexican-American neighborhood.
Calling downtown “one piece of El Paso that was missing on the road back to greatness,” Mr. O’Rourke, now a congressman and the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, voted to take the first step forward with the plan.
Over the next two years, Mr. O’Rourke would defend the plan before angry barrio residents and vote to advance it. At other times, he would abstain. Business owners who opposed the plan accused Mr. O’Rourke of a conflict, citing the involvement of his father-in-law, the billionaire developer William D. Sanders.
Snip.
Mr. O’Rourke was perceived by many as siding with the moneyed elite against angry barrio residents, small business owners and even the Jesuit priests who ministered to the immigrant community at Sacred Heart Church.
“Mr. O’Rourke was basically the pretty face of this very ugly plan against our most vulnerable neighborhoods,” said David Dorado Romo, a local historian who added that the episode had resurrected longstanding race and class divisions in the city.
Barrio residents feared that they would lose their homes through eminent domain, and a city-funded branding study suggested that the residents of El Paso were perceived as “dirty” and “lazy.’’ Among some constituents, the hurt feelings have lingered.
Naturally there was great shock among O’Rourke fans that NYT would dare do actual reporting on a Democrat a week before the election. As Brandon Morse notes: “This deal O’Rourke was a part of has all the hallmarks leftists hate. Here’s a rich white guy screwing over poor minorities in order to further enrich himself and his family. Yet, for the longest time, you couldn’t get a peep out of mainstream press outlets.” (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
Finally, there’s a new Emereson College poll that purportedly shows Sen. Ted Cruz up by only three points. By now you should know the reply every poll result brings up: show me the crosstabs. They oversampled Democrats and women. As usual.
Thanks to his fundraising, I expect O’Rourke to lose by less than the 16% Cruz beat Democrat Paul Sadler by in 2012, much less the 20 points Greg Abbott walloped Wendy Davis by in 2014.
Like most Democrats, I reacted to the stunning 2016 election of Donald Trump with a combination of confusion and dread. After all, Hillary Clinton was the favorite and, to Democrats like me, a Trump victory seemed to portend certain economic disaster, nuclear war, and pretty much the end of America as we knew it.
But now nearly two years into his administration, Trump has presided over a “winning streak” that includes a booming economy and stock market, an unemployment level at a nearly 50-year low, two Supreme Court appointments, no new foreign wars or domestic terrorist attacks emanating from abroad, a significant degree of progress on trade relations with Canada and Mexico, a “needed reset” on the China relationship, and the prospect of peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Perhaps it is time that even his opponents reconsider Trump. Does Trump have a strategy that we can describe? Is Trump a return of Richard Nixon, of Ronald Reagan, or of something else entirely? After several months of watching the news without gaining any answers, I finally canceled my cable subscription and sought out other sources. I found some insights in unexpected places.
Trump’s presidency marks a return to realpolitik and great power politics.
Snip.
A third insight was from the unlikeliest place: the critically acclaimed animated show, “Rick and Morty.” During Trump’s campaign, his supporters frequently talked about how funny the candidate was. This humor was lost on most of my left-leaning peers. But “Rick and Morty” showed me what I have may been missing. Here is a popular TV show about a mad scientist Rick, an amoral, sociopathic man who considers himself the smartest man in the universe and tells dirty jokes in front of his grandson Morty. The slapstick, low-brow, and nihilistic insults and dirty humor of “Rick and Morty” — much like Trump — resemble some of the comedic greats from the decades prior to the 1990s: “The Honeymooners,” “Benny Hill,” “Abbott and Costello,” “The Three Stooges,” and “I Love Lucy.” These comedic devices can be traced back hundreds of years to Asian and European theater, which used slapstick, puns, insults, and innuendo.
Compare that oeuvre to the 1990s-2000s, during which comedy was more satirical, knowing, self-referential, meta, and smug. This idea is far from perfect, but examples of satire that use slapstick as well include “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” “South Park,” “Team America: World Police”, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s parodies. American society today seems to be witnessing a return of what columnist Noah Smith calls “goofy” humor and a decline of “knowingly sarcastic” humor. Even The New Yorker complained that the 2018 Emmys were too smug and later described Trump’s rallies unfavorably as a “vaudeville routine.” Perhaps our shift toward a reversion in history also means we are seeing a cultural reversion as well. Smugness has become politically tone deaf.
Snip.
