2020 Presidential Election

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/on-verge-of-acquittal-trump-laughs-off-impeachment-declares-happy-period-at-packed-out-iowa-rally

Amid reports that Senate Democrats have likely failed to sway enough Republicans to defect and force the calling of additional impeachment witnesses, President Trump took to the stage at another packed-out rally Thursday night in Iowa and declared the Democrats’ impeachment campaign a “happy period” for Republicans. He followed the event by blasting out a series of triumphant tweets making his case for re-election.

“We’re having probably the best years that we’ve ever had in our country, and I just got impeached!” Trump exclaimed Thursday evening from the stage in a Des Moines arena, as reported by The Hill. “Can you believe these people? I got impeached. They impeached Trump.”


While other impeachments have been “dark periods” for the country, said Trump, the Democrats’ impeachment of him has actually been “a happy period for us,” he said. “It’s a happy period because we call it ‘impeachment light,'” he explained.

The president also fine-tuned his impeachment-themed campaign line, announcing, “They want to nullify your ballots, poison our democracy, and overthrow the entire system of government.”

Following the event, Trump posted a series of videos and images from the jam-packed rally, along with some of his campaign talking points making the case for another electoral victory in 2020.


“This November, we are going to defeat the Radical Socialist Democrats and win the Great State of Iowa in a Historic Landslide!” he declared in one rally post (tweets below).

“To keep America Safe, we have fully rebuilt the U.S. Military – it is now stronger, more powerful, and more lethal than ever before,” he wrote in another. “Thanks to the courage of American Heroes, the ISIS Caliphate has been DESTROYED & its founder & leader – the animal known as al-Baghdadi – is DEAD!”

“Washington Dems have spent the last 3 years trying to overturn the last election – and we will make sure they face another crushing defeat in the NEXT ELECTION,” Trump asserted in another. “Together, we are going to win back the House, we are going to hold the Senate, & we are going to keep the White House!”

“Americans across the political spectrum are disgusted by the Washington Democrats’ Partisan Hoaxes, Witch Hunts, & Con Jobs,” he wrote in yet another. “Registered Democrats and Independents are leaving the Democrat Party in droves, & we are welcoming these voters to the Republican Party w/ wide open arms!”

[soonernvolved]

www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083

small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

“I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well,” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules.

Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that “It would be hard though. We could force a meeting or on the floor.”

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/31/bloomberg-dnc-debate

DNC Rule Change Will Make It Easier For Seven-Figure DNC Donor Michael Bloomberg To Qualify For Debates

Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates accused Michael Bloomberg of buying his way into the Democratic Party debates Friday after the Democratic National Committee announced changes to its debate-qualification thresholds that appear to benefit the former New York City mayor.

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, businessman Tom Steyer and a spokesman for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders all slammed the rule change, which Politico first reported.

The DNC will no longer require candidates to reach a threshold of the number of donors in order to qualify for its Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas, according to the outlet.

The change would seem to help Bloomberg the most of any Democrat since the billionaire is funding his campaign entirely on his own. Bloomberg contributed $180 million of his own money to his campaign in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to his campaign’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, which were released Friday. (RELATED: Latest DNC Primary Poll Shows Bloomberg Surging Into Third Place)

The DNC’s filings show that Bloomberg contributed more than $1.1 million late in 2019 to the party and a joint fundraising committee the DNC operates.

The records show that Bloomberg made three donations of $106,500 to the DNC itself and another $800,000 to the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for the DNC and state Democratic parties.

Bloomberg’s campaign manager, Kevin Sheekey, praised the DNC’s move and told Politico he is “thrilled” that Bloomberg will likely appear in Las Vegas.

Other candidates were not as pleased.

“Back in December, I called on the DNC to open up the debate requirements so that more candidates, including candidates of color, would be able to participate,” said Steyer, a fellow Democratic candidate and billionaire. “Instead, they are changing the rules for a candidate who is ignoring early states voters and grassroots donors.”

“Billionaire Bloomberg just bought the @dnc,” Gabbard wrote on Twitter and tagged her post with the hashtag “#PayToPlay.”

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, told Politico that the rules change was evidence of “a rigged system where the rich can buy their way in.”

Sanders has invested heavily in generating a large number of individual donors.

“To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination, is wrong,” Weaver told Politico. “Now, suddenly because Mr. Bloomberg couldn’t satisfy one of the prongs, we see it get changed?”

A DNC spokeswoman defended the rules change and said the donor threshold is not as useful a metric as it was in the earlier debates.

“Now that the grassroots support is actually captured in real voting, the criteria will no longer require a donor threshold,” Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told Politico.

