Mediaboss Marketing

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads national poll after national poll of the Democratic nomination contest. But theres just one teensy problem for him: There is no national primary.

The actual presidential nomination process is lengthy, convoluted, and provides ample opportunities for the frontrunner to stumble. It has unique dynamics that make it far different from a typical election. Its part rollercoaster, part marathon.

And key to everything is the calendar.

Between February 3 and June 6, 57 separate primaries and caucuses will take place. Their outcomes will gradually assign candidates delegates necessary to win the nomination at the July national convention. The ordering and timing of contests is crucial and it breaks down into two separate phases.

Phase one is the four early states in February, which have a paltry number of delegates but an extraordinary impact on the races overall narrative. Phase two is the briefest but the most consequential: It spans March 1 to 17, in which more than half of all delegates will be locked down. And then phase three, if the nomination is still contested, will be a long, slow slog for the remaining delegates until early June (or until someone wins a majority).

As the contest goes on, it shifts from one thats fluid and unpredictable to one thats about cold, hard math. Because once a candidate gets a significant delegate lead, that lead can be quite difficult to dislodge particularly due to Democratic rules that delegates must be allotted proportionally based on results.

And considering how important the calendar is, it may be surprising that no one dictated it from the top down. The DNC does protect the privileged position of the four early states, and it set an overall end date, but beyond that, it was really up to each state to decide when to hold its contest.

Overall, whats resulted is a messy and arguably even bizarre way to pick a nominee. Its a process that ends up privileging certain states over others, and that can be buffeted by sudden volatility, especially early on. But its the system Democrats have. And it will determine who gets to run against Donald Trump in November.

The voting in the Democratic nomination contest starts off quite slowly, with the month of February reserved for the four famous early states.

Now, these states have a paltry amount of the overall delegates just 4 percent when you combine all of them. This makes it impossible for anyone to build up a significant lead in this phase, particularly because Democrats allot their delegates proportionally.

Yet because there are so few other contests happening, they can have enormous impact on perceptions of the overall race solidifying (or damaging) a frontrunners position, giving an underdog a surge of attention, or driving poorly performing contenders out of the race. Often, they effectively settle who the true top two or three candidates are.

Essentially, the political world looks at the early state results and the media coverage of those results, and takes them as cues about which contenders can actually win. Donations can surge or dry up, endorsements can flow in or vanish, and a candidates national poll position can change quite suddenly even though the margins of victories in these contests can be quite small.

For a frontrunner like Biden, this is a period of testing its very rare for a candidate to win every early contest (only Al Gore pulled it off in any contested race from recent decades). And for non-frontrunners, its a period of opportunity to win as Barack Obama did in Iowa in 2008 or even just to perform surprisingly strongly, winning the expectations game as Bill Clinton did with a second-place New Hampshire finish in 1992.

There is, however, a catch: Early voting for some crucial Super Tuesday contests also begins in February with, for instance, mail ballots going out to voters in California the same day as the Iowa caucuses. In previous years, early Super Tuesday voters who are undecided have waited to see what happens in these first four contests before casting their own ballots. But its possible that a significant chunk of those votes will be banked already by the time the South Carolina primary rolls around, which would blunt that states influence on future results.

If February is mostly about perceptions and momentum, March brings a newfound focus on math because, in just over two weeks, more than 60 percent of pledged delegates at stake in the entire contest will be locked down.

First, on March 3, is Super Tuesday itself. About 33 percent of total pledged delegates are at stake in contests held that day (though we should keep in mind, again, that there will be early voting in many of them).

The biggest Super Tuesday delegate hauls will be from California and Texas, but there will be other primaries in the South (Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma), New England (Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont), the West (Colorado, Utah), and the Midwest (Minnesota), and caucuses in American Samoa.

So while its possible for one candidate to essentially lock up the nomination by winning by large margins across the board, a regional split is also a distinct possibility. Democrats also have a rule that any candidate getting more than 15 percent of the vote (either statewide or in congressional districts) qualifies for delegates, meaning that at least two and perhaps more candidates will probably get some. (Candidates who fall short of that threshold, though, will likely be driven out of the race.)

Next, the remaining candidates will have little time to catch their breath because the subsequent two Tuesdays after the super one are also major voting days.

On March 10, contests in Michigan, Washington, Missouri, Mississippi, Idaho, and North Dakota will take place. Voting in the Democrats Abroad primary (a vote among party members living overseas), which begins on Super Tuesday, will also conclude. About 47 percent of pledged delegates will have been locked in after that. (The Northern Mariana Islands will then hold a caucus on March 14.)

On March 17, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Arizona have primaries pushing Democrats up to about 61 percent of pledged delegates allotted.

