Dow Plunges 800+ Points On Coronavirus Fears

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 700 points in early trading this morning amid reports of the Coronavirus spreading outside China. As of this writing, the Dow is 860 points in the red, a slight rebound from its deepest drop of 997 points.

“The second-largest economy in the world is completely shut down. People aren’t totally pricing that in,” Larry Benedict, CEO of The Opportunistic Trader, told CNBC. Benedict predicts that stocks may see a correction of as large as 10 to 15 percent.

A 10 percent correction in the Dow would represent a loss of 2,800 points.

“It seems like there’s much more to come,” Benedict said, adding that some stocks, such as tech companies, seem to be over-owned.

The day is not over and a 700-point drop is not unprecedented in the Trump era. CNBC points out that there have been at least seven other such one-day declines in the market in the past three years. In the past, the markets have been able to absorb the shock and return to their record-breaking climb.

However, many of those past market drops were based on factors that could be more easily accounted for and adapted to such as Administration pronouncements about the tariff war. In the case of the Coronavirus, in addition to the loss of China as an import/export market, there is uncertainty about what the future holds.

Where will the virus turn up next? To which countries will trade be shut down? Will researchers find treatments or will the disease run its course? Right now, there are no answers to these questions.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump-Critical Conservatives Should Rally Around Biden In The Primary

bout a month ago I wrote about different voting strategies for conservatives who are opposed to President Trump’s re-election. With Bernie Sanders’ recent victories and Super Tuesday approaching, the rubber is about to meet the road. For anyone who doesn’t want the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency, time is running out.

The moderate candidates are splitting the vote of their wing of the party, allowing Sanders to win with a minority of the vote. If the trend continues to Super Tuesday and beyond, Sanders will eventually be the Democratic nominee.

As I wrote previously, Trump’s domination of the modern Republican Party and the fact that Republican presidential primaries have been canceled in many states mean that the opportunity cost for disaffected conservatives to vote Democrat is very low. The question is who the new conservative Democratic voters should vote for. Really, there is only one option. Those of us who want a viable alternative to Donald Trump should rally around Joe Biden.

Pete Buttigieg won Iowa and finished strong in New Hampshire, but he is woefully inexperienced and has no national organization. Amy Klobuchar looked like a possible moderate alternative after New Hampshire but has since failed to catch on. Bloomberg has plenty of money but obvious problems with skeletons in his closet and personality. Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars, he isn’t polling well. Tulsi Gabbard is nothing more than a polling blip and Elizabeth Warren is no moderate.

Joe Biden, for all his flaws, is the only real chance to beat Bernie and then Trump. Biden is experienced, has a nationwide network of supporters, and is moderate enough to be a safe nominee.

Notice that I don’t talk policy here. As a conservative, I disagree with the entire field (including Trump) on policy. The best that I can hope for out of this election is an honest president who will be restrained in his (or her) use of executive power and who will abide by the Constitution and the rule of law. A moderate caretaker president who would try to bring the country together instead of dividing it for political gain would be a bonus.

What I am suggesting is different from what Hugh Hewitt and other Republicans have advocated in voting for Bernie to give Trump what they perceive as a weaker candidate. Rather than trying to sabotage the Democratic Party, my plan attempts to save it and help the country in the process by helping Democrats pick a more electable nominee. While Hewitt and the like have no intention of voting for any Democrat in the general election, conservatives critical of Trump may at least consider the possibility.

And to those Republicans working for a Bernie nomination, you may regret it if you get what you wish for. If the election turns into a battle of corruption versus socialism, it isn’t a fait accompli that the corrupt Republican would emerge victorious.

The swing voters who decide elections often don’t vote on the issues, instead basing their choices on which candidate “cares more about people like me” or who they would prefer to have a beer with. A recent USA Today/IPSOS poll found that Bernie scored higher on these likability and character issues than Trump. And it wasn’t even close.

If conservatives decide to vote in the Democratic primary, they should vote for the candidate that would be best (or least worst) for America. Pushing the opposition party towards an extreme and unelectable candidate has backfired twice in the past three elections. That’s how we got both Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

It’s naive to believe that it is impossible for Bernie to win. That is why conservatives who love America should try to ensure that he does not win the nomination.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Bernie Is the Frontrunner... For Now

New national polling shows that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is now the undisputed frontrunner in the Democratic national primary. A spate of new polls show that Sanders now has approximately 30 percent of support from national Democrats with Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, and Elizabeth Warren vying for second place.

