There probably are. Whether they will actually vote to hear any witness is another question.

threecount wrote:Mitt Romney says he now thinks there are four GOP Senators that want to hear from Bolton as witness

Collins says the Bolton news strengthens the case to call witnesses and has prompted "conversations among her colleagues"

threecount wrote:Mitt Romney says he now thinks there are four GOP Senators that want to hear from Bolton as witness

Over mocktails in December.

CalvinBall wrote:

threecount wrote:Mitt Romney says he now thinks there are four GOP Senators that want to hear from Bolton as witness

Collins says the Bolton news strengthens the case to call witnesses and has prompted "conversations among her colleagues"

Though someone said Biden and gets in line behind Turtle to vote.

CalvinBall wrote:Bucks Co chooses union guy to run for open PA house seat in special election despite Bensalem dems wanting different candidate. Came down to money. The opponent is the daughter of a sitting State Senator, Tommy Tomlinson.

https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com ... trict-race

need to flip this seat. so hopefully the Bucks Co dems know what they are doing.

I'd be more annoyed about this if the Republicans weren't running KC Tomlinson. Politics is such a shit show.

Speaking of which, with the Iowa caucus merely a week away, let's play: Predict the Democratic nominee!

Joe Biden remains the favorite, of course. I see trouble for him in that I could easily see Bernie Sanders winning the first three races, if he picks up Nevada over 2016, giving him some momentum heading into Super Tuesday; I could also see that momentum being broken up by an inevitable Biden win in South Carolina. But Bernie may get a boost, depending on how Warren decides to play her hand, if she wants to help him by carefully timing her withdrawal from the race to be between SC on Saturday 2/29 and Super Tuesday on 3/3. She has enough monehy in the bank that she probably wants to hang in until Super Tuesday, but despite the fact that she would stand a good shot of winning Minnesota, and would certainly win in Massachusetts, I think the hand-writing will be on the wall by then for her candidacy, and she is smart enough to read it. If she wants real influence over policy, she may be persuaded to drop out, say, the day after the SC primary, and endorse Bernie, perhaps in exchange for a promise of the VP slot and an active hand in policy-making. I could then see Bernie picking up a couple of big upsets - say California, which seems entirely plausible to me, and obviously Massachusetts, with Warren's delegates going to Bernie - that could spell problems for Biden presumptive. It would guarantee Sanders Minnesota, where I believe Warren is favored right now.

At the end of Super Tuesday, I would certainly expect Biden to be holding South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, and by bigger leads than Sanders will manage in the states he wins, which is important because of the proportional awarding of delegates.

However, if Sanders can pull an upset in California, bring Massachusetts into the fold, and hold Colorado and Utah from 2016, he can battle Biden to a near-draw on Super Tuesday, in terms of states if not delegates. By the end of Super Tuesday, Sanders could plausibly hold: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, and Vermont, or 10 states to Biden's 8, though I would expect Biden to hold in this scenario a narrow lead in the delegate count.

The wild card here is obviously Buttigieg. It's hard to parse from whom he would take more votes - Biden (taking moderate votes away) or Sanders (taking young people away) - but he is well-funded, has a solid organization, and clearly has an enormous ego, so I don't see him dropping before Super Tuesday. If he hangs around past then he could conceivably give Sanders another edge; although I don't foresee him winning any of the contested states, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he does win a few: perhaps Virginia, and he has the money to maybe hang his hat on California and Colorado. So he could play spoiler either to Biden or Sanders, or conceivably, in a dark horse situation, both.

A week after Super Tuesday is a good day for Sanders: 4 of the 6 states voting are ones he won in 2016 (Idaho, Washington, North Dakota, though Michigan was extremely close). Of the other two, Mississippi will surely belong to Biden, but Missouri only went very narrowly for Hillary. If Bernie holds his own on Super Tuesday, the excitement of his supporters will kick into high gear, and I could see him flipping Missouri there. If he does, St. Patrick's Day becomes make-or-break for Biden, who will need no fewer than 3/4, and realistically a clean sweep, of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. They are all states Hillary carried, so it is possible, but Ohio and Illinois seem vulnerable, and Arizona was the closest of the 4 in 2016.

If Sanders can grab 2/3 of Arizona, Ohio, and Illinois, it might be close to over. Biden will likely have the money to survive until April, but the major set of contests don't happen until the end of the month, and in the mean time Sanders will likely pick up Wisconsin, Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, all states he won in 2016, while Biden will grab Louisiana, Georgia, and Puerto Rico.

Headed into April 28, that would give Biden: South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona because of McCain, Louisiana, Georgia, and Puerto Rico.

And Sanders: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Washington, North Dakota, Michigan, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming. 21 states for Bernie, 13 plus PR for Biden, by my count.

And then you get some final big prizes, in the Northeast where Biden is strong in the Midatlantic and Sanders is strong in New England: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York.

Expect Biden to win by big margins in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. Rhode Island went for Bernie in 2016 and I expect the same in 2020.