This means that if there is ambiguity in the Super Tuesday results whether due to a vote split among several candidates, or due to infamously slow California vote-counting those two not-quite-as-super Tuesdays could help settle it.

Whats different in 2020? The main change is that California moved from an early June primary late in the process, up to Super Tuesday. That and other changes mean this is a somewhat more frontloaded calendar than Democrats had in 2016 (back then, about 50 percent of pledged delegates were allotted by mid-March, compared to about 61 percent this time).

The nomination could well be settled by mid-March due to candidate dropouts, as was the case for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. But if it is still contested (as it was in 2008 and 2016), the next phase will slow down quite a bit: There will be an almost three-month slog for the final 39 percent or so of pledged delegates.

Generally, election days going forward will feature either a few small contests or one small- or medium-sized contest. Theyll also be spread out more.

For instance, theres Georgia on March 24, Puerto Rico on March 29, Louisiana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, on April 4, and Wisconsin on April 7. That takes us up to 70 percent of pledged delegates allocated.

Then theres a three-week gap until April 28, the single most important day remaining in terms of the delegate haul. New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware all vote that day, in a sort of Northeastern or Mid-Atlantic primary. About 17 percent of total pledged delegates will be at stake then meaning 87 percent will have been locked in by that point.

May brings just seven contests that combine for 7 percent of total delegates: Kansas and Guam on May 2, Indiana on May 5, Nebraska and West Virginia on May 12, and Kentucky and Oregon on May 19. That brings Democrats to the 94 percent mark.

Finally, June 2 is the final day of state primary voting, with New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, and Washington, DC. And if the nomination is still contested after that, the last contest of all is the US Virgin Islands caucuses on June 6.

Finally, at long last, the nominee will officially be chosen at the Democratic convention, which will be held July 13-16, 2020, in Milwaukee. If one candidate has won a majority of pledged delegates at this point, this will be just a formality. However, if no candidate has gotten a majority of pledged delegates well, then things wouldnt actually be settled yet, and Democrats would head into the contested convention scenario. But thats an explainer for another time.

So thats how the calendar works. But its worth pausing on the sheer strangeness of this whole setup. Its an odd hodgepodge combining the old way nominees were chosen through most of American history (by party insider delegates at conventions), and modern reforms (primaries and caucuses intended to give actual voters a chance to weigh in).

In the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans adopted reforms that (accidentally) resulted in state primaries and caucuses becoming the main event in the nominating process. Traditionally states set their own dates for primaries and caucuses, and that continued to the case after the reforms were adopted. Thats why theres a nomination battle spread out over months, not one national contest on a single day.

So if youre going to have a staggered system, someone is going to have to go first. And two small states, Iowa and New Hampshire, staked their claims very quickly and have successfully gotten the DNC and RNC to defend their positions, by penalizing any other state that tries to jump in front. (After years of criticism that those first two states were overwhelmingly white, the DNC and RNC allowed Nevada and South Carolina to go third and fourth.)

Should a few states get special privileges, though? Defenders of the setup argue that it lets lesser-known candidates make their case in a smaller, more manageable setting (rather than getting swamped by the best-known, best-funded candidate nationally). The early states also perform the function of winnowing the field narrowing down what can be a large and confusing set of options to a few contenders before most of the country votes.

But an enormous amount of hay can get made out of relatively small margins (sometimes a few thousand voters) in states that are small already, and often not representative of the country or the party as a whole. For Republicans in 2016, the difference between first and third place in the Iowa caucuses was about 4 percent (or 8,000 votes). Rather than providing useful information about intrinsic candidate strengths, it can all feel disturbingly arbitrary.

The rest of the calendar is odd and unbalanced as well, with so many of the delegates locked in early March, and the rest over several months.

Democrats have a rule that exacerbates this imbalance they allot all delegates proportionally, with no winner-take-all contests permitted. The lack of winner-take-all prizes can make it more difficult for a Democratic candidate whos leading to technically reach the magic number of delegates until very late in the contest as Hillary Clinton found in 2016. It also makes it more difficult for a trailing candidate to catch up, as Bernie Sanders found. But so long as hope remains alive, a bitter primary can continue, and prevent the likely nominee from pivoting to focus on the general election.

However, this years calendar and rules have two important changes that could conceivably help shorten the primary. First is Californias move to an earlier date. In 2008 and 2016, the Golden States huge delegate haul was totally unallotted until June, making it mathematically difficult for anyone to clinch the nomination earlier. This time, California is voting on Super Tuesday, in early March.

The second thing is a rules change about superdelegates. In previous years, those delegates party officials who could choose whom to support, rather than being yoked to primary or caucus results were technically not locked in. The DNC changed its rules so that superdelegates cant affect the outcome of the first vote held at the July convention. This will also make it easier for a candidate to reach a clear magic number earlier in the primary season.