“The donor threshold was appropriate for the opening stages of the race, when candidates were building their organizations, and there were no metrics available outside of polling to distinguish those making progress from those who weren’t,” Watson said.

The DNC and Bloomberg’s campaign did not respond to questions from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-gets-debate-opening-warren-allies-pushed-for-it-happened-now-shes-outraged

The DNC has adjusted the Democratic presidential primary debate requirements for the Wednesday, February 19 televised debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the new requirements have left an opening for Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, to make his first appearance alongside the remaining presidential hopefuls.

According to Politico, the DNC has removed the small-donor requirement, which was in effect starting in September 2019, to participate in the debates. The requirement had previously prohibited Bloomberg, who does not collect money from small donors, from attending the debates once he launched his late-start campaign in November.


The new debate criteria lays out a specific path for Bloomberg, who now only has to register at 10% in four polls from January 15 to February 18 to appear on stage. Bloomberg has continued to grow in polls across the country, and is currently registering at an average of 8%, according to RealClearPolitics.

The new qualification criteria also opens up the debate stage to anyone who receives 12% in two South Carolina or Nevada polls, or receives a single delegate in Iowa or New Hampshire; However, because Bloomberg has taken the unorthodox step of not participating in any elections prior to Super Tuesday on March 3, neither of these avenues are available to him.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has condemned the move by the DNC as setting “different rules” for the super rich, a group she loves to demonize.


“The DNC didn’t change the rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. They shouldn’t change the rules to let a billionaire on. Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to play by different rules – on the debate stage, in our democracy, or in our government,” said Warren in a tweet Friday evening.

However, as Politico reported, Warren’s “progressive allies” have previously “approached” the DNC “to lobby for an unusual cause: including billionaire Mike Bloomberg” in the upcoming debates.

Adam Green, a surrogate for Warren and co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, described the initiative, saying, “I think he’ll inherently get more scrutiny when he’s playing in the same sandbox. … But there’s still more scrutiny that can come now and voters want it.”

The Bloomberg campaign has responded positively to the new debate requirements.


“We are thrilled that voters could soon have the chance to see Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage, hear his vision for the country, and see why he is the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump and bring our country together,” Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s campaign manager, said in a statement, according to the New York Times.

The DNC has also defended the rule change, saying that once the primary voting contests begin, grassroots activism, which was previously implied via the small-donor threshold, will now have more tangible effects through delegate counts.

“Now that the grassroots support is actually captured in real voting, the criteria will no longer require a donor threshold,” Adrienne Watson, a DNC spokesperson, told Politico.

“The donor threshold was appropriate for the opening stages of the race, when candidates were building their organizations, and there were no metrics available outside of polling to distinguish those making progress from those who weren’t,” said Watson, reports the news agency.

[soonernvolved]

Joe Biden this week in Iowa lectured a black voter who dared to ask him questions about his plans to phase out US fossil fuels.


Biden poked the black voter’s chest several times as he lectured him about his record.

“Go back to 1986. I’m the first one ever to, first one ever to put forward a climate change bill and Politifact said it was a game changer,” Biden said poking the man’s chest.

“I’ve been working my whole life,” he added as he abruptly walked away.

Biden has a problem touching people and getting in their personal space.

Last week Biden grabbed the jacket of a former longtime Democrat state rep. in Iowa and told him to “go vote for someone else.”

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

Hillary Clinton angling for a VP spot?

thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480523-is-hillary-clinton-angling-to-become-vice-president

A number of people in politics, the media and elsewhere are openly speculating that if Democrats wind up with a “brokered convention,” with no strong or viable nominee evident, Hillary Clinton might enter the arena as the “savior” who could unite the delegates and go on to defeat President Donald Trump.

Clinton herself seemed to throw shade at that theory during an interview with Variety at the Sundance Film Festival. When asked about the “urge” to beat Trump, the former Democratic nominee said, “Yeah. I certainly feel the urge because I feel the 2016 election was a really odd time and an odd outcome. And the more we learn, the more that seems to be the case. But I’m going to support the people who are running now and do everything I can to help elect the Democratic nominee.”

Several politically savvy Democrats have told me that “everything” may be a much more plausible and powerful scenario.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Matt Romney, (aka Pierre Delecto), on the hot seat?

www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/29/21114269/utah-lawmaker-bill-to-allow-recall-of-us-senator-mitt-romney

A Utah lawmaker has filed a bill to allow Utahns to recall an elected United States senator.

The lawmaker, Rep. Tim Quinn, R-Heber City, told the Deseret News in an interview Wednesday shortly after the bill was made public that it’s not meant to target any specific sitting Utah senator — but it comes amid heightened national attention on Sen. Mitt Romney, who has been among the few Republican senators publicly critical of President Donald Trump.

