Why Kamala Harris can’t depose Joe Biden

 One of the recurring concerns that I’ve heard about the 2020 election is the fear that Kamala Harris will declare Joe Biden incompetent and have him removed from office. Harris would then become president and Nancy Pelosi would be elevated to the vice presidency, or so the theory goes. This was always an unlikely possibility that was intended more as a scare tactic than a concern grounded in reality. As election returns continue to come in, the possibility of such a coup is even more remote.

The most obvious flaw in this conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden has demonstrated over the past few months that he is not senile. It was easier to paint Biden as a dementia patient before he bested Donald Trump in two debates and held a live town hall in front of the nation. Biden has also given several live televised speeches at this point, and the evidence that he is mentally incompetent is just not there.

Biden is also much more popular than Kamala Harris. Although Harris was painted as a shoo-in by many in both the mainstream and conservative media, she was one of the first candidates to drop out of the Democratic primary. She ended her campaign on Dec. 3, 2019 after failing to gain traction.

Although the conservative media paints Harris as a liberal bogeywoman, she is not that popular with the progressive left, which prefers Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Black voters rejected her for Joe Biden. Harris currently has a negative favorability rating among the nation at large and is only marginally popular within her own party.

The point here is that Harris has no progressive constituency that would support such a nefarious move against Biden, the man of the hour who is the toast of the Democratic Party after his defeat of Donald Trump. An unpopular vice president removing a popular president under suspicious terms would not end well for either Harris or the country.

If Harris’s relative unpopularity among both Democrats and the nation at large isn’t convincing, the rules for declaring a president incompetent should kill the conspiracy theory. The 25th Amendment sets out the rules for presidential succession so let’s examine what would be required in such a scenario.

The 25th Amendment is a complex amendment that is comprised of four sections. Section one is straightforward:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

The second section is clear and concise as well:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

One part of the conspiracy is debunked here. While the speaker of the House is third in line of succession to the presidency, the speaker does not become vice president if the current vice president assumes the presidency. The Constitution clearly states that the new president will nominate a new vice president, who must then be confirmed by Congress.

The third section details what would happen if the president chooses to step down on his own initiative:

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

While some versions of the conspiracy theory speculate that Biden intends to step down and pass the presidency to Harris, these claims are so far without evidence. Nor do they pass the smell test. No objective observer can watch Biden’s performance in the debates and town halls over the past few months or his address to the country on Friday night and come away with the conclusion that the man who ran for president three times does not really want to be president. This is not a man who intends to take office and then resign.

The fourth and final section of the amendment is the most complex. Perhaps that is why so many of the conspiracy theorists seem not to have bothered to read it.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
     
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Section four spells out exactly how a president can be removed if he is unable to fulfill his duties. The first step is that the vice president and a majority of the cabinet must agree that the president is unable to “discharge the powers and duties of his office.” In other words, removing Biden would not be at the sole discretion of Harris. She would have to obtain the agreement of a majority of cabinet officials who were just appointed by Biden to their jobs to become the acting president. Presumably, loyalty to the Biden would be a factor filling these jobs.

But the process does not end there. If President Biden disputed the cabinet’s decision, he would resume the role of president (and presumably be much less trusting of Vice President Harris afterward). If Harris continued to force the issue, Congress would decide whether the president was capable of continuing. Upholding the president’s removal would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. This is a higher bar than for impeachment which requires a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Even if Republicans did not retain control of the Senate, the vote to remove the president would have to be a bipartisan one. Simple math tells us that a two-thirds majority would require 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Democrats briefly held a supermajority in both houses from 2009 to 2011 but Congress will be closely divided in 2021.

When the Constitution is considered, the possibility of Kamala Harris having Joe Biden declared incompetent is even more remote than Donald Trump pulling out a popular vote victory. There is approximately zero chance that Republicans would side with Harris to remove President Biden, but I have to admit that the possibility of Republicans in Congress rallying to save the Biden Adminstration is intriguing.

Nevertheless, some conspiracies go one step further. What if Harris had Biden whacked? Killing the president would bypass sections three and four and revert to the simplicity of section one.

There are multiple problems here, beginning with the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that Kamala Harris is morally capable of ordering the murder of her political ally and friend. There is also the obvious problem of Biden’s Secret Service protection and the inherent risks of such a plot. If such a conspiracy was real and discovered – either before or after the fact – it would be an impeachable and criminal act. At that point, we would likely see bipartisan impeachment proceedings.

