Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
That’s the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination right now. With less than a year to go until Election Day, no one cares — least of all Democratic voters.
Joseph R. Biden, who served as The Chosen One’s vice president, has left Democrats yawning. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who for years thought she was an American Indian (oops, turned out she’s 99.9% white), has bobbed up to the surface, but voters know the free-everything-for-everybody candidate would never win in November 2020. And Sen. Bernard “Heart Attack” Sanders, another socialist, just turned 127, so he’s going nowhere fast, too.
The race is flatlining so badly that former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who, get this, is just a year younger than Sanders — is dipping his big billionaire toe in the race. He filed as a Democratic presidential candidate in Alabama last Friday, just under the deadline, and barely squeaked in under the wire in Arkansas, too.
And man, he jazzed the Democratic throng like no one else. To show how bored Democrats are with their field, within days, Bloomberg topped President Trump by 6 points in a hypothetical 2020 match-up, according to a Morning Consult/Politico survey released last week.
“Forty-three percent of voters nationwide said they would support Bloomberg in a hypothetical election, while 37% said they’d vote for the incumbent Republican, a 6-point advantage that matches Warren’s margin over Trump,” Morning Consult wrote.
That ecstasy lasted two days.
“The Michael Bloomberg bubble lasted all of 48 hours,” Vanity Fair wrote Monday.
“Filing papers in Alabama was a ‘trial balloon to gauge interest,’ sources told [Axios]. That the balloon seems to have popped may lead him to stay on the sidelines, as he’d initially said he’d do. His prospects are subject to change, of course; the two moderates and two progressives at the top of the field are continuing to duke it out, and Democratic voters, still battered from a stunning loss in 2016, have continued to second-guess themselves in search of the right candidate to put up against Trump.”
So far, they’ve got bupkis. No candidate is pulling away, and, in fact, Democrats are getting antsy. In a recent Fox News poll, more than 1 in 3 — 38% — Democratic voters said they wish they had more choices.
Voters can be finicky.
“Just when they start to fall in love, they find something that gets them a little nervous,” Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times on Sunday. “They’re still searching for the horse that can win.”
Or at least a horse that doesn’t have to be shot after the last leg of the race.
How bad is it? Ms. Warren played last week to a nearly empty hall in New Hampshire, where the residents live and breath politics. Fewer than 100 turned out to hear her speak. That’s bad.
Then there’s the two-time loser who never went away. Hillary Clinton, who got crushed in the Electoral College vote 304-227 last time around, is still teasing that she’ll jump into the race.
“As I say, never, never, never say ‘never,’ ” Clinton told BBC Radio on Monday when asked whether she might run. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”
Then Clinton said what all politicians say just before they jump into the race: “As of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.”
Gallup released a poll last week that had some troubling news for Democrats. Just 66% of the party faithful say they’re enthusiastic about the upcoming election. For the Republicans, the number is 65%.
“This differs from the typical pattern Gallup has seen over the years, whereby those who identify with the political party of the incumbent president have been less enthusiastic about voting than members of the opposing party,” Gallup wrote.
Here’s what that means: Voters in the party not currently in the White House are usually far more enthusiastic than the incumbent’s supporters. In 2000, after eight years of Bill Clinton, Republicans enjoyed a 51% to 39% enthusiasm edge. In 2008, after two George W. Bush terms, Democrats were up 14 percentage points — 73% to 59%. And in 2016, after two Barack Obama terms, the GOP led by 8 percentage points — 51% to 43%.
“History would suggest that Democrats would be more keyed up to vote than Republicans, but that isn’t the case,” Gallup said.
Biden. Warren. Sanders. Bloomberg. Clinton. That’s who the Democrats have this time around. The collective age of that pathetic lineup is 366 years old, an average of more than 73. Not exactly the “new blood” the party has been talking about for years.
But it is exactly the reason Democrats are less enthusiastic than ever about the presidential election.
*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Michelle Obama Campaigns With Hillary Clinton In North Carolina

CURL: Dullest Race Ever Bores Democrats Silly As Hillary Poised For Her Encore Call

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden

Michael Bloomberg

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) revealed on Wednesday that he is officially endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination to the presidency in 2020 after dropping out of the primary race only weeks earlier.
&#8220;I think this election for many, many Democrats, regardless of where you live, is about who can beat [President] Donald Trump,&#8221; Ryan said during an appearance on MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Morning Joe.&#8221; &#8220;And the key to that is who can beat Donald Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin and western Pennsylvania, in Ohio. And I am convinced that is Joe Biden.&#8221;
&#8220;I just think he is the person who has the sensibilities,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We&#8217;ve got a lot of great candidates, but the touch with those blue collared workers that we have to have if we are going to beat Donald Trump, which is the goal here.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/RepTimRyan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepTimRyan</a> endorses Joe Biden for president <a href="https://t.co/7gT6ohRHfw">pic.twitter.com/7gT6ohRHfw</a>
&mdash; Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) <a href="https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/1194581918903394306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ryan ended his own long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination in late-October after months of struggling to gain traction with voters in the crowded primary field.
&#8220;I got into this race in April to really give voice to the forgotten people of our country: the workers who have been left behind, the businesses who have been left behind, the people who need health care or are not getting a quality education, or are saddled by tremendous debt,&#8221; Ryan said in a video announcing the end of his campaign. &#8220;I am proud of this campaign because I believe we have done that. We have given voice to the forgotten communities and the forgotten people in the United States.&#8221;
The nine-term congressman was one of the few Democratic presidential candidates who hails from the Rust Belt, the region which largely helped to elect Trump in the 2016 election — Trump ultimately won Ohio by 8 points against former Secretary of State and twice-failed presidential contender Hillary Clinton.
Ryan primarily focused his presidential campaign on the economic issues facing America&#8217;s heartland, pledging to &#8220;re-empower workers and revive the American middle class.&#8221; He further touted himself as &#8220;a progressive who knows how to talk to working class people&#8221; and tried to make the argument that &#8220;the progressive agenda is what is best for working families.&#8221;
The Ohio congressman positioned himself as an alternative to Biden, who has been vying for the more centrist lane of the Democratic primary. During his campaign, he even rolled out a list of endorsements from former Biden supporters in South Carolina.
Biden has maintained his status as the Democratic frontrunner since he first entered the race in late-April. As of publication, he sits at 26% support among Democratic primary voters nationwide, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Real Clear Politics</a> national polling average. He also performs better than his Democratic rivals in a hypothetical head-to-head match up against Trump.
However, Biden has been largely trailing other 2020 Democrats in early-state polling, with the exception of South Carolina. Biden&#8217;s lead in New Hampshire began fading late in the summer and his lead in Iowa dropped after the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) August debate.

US-POLITICS-VOTE-DEMOCRATS-TOWN HALL

WATCH: Former 2020 Democrat Throws His Endorsement Behind Joe Biden, Explains Why He&#8217;s Got Best Shot

2020 Election

Tim Ryan

During CNN’s Monday night town hall with former Vice President Joe Biden, the current Democratic front runner was asked about how he connects with people who have experienced tragic losses in their lives.
Biden was asked the question by anchor Carol Burnett, who noted that Biden lost his first wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972 and his son Beau four years ago to brain cancer. The question was an obvious giveaway to let Biden show his personal side, but his response was comforting to those who have experienced personal grief.
“You know, a lot of people have suffered more than I have,” Biden said. “And I’ve been really – sounds bizarre to say – lucky in the sense that I’d had an incredible family. When I lost my wife and daughter I had my best friend in the world, my sister and my brother; they moved in to help me raise my kids. My mom was there when I lost Beau. I had my son Hunter who was a great comfort and my daughter Ashley.”
“Everybody’s different, but what I found is the way you overcome enormous tragedy is you’ve got to find purpose in your life,” Biden added, suggesting a good way to find purpose is to get involved in something the person one lost cared about.
But it was one of his closing lines that really stuck out:
<blockquote>There will come a time, if any of you are going through it, where the thought of the person you lost will bring a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye. That’s when you know you’re going to be able to make it. That’s when you’ll know. But it’s hard.</blockquote>
Biden has suffered perhaps more loss than any other presidential candidate in the current election. In 1972, Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and 13-month-old daughter died in a car crash after Neilia drove into the path of an oncoming tractor-trailer. Biden’s two young sons, Hunter and Beau, were also in the car, but survived. It appears Neilia may have looked the wrong way at a stop sign and may not have realized that the road she was crossing did not have a stop sign, leading to the crash.
For nearly a decade, Biden claimed the truck driver had “drank his lunch” that day, yet prosecutors had said there was no such evidence to back up the claim. In 2008, while running as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential candidate, the daughter of the truck driver asked Biden to apologize for the way he had lied about her father. It does not appear as if Biden has done so. The driver’s daughter said that even though her father lived another 27 years after the crash, he avoided celebrating Christmas because the crash happened on December 18 and haunted him the rest of his life. He had tried to help Neilia and her daughter after the crash.
In 2015, Beau Biden died of brain cancer at the age of 46.