Romney in recent days has ignited simmering controversy over whether to bring additional witnesses and documents into the impeachment trial against Trump. Yet Quinn said his bill isn’t aimed at Romney or any specific senator — though he acknowledged his bill comes at a time that people will likely construe it that way.

“I know that’s what’s going to be the narrative,” Quinn said. “If it were, then it might make sense to have a sunset on it. That would not be the case.”

[soonernvolved]

A left-wing tech start-up is launching a #MuteTrump social media campaign in an effort to galvanize Super Bowl viewers to tune out during the two ads President Donald Trump is slated to air during the nation’s most-watched sporting event.


Main Street One, a New York-based intelligence firm which aims to “fix internet discourse” according to its website, sent out a blast text on Friday notifying supporters on its mailing list that it is paying “influencers” to direct their friends to turn off their televisions when the president’s ad airs using the hashtag #MuteTrump.

“We’re building a movement to #MuteTrump!” Main Street One’s Digital Relational Organizer Stone Van Camp wrote. “Trump has reserved a commercial spot during the Super Bowl and we want to get as many people as we can to tune him out! If you’re tired of the lies, the tweets, and the hateful rhetoric he uses to divide our country, join us.”

Americans who have “seen him on TV and wanted to tell him to just ‘shut up’” should submit an application to Mainstream One and receive compensation for participating in the anti-Trump campaign, Camp wrote.

“We’re recruiting Instagram users like you to post #MuteTrump and tell your friends why you’re turning off his ad when it airs. This is a paid influencer opportunity, so don’t miss out on the chance to #MuteTrump and get compensated for your support,” the text states. “If you are interested in working with us, I have attached the link to our application below. There, you’ll be able to review all relevant details, name your price, and submit your application. We hope you’ll join our movement and look forward to hearing back from you.”



According to its website, “Main Street One repairs harmful narratives and advances positive ones on behalf of causes, campaigns, and companies. Our intelligence system tracks opportunities to shift public discourse and then outputs messages and content to change the outcome.”

The founder and CEO of Main Street One, Curtis Hougland, specializes in combating “hate speech and online extremism” and “right-wing voices,” Vanity Fair reports. “While Hougland is not a boldface name in Washington, he is one of several outside-the-Beltway technologists working to usher Democratic politics into the social media age, with peers, influencers, and rogues often commanding more power and trust than traditional institutions do.”

mainstreet.one/

l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmainstreetone.grin.live%2Fd85e8845-d46d-489e-92ed-f721ced72115%2Fcampaigns%2F52010f4f-5c96-45cf-a7d1-196511667bd2%2Fproposals%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3pt5hNtgRc5M2bCM2P1V9LmjQuMSgH71LJ-hm4oTUTj6KmDznw7BxBPZs&h=AT325th_0vpZhLYk5WIupKOV3bB6NwrEfDgjEyoACcPeFe3k-V-3kvfayjoP8YlnZs-BaEkcJC53c49_ijDisWEeieUVfYoG5RVLk0HYdYRMGmVBZtnNZPN_7zdvdAgSTpE9vQ

Hougland founded Main Street One in 2016 after it became clear conservatives were masterfully using Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest to dismantle liberal narratives by disseminating “junk news, misleading statistics, and links designed to inflame voter sentiment around hot-button cultural issues like race, immigration, and identity,” Vanity Fair notes.

“One side had weaponized the internet, and one side hadn’t,” Hougland told the publication in June. “Democrats want to focus on facts and figures. The other side plays into fears and taps into emotions, and they show it to you. It’s all about emotional resonance.”

President Trump is slated to air two 30-second ads during this Sunday’s Super Bowl between the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs which cost about $5 million each.


The president will be featured in the campaign ad touting the robust US economy – the “best wage growth in a decade,” “unemployment rate sinking to a 49-year low,” and “employment for African Americans fell to a new low”– and promises “the best is yet to come.”

“America demanded change and change is what we got,” the narrator says in the ad released by the Republican Party on Thursday. “And change is what we got. Under President Trump, America is stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/02/01/bill-kristol-democrat-twitter/

‘Out Of The Political Closet’: Bill Kristol Says He’s A Democrat Now. Twitter Reactions Pull No Punches

Political pundit Bill Kristol tweeted “we are all Democrats now” on Saturday, drawing strong reactions from Trump supporters all over the internet.

“Not presumably forever; not perhaps for a day after Nov. 3, 2020; not on every issue or in every way until then,” Kristol wrote. “But for the time being one has to say: We are all Democrats now.”