Of course, whether any candidate manages to do so will depend on how the race shapes up.

Follow this link:
Democratic primary calendar: The strange order of contests from Iowa to the Virgin Islands, explained - Vox.com

The Democratic Partys informational ecosystem combines mainstream sources that seek objectivity, liberal sources that push partiality and even some center-right sources with excellent reputations. On any given question, liberals trust in sources that pull them left and sources that pull them toward the center, in sources oriented toward escalation and sources oriented toward moderation, in sources that root their identity in a political movement and in sources that carefully tend a reputation for being antagonistic toward political movements.

There is no similar diversity in the Republican Partys trusted informational ecosystem, which is heavily built around self-consciously conservative news sources. There should be a check on this sort of epistemic closure. A party that narrows the sources it listens to is also narrowing the voters it can speak to. And political parties ultimately want to win elections. Lose enough of them, enough times, and even the most stubborn ideologues will accept reform. Democracy, in other words, should discipline parties that close their informational ecosystems. But America isnt a democracy.

Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and a majority of governorships. Only the House is under Democratic control. And yet Democrats havent just won more votes in the House elections. They won more votes over the last three Senate elections, too. They won more votes in both the 2016 and 2000 presidential elections. But Americas political system counts states and districts rather than people, and the G.O.P.s more rural coalition has a geographic advantage that offsets its popular disadvantage.

To win power, Democrats dont just need to appeal to the voter in the middle. They need to appeal to voters to the right of the middle. When Democrats compete for the Senate, they are forced to appeal to an electorate that is far more conservative than the country as a whole. Similarly, gerrymandering and geography means that Democrats need to win a substantial majority in the House popular vote to take the gavel. And a recent study by Michael Geruso, Dean Spears and Ishaana Talesara calculates that the Republican Partys Electoral College advantage means Republicans should be expected to win 65 percent of presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.

The Republican Party, by contrast, can run campaigns aimed at a voter well to the right of the median American. Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. If theyd also lost six of the last seven presidential elections, they most likely would have overhauled their message and agenda. If Trump had lost in 2016, he and the political style he represents would have been discredited for blowing a winnable election. The Republican moderates whod counseled more outreach to black and Hispanic voters would have been strengthened.

Instead, Republicans are trapped in a dangerous place: They represent a shrinking constituency that holds vast political power. That has injected an almost manic urgency into their strategy. Behind the partys tactical extremism lurks an apocalyptic sense of political stakes. This was popularized in the infamous Flight 93 Election essay arguing that conservatives needed to embrace Trump, because if he failed, death is certain. You could hear its echoes in Attorney General William P. Barrs recent speech, in which he argued that the force, fervor and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion poses a threat unlike any America has faced in the past. This is not decay, he warned, it is organized destruction.

This is why one of the few real hopes for depolarizing American politics is democratization. If Republicans couldnt fall back on the distortions of the Electoral College, the geography of the United States Senate and the gerrymandering of House seats if they had, in other words, to win over a majority of Americans they would become a more moderate and diverse party. This is not a hypothetical: The countrys most popular governors are Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Larry Hogan in Maryland. Both are Republicans governing, with majority support, in blue states.

The rest is here:
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Dont - The New York Times

House impeachment managers Sylvia Garcia (from left), Val Demings and Hakeem Jeffries arrive at the Capitol on Thursday. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

House impeachment managers Sylvia Garcia (from left), Val Demings and Hakeem Jeffries arrive at the Capitol on Thursday.

Updated at 10:40 p.m. ET

House Democrats finished their second day of oral arguments on Thursday, contending that that President Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigations was not only an attempt to cheat in the 2020 election, but Democrats said it was also the kind of behavior the nation's founding fathers hoped to guard against.

"That is why this president must be removed from office, especially before he continues his effort to corrupt our next election," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., one of the Democrats prosecuting Trump. "Simply stated, impeachment is the constitution's final answer to a president who mistakes himself for a king."

In the night's final remarks, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said there is overwhelming evidence that the president has done what he is charged with: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

"You can't trust this president to do what's right for this country. He will do what's right for Donald Trump," Schiff said. "If you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed."

Democrats resume the trial of the president at 1 p.m. Friday, when House managers are expected to conclude their opening arguments.

On Thursday, the Democrats focused on Article 1 of impeachment, abuse of power, for their second day of arguments. They will take up Article 2, obstruction of Congress, on Friday. Read the text of the two articles here.

Nadler, an impeachment manager and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, gave extended remarks on Thursday afternoon.

He said Trump abused his power by withholding military aid and by putting off meeting with the president of Ukraine, unless the Ukrainian government investigated the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden, a possible political opponent, and his son.