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden

Joe Biden Gives Heartfelt Answer About Grief And Loss

Former Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s once-solid double-digit lead over the rest of the field of 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominees shrunk, over the past couple of months, before generally re-expanding over the past few weeks. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Biden currently stands 6.0% above second-place Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)</a> in the average of recent national polling. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) round out the top five in most recent national polling. Increasingly, the field appears to be shaping up as a three-horse race among Biden, Warren, and Sanders, although Buttigieg has recently been surging in Iowa.
Biden&#8217;s once-formidable lead has narrowed since its high watermark in May, although it has since grown back substantially from a recent nadir of less than 1%. Warren has generally emerged over the past few months as a frontrunner, although her national polling has taken a bit of a drop over the past few weeks. Warren and Sanders seem to be competing for a very similar voting demographic, and it is interesting to ponder the possibility of how one candidate would likely be substantially elevated were the other to drop out and endorse the other. Some polling data suggests that Sanders hypothetically dropping out would help Warren more than it would help Biden. But Sanders may be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/bernie-sanders-isnt-going-anywhere-anytime-soon/">in this for the long haul</a>, after all.
Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> still pegs Warren as the favorite to win the presidential nomination over Biden — with Buttigieg, Sanders, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang following. But while PredictIt showed Warren with a huge lead recently, her lead has over Biden has substantially narrowed, of late. It is likely that many of these bettors are skittish about Biden&#8217;s age and perceived substantive centrism — with the latter especially worrisome among a Democratic Party base that is increasingly brazen and unabashed in its promotion of ardent, full-spectrum leftism. But to the extent Warren is any frontrunner at all, she remains an extraordinarily weak frontrunner who only seems to be getting weaker still.
The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average for 10/8/19 – 11/05/19 shows Biden with an average national polling lead of 6.0%.
A recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cseozthmrp/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov</a> national poll conducted from 11/03/19 – 11/05/19 showed Biden, at 26%, with a one-point lead over Warren. Warren was up 11 points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_110619/">Monmouth</a> national poll conducted from 10/30/19 – 11/03/19 showed Biden and Warren tied at 23%. They were each up three points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/469490-poll-biden-support-hits-record-low-of-26-percent">Hill/HarrisX</a> national poll conducted from 11/01/19 – 11/02/19 showed Biden, at 26%, with an 11-point lead over Warren. Warren was up one point on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2-2/">Politico/Morning Consult</a> national poll conducted from 10/28/19 – 11/03/19 showed Biden, at 32%, with a 12-point lead over both Warren and Sanders. No one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HHP_October19_Topline_RegisteredVoters.pdf">Harvard-Harris</a> national poll conducted from 10/29/19 – 10/31/19 showed Biden, at 33%, with a 15-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up three points on Warren and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538104-19433-NBCWSJ-Late-October-Poll.html">NBC News/Wall Street Journal</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 27%, with a four-point lead over Warren. Warren was up four points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1208a32020Democrats.pdf">ABC News/Washington Post</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 28%, with a five-point lead over Warren. Warren was up six points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-leads-nomination-race-tops-trump-by-12-points-in-matchup">Fox News</a> national poll conducted from 10/27/19 – 10/30/19 showed Biden, at 31%, with a ten-point lead over Warren. Warren was up two points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-leads-elizabeth-warren-both-beat-trump-2020-election-ibd-tipp/">IBD/TIPP</a> national poll conducted from 10/24/19 – 10/31/19 showed Biden, at 29%, with a six-point lead over Warren. Warren was up ten points on Sanders and no one else polled in double digits.
Will Warren and Biden remain the two frontrunners? Will Buttigieg or Yang catch more traction? Stay tuned.
Latest Aggregate Early State-By-State Polling Data
Iowa: Warren 21.8%, Buttigieg 17.5%, Sanders 15.8%, Biden 15.5%, Klobuchar 4.0%
New Hampshire: Warren 19.7%, Biden 19.7%, Sanders 19.0%, Buttigieg 11.3%, Gabbard 4.0%
Nevada: Biden 26.0%, Warren 19.5%, Sanders 18.5%, Buttigieg 4.8%, Harris 4.3%
South Carolina: Biden 35.0%, Warren 15.5%, Sanders 12.8%, Harris 7.0%, Steyer 4.5%
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Detroit Over Two Nights

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

Democratic Party

Pete Buttigieg

Here is everything you need to know, to-date.
<ul>
<li>April 2014: Hunter Biden <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/">joined</a> Ukrainian energy company Burisma.</li>
<li>August 2014: Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/">opened</a> a corruption investigation about Burisma.</li>
<li>Fall 2015/Winter 2015–2016: Then-Vice President Joe Biden first <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/">made a public issue</a> out of alleged prosecutor-related corruption in Ukraine.</li>
<li>February 2016: Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which had Hunter Biden as a board member at the time, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-hammer-on-tipping-point-with-liz-wheeler-the-hunter-biden-foia-bombshell">sought to utilize</a> Biden&#8217;s stature as a means to secure a U.S. State Department meeting.</li>
<li>March 2016: Then-Vice President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-lobbied-state-department-to-end-corruption-allegations-emails-show_3137480.html">pressured Ukraine</a> to fire the prosecutor involved with investigating Burisma.</li>
<li>June 2017: Rudy Giuliani <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">visited Ukraine</a> and met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.</li>
<li>January 2018: Joe Biden was <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html">filmed bragging about</a> how he forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor he did not like by threatening to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine.</li>
<li>August 2018: Giuliani was <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">hired</a> by a company run by Ukrainian business tycoon Lev Parnas.</li>
<li>Later 2018: Giuliani pressured Lutsenko to open corruption-related investigations about the Bidens and Burisma.</li>
<li>January 2019: Giuliani met multiple times with Lutsenko and, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html?module=inline">The New York Times</a>, allegedly pushed Lutsenko on the Bidens, Burisma, and then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.</li>
<li>March 2019: Lutsenko <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">opened two investigations</a> — one on the Bidens and one on Burisma. The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html?module=inline">alleged</a> that Lutsenko also accused Yovanovitch of corruption.</li>
<li>April 2019: Trump <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">reportedly told</a> Fox News host Sean Hannity that Attorney General William Barr might investigate allegations about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election.</li>
<li>May 2019: Yovanovitch resigned as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.</li>
<li>May 2019: The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html">reported</a> on an upcoming Rudy Giuliani trip to Ukraine.</li>
<li>May 2019: Giuliani <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">expressed</a> his belief in the theory that Ukraine actively assisted the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election.</li>
<li>June 2019: Giuliani <a href="https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1142085975230898176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&amp;ref_url=safari-reader%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2019%2F10%2Fthe-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair%2F">tweeted</a> that Ukraine was &#8220;abused by Hillary and Obama people.&#8221;</li>
<li>July 25, 2019: Now-infamous <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf">phone call</a> took place between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.</li>
<li>September 24, 2019: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf">Transcript</a> of phone call released between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.</li>
<li>September 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html">announced</a> that House Democrats would seek to open an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.</li>
<li>September 26, 2019: Whistleblower complaint about the Trump-Zelensky phone call <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html">revealed</a>.</li>
<li>October 2, 2019: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html">Revelation</a> that Rep. Adam Schiff&#8217;s (D-CA) office had been in contact with the whistleblower.</li>
<li>October 17, 2019: <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770714277/read-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement-to-congress">Written testimony</a> of U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland includes: &#8220;President Trump was skeptical that Ukraine was serious about reforms and anti-corruption, and he directed those of us present at the meeting to talk to Mr. Giuliani, his personal attorney, about his concerns. It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani.&#8221;</li>
<li>October 22, 2019: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html">Written testimony</a> of top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor notes: By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.&#8221;</li>
<li>October 29, 2019: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who serves on the U.S. National Security Council, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777514772/read-testimony-of-alexander-vindman-the-white-houses-ukraine-specialist">testified</a> that the White House&#8217;s released transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call had <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/alexander-vindman-testimony-white-house-transcript/index.html">crucial omissions</a> with respect to the Bidens.</li>
<li>October 31, 2019: House <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/31/us/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-house-vote.html">voted</a> to establish the procedural rules governing the impeachment of President Trump.</li>
</ul>