Not presumably forever; not perhaps for a day after Nov. 3, 2020; not on every issue or in every way until then. But for the time being one has to say: We are all Democrats now.

— Bill Kristol (@billkristol) February 1, 2020

Kristol, who served as editor-in-chief of the now-defunct Weekly Standard until it folded in 2018, was likely reacting to the Senate’s 51-49 vote to disallow witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Only two Republicans, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, broke ranks to side with Democrats who had hoped to bring former national security advisor John Bolton and others to testify against the president.

Kristol, long a prominent “Never-Trump” figure on the neoconservative right who now helps run The Bulwark, had even considered his own presidential run as late as mid-2018. He threw his support behind the GOP primary challenge of former one-term Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh last year. (RELATED: Devin Nunes Has Some ‘Bad News’ For Tucker After Senate Votes No On Witnesses)

Kristol’s tweet drew plenty of reaction from Trump supporters on Twitter, beginning with former Fox News columnist Todd Starnes, who joked that the Bulwark editor “finally came out of the political closet.”

Primis Player Placeholder


He finally came out of the political closet. t.co/SQpfu7P1Qa

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) February 1, 2020

This is like your most flamboyant friend who attended 200+ Britney Spears concerts before achieving his lifelong dream of becoming a backup dancer for her FINALLY coming out to you as gay…

Yeah, buddy… we ALL knew. t.co/TFaSZ6JyKV

— Tim Young (@timrunshismouth) February 1, 2020

Nope, just you. t.co/SLLXFFZoOq

— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) February 1, 2020

No, one really doesn’t t.co/suovklMLjZ

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) February 1, 2020


Again with this ‘we’ shit

— Ron Bassilian (R) (@ron4california) February 1, 2020

Not even close. I’ve been an independent conservative since before the 2016 election and take plenty of issue with Trump and any uncritical supporters, but am no more sympathetic to the Democratic cause than I was before. This “Democrat by default” mindset is sheer nonsense. t.co/bRSnljLhVC

— Kimberly Ross (@southernkeeks) February 1, 2020

What do you mean “we”, kemosabe? t.co/lpkEAgJMiw

— Mark Krikorian (@markskrikorian) February 1, 2020



Just a reminder that – long before Trump – neocons were already planning their migration back to the Democratic Party because they saw the writing on the wall about changes in the GOP & were hopeful about a Hillary presidency – from 2014: t.co/yMtafPEMHk t.co/0fFAKi3ZK1

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 1, 2020

They are leaving your party in droves…and in your delusional head you think you’ve gained people? Holy hell you are in for a rude awakening come November.

— Mindy Robinson ?? (@iheartmindy) February 1, 2020

LOL – dude – you are all Trotsky now…?

— Tony Shaffer (@t_S_P_O_O_K_Y) February 1, 2020

Tags : bill kristol democrat donald trump impeachment

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-that-if-they-support-certain-candidates-they-will-lose

Pelosi Warns Democrats That If They Support Certain Candidates, They Will Lose

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Democrat voters on Saturday that if they support the far-left wing of the party in the primaries, they are setting themselves up to lose to President Donald Trump in the general election.


“I just say to all of our friends, you know, you want to go to the left? You want to win the election? Let’s make a decision to win the election. And when you make a decision to win the election, you have to make every decision in favor of winning,” Pelosi told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “We all understand what is at stake.”

Pelosi called government-run health care “lovely in concept,” but “not a winning message,” and said “this is not going to happen.”

Pelosi has repeatedly tried to push back on the far-left candidates running in the Democrat primary, the two most notable of which are Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi told Bloomberg News in November. “As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?”

Get 4 Lines for $25 a Month when you Switch to Boost Mobile
Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network
Ad By Boost Mobile
See More


The Daily Wire reported at the time:

Pelosi specifically raised the alarm over socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) proposed $93 trillion “Green New Deal,” which Ocasio-Cortez’s former Cheif-of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted was about implementing socialism.

Get 4 Lines for $25 a Month when you Switch to Boost Mobile
Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network
Ad By Boost Mobile
See More


“There’s very strong opposition on the labor side to the Green New Deal because it’s like 10 years, no more fossil fuel,” Pelosi continued. “Really?”

Numerous critics have suggested that Pelosi withheld House Democrats’ partisan articles of impeachment from the Senate in an effort to keep Sanders and Warren in Washington, D.C., which keeps them off the campaign trail in Iowa.

