SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

With tightened entry requirements, only eight Democrats have so far qualified for the September debates:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics ... index.html

(CNN)With the second debate wrapped up, the third Democratic debate hosted by ABC and Univision will happen during the second week of September. The candidates are still working to qualify and have another month to reach the polling threshold and grassroots fundraising thresholds as laid out by the Democratic National Committee.

Eight candidates have qualified for the debates in September: 11 candidates on the fundraising side and eight on the polling side. Candidates need to reach both to be on the stage.

Candidates who have qualified for the September debates in both polling and fundraising:

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
Mayor Pete Buttigieg
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren

There are now 11 Democrats who say they received contributions from at least 130,000 individuals, coming from at least 400 unique donors in 20 or more states.

Businessman Andrew Yang, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii have reached their fundraising threshold, but still need to hit their polling minimum to qualify. Castro and Yang have each received three of their four necessary polls. Billionaire Tom Steyer has two qualifying polls, and Gabbard and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and each have one. All other candidates haven't reached above 2% in any qualifying polls.

The DNC requires that all polls be conducted by an approved pollster, released between June 28 and August 28, 2019, conducted nationally or in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and/or Nevada, and fit a certain question structure.

The candidate must get above 2% support in four or more polls of this nature, and they cannot be conducted by the same pollster in the same region. There is still a month for candidates who have not yet hit the polling threshold to do so.

September should narrow the field somewhat. It looks like Castro will probably make it over the threshold (good). Steyer is a maybe, as is Yang (I'd like Yang to hold on a bit longer, just to give basic income more air time). There's a fair chance Gabbard and Hickenlooper will get knocked out, if their polling numbers don't rise (good riddance to both). DeLaney, Bullock, Williamson, Ryan, Gillibrand, DeBlasio, Bennet (am I forgetting anyone?) all look like they're up shit creek without a paddle. I don't think any of them will be much missed.

What interests me most is who the drop outs' support will go to. A lot of moderates dropping out could see their support solidify behind Biden, though some might also go to Buttigieg or Harris, for example. On the other hand, Yang or Gabbard getting knocked out might mean another one or two percent to Sanders or Warren.

[The Romulan Republic]

Article from former senior adviser and chief campaign strategist for Obama David Axelrod, praising Warren's campaign strategy. He's also sharply critical of Biden and Harris's performance, critiques Buttigieg for not picking a side in the Centrist vs. Progressive debate, and praised Yang's message while dismissing his chances as a candidate.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/opinions ... index.html

(CNN)Here are my reflections on a stormy and revealing week in the Democratic presidential race.

The first is that Elizabeth Warren is running a strategically brilliant campaign.

More than any other candidate, she has a clear, unambiguous message that is thoroughly integrated with her biography. That is essential to a successful campaign.

Her unsparing critique of corporate excess and her expansive -- and expensive -- agenda for change mirror those of the reigning left champion, Bernie Sanders, in places. But where Sanders sometimes seems like a parody of himself -- or of Larry David's parody of Sanders -- Warren seems fresher, deeper and more precise in her execution.

John Delaney, the former congressman and health tech entrepreneur, learned this when he tried to tangle with Warren over her support for Medicare for All, a plan that would abolish private insurance.

Delaney argued that there were other, more politically feasible ways to strengthen coverage. But he delivered his point with all the charm of a corporate auditor and Warren crushed him with a killer line:

"You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," she said, as the crowd erupted in cheers.

The jibe, like her entire campaign, is exhilarating to Democrats who have no patience for the incrementalism that governing in a big, diverse and closely divided democracy requires.

There is a valid argument, borne out by polling and common sense, that a proposal to abolish the private insurance that covers 180 million Americans might be too radical a change to make all at once. It also hands President Trump a huge cudgel with which to flay Democrats in a race that promises to be close.

But Warren has put critics of her grand plans on the defensive in much the same way Barack Obama put Hillary Clinton on the defensive in 2008, when she argued that Obama's plans were fantastical in the real world of Washington.

A big aspirational message is more satisfying than a cramped, political one. Warren is positioning herself as Big Change versus the status quo. Yes We Can versus No We Can't.

And for those who say that Medicare for All and some of her other positions are fraught with peril, Warren had another message:

"I get it," she said. "There is a lot at stake, and people are scared. But we can't choose a candidate we don't believe in just because we're too scared to do anything else. And we can't ask other people to vote for a candidate we don't believe in.

"Democrats win when we figure out what is right and we get out there and fight for it. I am not afraid. And for Democrats to win, you can't be afraid, either."

I don't know if Elizabeth Warren will win the nomination. Her sometimes professorial style can be off-putting and she has yet to break through with the white working class voters with whom Biden and Sanders are doing well.

Moreover, there are legitimate critiques of her policy on substantive and not just political grounds. But it is going to take more than what we saw on either stage this week to win that battle.

Warren has a theory of the case and is prosecuting it very skillfully.

Can Biden get into gear?

Biden cleared the bar in his half of the debates — but not by much.

Like an aging Jedi, he fended off incoming from all directions, mostly giving as good as he got. It wasn't elegant but it was far better than the laggard performance he turned in at the June debate.

Yet for those who fear that Biden, who is 76 and sometimes seems older, may not be up to this, his showing was only mildly reassuring. Biden stumbled in places, misstated numbers, struggled at times to pull up facts and and even fumbled his own text message in the close.

His supporters were cheered by his more energetic performance. He remains the frontrunner on the strength of strong support among older and more moderate working class voters and the crucially important African-American community.

But there is also a nagging awareness that Biden will need to do better to win the nomination, much less defeat Trump.

The question is, Can he find that other gear?

A question for Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris is the most confounding candidate in the Democratic field.

On the one hand, she is smart, charismatic and appealing. Her takedown of Biden in their first debate encounter vaulted her into the top tier and heightened interest in her among soft supporters of other candidates and voters yet to decide.

What she needs to close the loop with many of them is a clear, discernible message. Why is she in this race?

She had a chance to fill in that blank on Wednesday and squandered it.

Attacked from the start by Biden and others on her new health care plan, and then kneecapped on her record as a California prosecutor by Tulsi Gabbard, Harris learned what life in the top tier entails. She seemed more peeved than poised in response.

So for those who are looking for her big message, the search goes on and the clock is ticking.

Booker's move in the right direction

If anyone took a big leap forward this week, it was Cory Booker.

Amid all the sniping on stage, Booker seized high ground, constantly urging his competitors to focus on the larger challenges to the country and the American community posed by Trump's endlessly divisive politics.

The New Jersey Senator looked confident, relaxed and commanding, even in a close quarters exchange with Biden, who was flanked by Booker and Harris. While Harris looked annoyed when attacked, Booker took Biden's assault on his record as Newark mayor in stride.

"As they say in my neighborhood, you're dipping into the Kool Aid and you don't even know the flavor," he told Biden with a smile, as the audience cheered his colloquial put down.

Booker has been mired in the low single digits and was in danger of being written out of the script. He bought himself new life with his performance, which his campaign says produced their best one-day haul of online donations.

Buttigieg should step into the fray

Pete Buttigieg was an early revelation in the race. A millennial, gay, Afghanistan War vet, Rhodes scholar and mayor from the middle of the country, he made himself an unlikely player on the strength of impressive, voluminous media performances.
He turned in another solid showing Tuesday's debate, including some well-crafted and memorable castigations of the Republicans.

But Buttigieg has plateaued in the mid-single digits in recent weeks. His decision to completely circumvent the discussion--and discussants--around him and focus on delivering his lines feels like a missed opportunity to reignite his momentum.

He was an early promoter of a Medicare for All Who Want It plan that would preserve private insurance and give consumers a choice. But when he had the chance to challenge Warren and Sanders on their ideas, he demurred.