Nadler told senators that conduct was wrong and dangerous.

"No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections," Nadler said. "Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct."

House impeachment managers Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., arrive for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

House impeachment managers Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., arrive for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday.

Reports that Democrats were willing to allow one of the Bidens to testify in the trial in exchange for a senior administration official's testimony were shot down by lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Wednesday.

As Nadler began making his case, Trump tweeted that Democrats "don't want a Witness Trade" because it "would be a BIG problem for them."

Nadler also did a bit of trolling in his presentation, playing a 1999 video clip of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., arguing for the conviction of President Bill Clinton. Graham was a House impeachment manager at the time.

Graham argued that a "high crime" a constitutional requirement for removing a president "doesn't even have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you've committed a high crime."

McClatchy Washington Bureau via YouTube

Nadler also showed a clip of Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, now one of Trump's defenders, who argued in 1998 that a high crime doesn't have to be "a technical crime." (Dershowitz has more recently argued that evidence of a crime is in fact necessary for impeachment, falling in line with the Trump White House's argument on the matter.)

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, followed Nadler to the well of the Senate, addressing the issue of Trump's allegations that Biden and his son Hunter had nefarious doings in Ukraine.

"The allegations against Biden are completely groundless," she said. Read a fact check about their actions in Ukraine here.

Garcia presented a slide that indicated Trump's charges against Biden coincided with polls, including one by Fox News, which showed the former vice president ahead of Trump in a possible 2020 matchup.

She also played video clips of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Trump's former national security adviser Tom Bossert throwing cold water on Trump's claims that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the hacking of the Democrats computer server in 2016.

During a break, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow dismissed the Democrats' arguments for convicting Trump.

"We're hearing the same things over and over," he said. Sekulow added that Trump's legal team "will be putting on a vigorous defense ... and rebutting what they've said."

In a rare moment of levity, House manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., referred to the almost-unanimous election of New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter to baseball's Hall of Fame.

"We hope we can subpoena John Bolton, subpoena Mick Mulvaney," Jeffries said. "But perhaps we can all agree to subpoena the Baseball Hall of Fame, to try to figure out who, out of 397 individuals, one person voted against Derek Jeter."

Thursday's remarks on the Senate floor follow a day of presentations and arguments in which Democratic impeachment managers implored skeptical Republicans to buck their party's leadership and vote to remove the president for abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress.

"The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff, who also chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on Wednesday.

"In corruptly using his office to gain a political advantage and abusing the powers of that office in such a way to jeopardize our national security and the integrity of our elections, in obstructing the investigation into his own wrongdoing, the president has shown that he believes that he's above the law and scornful of constraint," Schiff said.

Trump's defense team will have its turn to counter Democratic arguments and make a case for the president's acquittal when the prosecution is finished. If Democrats take up all of their allotted time, that would mean House managers would wrap up Friday and the president's defense lawyers would mount a defense starting this weekend.

Speaking Wednesday from Davos, Switzerland, Trump called the Democrats leading his prosecution "sleazebags" and "very, very dishonest people," and he dismissed the case built against him as "a hoax."

"I think it's so bad for the country," Trump said, adding: "I'd love to go to the trial, sit in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces."

Later, Trump lawyer Sekulow bristled at the idea of the president pulling off such a stunt.

"His counsel might recommend against that," he said with a laugh.

The trial centers on Trump's dealings with Ukraine. In particular, House prosecutors say the president dangled $391 million in congressionally approved security assistance needed to counter Russian aggression as a way to get Kyiv to announce an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter. Such an announcement, House Democrats say, would benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

The president's acquittal is all but certain. Democrats would need 20 GOP senators to defy their party's leadership and vote to convict in order to remove Trump from office.

That outcome is not likely with partisan battle lines so deeply drawn, especially in the backdrop of how Americans are deeply divided over impeachment and with the nation watching as the political proceeding plays out ahead of a presidential election.

The White House has blocked key witnesses from participating in the trial and has not cooperated with subpoenas from House investigators. Democrats need four Republicans to join them to win a procedural battle that will enable them to request documents or witness testimony. There are no indications right now that any GOP senators will break with their leadership.

NPR's Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.

The rest is here:
Democrats Finish 2nd Day Of Opening Arguments In Trump Impeachment Trial - NPR

RUSH: Do you remember the book by Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth? Remember that bombshell book, how that was gonna bring down the Trump administration? Remember that book? And then whatever happened? Remember the New York Times or Washington Post (I forget which) published an op-ed from Anonymous that basically said, Look, there are some adults in here, and were doing everything we can to make sure this guy Trump doesnt go off and ruin things. Count on us! We cant tell you who we are.