It would make far more sense for Kamala Harris to serve Biden loyally and hope to be his successor. There is speculation that Biden may serve only one term due to his age and a vice president who had not committed treason would have an advantage in competing for the Democratic nomination.

However, Republicans can take some comfort from the fact that, although 14 vice presidents have ascended to the presidency only six of these have been elevated through elections. Eight gained the office through the death of the president. So, if Joe Biden survives his term, and there is little reason to think that he won’t, Harris stands a good chance of losing to a Republican candidate in either four or eight years.

The conspiracy theories that Joe Biden is a Trojan horse to install Kamala Harris as president are completely unfounded. These claims are merely scare tactics that were intended to undermine the Biden campaign during the election and should not be treated seriously.

Originally published on The First TV

Donald Trump Defends The COVID Vaccine… Finally

 President Trump has come out swinging after Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris expressed doubt about a potential Coronavirus vaccine last week. The president charged that Harris and Democratic nominee Joe Biden were engaging in “reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric” and “endangering lives.” To some extent, he has a point but that’s not the full story.

The kerfuffle began last week when CNN released a clip of Harris saying, “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.”

Or did it?

Maybe it started last month when President Trump announced a push to approve a vaccine before Election Day or earlier last week when the CDC advised states to be ready to begin distribution of a vaccine by November 1.

Or did it?

Maybe the vaccine brouhaha began way back in the spring when right-wing conspiracy theorists started claiming that Bill Gates was planning to use a COVID vaccine as a Trojan horse for either mind control or population control (or both) depending on which version of the conspiracy they embraced. Like the underwear gnomes from South Park, the plan by Gates and/or the Illuminati/New World Order/whatever was generally explained like this:

Step One – Vaccine and/or mask mandates
Step Two – ???????????
Step Three – Fascism… Or communism… Or both.

I do applaud the president for defending the upcoming vaccine. His statement that a vaccine would be “very safe and very effective” was much needed. If there was any problem with this part of the statement, it was that it was five months in coming.

“The people will be happy, the people of the world will be happy,” the president added.

If you doubt the anti-vaccine hysteria surrounding a Coronavirus vaccine, you need only look to an August Gallup poll which found that 35 percent of Americans would not get an FDA-approved COVID vaccine, even if it was offered at no cost. The kicker is that Republicans were the only group in which a majority opposed the vaccine (53-47 percent).

But, while Kamala Harris’s words did not help the matter, it is the president’s own rush to approve a vaccine that has led at least some of the non-conspiracy crowd to doubt the safety and the efficacy of vaccine that bypasses the normal trials and approvals process.

Problems that come from bypassing safeguards, not mind-control chips, are the real danger of a vaccine. In 1976, the federal government rushed a swine flu vaccine in response to an expected epidemic. Smithsonian magazine notes politics became prevalent and science took a backseat. In the end, the vaccine was linked to increased risk for a rare neurological disorder, and the fiasco contributed to skepticism about vaccines that lasts to this day.

Even more recently, last spring Coronavirus test kits were in short supply because of a problem in the manufacturing process. The Washington Post reported that the problems were due to contamination at a CDC lab that “violated sound manufacturing practices.”

Cutting corners can cost lives. This is true both in the direct sense that an untested vaccine could be dangerous and indirectly due to time lost in fixing problems that would have been revealed earlier by following established procedures. As my dad has been known to say, “You can make time to do it right or make time to do it over.”

To his credit, Joe Biden stepped up to quell vaccine fears. Fox News quoted Biden as saying, “If I could get a vaccine tomorrow I’d do it. If it cost me the election I’d do it. We need a vaccine and we need it now.”

“I would want to see what the scientists said,” Biden qualified.

But Biden had some sharp words for Trump as well, charging that the president was “playing with politics. He said so many things that aren’t true.”

“If we do have a really good vaccine people are going to be reluctant to take it,” Biden added, which is a true statement supported by the poll cited earlier.

So what to do? The obvious answer is to avoid politicizing the vaccine. President Trump should stand back and let the scientists and medical experts handle the matter. In the past, the FDA has said that it will not “cut corners” in vaccine trials, and Moncef Slaoui, the scientist heading the “Operation Warp Speed” vaccine effort said last week that a vaccine by November was “possible but very unlikely,” per the Washington Post.