Connecticut was strong for Hillary in 2016, but of course she was senator from New York and was popular there, and CT is mostly and extension of NYC. If Bernie wins NY, which to me is not impossible --- it's all over. If Biden wins these two big, things will be awfully tight, because he can hang in there. However, the ten remaining states have enough from the rust belt, that if, in my imaginary scenario, Sanders has a lead in number of states won and is somewhere between slightly ahead and slightly behind in terms of delegates pledged, Bernie could do well. In May and June, you get West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Nebraska all voting, and all but KY voted for Sanders in 2016. IMHO, KY probably will behave more like Indiana and WV than like Tennessee. Montana and Oregon, which also went Sanders in 2016, will still be on the board in May/June.

It's a narrow path that requires a few things to go right, particularly early (Sanders winning NV, Warren dropping out and helping to move CA and MA to Sanders), but I have my doubts about Biden's ability to sustain himself through a 4 month race starting in February, and the enthusiasm gap between Sanders and Biden supporters is formidable.

I'm calling it: Biden goes through May 19th, loses Kentucky and Oregon, drops out, and Bernie Sanders is the 2020 Democratic nominee.

wolfgang--

yeah seems like she was gifted the job running the funeral home, has a known name, and for a politician is decently attractive. beyond those things I am not sure what qualifies her. nepotism is a heck of a thing.

And after that analysis, I checked the betting odds on the Democratic nominee for the first time in a while - and lo and behold, Sanders is now the betting favorite, albeit by a slim margin.

CalvinBall wrote:wolfgang--

yeah seems like she was gifted the job running the funeral home, has a known name, and for a politician is decently attractive. beyond those things I am not sure what qualifies her. nepotism is a heck of a thing.

So this is the headline:

Hot undertaker from popular mortuary announces candidacy

CalvinBall wrote:Called Toomey's office to ask that he commit to calling witnesses. Just call give your name, town, and zip. Spoke with Nicholas in the Philadelphia office.

I mean there is basically no way he votes YES for this, but regardless, everyone should call.

(215) 241-1090 is the Philly office.

Asking other boarders to do the same.

You mean Pat Toomey, moderate republican, independent thinker?

WRT Wolfgang's "call", I would be less than enthusiastic about pushing the button for Sanders but it would be better than four more years of lying and coordinating with foreign governments for personal payoffs. One thing that may come into play (or at least should come into play) is who Sanders's VP nominee ends up being. Let's not forget that Sanders is just five months removed from a heart procedure. Moderate Democrats might be willing to stomach Sanders but a Sanders/AOC ticket, for example, might be a bridge too far.

JFLNYC wrote:There probably are. Whether they will actually vote to hear any witness is another question.

The only thing witnesses do is make the republicans look even worse for acquitting trump in the end

Unless.....there are some republicans who are actually considering a vote to remove him from office

Warszawa wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Called Toomey's office to ask that he commit to calling witnesses. Just call give your name, town, and zip. Spoke with Nicholas in the Philadelphia office.

I mean there is basically no way he votes YES for this, but regardless, everyone should call.

(215) 241-1090 is the Philly office.

Asking other boarders to do the same.

You mean Pat Toomey, moderate republican, independent thinker?

he is the one!

again, still encourage everyone to call.

traderdave wrote:WRT Wolfgang's "call", I would be less than enthusiastic about pushing the button for Sanders but it would be better than four more years of lying and coordinating with foreign governments for personal payoffs. One thing that may come into play (or at least should come into play) is who Sanders's VP nominee ends up being. Let's not forget that Sanders is just five months removed from a heart procedure. Moderate Democrats might be willing to stomach Sanders but a Sanders/AOC ticket, for example, might be a bridge too far.

AOC has no leverage. I think you will get Sanders/Warren.

My prediction is hardly guaranteed of being correct, I'd say I was at about 35/65 of being right, but it's more plausible than I would have thought even a couple of months ago. I will stand by it until it is right or wrong. Of course now I took the time to look at the sequence of the primaries, which in my mind has more of an effect on the outcome than almost any other individual factor, and I think the sequence favors Bernie; for example, if the first four states were PA/DE/MD/SC, I think it would be a different story.

I don't know if Bernie is best or not for the Dem's chances; I am simply stating what I think will happen. Despite Bernie's recent procedure, he frankly seems sharper and more on top of it than Biden now. I have doubts about Biden's stamina. Buttigieg/Bloomberg are obviously hanging around the margins, hoping to swoop in and grab the moderate label, but unless Biden collapses much faster than seems likely, I don't think that's a viable option.

Bloomberg is such an asshole he could run as a third party candidate if Sanders wins, which would certainly be fatal to the Dem chances in the general, one would think (although the hope would have to be he would garner the most votes in places like NY and CA, where the Dems figure to win big anyway, and his presence would be negligible in PA, WI, and MI - but banking on that in PA and particularly the Philly burbs seems like a horrendous bet).

It does however feel like time has passed Biden by, and that this is the moment for the left and its champion. Trump is unpopular, so there is a chance of winning, but he is the incumbent and the economy is just fine, so he is more likely to win no matter who the Dems run. This makes for the perfect opportunity, timing-wise, to try something radically different from what has been done lately: there is relatively little to lose (the SC has already flipped, Trump probably wins regardless), but there is a definite, non-zero chance of winning when the fundamentals would seem to predict a loss, which is a great chance for trying out a new strategy. If it comes through, you've really got something.