The Trump Doctrine takes previous policy assumptions and turns them on their head. Trump’s “America First” approach is a reversion to the idea of realpolitik and great power competition. It is better suited to a moment in which American power is much less dominant. The president takes each state-to-state relationship on its own terms. That’s why he’s often antagonistic with allies and friendly with threatening dictators. The consequences of insulting friendly countries, such as Canada, might be hurt feelings in exchange for better trade terms, while souring relations with an antagonistic one, such as North Korea, could result in serious security threats. He pursues the optimal outcome in a utilitarian sense rather than follow previous rules about diplomatic etiquette. Trump keeps his enemies even closer than his friends, while previous presidents did the opposite. Niccolo Machiavelli might have been familiar with these tactics.
Trump’s diplomatic method can be reduced to the four “B’s”: bullying, bargaining, burden-sharing, and bragging. He starts an interaction by bullying the subject — usually on Twitter, seeks a chance to sit down with the target to bargain as hard as possible toward what Trump may see as a more reciprocal relationship of burden-sharing, and then finally brags about whatever the results are. Trump treats all relationships as transactional, deploying tit-for-tat tactics toward achieving his goal of “reciprocity.” His message is that he wants to make America great again but does not spend much time lecturing or moralizing to foreigners. Finally, his use of insults, jokes, and slapstick, physical humor creates an image of honesty and authenticity with his supporters. Overall, these techniques and worldviews are becoming increasingly common around the world, including with the leaders of countries as diverse as Turkey, the Philippines, Russia, Israel, Mexico — and potentially Brazil.
Trump described his realpolitik-with-no-sacred-cows approach during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September: “America’s policy of principled realism means we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies, and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again. This is true not only in matters of peace, but in matters of prosperity.”
Overall, Trump’s approach represents a reversion to a style of statecraft that flips previous approaches. Technocracy, meritocracy, and bureaucratic approaches are giving way to establishing top-level personal rapport, trust, and loyalty. Free trade ideology is giving way to trade as a means to enrichment. Building institutions gives way to questioning the utility of each institution. Moral diplomacy gives way to talking to anyone who will bargain. Careful speeches give way to saying anything that gets results. Saving sacred cows gives way to killing them or threatening to do so. Open markets give way to using U.S. markets, military, and migration as bargaining chips. Every relationship is subject to maximum leverage of what is possible.
West is nothing if not independent. He doesn’t need the approval of the Democratic establishment or the usual suspects among the liberal Hollywood elite. He is untethered from the traditional liberal gatekeepers in the same way Trump was untethered from the Republican establishment as a presidential candidate. There is a reason that the Democrats and their allies in the media insult, marginalize, ridicule and try to “Uncle Tom” West. It is obvious they are afraid of him and the discussion he might start.
“Beto O’Rourke Raised Record Breaking $38 Million in 3Q.” And he’s still losing. Just imagine if Democrats had used that money to protect endangered incumbent senators instead…
O’Rourke’s “extraordinary political success” is illusionary. His national popularity is contingent on aesthetics and mass of coverage. It is merely that Beto looks and acts like the type of guy producers at most cable news networks and talk shows think—or more precisely, wish—a senator would look and act like. Unlike, say, Cruz (nearly two years older than Beto), who is always blathering about the Constitution or whatnot.
It’s not as if O’Rourke is a special talent by any measure. His speeches and talking points are just as vacuous and predictable as those of any other middling politician. His positions on guns and abortion—and a multitude of other issues—are in lockstep with his party, not the state. O’Rourke has never offered any substantively impressive policy ideas. He’s not led on any notable issues in the House. He’s remarkably unremarkable.
The son of a onetime Republican county judge and a longtime furniture store owner, the Democratic congressman from El Paso married into the family of one of his hometown’s most prominent developers and has assembled real estate investments worth millions.
Congress is rife with rich people, but O’Rourke had a 2015 net worth of about $9 million, ranking 51st out of 435 House members, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s more than double the $3.8 million worth of his Republican opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, who ranked 41st of 100 senators.
Think Progress alum thinly disguised as a journalist does 50 Shades of Beto. Ick.