For a youthful candidate who looks even younger than he is, the ability to parry with his opponents on substance is an important test. And in a race that is increasingly turning on ideological purity versus pragmatism, he needs to choose a lane or risk becoming irrelevant to the discussion.

He also needs to put more meat on the bone to animate his New Generation rhetoric. Exactly what does his promised new thinking mean in practical terms that would touch the lives or people?

Unless Buttigieg, whose fluent answers and freshness bought him to the fore, begins to draw sharper contrasts and offer discernible, digestible and symbolically meaningful ideas, he could wind up winning more admiration than votes.

Yang's message deserves attention

Others impressed in the debate. Montana Governor Steve Bullock, in his debut on the debate stage, made a folksy case for Mountain State moderation. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was even better in night two, and not just on his signature issue of climate change.

Both governors were solid, though each is in jeopardy of falling off the debate stage in September when eligibility requirements double.

One person who likely will make it is Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur. I didn't get the whole Yang Gang deal until Wednesday. He is a great and authentic communicator with a distinctive message about the impact on workers of automation and AI and the changes the new economy requires.

This is a defining issue of our time and gets far too little attention.

Yang and the New Age spiritualist Marianne Williamson on Tuesday night, in their respective ways, may have been the most entertaining of the candidates. They did not speak in political terms. They deployed humor effectively and commanded attention.

Freed of the burden of expectations some of the other candidates faced--neither will be the nominee--Yang and Williamson came, delivered their unique messages and seemed to enjoy doing it.

Sanders, meanwhile, continued to stand with Warren, defending her nuclear policy against an attack from Rep. Cheney:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... ey-1445479

Sen. Bernie Sanders defended his rival 2020 Democratic hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Friday after Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) went after Warren for advocating a no-first-strike nuclear policy.

During the Democratic primary debate Tuesday, Warren pushed for the United States to adopt a policy of never using a nuclear weapon unless another country uses one first — a policy that CNN moderator Jake Tapper noted President Barack Obama had considered but ultimately declined. Warren said the policy would help minimize misunderstandings by foreign adversaries of U.S. intentions, preventing an accidental catastrophe.

But Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, lambasted Warren the following morning for her remarks. Liz Cheney sits on the House Armed Services Committee and holds hawkish views on defense, much like her father, who served in the George W. Bush administration during the launch of the 2003 Iraq War and the War on Terror.

"Which American cities and how many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice with your policy of forcing the US to absorb a nuclear attack before we can strike back?" Cheney wrote Wednesday on Twitter.

Key question for Elizabeth Warren @ewarren today - which American cities and how many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice with your policy of forcing the US to absorb a nuclear attack before we can strike back?

— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) July 31, 2019
Friday afternoon, Sanders shot back at Cheney, sparking a heated back and forth.

"Taking national security advice from a Cheney has already caused irreparable damage to our country," Sanders tweeted. "We don't need any more, thanks."

Cheney responded by calling Sanders a "commie" who "is ok with U.S. getting attacked first."

No surprise commie @BernieSanders, who honeymooned in Soviet Union, is ok with U.S. getting attacked first. (On a side note, he seems to have daddy issues...with my daddy.) https://t.co/OdbbvdyvV6

— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) August 2, 2019
"On a side note, he seems to have daddy issues...with my daddy," Cheney added.

Sanders wasn't the only Democrat to go after the Cheney family for its foreign policy history.

MFW *Liz Cheney* of all people tries to offer foreign policy takes, as if an entire generation hasn’t lived through the Cheneys sending us into war since we were kids: https://t.co/xrOCN1c9OI pic.twitter.com/8Hoq1NbMC9

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) August 2, 2019
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also chimed in on Friday, tweeting a gif of her exasperated face and the message: My face when "*Liz Cheney* of all people tries to offer foreign policy takes, as if an entire generation hasn’t lived through the Cheneys sending us into war since we were kids."

During the debate, Warren and Sanders were matched with several moderate candidates, who used the two left-leaning senators as foils for their own positions. The senators, who have been friends for years, demonstrated a kind of partnership during the debate while fielding rebuttals from the other candidates.

On the question of nuclear strikes, Warren received pushback from Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who said he "wouldn't want to take that off the table."

"I think America's strength, we have to be able to say that," Bullock said during the debate.

It honestly almost feels like Bernie and Warren are running a joint campaign against the Centrists, at this point.

[Gandalf]

Can we just ... not do this right now, dude? TRR was clearly just using some rhetorical flourish, and we all know by now he has a tendency to be hyperbolic when talking about politics. Nitpicking his use of the phrase "American democracy is dead" to earn some empty "America sucks lol" hipster cred points is just going to lead to a really pointless argument that drags on for several pages for no particular reason (and probably leads to a mod telling everyone to shut up). We've seen this happen about a thousand times before on this forum, basically every time this subject gets brought up. This thread is about the 2020 election specifically, not a referendum on the entire historical, philosophical, and ethical implications of the American political system.

No. To lionise the past in order to make a point about the future does a disservice to all who had to suffer through it. I don't care if it's a rhetourical flourish or not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can we just ... not do this right now, dude? TRR was clearly just using some rhetorical flourish, and we all know by now he has a tendency to be hyperbolic when talking about politics. Nitpicking his use of the phrase "American democracy is dead" to earn some empty "America sucks lol" hipster cred points is just going to lead to a really pointless argument that drags on for several pages for no particular reason (and probably leads to a mod telling everyone to shut up). We've seen this happen about a thousand times before on this forum, basically every time this subject gets brought up. This thread is about the 2020 election specifically, not a referendum on the entire historical, philosophical, and ethical implications of the American political system.

No. To lionise the past in order to make a point about the future does a disservice to all who had to suffer through it. I don't care if it's a rhetourical flourish or not.

As I said to Ziggy Stardust myself, you're not entirely wrong on this point. However, it is hard not to feel that you are trying to hijack the conversation with a deliberate misinterpretation of my point. Just occassionally, it would be nice to be able to discuss what's happening in America now without you or somebody else jumping in to insist yet again that Trump is no different from the norm because America's always been that bad, and that anyone who disagrees is defending historical racism because their America hate boner isn't hard enough. Does literally every fucking topic on American politics have to be reduced to "America has always been this bad"? Because the logical extension of that is "Trump is no big deal, and every person who ever fought, suffered and died to make America a better country did so in vain." And I think that does them a hell of a lot greater a disservice than anything I said.

[FaxModem1]

It honestly almost feels like Bernie and Warren are running a joint campaign against the Centrists, at this point.

They're probably doing this to both get their message across, moving the Overton window leftward nationally, as the Libertarians and Tea Party did with the Republicans back in 08, but also because attacking each other would only hurt their chances when this strategy covers them against any attacks, preventing either one from being forced out of the race early.

[Elfdart]

I know you probably won't agree, but I think Gillibrand was absolutely right on Franken. If we're going to shield men facing multiple sexual abuse allegations because they're on "our team", we might as well just be Republicans.

I was glad when she administered a swift kick to Franken while at the same time distancing herself from the Clintons and their lackeys. As it turns out, that might not have been the best move politically since many donors have come right out and said she's dead to them -and the Clintons their camp followers are a rather vengeful bunch. In short, she pissed off two influential factions in the party and never picked up anyone else to offset them.

I think my views on Gabbard are well known, and I'll leave it at that.

Michael Brooks sums it up well enough that I don't have to:

Bernie and Warren did very well, yes. I admire them for not taking the bait to fight each other, and maintaining a united progressive front while pecker-slapping the Centrists. God damn they'd make a good ticket together, if not for the fact that Warren is my preference for the head of the ticket, and Bernie is a bit old for a VP.

I don't see how they had much choice when a pack of toothless DLC attack dogs started off by trying to gum their ankles and piss on their shoes.