It is when the president’s statements conflict with those of the scientists that it sets off alarm bells in many people’s heads. In medical matters, we should be listening to the medical experts and not the guy who suggested injecting disinfectants. If the president wants to undercut a vaccine panic among Democrats and non-Republicans, it is as simple as saying that no vaccine will be approved or deployed before the doctors say that it is ready. Mr. Trump should paraphrase the old wine commercial with the consistent message, “I will serve no vaccine before its time.”

In the meantime, if the president wants to help the fight against the pandemic, he can start talking more to his base about the need for masks, social distancing, and a vaccine. In the end, it is the president’s own supporters who are more likely to “just say no” to a COVID vaccine than Biden backers. Straight talk about the need for mitigations from a president loved for his “truth-telling” might go a long way with the right-wing conspiracy crowd.

Or it might not. The president took months to call on his supporters to wear a mask (and to wear one publicly himself). In truth, the president’s message has been inconsistent. In July, the president called wearing a mask “patriotic” but no masks were in sight at the August Republican National Convention, even though attendees were not socially distanced.

From my conversations with Trump supporters over the past few months, it doesn’t seem as if the president’s call for masks made much of an impression on his supporters. Republicans seem just as anti-mask after the president made his pitch as they were before with many wearing masks (often incorrectly) only when they are required.

The same may be true of the vaccine. The anti-vaxxer conspiracies may now be so ingrained into so many Republicans that even President Trump cannot reverse it at this point. (It should be noted that the president made anti-vaccine comments back in 2016.)

To test this theory, I asked several friends in a Facebook group whether the president’s defense of the vaccine. Of the people who responded at press time, none said that the president’s statement changed their mind about vaccines.

“I am not a fan of vaccines in the contemporary era,” Russ said. “Proven old-school vaccines we grew up with were time tested, but the modern vaccine feels rushed, pushed (as in media advertising) and generally come off as ‘sales pitchy.'”

“If big pharma had not grown into a ‘mega-plex’ industry I might feel differently,” he added. “If science had not become ‘doctrine’ and ‘dogma’ on most matters, I would feel differently. Industrial growth is bad for overall trust.”

“I’m not a fan of the president, nor will I be getting the vaccine,” Tracy stated.

“I support effective vaccines for illnesses that are necessary to be vaccinated against,” said Janice. “My jury is still out on COVID.”

Janice’s opinion is where a lot of people are. They aren’t necessarily against vaccines in general, but they do want to ensure that a Coronavirus vaccine is safe and effective before they take it. That underscores the need for President Trump and his medical experts to be on the same page with respect to the fact that the vaccine will not be given until it is fully tested and approved.

My plea to both President Trump and the Democrats is this: Don’t make this political. Let the scientists follow established guidelines and do their jobs.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Black Voters Not Sold On Biden

So far, Joe Biden holds the lead among black Democratic voters, but there are signs that members of the demographic, which makes up a large share of Democratic primary voters, are not thrilled with the candidacy of Barack Obama’s vice president. However, the several minority candidates in the Democratic field have nonetheless failed to catch fire with voters.

In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 39 percent of black Democrats favored Biden. Elizabeth Warren, another white candidate, ran a distant second in the poll at 22 percent. The other candidates, including Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg as well as the minority candidates, all polled at less than 10 percent.

Still, there are concerns about Biden, especially regarding his propensity for gaffes. For example, in last week’s debate, Biden claimed, “I come out of the black community in terms of my support” and said that he had the support of “the only black African American woman who had ever been elected to the United States Senate,” referring to Carol Mosely Braun.

That was news to Kamala Harris, who laughed back, “Nope. That's not true. The other one is here.”

Biden quickly corrected himself, saying, “I said the first.”

Another source of uncertainty surrounding Biden is his age. The 76-year-old candidate is viewed as healthy by almost as many voters (74 percent) as the 70-year-old Warren (80 percent) and more than Bernie Sanders (48 percent), age 78 and the victim of a recent heart attack. That doesn’t mean that voters are not concerned, however.

"Well, I was sort of leaning toward Joe Biden," said Elsie Just-Buddy, member of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in downtown Atlanta when asked by ABC News about her candidate preference. When asked about her hesitation, the member of the church once pastored by Martin Luther King, Jr. cited Biden’s age.

ABC reported that, after interviewing dozens of congregants at Ebenezer, black voters trusted and liked Biden due to familiarity with him from his years in the Obama Administration but weren’t very excited about his candidacy. They were open to a more exciting candidate, but, so far, that candidate has not emerged.