Map of Ukraine

The Complete Timeline Of The Trump-Ukraine Story

Donald Trump

Hunter Biden

Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani

Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelensky

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took a page out of her presidential predecessor, Hillary Clinton over the weekend, accusing critics who say she&#8217;s &#8220;condescending&#8221; and &#8220;divisive&#8217; and that her &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; plan is poorly thought-out, of being sexist.
Both former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg &#8212; two of Warren&#8217;s rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination &#8212; accused Warren of being hard to relate to in public forums last week.
Biden accused Warren of having an “angry unyielding viewpoint,” and of being &#8220;representative of an elitism that working and middle class people do not share: ‘We know best; you know nothing,'&#8221; after Warren criticized him for not embracing her unworkable, expensive &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; health plan.
Buttigieg echoed Biden&#8217;s assessment of Warren on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; adding that Warren has a “my way or the highway” approach to improving Americans&#8217; access to health care that lacked &#8220;humility.&#8221;
Warren&#8217;s supporters were the first to call the attacks &#8220;sexist,&#8221; <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/11/09/angry-and-own-elizabeth-warren-ignores-biden-implies-sexism-fundraising-note/pGGy9bf0opSKECgYtKGlkN/story.html">telling the Boston Globe</a> that Warren&#8217;s male rivals just can&#8217;t handle a woman with strong ideas.
“I think that’s just very sexist,” Peggy Mormann, a Warren supporter, told Warren&#8217;s home paper. “They realize she’s a huge threat to them.
“That happens when women lead. Men are afraid of strong women,&#8221; said another.
Warren, who has mostly avoided openly attacking her rivals for the presidential nomination, implied sexism herself in a fundraising email released last week.
“I’m angry and I own it,&#8221; Warren wrote to supporters, according to the women&#8217;s site, <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/11/8752565/elizabeth-warren-angry-joe-biden-email-response">Refinery 29</a>.
&#8220;Over and over, we are told that women are not allowed to be angry,” Warren went on. “It makes us unattractive to powerful men who want us to be quiet.” But, Warren added, she can&#8217;t help not being angry in the face of a student loan debt crisis and an unworkable health care system.
&#8220;When we see these injustices in the wealthiest country in the history of the world,” the email contined, “we should be angry.”
She coyly reiterated her claims of sexism in an interview with the New York Times Saturday. When she was asked whether she thought Biden&#8217;s &#8220;angry&#8221; comments were misogynistic.
“Why don’t you ask him that?” she quipped.
Biden, of course, contends that he&#8217;s not attacking Warren, he&#8217;s attacking her Medicare for All plan, which seems to have no basis in reality. Warren&#8217;s plan to pay for the massive government-run healthcare program still makes no sense, days later.
&#8220;I&#8217;m responding to her attack, her comments,&#8221; Biden told CNN.
Warren, like Clinton (and even Warren&#8217;s 2020 rival, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)), clearly sees some value in charges of sexism, and it&#8217;s certainly working with her female supporters, but it may not be working with Democratic primary voters &#8212; or, at least, it may not be enough to make up for Warren&#8217;s recent polling troubles.
According to a New York Times poll last week, a more moderate, populist message is resonating for Democrats in key &#8220;battleground&#8221; states. Biden is currently the only Democratic front-runner giving President Donald Trump a run for his money in places like Wisconsin and Michigan, which Trump needs to hold on to to win re-election. Warren and Sanders are falling behind the President, and the New York Times analysts believe that it&#8217;s because Rust Belt and &#8220;battleground&#8221; state voters simply aren&#8217;t responding to their progressive agendas.
Hillary Clinton piled on Warren&#8217;s claims over the weekend, too, not to be outdone by her 2020 successors. She told a crowd in London that &#8220;social media abuse&#8221; and modern sexism are still to blame for her own loss, and could jeopardize the careers of other female politicians, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-abuse-of-female-politicians-on-social-media-is-viral-idUSKBN1XK0NY">according to Reuters</a>.

Elizabeth Warren Echoes Hillary Clinton, Implies That Critics Are &#8216;Sexist&#8217;

Sexism

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman&#8217;s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee has started to raise serious questions about his credibility as an alleged expert on Ukraine as the recently released transcript of his testimony contained surprising excerpts.
Vindman, who was born in Ukraine and immigrated to the United States, is supposedly the White House&#8217;s top expert on Ukraine at the National Security Council (NSC), yet transcripts from his testimony showed that he appeared to lack even basic knowledge of recent events inside Ukraine.
During one exchange, Vindman thought that the Obama administration provided lethal military assistance to Ukraine when, in fact, the Obama administration did not.
<blockquote>CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): There was a prior shipment of Javelins to Ukraine, wasn&#8217;t there?
VINDMAN: So that was, I believe &#8212; I apologize if the timing is incorrect — under the previous administration, there was a — I&#8217;m aware of the transfer of a fairly significant number of Javelins, yes.</blockquote>
In 2014, it was widely reported that Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko begged the Obama administration for weapons to combat Russian forces and that the Obama administration refused to supply the weapons.
“Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket,” Poroshenko said, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/3625313d1b54411ea0753387ccbd36b2">Associated Press.</a>
The New Yorker <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/biden-agenda">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Ukrainian officials had appealed to the United States for military support, but Biden had advised them that it would be minimal, if at all. He told me, “We no longer think in Cold War terms, for several reasons. One, no one is our equal. No one is close. Other than being crazy enough to press a button, there is nothing that Putin can do militarily to fundamentally alter American interests.” The Ukrainians were not pleased. A senior Administration official said, “My read of the looks on their faces was ‘Holy God.’ ”</blockquote>
Washington Examiner Chief political correspondent Byron York noted the perplexing lack of knowledge from Vindman.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Top Ukraine guy at NSC apparently thought Obama administration had provided Javelins to Ukraine. <a href="https://t.co/Gd1830At3K">pic.twitter.com/Gd1830At3K</a>
— Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1193255269918216197?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
The large <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-announces-sale-anti-tank-missiles-ukraine-russian/story?id=53450406">sale</a> of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine took place under the Trump administration, which also <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/12/20/trump-administration-approves-lethal-arms-sales-to-ukraine/">sold</a> millions of dollars worth of anti-material sniper systems to Ukraine.
During another exchange, Vindman indicated that he knew that Ukrainian gas company Burisma was a company that had a &#8220;problematic history&#8221; but did not want to know more about Hunter Biden&#8217;s involvement with the company when he found out that Biden was Burisma&#8217;s board. Though Vindman said he had no interest in conducting any inquiries into Biden&#8217;s role in the company, he acknowledged that Ukraine certainly has a right to investigate it.
The following exchange took place between Vindman and Steve Castor, a top investigator from Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) office leading the Republicans&#8217; line of questioning:
<blockquote>CASTOR: Are you aware of any of the investigations [Burisma] has been involved with over the last several years?
VINDMAN: I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings. That&#8217;s part of its track record, yes.
CASTOR: Okay. And what questionable business dealings are you aware of?
VINDMAN: I think that&#8217;s more of kind of a generalization. I&#8217;m just aware that it had questionable business dealings, and they were known for that fact. &#8230;  the general answer is I think they have had questionable business dealings.
CASTOR: So money laundering, tax evasion, if they were subject to those investigations, that would comport with your understanding of the company?
VINDMAN: That would comport with my understanding of how business is done in Ukraine.
CASTOR: Okay. In 2014, they undertook an initiative to bring in some additional folks for their board. Are you aware of some of the folks they added to their board in 2014?
VINDMAN: The only individual I&#8217;m aware of, again, after, you know, as it&#8217;s been reported in the press is Mr. Hunter Biden.
CASTOR: Okay. And did you check with any of your authoritative sources in government to learn a little bit more about these issues?
VINDMAN: I did not.
CASTOR: Okay. Even when the narrative started to creep in?
VINDMAN:  I did not. I didn&#8217;t think it was appropriate. He was a U.S. citizen, and I wasn&#8217;t going to ask questions. Frankly, that falls into the law enforcement sphere. I was not going to go and ask about — if there was a question about Burisma, I would — I inquired about it and determined that they had a problematic history, but I did not inquire about a U.S. citizen.
CASTOR: What other inquiries did you make with authoritative sources demanding Burisma?
VINDMAN: I think once I drew my conclusion of the company, I moved on.
&#8230;
CASTOR: Okay. If there was an allegation of wrongdoing by the Burisma board directors, that would be something that the Ukrainians could look into, right?
VINDMAN: I think so. They&#8217;re a sovereign state, they can choose to do that, yes.
CASTOR: So if there&#8217;s an American that is operating in Ukraine as a businessman and they are accused of wrongdoing, the Ukrainians can investigate that?
VINDMAN: Americans are not immune from criminal activity just because they&#8217;re Americans overseas. So, yes, if there&#8217;s a criminal activity, they should, yeah.
CASTOR: Okay. And do you have any knowledge as to why Hunter Biden was asked to join the board?
VINDMAN: I do not.
CASTOR: Did you check with any of your authoritative sources whether he was a corporate governance expert or&#8211;
VINDMAN: Like I said, I didn&#8217;t. He&#8217;s an American citizen. Certainly there is domestic political overtones. I did not think that was appropriate for me to start looking into this particular — I drew my conclusions on Burisma and I moved on.</blockquote>
York again noted the odd implication of what Vindman testified, writing: &#8220;Corrupt Ukrainian company owned by corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hires vice president&#8217;s son and top Ukraine guy on NSC doesn&#8217;t want to know about it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Corrupt Ukrainian company owned by corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hires vice president&#8217;s son and top Ukraine guy on NSC doesn&#8217;t want to know about it. From Vindman deposition: <a href="https://t.co/yy3QLX0dqd">pic.twitter.com/yy3QLX0dqd</a>
— Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1193533402273787905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2019</a></blockquote>