Watch this video to learn more
This advertiser wants to share this with you
Ad By Sponsor
See More


Political analyst Ari Fleicher was the first to state that was what Pelosi was doing, writing on Twitter, “Don’t rule out that the reason Pelosi hasn’t sent impeachment to the Senate is to hurt Warren and Sanders, and to help Biden. She knows she has no leverage over Sen. McConnell, but by timing the trial so it takes place during the Iowa lead-up, she has leverage over the liberals.”

President Trump also agreed, writing on Twitter: “They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that’s the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it’s a lot of fun to watch!”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo: “This is the dirty little secret nobody is talking about: why the Speaker held these papers. This benefits Joe Biden. This harms Senator Sanders, who is in first place and could become their nominee.”

Donald Trump Jr. told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo that he also believed that was what Pelosi doing, saying, “I love that they collude against themselves in this way, because the last time they colluded to rig the Democrat primary, it worked out perfectly for us because we got Hillary, and that was a godsend.”

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/brexit-unquenchable-fire-spanning-globe
www.libertynation.com/brexit-the-unquenchable-fire-spanning-the-globe/


Brexit: The Unquenchable Fire Spanning The Globe

Brexit is one of the most historically significant events of recent times. It was the precursor to Trump, it heralded the populist movement across Europe, and it was the first moment that the world realized that the ideology of globalism was not a fixed fate, inescapable and unstoppable.

When we read history, more often than not, we focus on the events and the great happenings. We contemplate and wonder at the surrounding circumstance, and question how these things got started, what was the impetus to the historical event? We know the players, we know the dates and the number of people involved, but we rarely hear of the motivations, or at least what the primary cause of said motivation might be. Not so with Brexit.


It took three Prime Ministers, two General Elections, and three and a half years of arguments from either side of this political divide since the public voted to leave. It was a campaign that was being fought even after the votes were counted. This may seem familiar to our American audience. President Trump won in 2016, and yet there are swathes of the political and media class who just do not accept the reality: This is Brexit country.

As Britain prepares to bid a not-so-fond farewell to the E.U., I want to walk you through the timeline of events from Britain joining what was billed as little more than a simple trade arrangement. And we’ll go all the way through to the E.U. becoming a monolithic government that commanded nations in what laws they must implement and what border controls, if any, they were permitted. Finally, we’ll see how Britain broke free of an organization that would be a country.

The Back Story: Clashes And Confrontations
In 1973, Britain joined the European Communities (E.C.), which was a fairly simple trade organization made up of just eight other countries, including France and Germany. Then, in 1975, the E.C. developed to become what is today known as the Common Market or ECC. Membership of the ECC would require certain laws and regulations to be made in the E.U. and not in Westminster, in order to have regulatory alignment political capital. A referendum was held to see if the people of Britain wished to continue. The result was an overwhelming yes.

However, as the years went on, more and more changes to the structure of this trading organization took place that required a handing over of national sovereignty. The trading block grew, adding new European countries to its ranks. Treaties were signed by the governments of the day each time they arose that handed power to Brussels and took it away from the British parliament. Many thought this was a price worth paying to be part of a large trading block.

But not everyone.

Political Pressure
A Euro-Skeptic movement began around the same time that the E.U. was pressuring Britain to adopt the Euro as its currency and to do away with the Pound Sterling. The skeptics – or “mad, swivel-eyed loons” as the PM described them – argued that a trade deal was not worth handing over law-making abilities to what was fast becoming a foreign government and that Britain should have control over its own laws, currency, and immigration policy.



Nigel Farage

It took over 20 years of campaigning, but electoral pressure from the United Kingdom Independence Party, then headed by Nigel Farage, forced PM David Cameron to offer an In/Out referendum on continued membership of the E.U. if he won the 2015 General Election with an outright majority.

Cameron, who was then leading a minority government in coalition with the Liberal Democrat Party, believed there was little chance he would gain an outright majority, but that the promise of a referendum would at least put himself and his Conservative Party back in power. The nation was stunned by the result

A Brexit Referendum
Far from just winning the election, because of Cameron’s promise on the referendum, he was catapulted back to Westminster with a large majority and was beholden to the voters to deliver on his promise.

All leaders of the main political parties campaigned for Britain to remain part of the European Union. Nigel Farage, UKIP, and several grassroots movements campaigned to leave in a David and Goliath campaign. On June 23, 2016, the public went to the ballot boxes. The vast majority of polling predicted that the Remain side would win, and it wasn’t until the results started coming in that David Cameron realized he had made a huge miscalculation.

The final result was 52% to Leave and 48% to Remain. Of the 650 voting constituencies in the U.K., over 400 voted to part ways with the E.U. It was the largest single vote for anything ever in the history of the country.