[Vendetta]

I don't see how they had much choice when a pack of toothless DLC attack dogs started off by trying to gum their ankles and piss on their shoes.

That was always going to happen. Like the second night was always going to be everyone vs Biden because he's the poll leader and so has the biggest kick me sign on his ass.

What the rest of the field (and probably CNN for the ratings) was hoping was that they'd turn on each other and drag each other down with infighting over leftist minutiae.

The vast legion of ego candidates in the 2020 primary has largely meant that we haven't really seen a debate of substance between the frontrunners yet. Until they get Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren on the same stage we won't really get a direct comparison of "mainstream continuity candidate" to "progressive reform champion".

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed that this is basically a four person race (five if you want to be generous to Buttigieg, though he has a better shot at being someone's VP, I think*), and we won't really get the full dynamics of the race until we get all of the frontrunners on a single stage (that'll likely be September).


* I am rooting right now for a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.

Edit: I'll add that I do think there is real reason for Yang and O'Rourke, at least, to stay in. Yang is the only one aggressively pushing basic income, which needs to be an issue with a lot more time in the spotlight, and O'Rourke has decent odds of winning Texas, which won't get him the nomination but will give him enough delegates to have some clout at the convention, and build credibility for future runs (or make a bid to be someone's VP, especially if the Democrats decide to make a serious play for Texas this time around).

I don't think there's much point in any of the others staying in past September, except for egotism.

[FaxModem1]

* I am rooting right now for a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.

Really against Bernie Sanders getting the nomination, huh?

[The Romulan Republic]

* I am rooting right now for a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.

Really against Bernie Sanders getting the nomination, huh?

Not so much against Sanders, as for Warren. I'd still probably rate Sanders higher than Biden, Gabbard, O'Rourke, or any of the minor Centrists who thankfully don't have a chance (DeLaney, Ryan, that fucker Bullock, Bennet, Hickenlooper, Booker). He's just not my favorite candidate this time around, because we have more options.

I favor Buttigieg for Warren's VP because despite the delightful double act between Warren and Sanders lately, I admit I'd have some reservations about a VP who's older than the President, plus I think Buttigieg compliments her well in a number of ways. He would balance the ticket demographically (maybe that shouldn't matter, but the fact is it will be taken into consideration), both in gender and in age, as well as regionally (Warren hails from New England, Buttigieg from the Midwest). He's a little more moderate than her, but not a full-blown fossil like Biden, and he'd also add military experience to the ticket. Plus, I've been very impressed throughout with his intelligence and education, and I think that, like Warren, he's capable of articulating detailed policy.

My biggest concern about such a ticket is whether it could get high turnout from black voters. Warren as far as I know is not disliked by most black voters, but she's not their favorite either, and Buttigieg has some baggage when it comes to policing and has done exceptionally poorly with the black vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: I'll add, of course, that Sanders is not exactly a favorite of the black vote either, so that's not really a point for him over Warren or Buttigieg.

[The Romulan Republic]

Joe Biden joins Trump in being unable to get the names of the cities where the shooting took place:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-j ... gs-1452646

Biden, 76, who previously served as vice president under former President Barack Obama and is currently leading in the Democratic presidential primary polls, made a similar gaffe on Sunday evening while addressing attendants of a fundraiser in California. He referred to the mass shooting as "the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before."

Jesus Fuck Biden, you might as well wear a giant neon sign saying "I'm oblivious, out of touch, and indifferent to the suffering of the American people, or else too senile to be fit for office."

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren's plan to change the bankruptcy code to protect workers:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/economy/ ... index.html

New York (CNN Business)Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to change the way bankruptcy works in America.

Warren's plan would give everyday workers a better chance of getting severance when a company goes belly-up. And executives at companies that enter bankruptcy would no longer be allowed to pocket bonuses.
But most of all, she wants to prevent companies from going bankrupt in the first place. Warren plans to accomplish that by making private equity firms responsible for the debts they add to companies' balance sheets when they buy businesses, and by eliminating some tax incentives for taking on debt. Private equity investors would also have to fund certain pensions, so companies continue to pay workers' retirement benefits in bankruptcy.
Warren likens private equity firms to pirates, loading companies up with too much debt, slashing workers and collecting profit, all while using bankruptcy as an exit strategy.
"Let's call this what it is: legalized looting — looting that makes a handful of Wall Street managers very rich while costing thousands of people their jobs, putting valuable companies out of business, and hurting communities across the country," Warren wrote in a blog post.
But bankruptcy is complex. The system is designed to maximize the amount of money stakeholders — including employees — are owed when a company cannot pay its debts. In the best case scenario, a business can emerge healthier and continue to serve the economy and their employees. In the worst-case scenario, companies go out of business and liquidate, leaving workers out of a job, a paycheck, and severance. A private equity owner could also lose money.
Warren's plan could leave workers with more money in a worst-case scenario. But skeptics note her proposition could hurt companies' chances at the best-case scenario — a bankruptcy that leaves a business operational and lets employees keep their jobs.
Getting paid your worth
This isn't the first time that Warren, who previously lectured on bankruptcy law at Harvard, has spoken out in favor of worker compensation. Last year, when Toys "R" Us went through bankruptcy, Warren advocated for a severance fund for workers. The company's private equity backers Bain Capital and KKR (KKR) set up a fund, which agreed to pay out $20 million to laid-off workers. The toy retailer's liquidation resulted in more than 30,000 lost jobs across the country.
Employees aren't at the top of the pecking order in a bankruptcy. Creditors, which lend money secured on assets a company owns, are paid first. Creditors that lend money under riskier conditions ⁠— unsecured creditors ⁠— come next. At the bottom of the pile are the owners of a business, or equity holders.
Employee pensions are protected through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which takes over the pension benefit payments in case of bankruptcy, although payments could be smaller.
Some employees' claims are at the same level as the unsecured creditors. The problem is the pot of money available will have shrunk down significantly by the time employees stand to get paid.
Particularly when a company is liquidating, there's usually not a lot left to distribute, and employees have to take haircuts on the money they are owed.
Warren wants to change this priority of payments so workers have a better shot at getting paid.
The devil is in the details
In practice, Warren's bankruptcy plan might not achieve the worker protections it seeks.
Warren's Stop Wall Street Looting Act proposes to up the amount of protected wages, salaries and commissions -- including severance, a Warren aide told CNN Business. Those kinds of payments are treated with a higher priority in case of bankruptcy.
Currently, priority payments to workers are capped at $10,000 and only apply to wages earned in the six months before the company filed for bankruptcy. Under Warren's changes, the amount will be upped to $20,000 and the time limit will be nixed.
But the employees who usually make use of priority wages are executives, noted Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown, who assisted Warren in drafting the bill. A worker with a smaller paycheck might walk away from a business in bankruptcy to find another job, rather than continuing to work without a salary to then be paid as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
According to the American Investment Council, 5.8 million Americans work in private equity-backed companies. But they're not all doomed to lose their jobs in a bankruptcy.
"The number of true liquidations where the company fully shuts down are very low," noted Levitin.
"If a company reorganizes, which is the point of our bankruptcy code, workers retain their jobs," said Tom Morrow, executive director of the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors.
And some of Warren's proposed employee-friendly regulations are already taking place without any government intervention.
Companies en route to filing for bankruptcy often chose to pay their workers before defaulting on a bigger payment, such as interest on debt, he said.
"If you have any hope on a restructuring, you want to keep your work force," Levitin added. So the incentive for companies to treat their employees well is already there.
That said, employees can be let go in restructurings too.
Discouraging lenders
Workers wouldn't be the only ones affected by a change in the order of payments. Investors in corporate loans or bonds would be impacted as well.
Issuing debt may allow companies to invest and turn their businesses around. Changing the terms for lenders or debt holders could make it less attractive to lend to companies in distress.
By the time a company files for bankruptcy, its debt has usually changed hands many times and is worth only cents on the dollar. But investors are protected if their debt is secured on company assets, which also lets them get paid first. If this goes away, creditors might be less likely to lend to businesses in distress, voiding them of the chance to restructure and become a healthy business again.
"The bill strikes a careful balance between maintaining access to credit for businesses and strengthening protections for workers who are employed by companies that enter bankruptcy," Warren's aide said.
Smaller business at a loss
The bill also doesn't address smaller businesses.
"The place the system falls short is really the smaller companies that can't afford the costs of the bankruptcy procedure," said Tom Morrow, executive director of the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors.[if the first Morrow quote stays, his title can go here]
"Those are the ones that end up liquidating. Larger companies reorganize and have the money to do it," Morrow said.
America's bankruptcy code is arguably the most sophisticated one in the world and a big part of how business-friendly the United States is. But it's not perfect. Warren's bill could iron out some problems, but it can't tackle everything.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some post-debate polling numbers:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren enjoyed a bump in her polling numbers following the second round of Democratic presidential primary debates last week, but she's still trailing former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University out Tuesday.