Another member of Ebenezer, Ernest Fry, said, “I think that he’d be a good candidate as well as the rest of them. But, you know, I don’t think anyone got it locked unless you got a good program for the people.”

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren, once renowned for her plans and currently smarting from a health plan so unrealistic that it was even mocked by Democrats, fares much worse than Biden. The very white woman from Massachusetts pleaded her case to minority voters in the Atlanta debate, saying, “As a white woman, I will never fully understand the discrimination, pain, and harm that black Americans have experienced just because of the color of their skin. When I am president of the United States, the lessons of black history will not be lost.”

Black Democratic candidates Corey Booker and Kamala Harris were critical of the fact that white Democrats top the polls. Both glossed over their own dearth of support from black voters when they made their complaints, however.  

Booker warned that black voters are “p-ss-d off because the only time our issues seem to be really paid attention to by politicians is when people are looking for their vote. And they're worried because, in the Democratic Party, we don't want to see people miss this opportunity and lose because we are nominating someone that … isn't trusted, doesn't have authentic connection.”

In a speech to the NAACP in Detroit last May, Harris complained that the notion of electability to Midwest voters led to prejudice against minority candidates, saying, “Too often, the definition of the Midwest leaves people out.” However, during Harris’ brief flirtation with frontrunner status, it was white voters and not blacks who rallied behind her.

Black support for Biden also comes as a surprise to many on the right who predicted that the Democratic Party would rally behind an intersectional candidate rather than another old white man. The fact that the top two choices of black voters are a white man and a white woman, even though there are prominent black candidates in the running, has exploded stereotypes on both sides.

For all the uneasiness and lack of excitement surrounding his campaign, Steady Joe Biden remains the candidate to beat. While others, including Kamala Harris, have flashed in the pan and quickly burned out, Biden’s position atop the polls with the support of a quarter to a third of Democratic voters has been very consistent since he entered the race.

Elizabeth Warren, who is currently plummeting in the polls, is the only other candidate with any significant support in the black community, and other potential frontrunners such as Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have shown almost no minority appeal. Due to the lack of exciting alternatives, it seems almost certain that, barring a major gaffe or health problem, Joe Biden will emerge as the Democratic candidate at the end of the day. If so, he will have black voters to thank.

Originally published on The Resurgent

There Are Only Three Viable Democratic Candidates

We are still six months away from the first primary elections and already the Democratic field has effectively winnowed itself down to only three likely candidates. Despite – or perhaps because of – a historically large field of more than 20 candidates, the majority have failed to gain traction and are unlikely to do so in the future. The odds are overwhelming at this point that the eventual Democratic nominee will be either Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows clearly that Biden is the frontrunner and is followed by Warren and Sanders whose support combined is approximately equal to Biden. No other candidate, including Kamala Harris, is polling above 10 percent.

In particular, Kamala Harris’ failure to launch is surprising to many observers on both sides. Harris seems to be 2020’s version of Jeb Bush in 2016: A candidate widely expected to receive a coronation by the party elites but who never caught on with voters.

Biden, on the other hand, has defied the pundit predictions that “his first day on the campaign trail will be his best.” Looking back six months ago on the RCP average, Biden was at 28.3 back in February. His position as I write this? 28.9 percent. There have been ups and downs over the spring and summer, including a surge after his campaign announcement in April and a decline after his lackluster performance in the first debate, but the former vice president’s support has proved remarkably resilient.

As I have predicted numerous times in the past, Biden seems to be benefitting from the fact that most of the Democratic candidates are far-left progressives while a large part of the Democratic base is not. Biden holds a plurality of support while the progressive candidates split the vote of the “woke” wing of the party. There may be more progressives than blue dogs in the Democratic party, but internal divisions allow Biden to come out on top. The situation is very similar to the Republican primary in 2016 in which Donald Trump won without a majority as the conservative candidates split the non-Trump vote.

The darlings of the political left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are hobbling each other, just as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich prevented each other from defeating Donald Trump. If either Sanders or Warren dropped out, the other might be able to mount a serious challenge to Joe Biden, but neither seems likely to take one for the team.

Even then, it might not matter. A recent Morning Consult poll that asked about second choices of Democratic voters showed that Joe Biden would benefit about as much as Sanders or Warren if the other dropped out. At 30 percent, Biden was the top second choice of Sanders voters compared to 26 percent for Warren. Twenty-four percent of Warren voters picked Bernie as their second choice, but Biden was only two points behind.