Brexit Delayed
In the wake of the historic result, Cameron first attempted to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership in hopes that this would be enough to satiate the Brexiteers. The E.U., perhaps believing that no country would ever actually leave, reacted arrogantly, offering nothing more than sops. The PM returned to Britain humiliated.



Theresa May

Because PM Cameron had campaigned to Remain in the E.U., he felt he should not be the person responsible for taking Britain out. A leadership election was held in the Conservative Party, and Theresa May became the new prime minister. However, May did not seem to have the support, or perhaps the will, to complete Brexit.

The country remained divided between those who won the referendum and those who wanted to ignore the vote and carry on as before. PM May was unable to pass any legislation in Parliament, and without support, could not govern; another leadership election was called. Boris Johnson handily won this race and challenged the opposition Labour Party to agree to a General Election.

In the U.K., the Fixed-Term Parliament Act prevents calling an election unless a two-thirds majority of MPs vote for one, or the five-year period expires.

Labour, under leader Jeremey Corbyn, was initially hesitant to agree to an election as his party’s stated position was to try and remain in the E.U. After much back and forth, mocking and threats, an election was agreed to, and Boris Johnson, running on a platform of “Get Brexit Done,” won a resounding landslide.

Lingering Tentacles
Britain leaves today, but this does not mean that the relationship is entirely over. During the next year, parliament will negotiate with E.U. leaders to determine if some kind of trade arrangement can be reached. So far, the E.U. is asking for what’s known as a “level playing field,” which in reality means political and legal alignment on rules and regulations. Boris Johnson has ruled this out, suggesting that it is this alignment that began Brexit in the first place.

If at the end of 2020 no trade arrangement is reached, Britain will revert to trading on World Trade Organization terms, no different to any other country outside of the E.U. Whether PM Johnson wins another election will depend on how well he manages these negotiations.

Eternal Flame?
Perhaps we can, after looking at the story of Brexit, understand why we so seldom have a complete overview of historical events – and why it’s so difficult to hand over a complete package wrapped in a nice little bow and say, ”look, here’s this segment of history and all you need to know.” Perhaps it’s because these events that shape the future of nations are never truly over.



Brexit has happened, Donald Trump won, but the story goes on. What happens today will have major consequences for the next 20 years, 200 years, or perhaps even more. Brexit was the spark that lit the flame of a populist resurgence around the globe. We see it in Europe, we see it in the U.S., and it will rage until all people can honestly say that they are truly, finally, free.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/01/rahm-emanuel-democrats-must-build-metropolitan-majority-to-rule-for-years/

Rahm Emanuel: Democrats Must Build ‘Metropolitan Majority’ to Rule for ‘Years’

Former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday in which he declared that Democrats should use the 2020 election to establish “a new Democratic ‘metropolitan majority’ that could last for years.”

The only problem, he said, was that the party was moving too far to the left. “Democrats May Be Blowing Their Chance,” the article is titled.


Emanuel wrote:

The next nine months will present our raucous coalition a rare opportunity to establish a new Democratic “metropolitan majority” that could last for years. We can’t afford to let internecine disagreements about how to reach our common goals get in the way.

…

In recent months both Presidents Clinton and Obama have come under withering criticism—not from conservatives but from Democrats arguing they were insufficiently progressive while in office. Set aside the unforced error of attacking fellow Democrats at a moment when retiring Donald Trump ought to be our singular goal. The underlying critique fundamentally misunderstands how we should judge any given leader’s stewardship of our agenda.

…

The question before Democrats is whether to continue working in the same reform-oriented vein or to embrace the sort of revolutionary strategy that would have tanked in 1992 or 2008, but might work if the electorate is, as some believe, more left today than it is center-left.

Read the full op-ed at the Journal.

www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-may-be-blowing-their-chance-11580514064

The phrase “metropolitan majority” appears to refer to the idea that Democrats’ urban power base is destined to grow as the country becomes more diverse, especially if illegal aliens are naturalized as citizens.

Democrats have predicted the demographic death of the Republican Party in recent years — a prospect that worries GOP insiders as well. President Donald Trump has sought to buck the trend by reaching out visibly to the African-American community in particular and highlighting the economic gains minorities have enjoyed under his administration.



Many Democrats began to worry openly last month, after the Iowa debate, that none of their party’s candidates could win.

“I want to say that tonight for me was dispiriting. Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out,” Van Jones, who worked briefly in the Obama administration, said on CNN.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/02/01/shock-cnn-des-moines-register-cancel-iowa-poll-after-pete-buttigieg-left-out/

Shock: CNN, Des Moines Register Cancel Iowa Poll After Pete Buttigieg Left Out

The Des Moines Register and CNN announced Saturday night that they would not release their crucial Iowa poll, citing an error in which one candidate’s name was left out of polling questions.