Alexander Vindman

Excerpts From Alexander Vindman&#8217;s Testimony To Congress Raises Questions About Credibility

Adam Schiff

Obama Administration

Former Vice President Joe Biden brushed off mounting calls from within the Democratic Party to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Friday afternoon, noting that the agency can be reformed with proper leadership.
&#8220;We shouldn&#8217;t abolish ICE. We should reform the system. ICE is not the problem,&#8221; Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-knocks-left-wing-of-democratic-party-we-shouldnt-abolish-ice">told reporters</a> at a campaign stop in Concord, New Hampshire. &#8220;The policies behind ICE are the problem, and that is easy enough to fix if the president knows what he or she is doing.&#8221;
Biden&#8217;s remarks come on the heels of a recently released immigration plan by his Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The proposal is a sweeping set of policy initiatives, which in addition to abolishing the immigration enforcement agency also imposes a moratorium on all deportations, grants complete welfare access to illegal immigrants, and accept no less than 50,000 individuals in the first year who are migrating to the United States because of climate change.
The plan was reportedly crafted in partnership with various illegal immigrants who are currently residing in the country and are shielded from deportation by former President Barack Obama&#8217;s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
&#8220;My father came to America as a refugee without a nickel in his pocket, to escape widespread anti-Semitism, and find a better life,&#8221; Sanders said during the release of his proposal. &#8220;As the proud son of an immigrant, I know that my father&#8217;s story is the story of so many Americans today. When I am in the White House, we will stop the hatred towards our immigrant brothers and sisters, end family separation, and locking children up in cages.&#8221;
Biden, however, has been relatively vague on his immigration stances and has yet to release a detailed immigration platform. The presidential hopeful has called for comprehensive changes to the U.S. immigration system that would increase the current level of immigrants, legalize the status of DREAMers, and provide a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants living in the United States that don&#8217;t have a criminal record and are employed.
During the second Democratic National Committee (DNC) primary debate, Biden revealed that he still opposed decriminalizing border crossings, stating that those seeking to immigrate &#8220;have to wait in line.&#8221;
&#8220;The fact of the matter is, you should be able to – if you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back,&#8221; Biden said at the time. &#8220;It&#8217;s a crime.&#8221;
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who ended her bid for the presidency in August, was one of the first 2020 Democratic contenders to call for abolishing the agency. She received widespread backlash months earlier after saying multiple times that ICE needs to be abolished, but her comments came at a time when numerous other congressmen were advocating for the abolishment of the agency as well.
House Democrats introduced a bill in early July to abolish ICE, but after House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced he planned to bring the proposed bill to a vote, those same Democrats called it a &#8220;political stunt,&#8221; and vowed to vote against their own proposal.

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Files Paperwork For New Hampshire Primary

Joe Biden Comes Out Against Abolishing ICE: &#8216;ICE Is Not The Problem&#8217;

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the Democrats’ shifting attitude about the role of the whistleblower in the Ukraine story. Video and partial transcript below: 
Controversy has broken out as Republicans are trying to out the whistleblower. Now, the Democrats are claiming that the whistleblower is irrelevant — that at this point we&#8217;ve moved beyond the whistleblower’s complaint. There&#8217;s truth to that. The fact is that we now know what the whistleblower had to say, we have the transcript of the call. The whistleblower complaint really didn&#8217;t add anything. 
Now I&#8217;m being consistent on this. I said that the whistleblower complaint originally was less important than the transcript of the call, but that’s not what Democrats said. Democrats said, “We need the entire whistleblower complaint or its obstruction of justice and a cover-up. We need to interview the whistleblower, we need his thoughts!” Then, as soon as it became clear that the whistleblower was probably a partisan hack on behalf of Joe Biden, then it was, “Oh, we don&#8217;t need to hear from the whistleblower anymore.”
I’m of the opinion that the whistleblower is basically irrelevant once the claims of his complaint are made public. But is it fair for Republicans to point out Democratic hypocrisy right here? Yeah, that&#8217;s totally fair. As far as the idea that it is a violation of law to to release the name of the whistleblower — no, it isn&#8217;t. Whistleblower laws are designed to prevent the firing of a whistleblower. Keeping a whistleblower’s name confidential is usually designed to prevent their firing in the private sector, [or] as a private contractor with the United States government.
There are regulations in place that prevent the firing of whistleblower. The inspector general of a particular department is prevented from speaking the name aloud of the whistleblower, but there&#8217;s nothing that prevents Rand Paul from doing. This is the point that Rand Paul, who&#8217;s been pushing to out the whistleblower, made yesterday when he was in a tete-a-tete with the media.
<blockquote>REPORTER: You know it&#8217;s illegal to out a whistleblower?
PAUL: Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong too.
REPORTER: No, we don’t. 
PAUL: You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you really are interested in the news, is that the whistleblower actually is a material witness, completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden, at the same time [that] Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month. </blockquote>
So Rand Paul is actually making a pretty solid case as to why we ought to know who the whistleblower is, which is why I covered it on the show. I mean, that is newsworthy stuff. The fact is that if the situation were reversed, and this were a Republican whistleblower in a Democratic administration, this would have been plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper immediately, if it turned out that the person was a partisan hack on behalf of the Republicans. The media are so invested in Trump being pushed out of office, they&#8217;re so invested in hatred of Trump, it&#8217;s pretty astonishing. 
The best example today is that The Washington Post came out with a full, illustrated Mueller report. It&#8217;s embarrassing. I mean, it really is. Democracy dies in crappy cartoons. They drew all of these pictures, like Paul Manafort and James Comey, with thought bubbles. It&#8217;s absurd. They&#8217;re publishing a graphic nonfiction book centered on special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s obstruction of justice inquiry. I mean, I suppose they couldn’t do it with the Kenneth Starr report, then it just would&#8217;ve been pornography.
“The Mueller Report Illustrated is drawn directly from Volume II of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller&#8217;s report.” Of course, they&#8217;re not going to do it on Volume I because Volume I didn&#8217;t uncover anything. Volume I was about the Trump Russia collusion nonsense.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

SHAPIRO: The Democrats’ Shifting Standard For The Ukraine Whistleblower

Ben Shapiro

On Wednesday, in a desperate attempt to paint his hoped-for election to the presidency in apocalyptic terms, Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden said the survival of the planet depends on ousting President Trump from office. He issued a tweet that indicated he thinks President Trump can destroy the planet in the next five years. Biden wrote:
<blockquote>Hottest summer on record: 2019 
Hottest September on record: 2019 
Hottest October on record: 2019 
There is no time to waste. We must get Donald Trump out of the White House and address the climate emergency. The survival of our planet depends on it.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hottest summer on record: 2019 Hottest September on record: 2019 Hottest October on record: 2019
There is no time to waste. We must get Donald Trump out of the White House and address the climate emergency. The survival of our planet depends on it. <a href="https://t.co/0ex6xguIIQ">https://t.co/0ex6xguIIQ</a>
&mdash; Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1192157702916431872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Biden was referencing a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-just-experienced-its-hottest-october-ever/">CBS News</a> report which stated, “Last month was the hottest ever October on record globally, according to data released Friday by the <a href="https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-september-2019">Copernicus Climate Change Service</a>, an organization that tracks <a href="https://cbsnews.com/feature/climate-change">global temperatures</a>. The month, which was reportedly 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average October from 1981-2010, narrowly beat October 2015 for the top spot.”
Notice the organization apparently has recorded temperatures since 1981, not all of recorded history, and not even for the last 100 years. As physics professor Mike van Biezen noted in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen">The Daily Wire</a> in 2015:
<blockquote>The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records.
When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.</blockquote>
Van Biezen added, “Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years … The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980 …There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels: Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching “An Inconvenient Truth,” higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.&#8221;
He also noted, “The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.”
And most tellingly, “Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced.”
University of Houston professor Larry Bell, the founder and director of  the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, wrote in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#85c88272a4ca">Forbes</a>:
<blockquote>While global warming has been trumpeted as an epic climate change crisis with human-produced CO2, a trace atmospheric “greenhouse gas” branded as a primary culprit and endangering “pollutant,&#8221; remember that throughout earlier periods of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now, with temperature changes preceding, not following atmospheric CO2 changes. Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC &#8230; Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are normal.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