Get the nomination and prove you can win now - if you can't, another positive is that Dems don't have to play the "what-if" game anymore about whether what America really wants is a more obviously leftist economic policy; they'll have data (did Bernie outperform Hillary? Expectations given the fundamentals? Or get utterly trounced?). Do whatever you can to keep Bloomberg the fuck out of it, so you can get a "pure" result.

Certainly at this point this is the outcome I would like to see of this process, win, lose, or draw. Let's learn something, if nothing else.

I have two problems with Bernie. First, he's a Democrat by convenience, so it's not clear that he's going to do much to help down ballot Democrats, particularly those in swing states and districts. There's a serious element of personality cult going on here.

Second, I have seen nothing that demonstrates an ability to run the executive branch, or hire people who can. There's going to be, I fear, a lot of purity tests with his appointees.

Frankly, he's the Democrat's answer to Trump. Since I believe that Trump is doing significant long term damage to the Republican Party, I fear the same from a Bernie Presidency.

TenuredVulture wrote:I have two problems with Bernie. First, he's a Democrat by convenience, so it's not clear that he's going to do much to help down ballot Democrats, particularly those in swing states and districts. There's a serious element of personality cult going on here.

Second, I have seen nothing that demonstrates an ability to run the executive branch, or hire people who can. There's going to be, I fear, a lot of purity tests with his appointees.

Frankly, he's the Democrat's answer to Trump. Since I believe that Trump is doing significant long term damage to the Republican Party, I fear the same from a Bernie Presidency.

Which is why I favor Warren, but I think her chances are slim and fading fast.

AOC is also 30 years old which would make her joining the ticket a tough sell as she can't be president for 5 more years

jerseyhoya wrote:AOC is also 30 years old which would make her joining the ticket a tough sell as she can't be president for 5 more years

Ha! You and your "Constitution," what are you, some kind of moderate Democrat?

I was 14 in 1992, but I remember thinking at one point that Paul Tsongas was going to be the Democratic nominee. When you look at the final delegate totals you'd wonder why I ever thought that - he came in third with a paltry 289, behind Jerry Brown (596) and of course eventual nominee Bill Clinton (3,372) - but looking at the state-by-state results, man, that was a weird race.

Of the first 14 states to vote, Clinton won only 3. Tom Harkin won Iowa, and Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire, despite Clinton's "Comeback Kid" speech.

Jerry Brown won Maine, and something called Bob Kerrey won South Dakota. That's 4 races and 4 different winners, and not a one of them the actual eventual nominee.

On March 3rd, 7 states voted: Georgia went for Bill Clinton, Maryland, Utah, and Washington went for Paul Tsongas, Colorado went for Jerry Brown, and Idaho and Minnesota went for Tom Harkin. Clearly there was a farmer vote in there.

On March 7th, 3 more states voted: South Carolina and Wyoming went for Bill Clinton (Wyoming? Seems weird, given the pattern), and Arizona went for Paul Tsongas.

So, going into Super Tuesday, Tsongas had won 5 states to eventual nominee Clinton's 3, and had 220 delegates to Clinton's 132. And Clinton was not in second place; that would have been Tom Harkin, who had also won 3 states totaling 145 delegates.

Of course on Super Tuesday, with the South mostly voting, Clinton blew them all out and the rest is history.

This proves, I guess, that the early contests need not be determinative - at least if no one person wins more than one (and indeed, none of the winners of the four early contests wound up winning the nomination); but also, sequencing is so devastatingly important. When Super Tuesday came in 1992, 6 of the 10 voting states were Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas - all states where Clinton, as the "Southern" candidate, had a strong edge that he converted to victory. Of the remaining 4, he won only 1 - Hawaii - with Tsongas picking up Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Delaware. But the state count (10 for Clinton, 8 for Tsongas) and the delegate count (515 to 350 - Texas must have cheated because they evidently sat no delegates) flipped, and Clinton acquired the air of inevitability. Soon he was rolling to the nomination, and Paul Tsongas was dead (well, in 1997, but still, imagine if he'd won!).

Obviously a great point. I actually thought she WAS 35. Anyway, just saw this on CNN:

A source familiar with the John Bolton's book suggested the full information within the unpublished manuscript was damning to President Trump and would make it much harder for Republican senators to play the “nothing new here” card. The source also responded to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s comments on wanting to see it, saying, “I’m not sure he does.”

“What we have to do here is evaluate the manuscript and see if it's a reason to add to the record,” Graham said. Asked if he would support a subpoena to get the manuscript, the South Carolina Republican said, “I want to know what's in the manuscript, yeah, I think that’s important.” He said the manuscript could change his thinking on calling witnesses.

“It could. I don’t know yet. The White House said there was no direct evidence of communications, maybe this suggests that one person said there might be," Graham said.

Here We Have It. The Trump Impeachment Smoking Gun.
A report about a book by John Bolton makes the president’s Republican defenders look like liars and fools. Maybe they’ll be fine with that.

From Bloomberg

What? Na.

A majority of the Senators