Three polls released over the past two days confirm that Sanders now enjoys a double-digit lead over his nearest rivals. Here are the results of those polls:

ABC News/Washington Post conducted Feb. 14-17 with 408 registered voters:

Sanders – 32

Biden – 16

Bloomberg – 14

Warren – 12

All others are under 10 percent.

Emerson College conducted Feb. 16-18 with 573 likely voters:

Sanders – 29

Biden – 22

Bloomberg – 14

Warren – 12

All others are under 10 percent.

NBC News/Wall St. Journal conducted Feb. 14-17 with 426 likely voters:

Sanders – 27     

Biden – 15

Bloomberg – 14

Warren – 14

Buttigieg -13

All others are under 10 percent.

The polling undisputedly shows that Bernie Sanders is moving away from Joe Biden. Sanders has not only climbed in the polls after his strong showing in Iowa and his victory in New Hampshire, but Biden has also dropped off sharply.

But it isn’t only Sanders - and perhaps it isn’t even predominantly Sanders – who has benefitted from Biden’s misfortune. A look at the Real Clear Politics polling average graph shows that Biden’s decline mirrors Bloomberg’s rise almost perfectly. It appears that Bloomberg is drawing many of the moderate Democrats who were once Biden supporters.

However, as with the Electoral College, the nuts and bolts of the delegate race are at the state level. As I pointed out last week, there is a dearth of polling in Nevada, South Carolina, and the Super Tuesday states so there is room for surprises. What polling there is shows a muddled race. Some various recent state polls show Sanders up by 19 points in Nevada and somewhere between four and 18 points in California. Meanwhile, the most recent South Carolina polling shows Joe Biden with a narrowing lead, last reported at eight points. In most cases, Bloomberg and Biden are competing for second place.

Biden’s concern for his South Carolina firewall is evident in the fact that his campaign is deploying John Kerry, famously described by Wall St. Journal columnist James Taranto as “the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam,” to rally his forces in the Palmetto State. The State reports that the 2004 presidential nominee will join a bus tour with Biden’s surrogates as it swings through the state.

I wrote several times earlier this year that the Democratic primary might follow the model of the 2016 Republican race in which the moderate candidates split the vote, allowing the radical outsider to win with a plurality. Only this year, I surmised, the effect might be the reverse with progressive radicals splitting the vote and allowing the moderate Biden to cruise to victory. Michael Bloomberg’s late entry into the race changed all that.

Bloomberg’s ad blitz paired with Biden’s underwhelming performance seems to have established the New Yorker as a spoiler. With Bloomberg drawing from Biden’s support, both of the moderates are weaker than Bernie Sanders, but their combined shares of support are larger than Sanders’ share in most cases. If both candidates stay in the race, Bernie seems likely to come out on top.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Bernie will win, however. There seems to be a growing chance that none of the candidates will be able to claim the nomination outright, leading to a brokered convention in which a deal has to be struck to determine a nominee. The FiveThirtyEight model recently put the chances of a brokered convention at about 25 percent.

Even if Bernie emerges with a plurality of delegates, he may be denied the nomination in a brokered convention. The fail-safe scenario in which moderate Democrats unite to prevent a Bernie nomination could give the Democrats a more electable candidate, but it could also split the party. Either scenario could make it difficult for Democrats to beat Donald Trump.

The next big tells will be South Carolina and Super Tuesday. If Bernie strongly outperforms Biden and Bloomberg, he could be unstoppable on the way to the nomination. If Biden’s Southern firewall holds, it may be a close three-way race to the convention.

Tune in next week to see what other changes happen in this topsy-turvy race.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Klobucharge! Is Amy The New Moderate Choice?

The surprises from the New Hampshire primary were not the top two finishers. Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would take the Granite State. The big news above the fold was how poorly Bernie fared relative to his performance in 2016 when he did not face a bevy of challengers. Likewise, Pete Buttigieg’s strong second-place finish was not unexpected after his win in Iowa.

The big news from New Hampshire came from further down the list with Amy Klobuchar’s surprisingly strong showing in third place. Last week, Klobuchar was polling in single-digits and this week her share of the vote pegged at just below 20 percent. What happened in the meantime?