14 Democratic Presidential Candidates Attend Iowa Liberty And Justice Celebration

Biden: Get Trump Out Of White House Before We Burn Up

Global Warming

Former vice president Joe Biden is taking advantage of new revelations, uncovered by a New York Times poll published earlier this week, and attacking Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), his closest competitor for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, over her &#8220;elitism.&#8221;
Writing on the crowdsourced content site, Medium, Biden called Warren “condescending,&#8221; and labeled her approach an “angry unyielding viewpoint.&#8221;
“Some call it the ‘my way or the highway’ approach to politics,” Biden wrote. “But it’s worse than that. It’s condescending to the millions of Democrats who have a different view. It’s representative of an elitism that working and middle-class people do not share: ‘We know best; you know nothing.’ ‘If you were only as smart as I am you would agree with me.’ This is no way to get anything done.”
He repeated the comments at a fundraiser Tuesday night in Pittsburgh, adding some off-the-cuff remarks responding to Warren&#8217;s assertion last week that Biden is running in the &#8220;wrong presidential primary,&#8221; because he insists on adopting a more moderate view of things like health care and student loan forgiveness than Warren and the rest of the party&#8217;s progressive wing.
“I have fought for the Democratic Party my whole career,” Mr. Biden wrote on Medium. “I know what we stand for, who we stand with and what we believe. And it’s not just policies or issues. It’s in my bones. That’s not something everyone in this primary can say.”
At the fundraiser on Tuesday, he added, “I’ve been a Democrat my whole life. This person has only fairly recently in the mid-’90s become a Democrat,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren.html">according to the New York Times</a>.
The recent, public feud between Warren and Biden, opened up after Warren accused Biden of &#8220;repeating Republican talking points” in reference to her nonsensical &#8220;Medicare-for-All&#8221; plan that could cost trillions of dollars and has little support from Democrats overall &#8212; unless those &#8220;Democrats&#8221; happen to be progressive social media denizens.
Warren has prickled at the &#8220;elitism&#8221; insult before, and her only way of dispelling the criticism seems to be an increased aggression towards the corporate and financial sectors, something that isn&#8217;t winning her much love from big money Democrat donors.
JP Morgan&#8217;s Jamie Dimon weighed in on Warren&#8217;s angry rhetoric toward Wall Street <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/jamie-dimon-says-sen-elizabeth-warren-vilifies-successful-people.html">in an interview with CNBC</a> this week, noting that Warren has a habit of &#8220;vilifying&#8221; successful people. Another report that surfaced this week indicates that Democrats with connections to the financial sector are withholding donations from the Democratic Party writ large, leaving leaders like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) scrambling to distance the party from Warren&#8217;s rhetoric, at least privately.
Biden&#8217;s strategy here, though, may not be just to draw his closest political rival into an open feud in the hopes of winning over potential Democratic primary voters: he&#8217;s also listening to messages being sent by Rust Belt and &#8220;battleground state&#8221; voters.
According to groundbreaking poll from the New York Times, released on Monday, Biden &#8212; not Warren, as conventional wisdom would believe &#8212; is the only Democrat giving President Donald Trump a run for his money in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania &#8212; the same states that handed Trump his victory in 2016.
It may be that Biden&#8217;s messages of economic populism and moderate liberalism are resonating in those states but, more likely, it&#8217;s simply that Warren&#8217;s message, targeted at the left wing of the Democratic Party, just isn&#8217;t. For Biden to gain ground on Warren, he needs to hammer home that he&#8217;s the more likely candidate to defeat Trump, and the only way to do that is to embrace voters that are likely to view Warren as out of touch &#8212; and there&#8217;s no better way to do that than focus heavily on Warren&#8217;s weakenesses.
&nbsp;

Joe Biden Shreds Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s &#8216;Elitism,&#8217; Makes A Play For Red States

Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton urged supporters on Monday to elect a Democratic presidential nominee who can win the Electoral College vote in 2020 against President Donald Trump.
&#8220;We have to hope that whoever ends up nominated can win the Electoral College,&#8221; Clinton <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/468956-hillary-clinton-urges-democrats-to-pick-a-candidate-who-can-win-the">told a crowd</a> while promoting her new book, &#8220;The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience,&#8221; while in Denver, Colorado. &#8220;I think several of our candidates could win the popular vote but as I know &#8230; that&#8217;s not enough.&#8221;
The former secretary of state famously won the popular vote in 2016 by receiving more than 2.8 million more votes than Trump, but she ultimately failed to secure the presidency after she fell far short of the required absolute majority of 270 electoral votes needed to win.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think we have a choice — we have to win&#8221; Clinton urged the crowd of nearly 2,000 people. She further noted that while Democrats need to &#8220;work hard for your preference in the primary,&#8221; they should also make sure to &#8220;close ranks behind whoever is nominated.&#8221;
Clinton has reportedly been considering jumping into the crowded Democratic primary field herself and running for the presidency for a third time. In October, Clinton teased a possible presidential bid after Trump urged her to enter the race.
&#8220;You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me. But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my emails. We all know that. So, he’s either lying or delusional, or both. There was no subpoena, as he says in a tweet this morning,&#8221; she said at the time. &#8220;So, maybe there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again. But, just seriously, I don&#8217;t understand, I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him, other than personal grievance, other than seeking adulation.&#8221;
Clinton&#8217;s remarks come amid mounting concerns that many of the Democratic hopefuls that are popular with the primary voters may be too progressive to win in a general election. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been occupying the more moderate lane of the primary, currently stands as the frontrunner, but his campaign has failed to excite the Democratic base.
Biden has consistently been leading his Democratic primary challengers in national polling, but has been lagging in many early states. However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has been routinely polling in second place and gaining momentum, is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html">one of the weakest</a> candidates in a head-to-head match-up against Trump in the battleground states.
If Clinton decided to join the race, she could be jumping in as a frontrunner — a hypothetical match-up between herself and Biden in the Democratic primary showed that the two are virtually tied for the nomination. A <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HHP_October19_Topline_RegisteredVoters.pdf">Harvard Harris poll</a> conducted in mid-October found that 18% of Democrats would throw their support behind Clinton, trailing Biden by only one point and within the margin of error.
&#8220;Do not let anyone you know vote third party,&#8221; Clinton added at her book promotion event Monday.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton promote their book in Minneapolis

Hillary Warns: Democratic Candidate Must Be Able To Win Electoral College

As revealed in another selectively released testimony this week, a key witness in the House Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry offered a &#8220;substantial&#8221; update to his previous testimony on President Trump&#8217;s alleged &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; with Ukraine involving military aide and a corruption investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told congressional investigators that testimony from other witnesses — William Taylor Jr., the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council — &#8220;refreshed my recollection&#8221; about whether he believed Trump was attempting to pressure Ukraine to address corruption by withholding military aide.
Sondland&#8217;s expanded testimony &#8220;offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html">The New York Times</a>  reported Tuesday. &#8220;In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was &#8216;ill-advised,&#8217; although he did not know &#8216;when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.&#8217; But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.&#8221;
&#8220;I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,&#8221; said Sondland, according to four new pages of testimony released by the Democrat-controlled investigative committee Tuesday. He reportedly said that he had begun to &#8220;presume&#8221; that by early September, the Times notes.
Sondland said that in his discussion with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to the Ukrainian president, on Sept. 1 while Vice President Mike Pence was meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, he told Yermak that the U.S. military aid &#8220;would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.&#8221;
&#8220;I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,&#8221; said Sondland in the newly expanded testimony.
In a previously released series of texts between Sondland and Taylor, Sondland, an Oregon hotelier who donated to Trump&#8217;s 2016 campaign, assured Taylor that there was no quid pro quo imposed by Trump for the military aide.
During his famous July 25 call with Zelensky, President Trump asked for a &#8220;favor&#8221;: that he look into &#8220;this whole situation with Ukraine&#8221; in 2016, including the role played by Ukrainian-based cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which the Democratic National Committee used to review the hacking of its emails.
&#8220;I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,&#8221; Trump told Zelensky. &#8220;I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.&#8221;
Trump also asked Zelensky to &#8220;look into&#8221; the allegations against the Bidens. &#8220;There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,&#8221; said Trump. &#8220;So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.&#8221;
Though Trump did not offer a clear quid pro quo in the conversation, the request, the Democrats maintain, is a potentially impeachable offense, particularly if they can prove that Trump withheld U.S. military aide in an attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. Trump contends that he offered no quid pro quo for the investigation into the Bidens, while some of his defenders argue that even if he had, that would not be an impeachable action.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-urged-obama-admin-to-end-corruption-allegations-report-says">Hunter Biden’s Ukraine Gas Firm Urged Obama Admin To End Corruption Allegations, Report Says</a>

NYT: Pro-Trump Diplomat Makes ‘Substantial’ Update To His Impeachment Testimony On Quid Pro Quo