Jonathan Martin of the New York Times tweeted that the candidate who was left out was former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg:




News: The @dmregister is weighing whether to release their @jaselzer poll as planned tonight after @petebuttigieg camp complained that his name was left off at least one survey questionnaire t.co/9dNNMrtUmc

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartnyt) February 2, 2020

Pundits had been eagerly anticipating the release of what Politico called “the most consequential poll in politics,” as it reflects expectations of the outcome of the first contest of the presidential primary, to be held Monday..

But it was not to be.

A statement on the Des Moines Register website read, in part:

The Des Moines Register, CNN and Selzer & Co. have made the decision to not release the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll as planned this evening.

Nothing is more important to the Register and its polling partners than the integrity of the Iowa Poll. Today, a respondent raised an issue with the way the survey was administered, which could have compromised the results of the poll. It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate.

While this appears to be isolated to one surveyor, we cannot confirm that with certainty. Therefore, the partners made the difficult decision to not to move forward with releasing the Iowa Poll.

CNN also had to cancel an hour of news programming that had been planned around the poll.

Politico reported: “Underscoring the attention paid to the poll, CNN had planned an hourlong TV program around its release. Instead, at 9 p.m. Eastern, the network’s political director, David Chalian, went on the air to explain why the poll wasn’t being issued.”

The stunning, last-minute decision, 48 hours before the Iowa caucuses are to be held, raised suspicions that the poll must have held bad news for one of the major frontrunners.

In 2016, supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) accused the Democratic Party of rigging the result for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she won by a narrow margin in which some delegates were awarded to her by coin toss, and another was mysteriously switched to Clinton from Sanders.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

The Socialist Bernie Sanders campaign says it buys up enough carbon offsets to pay for its environmental impact of private jet use.

Rich Democrats play this game where they pay for tree plantings to make up for their extravagant lifestyle.
They want you to suffer while they live high on the hog.

But the Bernie Camp was lying.
Bernie spent $1,199,579 on private jet use last quarter and paid for just $23,200 in carbon offsets.

Via The Washington Free Beacon:

freebeacon.com/issues/bernie-leads-2020-field-in-private-jet-spending/

The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just under $1.2 million on private jet travel last quarter, outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field.

The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.” The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team.

The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter.

An analysis of private jet spending in filings from other top candidates found that Elizabeth Warren’s campaign spent $720,518 and Pete Buttigieg’s campaign spent $323,518. Michael Bloomberg, who pumped a whopping $200 million of his personal fortune into his campaign’s opening weeks, spent about $646,000 on private jet travel, about half of what Sanders spent.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/02/02/donald-trump-blasts-democrats-super-bowl-interview/

President Donald Trump called Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders “a communist” and blasted other Democrats in an interview that aired Sunday before Super Bowl LIV.

Speaking with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump was asked to respond to some of the names of Democrats who are seeking their party’s presidential nomination. When asked about Sanders, Trump replied, “Well, I think he’s a communist. I mean you know, look. I think of communism when I think of Bernie. Now you could say socialist, but didn’t he get married in Moscow?”



Hannity reminded the president that Sanders and his wife honeymooned in Moscow. (RELATED: Billionaire Democratic Donor Calls Bernie ‘A Communist’ And ‘A Disaster Zone’)

“I’m not knocking it, but I think of Bernie sort of as a socialist but far beyond a socialist.”

But Trump allowed that Sanders is “true to what he believes,” which is more than the president could say about Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

“You mention now, Elizabeth Warren. She’s not true to it. I call her fairy tale because everything is a fairy tale. That’s how Pocahontas got started. Everything is a fairy tale. This woman can’t tell the truth.”


Primis Player Placeholder


As for fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who was just cleared to enter the next Democratic presidential debate when the Democratic National Committee changed its rules, Trump dismissed him as diminutive.

“I just think of little. You know, now he wants a box for the debates to stand on. Okay, it’s okay, there’s nothing wrong. You can be short. Why should he get a box to stand on, okay? He wants a box for the debates. Why should he be entitled to that? Really. Does that mean everyone else gets a box?”



Trump also went after the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, who has been scrutinized for accepting a lucrative seat on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, while his father was then-President Barack Obama’s point man in that country. Hunter has said his only regret for fulfilling that role is that people believe “ridiculous conspiracy theories.”(RELATED: Trump Lawyer Pamela Bondi Delivers Indictment Of Joe And Hunter Biden’s Role In Ukraine)

“Where’s Hunter?” Trump asked.