Biden leads with 32% of support from Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, followed by 21% for Warren, 14% for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 7% for California Sen. Kamala Harris, 5% for Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 2% for former Rep. Beto O'Rourke and 2% for New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

Warren is up 6 percentage points since Quinnipiac's last poll, taken before last week's debate in Detroit. Other candidates remain relatively steady, while Harris took a 5 percentage point dip.

Much of Warren's bump came from those Democratic voters who consider themselves "very liberal." Four in 10 said they would support her in the most recent poll, up from 29% in July.

Biden continues to pace the field for the candidate who would be the best leader (33%), but Warren has gained since Quinnipiac's last poll (up from 17% in July to 22%). Warren also gained in supporters who said she has the best policy ideas (up from 26% in July to 32%), while 17% said Biden and 16% said Sanders.

Regardless, half still think Biden has the best chance of winning against Trump in 2020. Democratic voters slightly prefer a candidate who is more electable (50%) over someone who shares their views (46%). The opposite was true last time the question was asked in March (51% said shares views, 45% most electable).

Warren is also considered to be the one who "won" the debate, according to Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters who watched, listened or paid close attention to the debates. Fewer, 15%, said Biden did the best job, 8% for Sanders and Harris each, 7% said Booker, 4% Buttigieg, 3% Gabbard and 2% each name O'Rourke, Yang and Williamson.

Meanwhile, no candidate was overwhelmingly picked for doing the worst job among Democratic voters who watched, listened or paid close attention. Almost 1 in 10 said Biden did the worst job, the same for author Marianne Williamson, while 7% said Harris, 6% said former Rep. John Delaney and 6% said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The Quinnipiac University poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents was conducted by telephone August 1 through 5 among a random sample of 807 registered voters. Results among the Democratic sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

This is looking more and more like a two-person race. Its hard to say now, of course, but if nothing big changes, I suspect the first few contests will more or less confirm that to be the case, though I expect Sanders, Harris, O'Rourke (if he stays in until Texas), and possibly Buttigieg will net double digit delegate counts, potentially leading to a contested convention in which either the super delegates put Biden over the top (disaster, possibly rupturing the party), or Warren and Bernie's delegates team up to give Warren the nomination.

The best outcome, of course, would be for Warren to keep gaining and take a clean win before the convention, but I'm not that optimistic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Outside the Presidential race, the Democrats have an ambitious goal: to finally remove Mitch McConnell, or, failing that, to use him as a wedge issue to turn out the Democrats, split the Republicans, and retake more vulnerable Senate seats:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07 ... my-mcgrath

In a video announcing her run for Senate in Kentucky, Marine Corps veteran Amy McGrath outlined the emerging Democratic line on Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. “Everything that’s wrong in Washington had to start someplace,” she said. “It started with [McConnell], who was elected a lifetime ago and who has, bit by bit, year by year, turned Washington into something we all despise. Where dysfunction and chaos are political weapons. Where budgets and health care and the Supreme Court are held hostage. A place where ideals go to die.” Like a cartoon villain, McConnell has consistently foiled Democrats’ plans, most recently when he stonewalled the nomination of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, allowing Donald Trump to build a conservative majority on the bench potentially for decades. Now Democrats are reportedly aiming to weaponize McConnell’s reputation, both contesting his Kentucky seat and using him as a wedge to divide Republican voters ahead of 2020.

McGrath, a former Marine pilot, mounted a promising bid for the House in last year’s midterms, but ultimately fell just short of unseating incumbent Republican Andy Barr. Ousting the powerful Senate majority leader represents an even bigger undertaking, but Democrats smell blood in the water. McConnell’s polling—both nationally and in his home state—is pretty lousy, worse than any other congressional leader, as the Hill observed Tuesday. As such, Democrats are not only looking to flip his seat, but to use his unpopularity to erode support for other potentially vulnerable Republicans like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner in an effort to recapture the Senate next year. “You’ve seen the polls; his numbers are in the tank,” Democratic Senator Jon Tester told the publication of the strategy. “I think it can be effective.”

In theory, the strategy rests on McConnell’s reputation for stalling out legislative action. “There’s a lot of frustration,” Tester added. “We haven’t really voted. We haven’t debated on hardly anything. We haven’t voted on much other than on judges and a few [executive branch] noms.” The fact that McConnell has done all this in the open, strategists predict, could work to Dems’ advantage. “He has embraced his ‘Grim Reaper’ image in a way that makes it pretty easy for Democrats to use that as a rallying cry in a campaign,” an former Democratic Senate aide told the Hill. “Because he’s been so effective at gridlock, he’s been a big part of driving the conversation on changing the way that Washington works.”

It’s the same strategy Republicans have long used against Democrats by demonizing Nancy Pelosi and forcing other members of her party to answer for her actions on the campaign trail. And it has worked so effectively for the GOP in part because moderate voters have taken issue with some of the House speaker’s pronouncements. But McConnell has so far welcomed the attacks, theorizing that Republican voters are behind him. “I’ve been stopping left-wing agenda items coming out of the House and confirming strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. If that’s my sin, I plead guilty,” McConnell said after 2020 presidential hopefuls repeatedly invoked his name during the first Democratic debates last month. “I was thrilled to dominate the discussion.” The question, then, is how many swing voters and Republicans might take issue with McConnell’s approach, viewing him as a creature inherent to the swamp Donald Trump promised so fervently to drain. In theory, the people who voted for Trump want progress—a concept to which McConnell seems diametrically opposed.

[FaxModem1]

Bloomberg

Biden in Iowa Says ‘Poor Kids’ Are Just as Smart as ‘White Kids’
By Emma Kinery
August 8, 2019, 8:44 PM CDT
Updated on August 9, 2019, 10:07 AM CDT
Latest gaffe on campaign trail from former vice president
Trump campaign posts video of Biden remark without walkback
Joe Biden in Iowa on Aug. 8.
Joe Biden in Iowa on Aug. 8. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share Tweet Post Email
In this article
1066846D
LATINO COALITION/THE
Private Company
Joe Biden told a group of mostly Asian and Hispanic voters in Iowa on Thursday that “poor kids are just as bright” as white children.

The former vice president, known for his verbal gaffes, made the remarks to the Asian & Latino Coalition in Des Moines, Iowa, where he’s on a four-day campaign swing for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“We should challenge students in these schools and have advanced placement programs in these schools,” Biden said. “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented, as white kids.” He quickly added, “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids, no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.”

“We think how we’re going to dumb it down. They can do anything anybody else can do given a shot."

Biden, 76, has been criticized for his tendency to say awkward, sometimes surprising, things. When his future boss, Barack Obama, was running for president, Biden once remarked that Obama was “clean” and “articulate,” a remark that raised eyebrows.