The hits keep coming:
The lies flow easily from 'Beto':
Beto O'Rourke's Mother, Who He Says Is A 'Lifelong Republican,' Donated To Obama, Voted In 15 Of 17 Democratic Primaries https://t.co/I5QC9SEjlF
The Russian government kills journalists, among others. I do not recall the Washington Post protesting on this basis the Obama administration’s “reset” of relations with Putin’s government or Obama’s promise to be more “flexible” with Russia after his reelection. Nor, as far as I remember, did the Post cite Russia’s murderous ways as a reason not to farm out to Putin enforcement of the “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Cuba’s treatment of journalists and others has been atrocious. Yet, the mainstream media supported the Obama administration when it radically reset U.S. relations with Cuba without insisting on any change in the regime’s treatment of dissidents.
What are the differences between Russia/Cuba and Saudi Arabia? I see two. First, Russia and Cuba are adversaries of America. Saudi Arabia is an ally.
For the sane, this difference would, if anything, cut in favor of the Saudis. For the left, it cuts against them.
Second, the Trump administration has very visibly allied itself with Saudi Arabia as a means of countering Iran and achieving other American objectives in the Middle East. Thus, the Khashoggi slaying provides the mainstream media with the opportunity to do what it does best — hammer President Trump.
In my view, the Khashoggi slaying should not cause America substantially to alter its foreign policy. Our relatively close relationship with Saudi Arabia is predicated, as it should be, on mutual interests and mutual adversaries. Either the geo-political predicate justifies the relationship or it doesn’t.
1. Vilification (Alt-right, racist…) 2. Guilt by association ("Did the *Koch brothers* fund this?") 3. Misrepresentation ("So basically, you think trans ppl should just *die*…") 4. Reduction to privilege anxiety ("White fragility!") https://t.co/tOPJGl0zWp
Florida man does it again. Not only is he a registered sex offender who hired a federal informant for a mad-bombing spree aimed at target stores, he did it all for…making money off shorting the stock?
Remember all that breathless talk on how Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke was going to beat incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz as part of a giant “blue wave” against President Donald Trump?
New polls say: Not so much.
According to a New York Times poll, Cruz leads Democratic challenger O’ Rourke by nine points. The crosstabs further down the page show a 10 point Republican-over-Democrat edge among respondents, 38% to 28%, which much more closely mirrors previous exit polls than any of the other 2018 Texas Senate race polls I’ve covered. The piece also shows different results based on different turnout models; if the electorate looks like it did in 2014 (the last midterm election), Cruz lead is closer to 16 points. (Hat tip: Empower Texans, which notes that early October polls for Texas races like this have understated Republican support by 4-5 point.)
There is no way Robert Francis O’Rourke, alias “Beto,” a.k.a. the no-doubt gleaming future of the Democratic Party is as delusional about his prospects for success as his followers. That would be impossible.
The Texas congressman is your average 46-year-old liberal failson politico, the grandson of a secretary of the Navy, the son of a judge, a hanger-on in his party who graduated from playing in an amazingly bad hardcore punk band to a seat on the El Paso City Council. After that, he challenged Rep. Silvestre Reyes, an eight-term Democratic incumbent and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, with the help of outside cash and endorsements from both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The two issues of crucial importance to reviving the fortunes of the working class on which O’Rourke fought his campaign were support for same-sex marriage and drug legalization, both of which Reyes, a Catholic, opposed.
Now O’Rourke is the Democratic nominee facing off against Sen. Ted Cruz. This is not some prize that party leadership granted to its favorite son. Defeating a sitting Republican senator in the Lone Star State is the kind of impossible job you give to someone you know slightly but don’t much care about, someone minimally competent but ultimately expendable, someone whose particular qualities don’t matter all that much because it’s a just a slot that needs to be filled and you’re just happy someone is bored or desperate enough to fill it — the kind of job you give, in other words, to Beto.
Snip.
No single article or tweet could do justice to the brain-destroying tedium of hyperbole, the willful exaggeration, the gushing faddishness, the hipster capitalist complacency, the novelty songwriting contest banality, the experimental filmmaker commercial-directing pseudo-profundity, the sheer late-night TV-level humorlessness of the Beto cult. In a recent column Dana Milbank promised to reveal the ingredients behind “the special sauce that flavors Betomania.” Here they are:
“O’Rourke’s cool factor: skateboarding at Whataburger, playing the air drums, doing his laundry on Facebook Live, and scoring appearances with Ellen DeGeneres and Stephen Colbert …”
Fifty thousand people attended a — free — Willie Nelson concert at which he appeared.
“His partisan jabs are delicate.”
He sometimes says “pendejo.”
Snip.