New York Times

A year out from the 2020 presidential election, a new poll from the New York Times finds President Donald Trump in a statistical dead heat with former vice president Joe Biden in most major battleground states but handily beating Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
The poll, described as &#8220;terrifying&#8221; by some Democratic strategists, shows Trump with a strong hold among &#8220;likely voters&#8221; in places like North Carolina and Michigan, but falling slightly behind Biden in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida, though still within the poll&#8217;s margin of error.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NYT/Sienna poll: Trump would lose almost every swing state to Biden, but would sweep Warren and take almost all against Sanders. 
This will wake you up this morning&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/tclcfssr45">https://t.co/tclcfssr45</a> <a href="https://t.co/GxymVNSMi2">pic.twitter.com/GxymVNSMi2</a>
&mdash; Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) <a href="https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1191338134195359744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That puts Trump in a statistical dead heat with Biden for most states except for North Carolina. Among registered voters, the results are nearly the same, though Biden fares slightly better in the Rust Belt.
That&#8217;s probably not surprising news for the Trump camp, which has been publicly attacking Warren &#8212; and not necessarily Biden &#8212; of late, perhaps hoping that Democrats perceive Warren as Trump&#8217;s top threat. Biden, for all his faults, has a comfortable presence in &#8220;blue&#8221; and battleground states with a high percentage of middle class and working class voters, and he shares Trump&#8217;s message of economic populism, which resonated heavily with that demographic in 2016.
Biden has long been thought to be the biggest challenge for Trump among the potential 2020 nominees &#8212; and &#8220;establishment&#8221; Democrats have been preparing Biden&#8217;s coronation for quite some time.
Of late, though, progressive Democrats and far-left social media dwellers have been creeping in on the prevailing wisdom that a more &#8220;moderate&#8221;candidate is the Democrats&#8217; only chance at retaking the White House, and pushing Warren as the potential nominee. The claim is that Warren (or Sanders, for that matter) give voters a real choice between visions, and America is ready to move further towards socialism.
The New York Times poll, however, tosses gallons of cold water on that theory, and it&#8217;s sent progressives clamoring.
Warren (and Sanders, though he&#8217;s so unlikely to be the nominee, it&#8217;s almost not worth analyzing), loses narrowly to Trump among registered voters in all battlground states except Arizona, where her lead falls within the polls margin of error. Among likely voters, Warren gets trounced by Trump almost across the board.
In states like Michigan and Florida, which both rejected Hillary Clinton in 2016 by narrow margins, Warren falls behind her predecessor candidate; Trump takes Michigan from Warren by 6 points and Florida by 4.
The worst news for Warren, though, is how badly she&#8217;s polling among non-white voters, who are a core element of the Democrat coalition. Clinton took black voters by an 80% margin over Trump in 2016, but they&#8217;re less enthusiastic for Warren. She faces the same chasm among Hispanic voters, doing 10 points poorer than Clinton did in 2016.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Warren runs especially poorly with nonwhite voters in battleground states, per NYT poll. 
Clinton: +79 with black voters over Trump // Warren polling +68
Clinton +35 with Hispanic voters over Trump // Warren +24.<a href="https://t.co/hEOXNUALjP">https://t.co/hEOXNUALjP</a>
&mdash; Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) <a href="https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1191316027562434560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Worse still, the poll seems to show that Trump is getting higher margins of minority and young voters &#8212; not that mintority and young voters are simply dropping out of the process. If Warren and Biden could argue that most young voters are as yet &#8220;undecided&#8221; and that they could still pick up larger percentages of those demographics down the line, the NYT polling news might not be so bad. But the indexes show Trump getting double-digit support from black voters and doing well among whites without college educations, who fall between ages 18 and 44.
Trump&#8217;s Achilles&#8217; heel is college-educated white voters, many of whom, the NYT adds, either voted for a third party candidate or sat out the 2016 election. They seem to have flocked to Biden, making him the preferred candidate, it seems of so-called &#8220;Never Trumpers.&#8221;
The key problem for Warren can be found in the poll&#8217;s cross-tabs: a shocking 100% of Warren&#8217;s backers, who spoke to the NYT for this poll, believe she may too far to the left to win.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Quite the poll finding on <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewarren</a> mentioned by <a href="https://twitter.com/VictorBlackwell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VictorBlackwell</a> this weekend: 100% (!) of Warren backers in NYT/Siena’s Iowa caucus poll say they are concerned she is “too far to the left to win” <a href="https://t.co/dyg9SkfK4V">pic.twitter.com/dyg9SkfK4V</a>
&mdash; Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1191207337522008065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Leftists are taking solace in the idea that the cross-tabs show a &#8220;weird&#8221; breakdown in how the NYT conducted its poll.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
These crosstabs in the NYT&#39;s Michigan poll are really weird. Even in 2016 the electorate was less white, younger, and more Democratic than this <a href="https://t.co/RoYmWVaG0k">pic.twitter.com/RoYmWVaG0k</a>
&mdash; Lib Gobbler (@lib_crusher) <a href="https://twitter.com/lib_crusher/status/1191355731460669440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Others are simply rewriting the poll to more accurately reflect their desires.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It&#39;s not as exciting nor will it invite hair on fire headlines, but here is an accurate graphic for the new NYT poll <a href="https://t.co/99o4Kf8R5t">pic.twitter.com/99o4Kf8R5t</a>
&mdash; (((trianglman))) (@trianglman) <a href="https://twitter.com/trianglman/status/1191388528384643076?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It might be more beneficial to analysts to handle reality as it comes: that Trump, whom they believe to be an unpopular president, may, in fact, still be more popular than the three front-runners in the Democratic field.

Trump

POLL: Trump Tied With Biden, Trouncing Warren In 2020 Battleground States

The July 25 phone call that sparked the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry famously included President Trump&#8217;s request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky &#8220;look into&#8221; corruption allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. The call also included Trump&#8217;s request to look into alleged Ukrainian 2016 election interference.
In a January 2017 report, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446">Politico&#8217;</a>s Kenneth Vogel and David Stern, citing multiple sources familiar with the matter, reported that the Ukrainian government attempted to &#8220;help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump&#8221; in 2016.
&#8220;Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country,” Vogel and Stern reported. &#8220;Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.&#8221;
&#8220;The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia,&#8221; Vogel and Stern wrote.
Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, whose contact with Ukraine is at the center of the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry, recently met with a former Ukrainian diplomat who has accused his own government of colluding with the Democrats against Trump.
&#8220;While Congress heard closed-door testimony last week about President Donald Trump pushing Ukraine to investigate his opponents, Rudy Giuliani was holding his own private Ukraine meeting in his Manhattan office,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/amid-impeachment-circus-pro-trump-search-dirt-ukraine-bidens-2016-n1075811">NBC News</a> reported Monday. Giuliani &#8220;met with former Ukrainian diplomat Andriy Telizhenko, who alleges that Ukraine&#8217;s government conspired with the Democratic National Committee to hurt Trump in 2016.&#8221;
&#8220;We discussed what&#8217;s happening in Ukraine, political updates, what the new (Ukrainian presidential) team is up to, what are the reforms going to be,&#8221; Telizhenko told NBC News.
&#8220;Giuliani has interviewed him for hours about his Ukraine allegations, although Telizhenko said their most recent meeting wasn’t focused on investigations,&#8221; the network reports. The two met several times in the past, including in May, August, and September, the network notes.
The meeting, NBC suggests, is evidence that Trump&#8217;s team is moving ahead with their &#8220;campaign to get Ukraine to investigate Trump&#8217;s political opponents.&#8221;
Though the left-leaning media has painted Trump&#8217;s request for Ukraine to &#8220;look into&#8221; the corruption allegations involving the Bidens as attempting to &#8220;dig up dirt&#8221; on his political opponent, as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763502822/what-were-the-bidens-doing-in-ukraine-5-questions-answered">NPR</a> detailed, credible accusations of corruption against the Bidens date back to 2014 and stem from the Bidens&#8217; highly problematic roles in Ukraine that strongly suggest conflicts of interest. NPR reports:
<blockquote>In the spring of 2014, as Joe Biden began his trips to Ukraine, Hunter Biden took a position on the board of the country&#8217;s largest private gas company, Burisma. He was reportedly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html">paid up to $50,000 a month</a>.
The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — <a href="https://time.com/2964493/ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-burisma/">was raised publicly at the time</a>.</blockquote>
Biden famously boasted last year at the Council on Foreign Relations about forcing Ukraine to remove the prosecutor who had looked into Burisma. &#8220;I said, &#8216;You’re not getting the [$1 billion]. I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b****. He got fired,&#8221; said Biden.
As Politico&#8217;s 2017 report indicates, Trump&#8217;s concern over alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election is also well-founded. Some Ukrainian politicians agree that the issue needs to be looked into, including Ukraine&#8217;s president. In October, President Zelensky <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ukraine-president-were-ready-to-investigate-ukraines-alleged-meddling-in-2016-u-s-election">announced</a> that his government is “ready to investigate Ukraine’s alleged meddling in the U.S. elections,” referencing the 2016 election.
As reported by NBC, a group of Ukrainian parliamentarians are &#8220;working to stand up a new investigative commission — the Ukrainian analogue to a congressional select committee — to probe what they say was a Ukrainian government campaign to smear former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in a bid to take down Trump in 2016.&#8221;
The group also wants to investigate the Bidens&#8217; alleged corruption.
&#8220;Ukraine was involved in like the biggest scandal in recent U.S. political history, let alone Ukrainian. Definitely most of my colleagues here pretend it doesn&#8217;t exist,&#8221; said lawmaker Oleg Voloshin, who is also an associate of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, NBC reports. &#8220;It started here, and it should finish here.&#8221;
During his July 25 call with Zelensky, Trump asked for a &#8220;favor&#8221;: to look into &#8220;this whole situation with Ukraine&#8221; in 2016, including the role played by Ukrainian-based cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which the Democratic National Committee used to review the hacking of its emails.
&#8220;I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,&#8221; Trump told Zelensky. “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-witness-told-congress-he-warned-about-biden-ukraine-problem-in-2015-got-shut-down-by-bidens-office">Impeachment Witness Tells Congress He Warned About Biden-Ukraine Problem In 2015, Got Shut Down By Biden’s Office</a>