The re-election campaign of President Donald Trump, under a barrage of criticism from Biden and other Democrats for what they term racist rhetoric, posted video of Biden’s remark.

Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement on Friday that Biden “misspoke and immediately corrected himself during a refrain he often uses,” namely how to level the playing field for low-income students.

She also said, incorrectly, that the video only contained the first part of Biden’s sentence. She added, "And it’s no coincidence this comes days after Joe Biden laid out how this president emboldens white nationalism and embraces racism.”

Well that's a whoops.

[The Romulan Republic]

Racist, senile, or both: take your pick.

Thank God he doesn't have the lock on the nomination Hillary did. I really don't want to have to suck it up and vote for Gropin' Joe just to stop Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why Texas could flip:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Texas politics are in the spotlight again this week. A number of House Republicans from the state have announced their retirements, and, after a mass shooting in El Paso this past weekend, Beto O'Rourke tussled with President Donald Trump over differing responses to the shootings.

In the backdrop of these developments is a Texas electorate that seems to be divided much more than it used to be.
It's a state with a voter base that seems to rapidly be shifting toward the center -- and I believe it could go Democratic in next year's presidential election for the first time since 1976.

I was once a skeptic on Texas turning blue, but I've changed my tune because Trump is a uniquely unpopular Republican in Texas who seems to be the driver of an important development: Like other Americans, Texans with a college degree are shifting rapidly from red to blue, and Democrats have a lot of room to grow with them in Texas.

This doesn't mean the state will go Democratic in 2020 (Democrats not named Joe Biden currently are losing to Trump in the Lone Star state in high quality polling), but it is a real possibility.

Trump's net approval rating (approval - disapproval) among registered voters has been slightly negative in Texas throughout his presidency. The latest Quinnipiac University poll put it at -1 points. All other elected Texas Republican officials had at least a +8 point net approval rating. This poll comes on top of the 2018 exit poll giving Trump a +1 net approval rating, and the midterm electorate in Texas is likely more Republican leaning than a 2020 presidential electorate will be. Trump won the state by 9 in 2016.
If the 2020 election were held today and it were solely a referendum on Trump, Texas would be a toss-up.

Traditionally, Texas has been a lot more Republican than the nation as a whole. In 2014, for example, Democratic President Barack Obama's net approval rating was 18 points worse in Texas than nationally. In 2018, Trump, a Republican, was just 10 points higher in Texas. In other words, there was an 8-point shift toward the Democrats, on this measure, compared to the nation as a whole in just four years. This followed the 2016 presidential race being the closest in the state since the 1990s.

Trump's unusually low approval rating in 2018 created the environment in which Republican Sen. Ted Cruz won re-election by less than 3 points. It was the worst Republican performance in a Senate race in the state since 1988. In 2012, Cruz won his first term by 16 points. This 13 point pro-Democratic shift occurred even though Cruz was an incumbent (who usually do better) and the national environment (as measured by the presidential vote in 2012 and House vote in 2018) shifted by less than 5 points toward the Democrats. (As I've pointed out, this shift was driven mostly by opinions toward Trump, not towards the Texas Senate candidates running in 2018.)

Of course, just because the state became more blue doesn't mean it will keep moving blue into 2020. The reason I think it could shift more is because of why the state has been going blue over the last few years: the aforementioned highly-educated voters.
High-quality consistent public polling data of Texas isn't easy to find. And while county-by-county returns are not a perfect way of examining the issue, they are a powerful tool and are sending a very strong signal. Take a look at what occurred between the 2012 and 2018 Texas Senate races.

Traditionally, the thought was growing diversity (i.e. Hispanics becoming a bigger part of the electorate) would largely be responsible for turning Texas blue. That, though, could take years for Democrats and could be counteracted by whites becoming more Republican.

By examining the 254 counties in Texas, we see that Cruz's losses were not strongly correlated with the percentage Latinos made up of the population or Latino population growth. This doesn't mean Latinos didn't move left with the state; they almost certainly did. Rather, it indicates they probably weren't the big reason the state saw more movement left than the nation over the last few years. (Limited high quality non-partisan public polling suggests the same.)

Instead, Cruz lost a disproportionate amount of ground in places with a high percentage of college educated residents. Weighted for the number of voters, Cruz's percentage of the major party vote share dropped by 10 points in the 20 counties where at least 30% of adults 25 years and older have a college degree. These are counties that contain major cities and suburbs like Dallas, Harris (Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth) and Travis (Austin). Cruz's vote share dropped by less than 2 points in the state's other 234 counties.
We see the same pattern in the Texas congressional districts (7th and 32nd) that flipped from Republicans to Democrats in 2018. Latinos make up a much lower share of the citizen voting age population compared to the state in these districts, while college graduates make up a larger share than average.

Importantly, the aforementioned well-educated cities and suburbs seem to be continuing to shift blue. When weighted for the number of voters, Cruz did 4 points worse in 2018 than Trump in 2016 in the same 20 counties where at least 30% of adults have a college degree. That is, it wasn't just that Trump became president and there was a one-time shift in these places. The counties are becoming more Democratic even under Trump. The state's other 234 counties also shifted toward the Democrats from 2016 to 2018, but by less than half as much as the 20 most well-educated counties.

If you look at these 20 most educated counties, they have a lot more room to move left. Cruz only lost these counties by about a little more than 10 points. This matches with exit poll data indicating that college graduates in Texas are still considerably more GOP-leaning than nationally. Given Trump's ability to instigate college educated voters (as seen in the fact that the college-educated counties in Texas keep moving left), it doesn't take a leap of logic for these voters to turn bluer. Add on any serious "get out the vote" operation to enroll Latinos (who still punch well below their weight in Texas) to vote, and things could get even dicier for Republicans.

Meanwhile, there is less room for the 234 counties with less than 30% of the adult population with a college degree to move right. They are currently about twice as Republican-leaning as the well-educated counties are Democratic leaning. This lines up with exit polls showing non-college voters in Texas are right of where they are nationally.

These county patterns remind me a lot of what happened between 2012 and 2014 in Iowa, but in reverse. As I noted at the time, the counties with a lower percentage of college-degreed adults jumped significantly to the right in only two years time. This foreshadowed the state taking another move to the right in 2016.

Again, this doesn't mean these counties and, therefore the state, will move left. But we have seen big movement across numerous elections before. Beyond my Iowa example, a number of smart folks on Twitter have noted that the Northeast underwent a major shift to the left between 1988 and 1992 and a second time from 1992 to 1996.

Put another way: The story of 2016 was non-college educated voters in the north voted more like college-educated voters in the south than previously. The story of 2020 could be college-educated voters in Texas voting more like college-educated voters in the north than they used to.

This bodes really, really badly for the future viability of the Republicans as a national party, at least in the next few election cycles. How big is Texas? Well, Trump won the Electoral College 304-227 (would have been 232-306, but for multiple faithless Electors). If Trump won every other state he won in 2016, but lost Texas, he'd lose the EC by 268-270 (barring faithless Electors, which in a race that close could easily flip it*, as terrifying a thought as that is).

Now, he might conceivably flip one of the other close states from 2016 (Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, etc), but given the Democratic surge in 2018 (despite Democrats typically doing worse in midterms), that seems highly unlikely. Colorado and Virginia, for example, have been moving toward safe Dem. for a while IIRC. They were close in 2016, but both have gone blue in the end in the last few Presidential elections. And its hard to imagine a race where the Dems flip Texas but loose even more traditional swing states than in 2016 (though I suppose anything is possible).