It’s worth recalling that excitable rank-and-file Democrats do this to themselves every few years, especially in Texas. Remember Wendy Davis and the famous shoes with which she was going to vault from the floor of the Texas Statehouse to the governor’s mansion, the White House, and, presumably, to infinity and beyond? The last I heard, after losing the governor’s race in a spectacular landslide she was doing wine-and-cheese one-offs with F-listers at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where she signed the electric pink Nikes for a lucky fan who had purchased them with his own money years earlier at her estate sale.
Jim Geraghty points out the obvious. “And no, Beto O’Rourke does not look like he’s going to win in Texas, which will raise tough questions about whether the $23 million donated to O’Rourke’s campaign could have been better spent elsewhere.”
Beto’s likely downfall: lack of Hispanic enthusiasm for him. Leads Cruz 56%-38% w/ Hispanics, but that’s just not good enough for a D to win statewide in TX. https://t.co/llFcScAtM2
Evidently dozens of fawning profiles in national liberal publications doesn’t actually translate into winning over Texas voters. Who knew? Well, besides Wendy Davis…
After months of “Beto O’Rourke is within striking distance of Ted Cruz!” polls with biased samples, the media polling complex have finally been able to manufacture a “Beto O’Rourke is leading Ted Cruz!” headline.
And they only had to take oversampling Democrats to ludicrous extremes to do so.
Their poll sample had 47% Democrats vs. 43% Republicans among likely voters. (You can find it in question six, after you’ve cranked magnification up to 400% or so.) That’s a pretty accurate breakdown…for 1990. However, here in the real world of 2018, that oversamples Democrats by 16 to 20 points. That’s also why the same poll only has Texas Governor Greg Abbott up by only 9 points over the invisible Lupe Valdez campaign when he walloped Wendy Davis by 20 points in 2014.
“Ipsos online poll released Wednesday in conjunction with Reuters and the University of Virginia.” Note the “online poll” part. As inaccurate as telephone landline polling is, online polling is worse.
This isn’t a poll that should be taken with several grains of salt, it’s a poll that shouldn’t taken seriously at all.
Well, a new Quinnipiac poll of likely (rather than merely registered voters) says “Not so much.” The poll shows Cruz with a 9 point lead over his Democratic rival.
As always, let’s look at the crosstabs. The sample was 35% Republicans, 26% Democrats and 33% Independents. That compares to 38% Republicans, 29% Democrats at 33% Independents in 2016 exit polling. Given that we see roughly the same 3% reduction for both parties, this probably the closest sample replicating actual election conditions, the caveat, of course, being that off-year election numbers tend to be more Republican still.
Any concerns? Yes, the number of voters queried (807) is still small.
A nine point loss strikes me as closer to a ceiling of O’Rourke’s chances than a floor. A 12-15 point loss seems far more likely. (On the bright side, that will still be significant improvement on Wendy Davis’ 20 point wipeout in 2014.) Baring some sort of black swan event, like another economic meltdown or Ted Cruz ripping off his face to reveal he’s actually a Zerg Hydralisk, I don’t expect the fundamentals of the race to change appreciably.
Edited to add: I just noticed that today is Talk Like a Pirate Day, so let’s add another meme:
Another week, another poll that shows Beto O’Rourke within striking distance of Ted Cruz. The entire sample size on the Emerson poll was only 550 registered voters. It seems that O’Rourke’s numbers go up as the size of the sample goes down.
First, this is among registered voters, not likely voters, as other polls have screened. That matters, because off-year elections have lower turnout than Presidential elections.
Second, did they oversample Democrats? Why yes they did, albeit not as grossly as as some previous polls. Republicans checked in at 41%, Democrats at 35%, a six point difference as opposed to the nine point difference in party identification in 2016, much less the 16 points win Cruz enjoyed over Paul Sadler in 2012, or the 20 points Greg Abbott beat Wendy Davis by in 2014.
Third, they’ve oversampled women 52.3% to 47.7% men. The last non-Presidential election poll show closer to a 51% women/49% men split.
I’m guessing that the “closeness” of the race is heavily dependent on those factors.
It’s that time of year, when various polls show Texas statewide races closer than they actually are.
This time around: The Ted Cruz/Beto O’Rourke Senate Race.
Like Wendy Davis was in 2014, O’Rourke is the Texas poster-child for national Democrats. O’Rourke gets fawning profiles in places like Town and Country, which declares “Kennedyesque” (presumably with less adultery and vehicular homicide), and GQ, where former Texas Observer and Austin Chronicle writer Christopher Hooks calls the man born Robert Francis O’Rourke “authentic” and “without guile.”