Interestingly, the political betting markets at Predict It are not following the voters. Bettors there are picking Elizabeth Warren, with a 33 cent ranking, to be the nominee. Biden is a fairly close second at 26 cents. Bernie is a distant third at 15 cents.

Biden has retained his lead despite frequent gaffes in large part because of his support among black voters. Politico pointed out that Biden has the support of more than 40 percent of all black voters. Biden’s support rises to almost two-thirds of black voters who are older than 65.

So what could upset Biden’s chances to become the eventual nominee? The most likely scenario is probably a catastrophic gaffe, but at this point it seems that Biden’s gaffes, like Trump’s, are baked into the cake. Biden, like Trump, benefits from low expectations.

It is possible that another candidate might emerge that would unify both wings of the Democratic Party, but it is unclear who that would be. Michelle Obama is a candidate that could probably enter the race and immediately become the frontrunner, but the former First Lady said last month that there was “zero chance” that she would run.

Barring a health crisis or the unlikely discovery of some long-dead skeleton in his closet, Joe Biden is likely to emerge next summer as the Democratic nominee to face a Republican nominee that will almost certainly be Donald Trump, a candidate who at this point is trailing all of the aforementioned Democrats (plus Pete Buttigieg) by a historically large margin. The resulting campaign between two gaffe-prone senior citizens, a “gaffe-o-lympics” if you will, will be a comedy of errors the likes of which this nation has never seen.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Debates Exposed Schisms In Democratic Party

The most important takeaway from the second round of Democratic debates, other than the fact that Joe Biden performs better after a practice round, is that there is a deep division within the Democratic Party. Contrary to claims by many of the pundit class, the Democrats are not all in lockstep solidarity with the democratic-socialist left. Over the past two nights, several Democratic candidates sounded almost (but not quite) conservative.

In particular, there seems to be an ongoing struggle between different factions of the party with respect to two issues: immigration and health insurance. Several sharp exchanges in the debates related to whether healthcare reform plans should eliminate private medical insurance in favor of Medicare-for-all and whether illegal immigration should be decriminalized.

Joe Biden led off the second night of debates with an attack on Kamala Harris’ plan to replace private health insurance, saying, “There is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public. And to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.”

Sounding almost like a conservative, Biden continued, “The plan, no matter how you cut it, costs $3 trillion when it is, in fact, employed, number one. Ten years from now, after two terms of the senator being president, after her time. Secondly, it will require middle-class taxes to go up, not down. Thirdly, it will eliminate employer-based insurance. And fourthly, what happens in the meantime?”

Biden is on firmer ground here than Harris. The former vice president was deeply involved with Obamacare, the 2010 health care reform bill that was intensely unpopular until Republicans came close to replacing it in 2017. At that point, Obamacare suddenly gained more fans and maintains a 10-point advantage in polling.

On the other hand, the approval of Medicare-for-all fluctuates wildly in polling and is heavily dependent on the details. AP polling from January found that voters like the idea of Medicare-for-all but not the higher taxes and longer wait times that it could bring. More recently, FiveThirtyEight pointed out that more voters are on board with the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare voluntarily than in eliminating private insurance and forcing everyone into the program.

This is underscored by the recent endorsement of Joe Biden by the International Association of Fire Fighters, who said in a statement that union members “do not support the concept of abandoning those plans for a government-run single-payer plan,” adding, “The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare.”

In his opening statement on the first debate night, John Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, argued that the focus on Medicare-for-all could cost Democrats the election. “We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” Delaney said. “That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale.”

Later that night, Delaney took on Sanders directly, saying, “His math is wrong” and warned that many hospitals across the country would close if they had to rely on Medicare reimbursement rates.

“Why can’t we just give everyone healthcare as a right and allow them to have choice?” Delaney asked. “I’m starting to think this is not about healthcare. This is an anti-private sector strategy.”

Amy Klobuchar voiced similar concerns about the Medicare-for-all plans of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “I just don’t buy… that it’s somehow not moral to not have that public option,” she said.

The other big policy disagreement between the Democrats was over immigration. When former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro advocated decriminalizing illegal immigration, it was Joe Biden once again who resisted the urge to pile on the popular liberal talking point.

“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense,” Biden responded to Castro. “Here's the deal. The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they're seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That's the problem. And the only reason this particular part of the law is being abused is because of Donald Trump. We should defeat Donald Trump and end this practice.”