*Not nearly enough attention is being paid to this possibility: that the Democrats will win a close race, but rabidly partisan Republican Electors will basically say "Fuck the people, we serve the Fuhrer" (no doubt cloaking it in some bullshit about "illegal immigrant voter fraud"), and make Trump the winner. And by the terms of the American Electoral System, that would (arguably, depending on the state, since some states have rules against faithless Electors IIRC) be absolutely legal. And yet there are actually people who will rabidly defend the Electoral College as a safeguard against tyranny. Stunning.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This bodes really, really badly for the future viability of the Republicans as a national party, at least in the next few election cycles. How big is Texas? Well, Trump won the Electoral College 304-227 (would have been 232-306, but for multiple faithless Electors). If Trump won every other state he won in 2016, but lost Texas, he'd lose the EC by 268-270 (barring faithless Electors, which in a race that close could easily flip it*, as terrifying a thought as that is).

Where are you getting that 232-306 number from? There were only 7 total faithless electors in 2016. I don't know how you are calculating that out to be a loss of 72 electoral votes for Trump and a gain of 79 electoral votes for Clinton.

Also note sure how you are getting 268-270. As you said, Trump won the Electoral College 304-227. Texas has a total of 38 electoral votes, 36 of which went to Trump (1 went to Ron Paul, and 1 went to John Kasich, via faithless electors). If we take away all 36 of Texas's Trump votes and give them to Clinton, and also give her the two from the faithless electors to boot, that puts the final tally at (304-36)=268 for Trump and (227+38)=265 for Clinton. Where are you getting the other 5 votes? It only works if you also give Clinton all the other faithless elector votes, which doesn't seem reasonable (especially since your entire argument is about how Texas alone should have been sufficient).

I admit I'm not an expert on the electoral college, is there some byzantine calculation I'm overlooking? Because I just don't see how the numbers you cite line up.

[The Romulan Republic]

The 232-306 number was from Wikipedia. The other I calculated using the site 270towin.com's interactive election map.

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren is closing on Biden in Iowa:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... en-in-iowa

Former Vice President Joe Biden has had a steady lead in Iowa polls, but Democratic strategists say Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is rising and poses the greatest risk to him in the Hawkeye State.

Iowa has long been seen as a tough state for Biden, as its caucusgoers tend to go for more progressive candidates.

That would seem to fit the bill for Warren, though she is battling fellow progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for support among Iowa caucusgoers.

A Monmouth poll released last week provided great news for Warren, showing her with 19 percent and ahead of both Sanders (9 percent) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who won 11 percent.

But Biden was still in first, with 28 percent.

“I would definitely say she is the largest threat to Joe Biden,” Pat Rynard, founder of the popular Iowa Democratic news site Iowa Starting Line, said of Warren.

“My main observation is that she is the coalition candidate. She is the one in the field who can appeal to progressive activists while not scaring away the rest of the voters,” Rynard said.

Democratic consultant Tracy Sefl, who hails from Iowa, said Warren — who spent the first five months of her campaign tailor-focused on the state — is gaining traction because her campaign fits well with what Iowa voters want.

Warren stood at just 7 percent in a Monmouth poll in Iowa four months ago, which suggests her efforts in the state are paying off.

“Warren in many ways is a perfect Iowa candidate because she is so thorough and meticulous,” said Sefl, who served as a surrogate to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “That meshes well with Iowa caucusgoers’ expectations.”

The Biden and Warren match-up in Iowa shows the divide in the Democratic Party.

While voters in Iowa like Biden, others seemed intrigued by Warren's campaign including her string of policy proposals.

"She seems like she has a plan for everything," Laura Burkhalter, who works at an art museum in Des Moines, Iowa, said about Warren. "It's time we had a woman president."

"I like Joe Biden," Burkhalter continued, adding, "I think I would prefer someone younger."

Deb Lee-Johnson, who works for Apple in Indianola, Iowa, agreed saying she liked Biden as vice president. "I also think we need someone new. We need new blood."

Democrats face choices between centrist and liberal candidates, and party members above all else may be trying to figure out which of their candidates would most likely defeat president Trump.

In 2008, after eight years of President George W. Bush, Iowa Democrats picked Barack Obama, propelling his campaign forward over Hillary Clinton. Obama was the more progressive pick that year.

In 2016, they picked Clinton, who barely defeated Sanders, that year’s progressive insurgent.

“The Democrats in Iowa of course have always been divided,” said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. “There’s a history of supporting mainstream candidates but they were also very supportive of candidates like Barack Obama.

“A progressive can do quite well and Bernie Sanders proved that when he almost beat Hillary Clinton,” Schmidt added.

Biden’s support among Iowans has been steady since entering the race in April.

“I’ve been a little surprised at how resilient his polling has been,” Rynard said. “But people really like him. Part of the reason is there are a lot of older voters here who have known Joe Biden for most of their lives and they still have loyalty to him.”

Biden has been spending more time in the state, after some supporters initially grew worried that he wasn’t there enough.

This week — during a four-day swing through Iowa — he delivered a blistering speech criticizing Trump for giving life to white supremacists.

He also spent time at the Iowa State Fair, where he delivered remarks at the Des Moines Register Soapbox and later attended a town hall with the Asian and Latino coalition.

He currently has the biggest operation on the ground with 75 staffers in 10 offices across the state. Sixty of those staffers are field organizers. The operation is expected to more than double by the time the Iowa caucuses roll around.

Warren, who is in the middle of her 10th trip to Iowa, is also in the middle of a four-day jaunt through the state. Aides say she is ascending in the polls because of her slow and steady approach, where she has gotten to know Iowans through thousands of “mini-interactions” in dozens of stops.

“She oversaturated the state early on,” Rynard said. “She locked in lots of local activist support in those months.”

Strategists say she is also narrowing Biden’s lead in the state because she is taking away support from Sanders.

“It’s a whole different race this time around. Last time, Bernie was the only option, this time some people may have found a better progressive candidate,” one Democratic strategist said. “Biden has to be a little worried about it.”

Reid Wilson contributed to this report.

"'I would definitely say she is the largest threat to Joe Biden,” Pat Rynard, founder of the popular Iowa Democratic news site Iowa Starting Line, said of Warren.

“My main observation is that she is the coalition candidate. She is the one in the field who can appeal to progressive activists while not scaring away the rest of the voters,” Rynard said."

[The Romulan Republic]

Some very good news:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08 ... e-him.html

There has been a lot of discussion in political circles about Donald Trump’s job-approval ratings, what they portend, and Trump’s Electoral College strategy for 2020, which doesn’t necessarily require a popular-vote plurality. But in the end, of course, the conjunction of the Electoral College with Trump’s state-by-state popularity is where the deal will go down.

The online polling firm Civiqs has published a new set of state-by-state job-approval ratings for Trump as of August 11, and it shows how the president’s overall standing (a 43 percent approval rating nationally, which happens to match the current RealClearPolitics polling average) might translate into electorate votes. It’s not a pretty picture for the president, to put it mildly.

Civiqs shows the president’s net approval ratios being underwater (i.e., negative) in 10 states he carried in 2016: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. If that were to represent how the 2020 elections turn out, Trump would have a booming 119 electoral votes. And it’s not as though he’s on a knife’s edge between victory and defeat in all these Trump 2016 states where he’s doing poorly: He’s underwater by 12 points in Pennsylvania, 11 in Michigan, and nine in Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. And there’s virtually no indication that states that narrowly went for Clinton in 2016 are trending in Trump’s direction: His approval ratios are minus 18 in Colorado, minus 15 in Minnesota, minus 12 in Nevada, and minus 27 in New Hampshire. These are, by the way, polls of registered voters, not just “adults,” so they should be a relatively sound reflection of the views of the electorate.

In case you just don’t trust this particular pollster, the other publicly available survey of state-by-state presidential job approval is from Morning Consult, and its latest numbers (as of July) are pretty similar. They show Georgia and Texas as positive for Trump, and North Carolina as very close. But all the other “battleground states” are quite the reach for the incumbent.