A few weeks ago, a new Lyceum Poll showed O’Rourke within two points of Cruz. The first thing to check with a Lyceum Poll is how badly they skewed the sample. That didn’t take long: They sampled equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, because evidently their samples are from 1994, the last time a top-of-the-ticket Democrat was within 10% of the vote total of the Republican.
Now this week we have a Marist poll that shows O’Rourke within four points of Cruz. I’d like to tell you what level of skewing went into the Marist poll crosstabs, only I can’t find any. If that’s the complete list of questions, they don’t appear to have asked party affiliation, so there’s no way to know just how skewed the smallish (759) sample of registered voters is.
In 2012, Ted Cruz beat Paul Sadler by 16 points. In 2014, Greg Abbott beat Wendy Davis by 20 points. Will O’Rourke put in better showings than either of those doomed Democrats? Actually yes, I think he will. He’s a much better campaigner than either, and he’s raised much more money than Sadler’s doomed “let’s lose with an old warhorse rather than an unknown” campaign.
But keep in mind that Cruz racked up that 16 point win against Sadler in a Presidential election year against serious Obama headwinds, and Sadler wasn’t out on the stumps flacking for gun control. This year, the economy is booming and the electorate is probably going to look closer to 2014. But pretending O’Rourke has a serious chance to win Texas is sucking national donations from a dozen endangered-but-less-sexy Democratic senate incumbents in red states.
Edit to add: As commenter richb58 notes down below, the crosstabs for that Marist poll are now out and, yeah, they’re garbage. Their sample is 33% Republican and 31% Democrats, a two point difference in party ID compared to the 9 point difference exit polls found in 2016, mirrored in the 9 point vicory Donald Trump enjoyed over Hillary Clinton that year.
Themes for today’s LinkSwarm: Jihad, rape and China. Not necessarily in that order…
So let me see if I have this story straight: New Mexico jihadis, one related to a New York City imam who might have been involved in 9/11, murdered three children, abused and starved 11 other children while teaching them to be school shooters, and the judge let them out on bail?
A New Mexico state judge ruled Monday that five alleged Muslim extremists accused of training children to conduct school shootings do not have to remain in jail while they await trial for child abuse.
Judge Sarah Backus released the five defendants, Siraj Wahhaj, Hujrah Wahhaj, Subhannah Wahhaj, Jany Leveille, and Lucas Morten, on a $20,000 “signature bond,” according to the Albuquerque Journal. That means that the defendants will not have to pay money unless they violate the conditions of their release
It’s a good thing there’s not a huge foreign nation immediately to the south with a porous border they can flee to…
If China really had a savings rate of 46%, the economy would look quite different. There would be very little debt in the system; the banks would have a very low loans to deposits ratio and low leverage, like banks in nineteenth century Britain. Consumer debt would be almost non-existent, while the Chinese market would have an enormous variety of saving and investment schemes, to take care of all the accumulated wealth. New company formation would be very high, but “venture capital” would be very scarce, because new companies would be capitalized from the savings of the founders’ relatives and friends. Overall, China might well have a rapid growth rate, but it would be a very contented, stable economy.
A recent Financial Times examination of China’s economy illustrates the problem; it shows consumer debt almost doubling as a share of GDP, from roughly 20% to 40% in the last five years and tells pathetic stories of young, highly educated Chinese who max out their credit cards, desperately hoping to boost their earnings sufficiently to pay that debt back. But Chinese elite youths brought up in a society with a 46% savings rate would have neither the desire nor the need for heavy credit card usage. First, they would have been brought up in families with a fanatical devotion to deferring consumption, so would regard the over-indebted Western Millennial lifestyle with undiluted horror. Second, because of their families’ savings habits, such elite youths would be beneficiaries of very substantial trust funds from their relatives, and so would have no need of credit cards.
If the savings rate is fiction, then so are all China’s economic statistics. GDP is at least one third lower than claimed, to account for the missing savings, and growth rates over the last decades correspondingly lower, On the other hand, China’s foreign debt is all too real, and most of the domestic debt also appears to be solid, so China’ s gross debt, already alarmingly high at 299% of GDP according to the Institute for International Finance, is in reality about 450% of true GDP, substantially higher than that of any other country. With such a level of debt, China is not about to overtake the West, it is in imminent danger of collapse. Indeed, it is at first sight something of a mystery why it has not collapsed already under the weight of its excesses.