There were two big reasons for the shift in polling. First, there was Klobuchar’s formidable performance in last week’s New Hampshire debate. Second, there was Joe Biden’s underwhelming finish in Iowa and his subsequent self-immolation moment in which he called a voter at a town hall meeting a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier.”

Aside from the question of what a pony soldier is and how it would apply at a town hall meeting, the lesson here is that candidates should probably refrain from insulting voters if they want to win votes. Even if Biden was joking, he has now built a history of attacking town hall attendees after calling an Iowa man “a damn liar” in December.

If we compare the recent polling trends on Real Clear Politics with the actual results, we see that Sanders, Biden, and Warren all underperformed relative to expectations while Buttigieg and Klobuchar did better than expected. I don’t think it is unreasonable to speculate that part of Klobuchar’s surge (dubbed the “Klobucharge” by the FiveThirtyEight podcast) came at the expense of Biden and Warren who both had lackluster performances in the recent debate. With Biden failing and Sanders’ success alarming the party, it is possible that Klobuchar is emerging as the moderate in the race.

When I discuss moderate Democrats, I always get comments that say that no Democrats are moderate so let me stipulate that the term is relative. A Democratic moderate is not the same as a Republican moderate, but there is a range in the Democratic platforms. Biden and Klobuchar are not identical to Bernie and Buttigieg by any stretch of the imagination.

The big question is what comes next. Well, next after Nevada where no one has any real idea of what is going to happen (but where Sanders is under attack by the Culinary union).

What about South Carolina?

Joe Biden has been betting big on South Carolina with its large black population, which has been the base of his support. But now new polling shows that Biden’s support among black voters is falling as blacks turn to… Mike Bloomberg? [Checks notes.] Yes, Mike Bloomberg has cut sharply into Biden’s minority support in a new Quinnipiac poll that shows the mayor at 22 percent in the demographic versus 27 percent for the vice president. If Biden’s support among blacks is slipping then he’s toast.

But will blacks stick with Mayor Mike? Bloomberg is already in hot water as an embarrassing clip has resurfaced in which he blames “male minorities, 16 to 25” for “95 percent of your murders.” The comments relate to the unpopular stop-and-frisk policy of the NYPD in which police were permitted to stop and search minority men.

Black voters represent the kingmaker of the Democratic primary in almost every presidential campaign. The question is who they will coalesce around if they desert Joe Biden. The three remaining likely contenders are all white northerners with little minority support.

Bernie Sanders has not caught the imagination of black voters even in his second campaign. Pete Buttigieg has little traction in states after Iowa and New Hampshire and may be too liberal for black voters. That could conceivably leave Amy Klobuchar as the heir apparent to the moderate lane.

However, it is premature to count Joe Biden out. Despite the media narrative that his campaign is freefall, he is still the frontrunner in national polling, if only just so, and still holds a double-digit lead in South Carolina polling. As I pointed out last week, there is a dearth of polling in most Super Tuesday states so no one is really sure what will happen.

The most recent polling average in South Carolina shows Biden with 31 percent, surprisingly followed by Tom Steyer at 19 and Sanders at 17. Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar are all at less than 10 percent. Mike Bloomberg doesn’t even register.

However, South Carolina is still two weeks away and the field is in a state of upheaval. A poor showing in Nevada could deepen Biden’s descent in the polls and impact his performance in the Palmetto State.

With the situation changing rapidly and little hard data to look at, especially relating to the minority vote, all eyes are on South Carolina and Super Tuesday. This year, the race could be described like Forest Gump’s box of chocolates.

“You never know what you’re gonna get.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Fires Vindman And Sondland In Friday Night Massacre

In a move reminiscent of President Trump’s firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions shortly after the 2018 elections, the White House has dismissed two prominent impeachment witnesses within days of the president’s acquittal by the Senate. Numerous sources are reporting tonight that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland have been fired from their jobs in the Trump Administration.

Lt. Col. Vindman, an army officer posted to the National Security Council as an expert on Ukraine, and his twin brother, Yevgeny, a lawyer serving on the NSC, were both reassigned back to the Defense Department.

In a statement, the army confirmed the firings of the Vindman brothers to Politico, saying, ” “We can confirm that both Lt. Cols. Vindman have been reassigned to the Department of the Army, out of respect for their privacy, we will not be providing any further information at this time.”