If you credit these polls at all, Trump’s reelection will require (1) a big late improvement in his approval ratings, which is possible but unlikely based on long-standing patterns during his polarizing presidency; (2) a campaign that succeeds in making the election turn on theoretical fears about his opponent rather than actual fears about a second Trump term, which won’t be easy either; (3) a big Republican turnout advantage, which is less likely among the larger presidential electorate than it was in 2018; or (4) some diabolical ability to thread the needle despite every contrary indicator, which superstitious Democrats fear for obvious reasons.

If the fourth scenario — a win against all the evidence — is Trump’s best hope for reelection, he’s the one who needs to experience some fear and trembling heading toward 2020. If anything, there’s evidence that he is likely to undershoot rather than overshoot his approval ratings as the sitting president of a country whose direction lacks any kind of public confidence. Beyond that, even those who succeed by selling their souls to the devil don’t have the collateral to pull that off twice.

The question now is: will this remain more or less the same until election day? And if so, will it be enough to overcome the inevitable voter suppression and intimidation and outright fraud the Republicans (with Russian aid) are likely to attempt on a nation-wide scale?

If these numbers held on election day, I expect we'd probably win- but I expect we'd lose Texas because the voter supression would more than make up the one point lead, and I bet several other states would be a close thing as well.

Still, that map is a thing of beauty.

[The Romulan Republic]

Gravel has dropped out, and endorsed Bernie Sanders:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a- ... candidate/

On Tuesday, one of the most unusual campaigns in recent memory came to an end. Former Sen. Mike Gravel dropped his bid for the presidency and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

On one hand, Gravel’s absurdist, four-month quasi-campaign fit squarely into the American tradition of protest campaigns in that its main goal was to, in the campaign’s own words, “revolt against the soullessness of contemporary politics.” Gravel kicked off his campaign saying that he wasn’t actually running to win — just to make one of the early Democratic debates so that his views could get a wider airing. Although his staff later said he was running to win (apparently to make it easier for Gravel to qualify both for the debates and for FiveThirtyEight’s own “major candidate” status, which he did in June), it was pretty clear that they knew the 89-year-old would never actually serve as president.

Their real goal was to inject Gravel’s far-left views, such as ending “imperialist” wars, legalizing drugs and enacting dramatic political reforms, into the primary. Among a certain segment of Extremely Online Democrats, his Twitter account became a viral sensation for taking a cudgel to virtually every establishment Democrat under the sun (sometimes drawing condemnation for going too far).

On the other hand, Gravel’s campaign was unique. Most famously, he was convinced to run (or, more accurately, to let someone take out Federal Election Committee paperwork on his behalf1) by two teenagers, who then assumed responsibility for the day-to-day operations of his campaign. Gravel himself did a few media interviews but otherwise resolved to “sit on my patio and see what happens.” He didn’t make a single visit to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina.

Instead, the “Gravel teens” conducted the campaign almost entirely online, via the aforementioned caustic Twitter account and over-the-top YouTube videos — including a jacked-up sequel to the infamous “rock” ad from Gravel’s first presidential run. Essentially, it was a modern, digital version of the “front-porch campaign,” a turn-of-the-century phenomenon whereby presidential candidates mostly stayed at home and waited for voters to come to them.

And … it kind of worked? No, Gravel didn’t get anywhere close to the nomination, but the tweets and stunts did convince more than 65,000 people to donate to the campaign, thus qualifying Gravel to participate in the July primary debate. (He ultimately was not invited to appear, presumably because too many candidates qualified and the tiebreaker rules favored candidates who met the polling criteria, which Gravel did not.) At the very least, Gravel’s quest provided the most extreme example yet that social media can be a viable alternative to traditional campaigning. Might he have lit the path forward for future niche candidates to run their entire campaign on the internet? After all, most Americans have now joined this domain that allows for instant, effortless interaction. Why couldn’t a serious presidential campaign be waged online someday? (Free dystopian novel idea: A person successfully runs for president online, then is revealed to be catfishing.)

On policy, though, it’s a lot less clear that the #Gravelanche influenced the 2020 Democratic primary. For all the campaign’s shouting on the internet, “right-wing chauvinist” and former Vice President Joe Biden retains a comfortable lead in the polls. And Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and arguably a few other candidates have been the ones to define the leftmost boundary of the debate, not Gravel. The Gravel campaign may have been a thorn in the establishment’s side, but his views didn’t get a broad public airing.

Now that the campaign is over, the Gravel campaign says it is reorganizing into the Gravel Institute, a think tank for the ex-senator’s leftist priorities. The campaign says the money left over from the campaign will be donated to charity, and his teenaged consiglieri will move on to a fellowship at Jacobin, a socialist magazine. Gravel’s exit means we are now down to 23 major Democratic presidential candidates, by FiveThirtyEight’s definition. Then again, everyone was already acting like he wasn’t running anyway

Hickenlooper is reportedly also considering withdrawing from the Presidential race in favor of a Senate run, which frankly he should have done from the get-go:

https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec ... SKCN1V328H

(Reuters) - Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is considering ending his bid for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination in order to run for his state’s U.S. Senate seat, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four Democrats familiar with his thinking.

FILE PHOTO: Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper speaks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., August 10, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Hickenlooper’s campaign refused to comment on the report. Democrats in Colorado have been urging the popular former governor and former mayor of Denver to enter the race to wrest the seat from Republican Cory Gardner.

Democrats need to pick up three seats in the Senate in 2020 to take control from Republicans, and many in the party have pinned their hopes on Colorado, a state that does not lean heavily toward one party or the other. Republican President Donald Trump is unpopular in the state, and Hickenlooper’s high ratings could propel him into the Senate seat if he does run.

Hickenlooper is one of two dozen Democrats seeking the party’s nomination to run against Trump in 2020. But his effort has so far failed to catch fire.

Staff members in June advised Hickenlooper to find a graceful way to bow out of the campaign, a source with knowledge of the situation told Reuters at the time. Several of Hickenlooper’s campaign aides quit just days after that meeting.

Word that Hickenlooper was considering switching to the Senate race came just a few weeks before the Democratic Party’s scheduled September debate among candidates seeking the presidential nomination.

While Hickenlooper met the party’s qualifications for its debate stage in June and July, he so far has not raised nearly the minimum amount of money from small donors or polled high enough in national polls to meet the party’s higher threshold for the September event.

His spokesman, Peter Cunningham, said Tuesday that Hickenlooper would not comment on calls from Colorado Democrats or others in the national party for him to switch his efforts to the Senate race.

The New York Times reported that discussions about switching had taken place in the automobile of Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, himself a Democratic presidential candidate. A Bennet spokeswoman confirmed that the two spoke in Iowa on Friday, but did not say what they talked about or give any further details.

On Tuesday, a political action committee launched a website urging Hickenlooper to run for the Senate and took out advertisements in the Denver Post and elsewhere.

On Monday, the Denver Post reported that a poll conducted on behalf of a national Democratic group involved in Senate races showed Hickenlooper well ahead of other candidates for the party’s nomination to the Senate seat.

[The Romulan Republic]

Governor Sillyname has quit the race:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/hic ... index.html

(CNN)Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper ended his bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday, releasing a video in which he nodded at the possibility of a future Senate run.

The announcement comes after three Democrats familiar with the matter told CNN on Wednesday that Hickenlooper was poised to drop out.

"Today, I'm ending my campaign for President," Hicklenlooper said in the three-minute video. "But I will never stop believing that America can only move forward when we work together."

He added: "A little over six months ago, I announced my run for President. In almost every aspect, this journey has been more exciting and more rewarding than I ever imagined. Although, of course, I did imagine a very different conclusion."

Hickenlooper, who struggled to break out of the crowded field of candidates, has not yet decided whether he will run for the Senate as party leaders have urged him to do, sources said. He did not make an announcement on that decision in the Thursday video, but acknowledged the possibility.