Also: “China Buckles, Sends Trade Delegation to Washington to Seek End of Trade War.” Maybe, just maybe, President Donald Trump knows a thing or two about negotiating strategy…
“Evil is a make-believe concept we’ve invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own.” That quote comes from an American bicycling across several foreign countries, including one where Islamic State followers killed him, his wife, and two fellow-travelers thanks to their “different perspectives.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Google has released a report on the paid ads they’ve run on political campaigns. It’s not completely useless, but then you drill down to congressional district, it only shows you total spending, not how much was spent by each campaign, much less links to the relevant ads.
A theme that keeps recurring in histories of the worst abusers is that they were trained in seminaries that were run by homosexual men and saturated with gay-liberationist subculture. Reading accounts of students at one notorious California seminary making a Friday-night ritual of cruising gay bars, it becomes hard not to wonder if gay culture itself has not been an important enabler of priestly abuse.
Ace of Spades is surprised to find Disney holding firm on it’s firing of James “I Make Pedophile Jokes” Gunn. Also, in the course of slamming (perhaps a littler too strenuously) Trump-skeptical establishment conservatives on their hypocrisy on the issue (RE: Roseanne), he does nicely articulate the logic of taking’s the Guardians of the Galaxy director’s scalp, even if Gunn was only joking:
I will not be subject to one of your rules and yet permit you to be free of your own rule. If it’s your rule, you shall suffer under it just the same as me.
We do not (yet) have a formal caste system in America, despite the obvious longing from the left and the NeverTrump rump to establish over-castes and under-castes.
And it’s MUH #SacredPrinciple that we shall not have a tiered system of citizenship that the leftwing establishment as well as the “right”-leaning establishment so clearly crave.
And I’ll sacrifice anyone to make sure that they do not put me in their designated under-caste.
Trump may be both more relentless and obnoxious than his predecessors, but cries of “Fake News!” from the Oval Office are old hat. Presidents always blame the messenger. Even Barack Obama, the object of so much media fawning, groused about distorted coverage.
This time, though, we are taking it personally. Striking at the bait Trump dangles. Joining the war he’s declared. Allowing him to goad us into abandoning the fundamental principles of our profession.
Donald Trump is not responsible for the eroding trust in the media. He lacks the credibility to pull that off. The damage to our standing is self-inflicted.
The independent press was built on a foundation of objectivity. Through a tradition of conscientious commitment to telling all sides of a story we convinced our readers, listeners, viewers that we were the source of fair and balanced coverage. We were equal opportunity scourges of scoundrels on both sides of the political aisle.
Now, too many of us are following the websites, cable networks and blogosphere into point-of-view journalism that presents the news with equal parts fact and opinion. We’ve infused our reports with commentary and call it context.
Journalists once kept their personal views personal, lest anyone challenge the motives behind their reporting. Now reporters post their opinions on Facebook and Twitter. They sob in newsrooms over the results of an election. News meetings and editorial boards are often indistinguishable.
Respected journalists openly question whether remaining objective in the Donald Trump era is a sell-out rather than a virtue. Some have joined the resistance movement, blending journalism with activism.
No one in our profession can say with a straight face that we cover Donald Trump the same way we have past presidents. We are not only giving him more scrutiny — rightly so — but we are making more mistakes in our haste to discredit him. Our accuracy ratings have fallen as we turn to poorly vetted anonymous sources and repeat every rumor that fits the narrative that Trump is a disaster.
Yes, Trump is an extraordinary case. Chaos is the hallmark of his governing style. His personal conduct falls well short of presidential. But his administration has had successes, and the press is not as eager to cover those as it is his failures.
Journalism seems to have turned a corner in search of some higher purpose beyond simply digging out the truth, presenting it to our readers and letting them decide what to do with it.
Nothing about Donald Trump justifies tossing aside the standards that have allowed journalists to remain the trusted eyes and ears of the people.
MoviePass is getting ready to bite the moose. I can imagine a way you could make this thing work out: Make deals with large theater chains, exclude the first week of all movies, and the first few weeks for blockbusters, and make a deal to buy tickets at a steep discount to put butts in seats so theater owners can make more money off concessions. All things that MoviePass evidently never attempted…
The great plastic gun panic…of 1986. I think we can all remember how the widespread availability of the Glock resulted in the downfall of America…