There was one other issue where one Democrat sounded more conservative than present-day Republicans. At one point, John Delaney mounted a spirited defense of free trade, something rarely heard these days in either party.

“So listen, this is what I don’t understand,” Delaney postulated. “President Trump wants to build physical walls and beats up on immigrants. Most of the folks running for president want to build economic walls to free trade and beat up on President Obama.”

“I’m the only one running for president who actually supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Delaney continued. “President Obama was right about that. We should be getting back in that. Senator Warren just issued a trade plan that would prevent the United States from trading with its allies. We can’t go and we can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We have to engage with fair, rules-based trade.”

At the end of the two nights, it was obvious that there are two different overlapping factions within the Democratic Party. One is the Obama faction represented by candidates like Biden, Delaney, Klobuchar. The other is the far-left faction of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. After attempting to keep one foot on both sides of the party in recent months, Joe Biden seems to have firmly embraced his position in the moderate lane.

As I’ve argued in the past, Biden is the dominant moderate candidate in the Democratic primary while numerous strong candidates are vying for the limited number of progressive votes. Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a gaffe of Trumpian proportions or a sudden health problem, this makes Biden likely to become the eventual nominee.

It also makes Biden likely to eventually become president. As he stakes down middle-of-the-road policy positions, he makes himself palatable to the moderate and independent voters who will decide the election, voters who have been all but ignored by Donald Trump for the past three years. As Biden attacks Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, he is also inoculating himself from charges of socialism by Republicans and positioning himself for the general election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Kamala Harris' Health Insurance Gaffe

Kamala Harris was widely considered to have been the big winner in last night’s Democratic debate but in the midst of the evening, she committed a gaffe that she was forced to walk back this morning. The radical Democratic candidate seems to realize that she went a little too far to the left when asked about abolishing private health insurance.

At one point in the evening, moderator Lester Holt of NBC News asked the 10 candidates to raise their hands if they would “abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan.” Only Harris and Bernie Sanders raised their hands.

In the light of day, the answer must not seem as good as it did in a room full of Democratic activists because the California senator qualified her position on private health insurance this morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” On the show, Harris said that she misunderstood the question.

“Once and for all, do you believe that private insurance should be eliminated in this country?” co-host Willie Geist asked Harris.

“No,” Harris answered, adding, “But the question was, ‘Would you give up your private insurance for that option?’ And I said yes.”

“Oh, I think you heard it differently than others, then,” Geist said.

“Probably, because that's what I heard,” Harris replied.

Harris then stated, “I am a proponent of ‘Medicare for All,” adding that she would not eliminate private health insurance but  that it “will exist for supplemental coverage.”

Later in the interview, Geist pressed Harris again, asking, “So, to boil it down, Medicare for All, available to everyone if they want it, but if they have private insurance, they keep it?”

“For supplemental. For supplemental coverage,” Harris said. “Otherwise, they're in Medicare for All.”

In essence, it seems that Harris originally told the truth when she said that she supported abolishing private health insurance in exchange for Medicare for All. Even if her plan leaves private insurers intact for supplemental coverage, most Americans would lose their current health insurance, which was the gist of the question.

Harris’ position also leaves open the question of why Americans would need supplemental health insurance if Medicare for All is the be-all-end-all of health insurance and would include dental and vision coverage. Whatever the reason, under Harris’ plan, Americans would face both higher taxes for nationalized healthcare and premiums for a supplemental private plan. It doesn’t sound like a great deal.

Voters agree. While polling often shows support for single-payer plans such as Medicare for All, that support plummets when voters find out more details about the plan. Voters don’t like the idea that federal healthcare could increase wait times for care or that it would dramatically increase taxes.

Other polls cast doubt on the idea that voters are willing to blow up the healthcare system. Real Clear Politics found in May that less than a third of voters want a completely new system. A large majority, 68 percent, want to make improvements to the current system.

Even if voters are scared away from Kamala Harris by her threats to toss out the current health insurance system, healthcare does represent a weakness for Republicans. Healthcare is a top issue for voters and the GOP has been silent on the topic since its abortive attempt to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Since then Republicans have focused on tariffs and illegal immigration, issues where they are at odds with the majority of Americans.