"People want to know what comes next for me. I've heard from so many Coloradans who want me to run for the United States Senate. They remind me how much is at stake for our country. And our state. I intend to give that some serious thought," the governor said. "I've been a geologist, a small businessman, a mayor, a governor and a candidate for president of the United States. At each step, I've always looked forward with hope. And I always will."

Hickenlooper's exit from the race leaves 23 other Democrats vying for the 2020 nomination.

Hickenlooper framed his candidacy around stemming the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party. The two-term Colorado governor was a moderate voice in the primary, making his opposition to democratic socialism-- including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' political philosophy -- central to his campaign.

But that strategy failed to gain traction and Hickenlooper's campaign lost three of its most senior staffers in early July, including Brad Komar, the campaign manager. The losses signaled to many Democrats that Hickenlooper's campaign was on its last legs, but Democrats close to the governor said he wanted to stay in and reassess his chances after CNN's debate in late July.

Following that debate, it appeared the former Denver mayor would struggle to make the stage in the next round of debates in September as he was behind on both the fundraising and polling thresholds for qualification.

Hickenlooper's exit now opens the possibility that the once popular governor could run for Senate in Colorado, challenging Sen. Cory Gardner, a Republican seen as one of the most vulnerable lawmakers in 2020.

Hickenlooper spoke with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York about potentially challenging Gardner following the July debate. He pressed ahead with his presidential campaign following that conversation, visiting the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines this past weekend along with many of the other presidential candidates.

Hickenlooper faces two issues in a Senate run, though: The governor has lambasted the prospect of running for Senate and Democratic Colorado Senate candidate Mike Johnston raised more in the second quarter of 2019 than Hickenlooper raised for his presidential bid.

The former governor spent the first few months of his presidential campaign knocking the idea of him jumping into the Senate race.
"If the Senate is so good, how come all of those senators are trying to get out?" Hickenlooper told CNN earlier this year, a nod to the number of Democratic senators who are running for president.

"The Senate doesn't attract me," he said. "It just doesn't attract me."

But by last weekend, with his presidential campaign nearing an end, he told CNN, "I don't rule anything out."

Even in a crowded Democratic primary, Hickenlooper is still seen as the party's strongest candidate to take on Gardner. Curtis Hubbard, a Democratic strategist for a firm that has worked for Hickenlooper in the past, has recently registered domain names like Hick4Senate.com in the hope that the former governor switches races.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also: Andrew Yang becomes the 9th. Democrat to make the cut-off for the September debates:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/and ... index.html

(CNN)Businessman Andrew Yang notched his fourth qualifying poll on Thursday, meaning he has now met the threshold to participate in the third Democratic primary debate in September.

In order to make the stage in September, candidates must receive 2% or more in at least 4 separate polls released between June 28 and August 28 and conducted by approved pollsters. Candidates must also receive donations from at least 130,000 individual donors distributed across multiple states.
Before coming in at 2% in Thursday's Monmouth University poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers, Yang claimed qualification on the basis of an NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll. But since one of his other three qualifying polls had also been a national poll sponsored by NBC, Yang needed one from another qualifying pollster to make the cut.
Nine candidates have now met the qualification for the September debate: former Vice President Joe Biden, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Yang.
Eleven Democrats have said they received contributions from at least 130,000 individuals, coming from at least 400 unique donors in 20 or more states.
The Monmouth Poll is also billionaire Tom Steyer's third qualifying poll, making him and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro one poll away from qualification on the polling side, though only Castro has reached his fundraising threshold. This is New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's first qualifying poll.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper have one qualifying poll each, and Gabbard's campaign says she has met the fundraising threshold.
The Monmouth University poll found former Vice President Biden maintaining his lead in Iowa at 28% among likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers, with Warren gaining momentum, up to 19% from 7% in their most recent April poll.
Harris follows with 11%, Sanders at 9%, Buttigieg at 8%, Klobuchar and Steyer at 3% each, and Gillibrand and Yang coming in at 2%. The rest of the tested candidates had 1% support or less.
A new rule for the Iowa caucus creates virtual caucuses for those who can't participate in-person on caucus night, and preferences among those who participate virtually will only account for 10% of the delegates awarded on caucus night, no matter how many people participate in them. The Monmouth poll doesn't weight its results to match that 10% share of the delegate allocation, so likely virtual caucusgoers make up 20% of all likely caucusgoers in this poll.
That could benefit Biden. Biden performs better among likely virtual attendees than those who will likely attend in-person. According to Monmouth, Biden has 37% support among likely virtual attendees but stands at 26% among those likely to attend in person. Meanwhile, Warren has more support among those who will likely caucus in-person, 20% among that group vs. 10% among likely virtual attendees.
Health care is the reason for the election season in Iowa, with 55% of likely Democratic caucusgoers who cited it as one of the most important issues when deciding who to support for the nomination. Almost one-in-five said that their most important issues include climate change and global warming, followed by 15% who said the environment and pollution, 15% who said beating President Donald Trump, and 14% who said immigration.
Over half (56%) also said that they would like people to be allowed to either opt in to Medicare or keep their private coverage over getting rid of all private insurance (21%) or keeping it private for people under 65, but regulate the costs (13%). Only 4% of likely Democratic caucusgoers want to keep the system as is.
Almost three-in-10 Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa think that Biden is the candidate for president who comes the closest to their position on health care (28%), over Sanders (20%), and Warren (20%).
But when asked if they'd prefer a candidate who would have a hard time beating Trump but they agree with on most issues or someone who they didn't agree with but would be a stronger candidate against Trump, likely Democratic caucusgoers overwhelming said they would rather a strong candidate against the current president (72% to 20%).
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from August 1 to 4, 2019 with 401 Iowa voters who are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020, out of 681 registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters who were contacted for the poll. The question results in this release have a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points.

Good. Basic Income gets at least one more night of prime time national news coverage.

However, Yang also appears to have gotten some controversy for fat shaming the Donald:

https://businessinsider.com/andrew-yang ... lob-2019-8

Like many other 2020 contenders, the Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang enjoyed plenty of fast food at the Iowa State Fair — but he also ripped into President Donald Trump's physical fitness.

On Saturday, Yang, an entrepreneur and first-time presidential candidate, went on an extended riff on Trump's health after a forum on gun-violence prevention.

"I can't be eating crap on the trail too often, because I need to stay in presidential form," Yang said, adding that no one wants "a president who doesn't seem like they can run a mile."

He previously told The New York Times that Kind Bars were his go-to campaign-trail snack.

"I don't think Donald Trump could run a mile," he said. "Would you guys enjoy trying to watch Donald Trump run a mile? That'd be hysterical. What does that guy weigh, like, 280 or something?"

The Daily Mail noted that Trump weighed 243 pounds in February.

"I say he, like, passes out at, like, the quarter-mile mark," Yang said.

While Yang's staff tried to get him back on track, he continued criticizing Trump, saying: "I'd challenge Donald Trump to any physical or mental feat under the sun. I mean, gosh, what could that guy beat me at, being a slob?"

He added: "Like, what could Donald Trump possibly be better than me at? An eating contest?"

Yang concluded that Trump could probably beat him at "something that involved, like, trying to keep something on the ground and having really large body mass — like, if there was a hot-air balloon that was rising and you needed to try and keep it on the ground, he would be better than me at that, because he is so fat."

Personally, I'm more troubled by his campaigning by boasting about his own physical and mental prowess in various hypothetical contests vs Donald. That feels way too much like the self-aggrandizement of personal prowess and made-up feats which tend to be associated with the propaganda of strong men like Kim Jong Un or Putin. I'm not saying Yang's going to suddenly declare himself Dear Leader, but that sort of posturing from a Presidential candidate leaves a bad taste in my mouth.