Hours after the news of Vindman’s firing, news also broke that Sondland had been recalled.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement quoted in The Hill.

“I am proud of our accomplishments,” Sondland added. “Our work here has been the highlight of my career.”

The firings came shortly after Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told attendees at the Maine Chiefs of Police Association that retribution against witnesses who testified against the president would be “inappropriate” per a report by the Portland Press Herald. Collins voted to call witnesses but cast her ballot to acquit the president of the impeachment charges.

At this point, it is not known whether there will be additional firings. A number of witnesses have already left their government posts, but others are still in their Trump Administration jobs. Among the witnesses still serving are Laura Cooper, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and George Kent, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, and Tim Morrison have all left their government jobs while Jennifer Williams, formerly an advisor to Vice President Pence, was transferred to a new job with Central Command in January.  

It is not clear how the federal whistleblower statute will apply to the fired witnesses. However, the Government Accountability Project points out that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects public employee whistleblowers from retaliation when they make truthful statements while giving compelled testimony.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Welcome To The Imperial Presidency

Sometimes you can know what’s coming and still be disappointed at the outcome. That was the case yesterday with the Senate’s votes to acquit President Trump. There was really never any serious doubt that the Senate would allow the president to keep his job yet there was always the hope that Republicans would rise to the occasion and do their civic duty in removing a man who has repeatedly shown that he cannot be trusted with power. Of course, that didn’t happen.

Even though several Republicans admitted that Donald Trump had done what he was accused of doing, only Utah Senator Mitt Romney dared to break ranks and vote to convict the president. For that, Mr. Romney is of course not being thanked for objectively upholding the rule of law and acting to restrain an abuse of presidential power, but rather is being attacked for what Republican partisans see as traitorous behavior.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is representative of the Republicans who acknowledge Trump’s bad behavior yet voted to acquit him anyway. In his statement explaining his vote against calling witnesses, Alexander said, “There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.’”

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Lamar continued. “When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”

Nevertheless, Alexander and the other Republicans argue that the Senate has no power to remove a president for such an abuse of power, a statement that flies in the face of the original intent of the Founders.

“I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday,” Alexander said.

Alexander and the other Republicans also reject punishment of the president short of removal. The Tennessee senator also failed to support a resolution of censure floated by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.).

Yet, despite their handwringing over Trump’s “inappropriate” actions and their professed belief that the people rather than the Senate should decide whether to remove the president, Alexander and the other Republicans support Donald Trump’s re-election.

“Whatever you think of his behavior,” Alexander told the New York Times, "With the terrific economy, with conservative judges, with fewer regulations, you add in there an inappropriate call with the president of Ukraine, and you decide if you prefer him or Elizabeth Warren.”

At least he’s not Elizabeth Warren.

To put it succinctly, the Republican position on Trump is that the president does bad things but he should not be removed or even punished a little bit for his behavior. The people should decide the president’s fate and the people should send him back to Washington where he can engage in more bad behavior over the next four years.

I have no doubt that if the positions were reversed and Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren had done what Trump has done, Republicans would have no problem overcoming their aversion to partisan impeachments and their belief that the people should decide the president’s fate. For that matter, I’m equally certain that the Democrats would suddenly become proponents of executive privilege and limited congressional authority.

The difference between the two is that I expected more from the Republicans. As a lifelong Republican until 2016, I identified as a member of that party because of its adherence to objective principles that were not dependent upon who occupied the Oval Office. Among those principles were the ideas of equal application of the law, limited governmental authority under the Constitution, and the belief that good government requires good character in its officials. Such notions now seem quaint in the new Republican Party.

Over the past few years, I’ve watched Republicans shift from promising to hold Donald Trump’s feet to the fire to making excuses for him as he flouts not only conventional behavior but the law as well. Earlier this week at the State of the Union, Republicans gave an ovation to the President who proposed a laundry list of big government items that would have gotten him denounced as a RINO in the Republican Party of yesteryear. Instead, Republicans now celebrate big government from the right.

Hunter Baker at The Federalist admits as much outright. “In essence, the president told Americans that he agrees with Democrats that we need a big, energetic government, but not their kind of big, energetic government.”