Donald Trump Rudy Giuliani

Trump Lawyer Meets With Diplomat Who Says Ukraine Conspired With Democrats Against Trump

Paul Manafort

On Friday, seasoned political commentator Brit Hume took issue with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman&#8217;s testimony regarding the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
According to Vindman, Trump&#8217;s call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 left him &#8220;deeply troubled&#8221; that the president was attempting to &#8220;subvert U.S. foreign policy,&#8221; <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-official-who-heard-trumps-call-with-ukraine-leader-testified-that-he-was-told-to-keep-quiet/2019/11/01/dbed7fae-fc07-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html">The Washington Post</a> reported:
<blockquote>He told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen.</blockquote>
Hume, reacting to the Post&#8217;s write-up on Twitter, highlighted that Vindman&#8217;s supposed fear is &#8220;illogical,&#8221; since it is the president who sets the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
&#8220;This from the article: &#8216;he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy&#8230;&#8217; There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is?&#8221; Hume wrote.
Hume clarified the &#8220;huge fallacy&#8221; in a reply, explaining, &#8220;it’s the fact that the president is the constitutional author of foreign policy, so the idea he is &#8216;subverting&#8217; it is illogical.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This from the article: “he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy&#8230;” There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is? <a href="https://t.co/L1Jfgck6G2">https://t.co/L1Jfgck6G2</a>
&mdash; Brit Hume (@brithume) <a href="https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1190613300217831425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Actually, it’s the fact that the president is the constitutional author of foreign policy, so the idea he is “subverting” it is illogical.
&mdash; Brit Hume (@brithume) <a href="https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1190694372440002561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As highlighted by <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/brit-hume-exposes-huge-fallacy-in-alexander-vindmans-testimony-to-house-impeachment-panel">The Blaze</a>, &#8220;the executive branch has the most significant role in crafting U.S. foreign policy, and because the president is the head of the executive branch, the president essentially determines the direction of U.S. foreign policy while in office.&#8221;
Vindman also testified that the call&#8217;s official record and rough transcript &#8220;included an inexplicable change,&#8221; the Post noted. Instead of including the word &#8220;Burisma,&#8221; Ukraine’s largest private gas company and the company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s son Hunter Biden, the transcript included the phrase, “the company that you mentioned in this issue.”
<section></section>
The Post suggests that &#8220;Burisma&#8221; was intentionally left out of the transcript, but notes that &#8220;[s]ome argue that the transcribers simply misunderstood or missed the word but used a generic description&#8221; — that is, if the company name was actually said during the call.
<div class="remainder-content">
<section>
<div>
Questions surrounding the Biden family&#8217;s relations with Ukraine first became a concern in 2014, when, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763502822/what-were-the-bidens-doing-in-ukraine-5-questions-answered">NPR</a>, Biden, then-vice president, began making trips to Ukraine in the spring, as his son took a position on the board of Burisma — thereby earning a reported $50,000 a month. “The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time,” the left-leaning outlet noted. 
Moreover, in March 2016, “Biden made one of his many trips to Ukraine and told the country’s leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor” probing corruption “if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid,” NPR reported. 
Biden openly bragged last year at the Council on Foreign Relations about wielding his influence to seemingly protect his son. “I said, ‘You’re not getting the [$1 billion]. I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b****. He got fired,” he boasted.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, referring to his late July phone call with Zelensky &#8220;perfect.&#8221;
“As President I have an obligation to end CORRUPTION, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries,” the president Tweeted earlier this month. “This has NOTHING to do with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens. This does have to do with their corruption!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As President I have an obligation to end CORRUPTION, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries. It is done all the time. This has NOTHING to do with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens. This does have to do with their corruption!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1180094411323117568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

&#8216;Illogical&#8217;: Brit Hume Points Out &#8216;Huge Fallacy&#8217; In Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony

A new <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HHP_October19_Topline_RegisteredVoters.pdf">Harvard-Harris national poll</a> has former Vice President Joe Biden running a substantial lead ahead of his closest rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Democratic voters were asked: “Which of the following candidates are you most likely to vote for in a Democratic primary?”
33% selected Biden, 18% selected Sanders, and 15% selected Warren. No other candidate came close to double digits. 8% were “not sure.”
When independents were added to the Democratic group, the numbers shifted, but the positions remained the same. 25% for Biden, 15% for Sanders, and 12% for Warren. 14% were “not sure.”
When asked about their level of commitment to the candidates they selected, 60% said they “might change” their minds, while 40% said they were “committed” to their choice.
Here’s where things get interesting – the survey asked respondents to choose a candidate if the pool were expanded to include Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry.
Once these candidates are added to the mix, the race changes dramatically. Biden still leads with 19% of the Democratic vote, but Clinton comes in second with 18%. Warren falls to 13%, and Sanders to 12%.
When independents are added to the pool, the race gets even tighter, with Biden and Clinton tied at 13% each. Warren and Sanders also tie at 10% each.
The idea of Hillary Clinton entering the race at this late stage has been floated by several people. Even Clinton herself has been making the rounds on talk shows and podcasts, calling President Trump “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-hillary-trump-an-illegitimate-president-and-hes-very-insecure-about-it">an illegitimate president</a>” on multiple occasions.
After Trump tweeted about Clinton in early-October, the former secretary of state said the following to Judy Woodruff on “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-falsely-claims-she-won-2016-election-suggests-she-might-run-again">PBS NewsHour</a>”:
<blockquote>You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me &#8230; maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again. But, just seriously, I don’t understand, I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him.</blockquote>
Speaking recently with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, former Clinton advisor Philippe Reines <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-hillary-clinton-adviser-adds-more-fuel-to-fire-that-clinton-will-run-in-2020">said</a>: “You know, she ran for president because she thought she would be the best president. If she still thought that now, if she thought she had the best odds of beating Donald Trump – I think she would think about it long and hard.”
When Carlson suggested that Clinton “hasn’t foreclosed the possibility,” Reines replied: “No, she has not.”
On October 22, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html">The New York Times</a> published a piece about Democratic donors wondering about the state of the race:
<blockquote>When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked. But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.
Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor? One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.</blockquote>
At a Georgetown University Law School event on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-bill-clinton-throws-some-more-fuel-on-the-hillary-2020-fire">told the crowd</a>: “She may or may not ever run for anything, but I can’t legally run for president again.”
Hillary Clinton may be battered and bruised, having lost to Donald Trump in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008, but there remains a certain segment of the Democratic electorate that would vote for her regardless. The question remains – will she throw her tattered hat into the ring?

Hillary Clinton.