Well, then this person writes a book, and it was gonna be a bombshell. It was gonna bring down the Trump administration. What happened to that book? And Andrew McCabe! Andrew McCabe had a bombshell book that was gonna take down Trump, and then James Comey. James Comey had his book about honor and integrity and how hes the only guy in Washington that has any, and that book was gonna take down Trump and then Avenatti.

Avenatti and Stormy Daniels and their thing was gonna take down Trump, and Avenatti was gonna be the Democrat primary nominee for president. Now hes in court on charges of defrauding clients and Nike. Not to mention books by Bob Woodward, Laurence Tribe. There have been how many anti-Trump books that have been bombshells that were going to destroy Trump? Now, I want to go back to Friday. Trump was the first sitting president to appear at the March for Life rally, and theres a point to be made about this as it relates to the impeachment trial and the ongoing shenanigans.

The Democrats are constantly on offense here and attempting to get the Republicans to slit their own throats. You gotta call witnesses! You cant do this without calling witness. You must! In the Senate, you must do your own investigation. Meanwhile, the House, as you know, didnt call any of the witnesses theyre now demanding and the Republicans had held firm, and over the weekend it didnt look I mean, you ought to see the Drive-By Media stories out there before this Bolton leak happened.

Theres a piece from Mike Allen at Axios. Youve got people on F. Chuck Todds show, on Meet the Press lamenting (sobbing), Nobody cares. Its so horrible! The Senate gallerys only half full. We cant find anybody in America who cares about it! Oh, my God. Theyre devoting every ounce of energy they got; they cant get anybody to care about it. The Senate gallery only being half full during the House managers presentation? I mean, what more do you need to know about how uncompelling the Democrats whole case and their allegations are.

And yet, despite the presidents team holding all the cards, because the House managers case is one lie after another, and it was decimated in two hours on Saturday morning by Trumps team. So the Republicans Ted Cruz is right they need to go on offense and whenever these Democrats start whining and moaning about witnesses or this other that just tell em to go pound sand. Now, what does this have to do with the March for Life rally? Well, Ill tell you what it has to do with it.

Donald Trumps the first sitting president to ever attend one. A lot of presidents appeared by video. They appeared on a video screen. A lot of presidents sent videos. But no sitting Republican president (certainly Democrat) ever actually attended it. Trump did on Friday. What happened to him? Not a thing. In fact, his stature rose, and he cemented that voting bloc even more firmly than it was already with him. But the point is, the bottom didnt fall out.

A Republican president actively participated in a pro-life rally, which had never been done before, the biggest one in Washington of the year. Now, normally Republicans think doing that kind of thing is going to kill them politically. Its gonna destroy them. (sniveling) Oh, my God, its provocative. Its unnecessary, blah, blah, blah, blah. All Trump did was benefit. But theres something else Trump did and hes been doing this his entire presidency.

Hes been teaching and show and demonstrating to Republicans, You dont have to be afraid of the media anymore. You dont have to be afraid of the Democrats and certainly you dont have to be afraid of Adam Schiff, and you dont have to be afraid of Chuck You Schumer or Harry Reid or any of the others. You dont have to be afraid of them! You dont have to be defensive. You dont have to say and do things to make half the country think youre not the bad people the Democrats say you are, which is what the Republican modus operandi has always been.

This whole business of calling witnesses, all these weak Republicans who think they want to call witnesses, its in response to Democrat demands. Its not because they actually think its necessary. Its not because they actually want to. They think theyve gotta do it because the medias demanding it and because the Democrats are demanding it. And if they dont follow through, theyre worried that the American people are gonna see em as a bunch of you know racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, whatever the cliches are.

Trump is demonstrating that you dont have to go them the time of day, particularly when you hold the cards. The Democrats cannot get a conviction of Trump here, and the purpose for witnesses is not to get a conviction. Its to sully and dirty the Republican Party at large and President Trump in particular. There is no reason to kowtow to this, and even after the Bolton thing comes out theres no reason to waver. Theres no, Oh, my God. I guess we do need witnesses. No, you dont. You do not need to change from your instinct.

You dont need witnesses. They dont have a case, and the Bolton leak cant even be confirmed. It is a tweet from a New York Times reporter, and the New York Times in this area is widely more known for making it up and lying through their teeth about things. Throughout this entire Trump presidency when its come to any story that has to do with maybe getting rid of Trump or overturning the election results, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the mainstream media and theres no embarrassment.

These people have been wrong on every assertion. They published lies under the guise of leaks from intelligence community people, former government officials, former defense department officials. They ran the gamut, and not a single one of them was true. The Steele dossier, which was responsible for all of that? None of it was true! Trump has not committed a crime. He hasnt even committed a thought crime because theres no such thing as a thought crime, but theyre trying to impeach him on the basis of that.