Republicans of the Bush era failed to address Americans concerns about the high cost of healthcare. That failure led directly to the election of Barack Obama and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It could be that history is repeating itself as the Republican failure to present a viable alternative to Obamacare may lead to the passage of an even more radical government takeover of the healthcare industry under the next president.

Originally published on the Resurgent

April 17th, 2019 Bernie Is The Big Winner In Democratic Fundraising

The fundraising reports are in for the first quarter of 2019. The big news was the $30 million raised by President Trump’s re-election campaign, but the fundraising stats from the plethora of Democratic candidates could shed some light on who donors consider to be a viable candidate. Fundraising numbers also provide access to an important platform for Democrats. Only candidates with at least 65,000 individual donors will qualify to participate in the first Democratic primary debate in June 2019.

Candidate reports from the first quarter, which are available on Open Secrets, show that Bernie Sanders is the undisputed money leader in the race so far. Sanders raised more than $18 million, not counting transfers from previous campaigns. More than $15 million of Sanders’ take was from small donors, reflecting his extensive grassroots network. This bodes well both for Bernie’s ability to continue to raise money and his ability to tap into his donor network to find volunteers to work his campaign.

Kamala Harris was in second place with a $12 million take, which also excludes transfers. In contrast with Sanders, Harris received more than half of her donations, $7.6 million, from large donors. Harris has shown a better ability to raise money than to garner support, averaging about eight percent in polling.

In third place was Beto O’Rourke with $9.3 million. As with Bernie, Beto raised more money from small donors, but about 40 percent of his donations also came from large donors. This shows a good mix of grassroots and wealthy backers.

Pete Buttigieg was the surprising fourth-place finisher with more than $7 million. Buttigieg, who averages about five percent in polling, also performed well with both small and large donors.

A quartet of congressional figures make up the next four finishers. The campaigns of Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand were boosted by transfers from prior campaign coffers but none seem to have gained traction either in the polls or with donors. Warren is the only candidate of the four to raise a significant amount ($4.2 million) from small donors. The others don’t seem to have much grassroots support.

When it comes to cash on hand, Bernie Sanders is the leader once again. The Sanders campaign has more than $15.6 million in the bank, which is significantly more than Elizabeth Warren, who was in second place with $11.2 million.

The next four on the list were boosted by transfers from previous campaigns. John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland, has the third-largest war chest with $10.5 million. Gillibrand, Harris, and Klobuchar follow in order with accounts ranging from $10.1 to $6.9 million.

In the seventh and eighth positions are newcomers Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg. O’Rourke held $6.8 million while Buttigieg had $6.4 million. Both of these candidates have strong fundraising numbers and will likely see their bottom lines increase sharply in the coming months.

Rounding out the top-tier candidates is Cory Booker. The New Jersey senator had just over $6.1 million in his bank account at the end of the first quarter.

Obviously, the big winner in the fundraising race so far is Bernie Sanders. His strong fundraising among small donors reflects a veritable army of dedicated grassroots supporters that will present a formidable opponent for the other Democratic hopefuls.

Other winners include Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg. The newcomers both had surprisingly strong showings that will enable them to get their names and messages out to primary voters. Fox Business reported that average donation for the Buttigieg campaign was $36.35. Simple math shows that this would almost certainly give the recently unknown candidate a place in the first debate.

Kamala Harris was also a winner. As the second-place fundraiser, her campaign is bringing in enough cash to keep going for the foreseeable future despite a poor showing in the polls.

The big loser was Elizabeth Warren who had very disappointing fundraising numbers. Her previous frontrunner status stands in stark contrast to her current status as a has-been who has generated little interest. Warren has a large war chest, however, so don’t look for her to drop out any time soon.

Everyone else was also a loser. The group of Washington insiders, Klobuchar, Booker, and Gillibrand, also had disappointing results, in terms of both polling and fundraising. Large war chests will enable these candidates to stay in the race at least until the first debate.

The plethora of other candidates may not be so lucky. The numerous small and unknown candidates may start dropping out soon. If they don’t start to gain enough traction to get a seat at the debate, there will be little reason for them to stay in the race.

The wild card is Joe Biden. Biden is not reflected in the fundraising numbers despite leading in the polls because he does not have an active campaign yet. If Biden is serious about running, he is working to prepare potential donors to start giving as soon as he makes his announcement. The former vice president and senator is an experienced politician with an extensive network from his previous campaigns. He will hope to outraise the $6.1 million raised by Beto and the $5.9 million garnered by Bernie in the first 24 hours of their campaigns to affirm his status as the frontrunner.