SHOCK: New Poll Has Hillary Clinton And Joe Biden Tied For First Place

Despite being a pro-abortion Democrat who now wishes to fund the practice with taxpayer dollars, former Vice President Joe Biden said that Pope Francis has given him Holy Communion, and that he had never encountered a priest or bishop who would refuse him.
Speaking with PBS News Hour, Joe Biden said that the issue of receiving Holy Communion as a pro-abortion politician has never come up in his life until just recently.
“It’s not a position that I’ve found anywhere else, including from the Holy Father, who gives me Communion,&#8221; Biden said, as reported by <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-abortion-joe-biden-the-holy-father...gives-me-communion">LifeSiteNews</a>.
Last week, a Catholic priest in South Carolina <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-joe-biden-denied-holy-communion-at-catholic-church-over-abortion-support">reportedly enforced</a> the church’s code of canon law by denying former Vice President Joe Biden the sacrament of Holy Communion due to his stance on abortion.
<div class="subscriber-only">
“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden,” Father Robert E. Morey of Saint Anthony Catholic Church told reporters. “Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other, and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”
Biden told PBS that the Communion denial was &#8220;the only time it’s ever happened,” adding the situation was a &#8220;private matter,&#8221; while accusing the priest of bringing it to the press. While it is true that Father Morey told reporters about the encounter, it is possible that he told them of it only after they reached out, being that people in attendance or those close with Joe Biden might have spread word of it.
During every Mass, Catholic doctrine states that the wafer and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ when a priest consecrates it. In order for a Catholic to receive Communion, they must be in a state of grace after having attended the Sacrament of Confession. If a Catholic, usually by way of conscience, determines that they are not in a state of grace, they must refrain from receiving Holy Communion. When it comes to individuals who publicly oppose Catholic teaching (such as politicians who support abortion), bishops and priests are given full license under Canon Law to deny the person Holy Communion until they repent, lest they commit the sin of sacrilege if they receive what Catholics believe to be the body and blood of Christ unworthily.
As the abortion argument in the United States has escalated during the Trump era, certain Catholic bishops have taken extra steps to warn pro-abortion politicians to refrain from Holy Communion. Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, for instance, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48112/illinois-catholic-bishop-bars-pro-abortion-paul-bois">expressly forbid </a>all priests under his governance to give Holy Communion to politicians that supported the “Reproductive Health Act” in Illinois.
</div>
In an appearance on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends&#8221; late last week, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-cardinal-dolan-supports-priest-not-giving-pro-abortion-joe-biden-holy-communion">said that he supports Father Morey&#8217;s decision</a> even though he himself would give Joe Biden Holy Communion.
“I think that priest had a good point,” Dolan said. “You are publicly at odds with an issue of substance – critical substance. We’re talking about life and death in the church. You personally, out of integrity, should not approach Holy Communion – because that implies that you’re in union with all the church beliefs. I never have [denied someone Holy Communion]. I’ve never had, what you might call the opportunity, or never said, ‘uh-oh. Should I give him or her Holy Communion?’ It’s never come up. [It] sure could.”

US-VATICAN-RELIGION-POPE

Pro-Abortion Joe Biden: Pope Francis Gives Me Holy Communion

Abortion

Catholicism

Pope Francis

Joe Biden knows he makes a lot of gaffes.
“I am a gaffe machine, but my God what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can’t tell the truth,” he said last year, referring to President Trump.
And he sure is right. The 76-year-old is just that: A gaffe machine. Or, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-biden-isnt-just-a-gaffe-machine-hes-the-lamborghini-of-gaffes/2019/08/27/8ed2ce02-c900-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html">Washington Post</a> put it, &#8220;the Lamborghini of gaffes.&#8221;
He&#8217;s done it again. The former vice president was campaigning in Iowa on Saturday. Or maybe Ohio.
&#8220;How many unsafe bridges do you still have here in Ohio?&#8221; he said to laughter from the crowd at Abby Finkenauer’s Fish Fry in Cedar Rapids. &#8220;I mean Iowa,&#8221; he said, quickly correcting himself.
In another weird occurrence, Biden is seen in one clip posted on Twitter talking to a screen, not the audience.
&#8220;Joe Biden speaking in an arena in Iowa gets confused where the camera is and keeps talking to a screen. CSPAN keeps cutting away to try and help him out&#8230;hahahahahahah,&#8221; said the post.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
HILARIOUS&#8230; 
Joe Biden speaking in an arena in Iowa gets confused where the camera is and keeps talking to a screen. CSPAN keeps cutting away to try and help him out&#8230;hahahahahahaha <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DonaldJTrumpJr</a> <a href="https://t.co/nF9pFV0TE1">pic.twitter.com/nF9pFV0TE1</a>
— 🇺🇸 Miguelifornia (@michaelbeatty3) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1190461101470650368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
The campaign trail apparently confuses Biden.
“What’s not to like about Vermont?” Biden said one day in August. Problem: He was in New Hampshire. Biden also confused Burlington, Iowa, with Burlington, Vermont.
But Iowa is home to many of Biden&#8217;s gaffes. In August, Biden said “poor kids” are just as smart as “white kids.” He also said he was vice president when he met with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, but that occurred in February 2018, after he&#8217;d let office.
He also makes a lot of gaffes during debates among candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“I would eliminate the capital gains tax. I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5%,&#8221; he said during one debate in October.
At one point, as he was trying to attack rivals Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Biden nearly said he ended the Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
“Senator Warren said we can’t be running any vague campaigns. We’ve got to level with people. We’ve got to level with people and tell them exactly what we’re going to do, how we’re going to get it done, and if you can get it done. I’m going to say something that is probably going to offend some people here, but I’m the only one on this stage that has gotten anything really big done — from the Violence Against Women Act to making sure that we pass[ed] the Affordable Care Act to being in a position where we, in fact, took almost a[n] … Act that kept us from going into a depression, making us — putting us in a position where I was able to end Roe — excuse me,” he said, breaking off quickly.
At another debate, Biden at one point blurted out, “go to Joe 3-0-3-3-0.” Apparently, he meant to tell viewers they should text “Joe” to 30330, but he looked out of it with the blunder.
The Biden campaign has downplayed the gaffes. Kate Bedingfield, deputy manager of the Biden campaign, said new media are applying an “unfair standard” to him.
“If you listen to what candidates say all day as they’re out campaigning — they’re out in front of cameras, they’re in front of people, they’re talking all day. Everybody’s going to slip up and misstate a name or a date or a location — it happens all the time,” she said last month on MSNBC. “It doesn’t get the outsize attention that Joe Biden gets. So I understand that’s part of being a front-runner. But I also think that people know him, [and] part of his charm is that they understand that they’re getting it straight from him. It’s not overly packaged. He’s always speaking from his heart.
“And sure, that means sometimes he’s going to misstate a couple of things, but frankly, so does every other candidate,” Bedingfield said.
&nbsp;

Joe Biden Gets Confused About His Location… Again

On Tuesday, a new poll from <a href="https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&amp;context=survey_center_polls">CNN/University of New Hampshire</a> was released showing former Vice President Joe Biden falling to third place in the Granite State.
“If the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary were held today, 21% of likely primary voters say they would vote for [Sen. Bernie] Sanders, 18% would vote for [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren, 15% would vote for Biden, and 10% would vote for [Mayor Pete] Buttigieg,” according to the poll.
This is a stark contrast from the previous <a href="https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&amp;context=survey_center_polls">CNN/UNH poll</a> released on July 16, which had Biden in the lead with 24% of the vote.
While Biden’s favorability in New Hampshire has seen a negative shift since July, it has been relatively minor. Meanwhile, the former vice president’s chief rivals, Sanders and Warren, have risen to first and second place despite also experiencing negative shifts in favorability.
In July, 57% of “likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters” had a “favorable” opinion of Biden, while 25% had an “unfavorable” opinion. In this most recent poll, 55% of Democratic primary voters in the state have a “favorable” view of Biden compared to 30% who have an “unfavorable” view.
Let’s look at the numbers for Sanders and Warren. In July, Sanders and Warren had identical numbers &#8212; 67% “favorable” compared to 18% “unfavorable.”
According to Tuesday’s poll, Sanders has shifted to 66% “favorable” versus 23% “unfavorable.” Warren has shifted as well, with 63% “favorable” and 25% “unfavorable.”
Despite these relatively minor changes in favorability, the former vice president’s position in the state race has plummeted, while Sanders has leapt to first place with 23% of the vote. Warren has actually dropped by a single percentage point (19% to 18%), but Biden’s 9% fall is much more significant.
According to the poll, a staggering 57% of Democratic primary voters are “still trying to decide” on a candidate. That number was 64% in July. 23% have “definitely decided.” In July, that number was 16%.
For a candidate once considered the “frontrunner,” Biden appears to be losing momentum or treading water in other early primary/caucus states.
In Iowa, Biden sits in third place with 15.7%, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html">RealClearPolitics</a> (RCP) polling average. Warren and Buttigieg place first and second, with 22.3% and 17%, respectively.
In Nevada, Biden remains in the lead with 22.5%, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html">RCP average</a>. However, it should be noted that the most recent polling data for the state is from late-September. In the most recent poll from CNN, Biden is tied with Sanders at 22%, with Warren close behind at 18%.
In South Carolina, Biden still commands a substantial lead, with 35% of the vote, per the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html">RealClearPolitics average</a>. The four most recent polls from the state appear to show the former vice president struggling to keep his lead (34%, 43%, 33%, 30%), while other candidates remain steady or move slightly upward.
As of publication, the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics national polling average</a> has Biden in the lead with 27.6%, Warren in second with 20.4%, Sanders in third with 17%, and Buttigieg in fourth with 7.1% of the vote.

Menu

Joe Biden

Articles tagged with Joe Biden

CURL: Dullest Race Ever Bores Democrats Silly As Hillary Poised For Her Encore Call

WATCH: Former 2020 Democrat Throws His Endorsement Behind Joe Biden, Explains Why He’s Got Best Shot

Joe Biden Gives Heartfelt Answer About Grief And Loss

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

The Complete Timeline Of The Trump-Ukraine Story

Elizabeth Warren Echoes Hillary Clinton, Implies That Critics Are ‘Sexist’

Excerpts From Alexander Vindman’s Testimony To Congress Raises Questions About Credibility

Joe Biden Comes Out Against Abolishing ICE: ‘ICE Is Not The Problem’