I was watching Schumer today at his regularly scheduled 11 oclock-in-the-morning press conference, and he said here it is that there had been uncovered a plot to remove the ambassador. That would be Maria Yovanovitch. A plot! A plot to remove the ambassador, which is Chuck You Schumer, saying that Trump has behaved additionally in a criminal way, because weve uncovered a plot to remove the ambassador. This is Trump telling some associate, Just get rid of her. Shes in there undermining my foreign policy. Get rid of her. I dont want her in there.

He can fire any ambassador he wants, and it isnt a plot. It isnt a crime. It isnt an impeachable offense. The president, whoever he is, runs American foreign policy. If he doesnt like an ambassador Who do you think appoints the ambassadors? Shes a holdover from the Obama years! I think Trumps going out of his way trying to be gracious here, not firing in summary a bunch of political appointees like Obama did. Obama fired every U.S. attorney when he took office. George W. Bush didnt. He waited a couple years; then all hell descended on him when it happened.

But theres no plot to remove the ambassador!

Theyre trying to make it look like theres some sinister, criminal behavior in firing an ambassador. But that is an indication of how all of this is being treated. The bottom line is, you cant find a more partisan apparently, supposedly partisan and volatile issue than abortion, right? Abortion? No, Rush! Youre not supposed to bring. Dont talk about it, Rush. Dont talk about religion. Dont talk about it. Nothing to be gained, Rush. Trump is the first sitting president to attend a pro-life rally. His approval numbers are at an all-time high, not only after that, but in the midst of this impeachment fiasco.

The U.S. economy continues to roil, and the American people know it and give it five-star ratings. Record consumer sentiment. Record consumer confidence. This is the stuff the Democrats are scared to death of and angry about. Thats why they keep trying to talk about a recession looming down the road. The bottom line is: You do not die politically when you take on the Democrats. The bottom line is: You do not die politically when you take on the media. Donald Trump has demonstrated this for three years! Now, there are gonna be a lot of Republicans and maybe even some of you who would disagree.

You might say, Well, Rush, Trump hasnt died, but look at what they say about him. My God. He cant be treated fairly. Its gotta be a hellacious existence. They lie about him all the time. Yeah, and theres nothing he can do to stop it. This has been my point since Ive been doing this program. Theres nothing you can do to change what they are gonna say about us and you certainly cant do it by convincing them that were not what they think we are, because they know that were not what they think

Well, I take it back. Kathryn and I watched Bombshell over the weekend. Pfft. Folks, whatever you do, dont watch it. If I say this, its just gonna get people intrigued and want to watch, and it is an absolute It barely rises to high school-level quality of production. The only reason to watch that stupid-ass movie is to find out every cliche they think about you and me. By the way, in this movie, everybody who works at Fox News hates it. Everybody that works there everybody has to hide who they are. You know there are a lot of lesbians at Fox News! Did you know that?

They have to hide it! They cant put pictures of their partners on their desktops because otherwise management might see it and fire em. But everybody hates Fox News. My point is this. You do not die politically when you take on the Democrats and the media, and Trump has shown. It he is triumphing. Yeah, they hate him. This is exactly why! Yeah, they say mean things about him and Im sure Mitt Romney doesnt want mean things said about him as hes making himself available to be temporary president every day.

Hi, Im Mitt Romney. I think we ought to call witnesses. By the way, do you want me to be president? Ill be happy to do it. Just put me in there right now. Do whatever you want. Thats what Romneys gaming for. Its time to stand up to this! I dont care Bolton leak, Bolton book, whoever. Tell em, No witnesses! Were gonna present the rest of our case, were gonna make our case, were gonna decimate their case, and were gonna get out of here, because all of this is a bogus waste of time. And again, I ask, is our government doing anything about this virus that has come from the communist haven of China?

It doesnt appear so.

Visit link:
You Do Not Die Politically When You Take on Democrats and the Media! - RushLimbaugh.com

Mark Kelly speaks at New York's City Hall with his wife, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in 2016. Kelly is a strong Democratic candidate for an Arizona Senate seat this year. (Photo by Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The impeachment trial in the US Senate is clearly a constitutional and moral moment of truth. It is also an excellent opportunity to advance the nitty-gritty work that will defeat vulnerable incumbent Republican senators and allow Democrats to recapture control of that critical chamber when voters head to the polls this November. It is easy for progressives to get excited about compelling candidatespeople with impressive life stories and hard-hitting adsand then shower resources on those candidates. And, yes, charisma and well-crafted ads are nice. But as Virginia Democrats success last fall demonstrates, robust, statewide voter mobilization operations are better.Ad Policy

Republicans currently hold 53 of the Senates 100 seats; Democrats will need a minimum net gain of three seats and a new, Democratic vice president to flip partisan control of the body. Of the 23 Republican-controlled Senate seats up for election this year, there are currently 13 seats in 12 states that offer plausible prospects for Democrats to defeat their Republican opponent.