Finally, Republicans should not feel too confident despite Donald Trump’s $30 million haul. While this is more than any Democrat, it should be noted that Democratic fundraising is splintered among a crowded field and many Democrat donors may be waiting for Joe Biden to enter the race. Despite Trump’s impressive number, it only takes two Democratic candidates, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris, to eclipse the president’s haul. It may not be long before Democratic donors rally behind a presumed nominee and President Trump’s fundraising lead begins to quickly erode.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Poll Shows Surprising Surge For One Democrat But One Consistent Frontrunner

The large Democratic field may be starting to winnow itself out. New polling shows that four candidates stand out above the others with support in the double digits while one candidate in particular is a clear frontrunner.

The new poll by CNN and SSRS asked Democratic-leaning voters about their presidential preferences and found a surprising eight-point surge for Kamala Harris. The California senator polled at eight percent in the last polling during early December but reached 12 percent in the new poll. Despite the improvement, Harris finished in a distant third place.

The frontrunner, as in most polling, was the as-yet-unannounced Joe Biden. The former vice president has consistently led polling amid rampant speculation that he will announce his intent to run soon. Biden has hinted to supporters last week that he is running and holds an eight-point lead over his nearest competitor in the new poll. Biden’s support was virtually unchanged from the 30 percent that he garnered in December.

Bernie Sanders is the second-place finisher with 20 percent. The Democrat-in-name-only gained six percent over his December results to partially close the gap with Biden.

The only other candidate with support in the double-digits was Beto O’Rourke. Fresh from his official campaign announcement and fundraising triumph, the Texan gained two percent from his December results to hold a statistical tie with Harris at 11 percent.

There were few other candidates with significant changes in support. Elizabeth Warren showed marginal improvement, rising from three to six percent, while Corey Booker dropped from five to three percent. Amy Klobuchar was steady at three percent. Former secretary of state and presidential candidate John Kerry was also included in the poll with four percent support in both surveys.

More significant, the number of Democrats who chose “no one” or “undecided” dropped from 17 to seven percent. This indicates that even at this early date, voters are making up their minds. With fewer undecided voters to compete for, candidates will have to start chipping away at the competition in order to improve their own standing in the polls.

The poll also asked Democrats about their second choice. With 17 percent, Bernie Sanders was the top second choice followed by Joe Biden at 14 percent. No other candidates were above 10 percent on this question and the results indicate that Sanders and Biden should rise almost equally as other candidates start to drop out of the race.

Fifty-six percent of Democrats said that the most important factor in selecting a candidate was “a strong chance of beating Donald Trump.” Joe Biden was rated as the candidate most likely to beat Trump at 51 percent to Bernie Sanders’ 33 percent.

The CNN poll also gave bad news for President Donald Trump. The poll found that Donald Trump had a 41 percent approval rating with 54 percent disapproval. In contrast, 46 percent had a favorable opinion of Bernie Sanders, but most other Democratic candidates were largely unknown. The favorability question was not asked of Joe Biden.

On questions that were asked of supporters of both parties and independents, voters held a low opinion of Trump’s character. Only 40 percent thought he “cares about people like you” and 34 percent saw him as “honest and trustworthy.” On job performance, voters saw him as incapable of positively changing the country (53-42 percent), unable to manage the government effectively (56-41 percent), disrespectful of the rule of law (56-40 percent), and divisive (63-32 percent). The only question that the president fared well on was being tough enough to handle a crisis (51-46 percent).

Voters rated the top issue for the upcoming election as “immigration” at 20 percent. Of these voters, 15 percent said “immigration” in general and six percent said “wall” or “border security.” Supporters of both parties are enthusiastic about the upcoming election with 79 percent of both Democrats and Republicans rating themselves as very enthusiastic.

The poll sampled 1,003 adults using both cell phones and landlines. The party breakdown was 32 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican, and 44 percent independent or other parties. This closely mirrors the national partisan alignment. The margin of error was 3.8 percentage points.

The new poll shows that Democrats are starting to cement their support for particular candidates with Joe Biden as the consistent favorite. It also undercuts the notion that Democratic voters will veer left and nominate a radical candidate instead of the known and proven campaigner in Joe Biden. The nomination of a radical is more likely if Biden decides not to run. For Republicans, low approval and widespread distrust of President Trump make any Democratic candidate a threat.

Originally published on The Resurgent