And that is the new Republican Party in a nutshell. It is okay with big government as long as it isn’t the left’s version of big government. It is okay with government corruption as long as it isn’t a corrupt Democrat. It is okay with government overreach as long as the overreach is for something that the Republican base wants.

With the Democrats having long ago embraced the politics of the end justifying the means, the Republicans were our last hope at maintaining a limited, constitutional government. Now that Republicans have abandoned the idea of impartially resisting the growth of executive power, it seems unlikely that there will be any serious limitation on a president as long as he has a majority to back him.

The Democrats will find Trump’s precedents helpful when they return to power, as they certainly will one day.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Welcome To The Imperial Presidency

Sometimes you can know what’s coming and still be disappointed at the outcome. That was the case yesterday with the Senate’s votes to acquit President Trump. There was really never any serious doubt that the Senate would allow the president to keep his job yet there was always the hope that Republicans would rise to the occasion and do their civic duty in removing a man who has repeatedly shown that he cannot be trusted with power. Of course, that didn’t happen.

Even though several Republicans admitted that Donald Trump had done what he was accused of doing, only Utah Senator Mitt Romney dared to break ranks and vote to convict the president. For that, Mr. Romney is of course not being thanked for objectively upholding the rule of law and acting to restrain an abuse of presidential power, but rather is being attacked for what Republican partisans see as traitorous behavior.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is representative of the Republicans who acknowledge Trump’s bad behavior yet voted to acquit him anyway. In his statement explaining his vote against calling witnesses, Alexander said, “There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’”

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Lamar continued. “When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”

Nevertheless, Alexander and the other Republicans argue that the Senate has no power to remove a president for such an abuse of power, a statement that flies in the face of the original intent of the Founders.

“I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday,” Alexander said.

Alexander and the other Republicans also reject punishment of the president short of removal. The Tennessee senator also failed to support a resolution of censure floated by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.).

Yet, despite their handwringing over Trump’s “inappropriate” actions and their professed belief that the people rather than the Senate should decide whether to remove the president, Alexander and the other Republicans support Donald Trump’s re-election.

“Whatever you think of his behavior,” Alexander told the New York Times, “With the terrific economy, with conservative judges, with fewer regulations, you add in there an inappropriate call with the president of Ukraine, and you decide if you prefer him or Elizabeth Warren.”

At least he’s not Elizabeth Warren.

To put it succinctly, the Republican position on Trump is that the president does bad things but he should not be removed or even punished a little bit for his behavior. The people should decide the president’s fate and the people should send him back to Washington where he can engage in more bad behavior over the next four years.

I have no doubt that if the positions were reversed and Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren had done what Trump has done, Republicans would have no problem overcoming their aversion to partisan impeachments and their belief that the people should decide the president’s fate. For that matter, I’m equally certain that the Democrats would suddenly become proponents of executive privilege and limited congressional authority.

The difference between the two is that I expected more from the Republicans. As a lifelong Republican until 2016, I identified as a member of that party because of its adherence to objective principles that were not dependent upon who occupied the Oval Office. Among those principles were the ideas of equal application of the law, limited governmental authority under the Constitution, and the belief that good government requires good character in its officials. Such notions now seem quaint in the new Republican Party.

Over the past few years, I’ve watched Republicans shift from promising to hold Donald Trump’s feet to the fire to making excuses for him as he flouts not only conventional behavior but the law as well. Earlier this week at the State of the Union, Republicans gave an ovation to the President who proposed a laundry list of big government items that would have gotten him denounced as a RINO in the Republican Party of yesteryear. Instead, Republicans now celebrate big government from the right.

Hunter Baker at The Federalist admits as much outright. “In essence, the president told Americans that he agrees with Democrats that we need a big, energetic government, but not their kind of big, energetic government.”

And that is the new Republican Party in a nutshell. It is okay with big government as long as it isn’t the left’s version of big government. It is okay with government corruption as long as it isn’t a corrupt Democrat. It is okay with government overreach as long as the overreach is for something that the Republican base wants.

With the Democrats having long ago embraced the politics of the end justifying the means, the Republicans were our last hope at maintaining a limited, constitutional government. Now that Republicans have abandoned the idea of impartially resisting the growth of executive power, it seems unlikely that there will be any serious limitation on a president as long as he has a majority to back him.

The Democrats will find Trump’s precedents helpful when they return to power, as they certainly will one day.