Factoring in four key criteriapast electoral results, demographic developments, existing civic engagement infrastructure, and incumbent favorability ratingsI have given all 12 states with a Republican incumbent (and one state, Alabama, with a vulnerable Democrat) a score that illustrates their respective winnability.

(Read a complete description of the methodology and underlying data incorporated in the ratings here.)

The states where Democrats are most likely to flip a Senate seat are those where theyve fared well in recent statewide elections, and where there is a large pool of potential Democratic voters who could be brought into the electorate to improve the overall odds of victory.

Kyrsten Sinema won the Arizona US Senate race in 2018the first Democrat to win an open seat in that state since 1976. Conventional wisdom attributes Sinemas success to popularity with moderate voters, generally code for white swing voters; but she actually lost the white vote to her opponent. While her white vote share was admittedly higher than many Democrats receive, it was her 70 percent of the Latino vote that propelled her to victory, by just 56,000 votes. And there could be a whole lot more where that came from: More than 600,000 eligible Latinos did not vote in 2018.

Burgeoning Latino civic engagement infrastructure is the progressive secret weapon in Arizona. Ever since the states government passed the 2010 anti-immigrant legislation often referred to as the show me your papers law, a strong, sustained and effective cohort of organizations and leaders have worked together to build political power and darken the complexion of the Arizona electorate. Republican Martha McSally is the incumbent up for reelection this fall; progressive solidarity, combined with the strong fundraising of likely Democratic nominee Mark Kellyformer astronaut, current gun control activist, and husband of former representative Gabby Giffordsmakes this one of the most winnable Senate seats in the country.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

After two decades of sustained investment in a strong progressive infrastructure of organizations and leaders in Coloradoa period during which the states population has also become increasingly diverseDemocrats have won all four statewide elections since 2016. Cory Gardner, the current incumbent Republican senator, won this seat in 2014 by the narrow margin of 40,000 votes. (He was helped along by the fact that 300,000 fewer Democratic voters turned out than had voted in 2008s presidential election.) Two Democrats, former governor John Hickenlooper and former speaker of the state House Andrew Romanoff, will face off in Colorados June primary; whoever prevails should be the favorite to win the seat in a high-turnout presidential election year.

The silver lining of Georgias bitterly disappointing gubernatorial election in 2018? Stacey Abramss historic bid helped to build an electoral infrastructure that resulted in record Democratic voter turnout. That operation gives a massive head start to Democrats looking to win the state in 2020, at both the Senate and presidential levels. (A few months ago, Abrams even created a document in which she shares her prescription for victory.) Georgia has two Senate seats on the ballot in November. The field of potential Senate candidates is still unsettled: It includes Jon Ossoff, who previously ran for US Congress; Sarah Riggs Amico, a former candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor; and Teresa Tomlinson, who was the first female mayor of Columbus, Georgia. All are competing for the seat currently held by David Perdue. (Theres a special election planned for the second seat as well, but theres been little clarity yet about that race.) Regardless of who the ultimate candidates are, Georgia should be all-hands-on-deck for progressives nationallyespecially because the state is also within reach of any Democratic presidential nominee, even more so if Abrams were on the ticket to be vice president. If the Democrats can mobilize the Abrams coalition, it will lift all boats.

Texas, once seen as a solidly red state, now has the greatest progressive electoral potential of any state in the country. Its enormous number of eligible, non-voting people of color absolutely dwarfs the shrinking margin of difference in statewide elections. In 2018, Beto ORourke lost his US Senate bid by just 215,000 votes, despite the fact that 5.5 million people of color didnt cast ballots.

Similar to what weve seen in Virginia, groups such as the Texas Organizing Project have helped make the difference in mayoral elections in Houston and San Antonio in recent years, with a steady course of methodical civic engagement work. Texass very competitive Democratic primary is fast approaching, on March 3, or Super Tuesday; that contest is among the first of the battleground Senate races. While the Democratic senatorial Campaign Committee has sought to tip the scales in favor of M.J. Hegarwhose military background, its assumed, will help attract white votersthere are multiple candidates of color in the race. The person with the clearest and most logical path to defeating Republican John Cornyn is Cristina Tzintzn Ramirez. She comes from an organizing background, has deep ties to Latino communities across the state, and is the kind of inspiring and progressive candidate who can capture the imagination of the largeand still essentially untappedelectorate that holds the key to flipping Texas. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Tzintzn Ramirezs campaign, and she is a guest on the latest episode of my podcast, Democracy in Color.)Related Article

There are actually just a handful of states where large numbers of voters regularly switch their partisan preferences. Such states are harder and more expensive to win; at worst, they can be bottomless money pits, where political ads may or may not be wasted. (Bringing to mind the old adage: Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I dont know which half.) But with a president as divisive, unqualified, and destructive as the one we have now, the prospect of Democrats prevailing in swing states could be higher than usual.

Many people forget that Barack Obama managed to win North Carolina in 2008, if only by a tiny margin. And although Trump won the state in 2016, Democrat Roy Cooper prevailed in the gubernatorial contest that year. In a state with a meaningful number of college-educated whites, particularly around the so-called Research Triangle of Chapel Hill, Durham, and Raleigh, likely Democratic nominee Cal Cunningham may have appeal, but hell need to work hard to inspire the African Americans who make up 22 percent of the states population. Much of the burden of increasing African American voter turnouta group that overwhelmingly votes Democraticwill fall to progressive groups and the Democratic presidential ticket (further accentuating the importance of a ticket that can inspire voters of color).

Maine Republican Susan Collins and her pseudo-moderate rhetoric have enraged progressives for yearsmost notably during the fight over Brett Kavanaughs Supreme Court confirmation, where she provided critical cover for the Republicans patriarchal power play. She could be vulnerable this year. Maine is more Democratic than many people realize; the state voted Democratic in the last seven presidential elections. Collins now faces a formidable Democratic opponent in Sara Gideon, the well-funded speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and daughter of an Indian immigrant. Furthermore, Collinss favorability numbers are underwater, as 10 percent more Maine residents view her unfavorably than favorably.

Iowa, of course, is among the swingiest swing states in the country, having flipped from backing Obama by substantial margins in 2008 to a Trump blowout in 2016. (Pat Rynard, who runs the political news site Iowa Starting Line discussed this phenomenon on my podcast in October, observing that candidates who have run on a change-type message have done well in the state.) In that lightand taking note of incumbent Republican Joni Ernsts unfavorable polling numbersit is realistic to try to flip this seat. A three-way Democratic primary in June will determine the partys nominee. Many party leaders have high hopes for Theresa Greenfield, who is backed by Emilys List and other progressive groups.

There is another cohort of states where seats are up for election this yearones that would normally be out of reach, just by virtue of their paucity of Democratic voters. But in a high-turnout year when many white voters are alarmed by the Republican standard-bearer, things could conceivably break just right for Democrats. Think of the perfect storm that swept through Alabama in 2017, when Republicans nominated accused child-molester Roy Moore for the Senate, and Democrat Doug Jones rode a robust black voter turnout operation to victory.

Jones is up for reelection this year, and he faces daunting odds in a state that Trump won by nearly 28 points. (Joness own 2017 win came in a contest with much lower voter turnout.) But in addition to the possibility of Joness being reelected, the other states where an Alabama Miracle could conceivably occur are Mississippi, South Carolina, and Kentucky. Mississippi and South Carolina are similar to Alabama, in that they have large African American populations; Kentucky is worth considering, too, since Democrat Andy Beshear squeaked to victory in the governor race last year, and incumbent Mitch McConnells steadfast support for Trumps divisive agenda has made him one of the least popular senators in the country.

Montana is a true iconoclast, where there is frequent ticket splitting of perplexing proportions. In 2016, Trump won Montana by 20 points, even while Democrat Steve Bullock prevailed in the gubernatorial contest. The popular Bullockwho briefly entered the Democratic presidential primary last year, before pulling out in Decemberhas thus far resisted entreaties to run for Senate. But should he do so, he would be a strong favorite to flip that seat.

The Senate impeachment trial will force all incumbent senators to openly condemn or condone Trumps behavior. This could draw a clear connection between the actions of this president and the responsibility of his congressional enablers. If Democrats can make sure that voters in the most winnable states understand the role that their incumbent GOP senators have played in this havoc, it could accelerate their efforts to take back control of the Senate and this country.

Taking control of the Senate will require success on two fronts: increasing turnout of voters of color, and cementing support among those suburban white voters who gave Trump a chance in 2016, but shifted their support to Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Most people of color understand clearly the danger and destruction presented by this administration, but the Senate trial offers an excellent opportunity to affirm the increasing alarm felt by those suburban white voters too. Once the evidence is presented, every senator will have to go on the record about whether they support Trumps unconstitutional corruption. Come November, there are at least 12 incumbent Republicans who can, and should, pay the political price for their complicity in endangering and undermining our democracy.

View original post here:
12 States Where Democrats Could Flip the Senate - The Nation