“He made millions of dollars, he went from having no job, no income. He had nothing. As you know, he had a very sad experience in the military. He had nothing. To making millions and millions of dollars a year. Not just from Ukraine, but from China and from other countries. How can you do this? This is crooked as hell. What they did is very dishonest.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/02/02/exclusive-google-employees-used-company-resources-to-organize-anti-trump-resistance-events/

EXCLUSIVE: Google Employees Used Company Resources To Organize Anti-Trump Resistance Events

Editor’s note: What follows is an excerpt from Peter Hasson’s new book “The Manipulators: Facebook, Google, Twitter, qnd Big Tech’s War on Conservatives” (order here on Amazon).

Google employees interpreted Trump’s election as a terrible outcome that they should have done more to prevent the American people from choosing and something they would work hard to make sure didn’t happen again. Indeed, I obtained documents and communications showing Google employees organizing anti-Trump protests using internal company channels, company time, and company office space.


“If your stomach turns when you consider a Trump presidency, I urge you not to let this moment pass quietly,” one Google employee wrote in an email to coworkers, urging them to attend an anti-Trump protest in San Francisco ten days after Trump’s election. (RELATED: Trump Campaign Rails Against Google, Accuses The Tech Giant Of Suppressing Voter Turnout)


MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA – NOVEMBER 01: Google employees walk off the job to protest the company’s handling of sexual misconduct claims, on November 1, 2018, in Mountain View, California. (Photo by Mason Trinca/Getty Images)

Another Google employee in March 2017 hosted an anti-Trump resistance event at Google to flood the White House mail room with anti-Trump postcards. “Hi all,” the email began, “I’m participating in #TheIdesofTrump, a national movement to send POTUS a postcard on March 15 expressing opposition to him.” The message stated that employees had reserved a room at Google’s San Francisco headquarters for Google employees to gather and write the anti-Trump postcards. The invitation included the anti-Trump activists’ mission statement:

We the people, in vast numbers, from all corners of the world, will overwhelm the man in his unpopularity and failure. We will show the media and the politicians what standing with him—and against us—means. And most importantly, we will bury the White House in pink slips, all informing Donnie that he’s fired. Each of us—every protester from every march, each congress-calling citizen, every boycotter, volunteer, donor, and petition signer—if each of us writes even a single postcard and we put them all in the mail on the same day, March 15th, well: you do the math.

No alternative fact or Russian translation will explain away our record-breaking, officially-verifiable, warehouse-filling flood of fury.

“I’ll bring the postcards and the stamps,” the employee added. “You just bring your woke selves.” It bears repeating that the employees used their work email addresses, a company listserv, and company office space to organize their anti-Trump activism, because there is absolutely no chance that a Google employee could get away with organizing pro-Trump activism using Google resources on company time. If someone tried, their coworkers would run them out of the company, if their bosses didn’t fire them first.

One Google employee even reported a colleague to human resources for supporting Jordan Peterson’s objection to state-mandated pronoun laws in Canada. “One Googler raised a concern that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and expressed concern that this made them feel unsafe at work,” HR told the employee in an email, which noted that other Google employees were also “offended by [your] perceived challenge to our diversity programs.”

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/senator-warns-biden-could-be-immediately-impeached-if-elected

Senator Warns Biden Could Be ‘Immediately’ Impeached If Elected Because Dems Have Opened Pandora’s Box

Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst suggested to Bloomberg News on Sunday that Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, if elected, could potentially face impeachment immediately after being sworn into office because Democrats have opened Pandora’s box when it comes to lowering the bar for what qualifies as being an impeachable offense.


“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said. “Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”

Ernst apparently suggested that the grounds for impeaching Biden could be “for being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption yet turning a blind eye to Burisma because his son was on the board making over a million dollars a year.”

Ernst’s comments, which were speculative and were an overall reflection of how Democrats’ standards of impeachable conduct could be used against them, were twisted by the author of the report, Jennifer Epstein.

Epstein wrote on Twitter, “Joni Ernst tells me that there would ‘immediately’ be a Republican push to impeach Biden over Ukraine if he’s elected.”


Again, that is not what Ernst said.

Conservative Seattle-based radio host Jason Rantz highlighted that Epstein appears to have a pro-Biden bias as she rolled her eyes in apparent disgust over a question that Biden was asked last year about his son’s, Hunter Biden, new child that he allegedly fathered with a woman in Arkansas.

Boost has Super-Reliable, Super Fast Network so You Can Stay Connected Anywhere
Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network
Ad By Boost Mobile
See More



Some of you are wondering, "isn't Jennifer that bias reporter who rolled her eyes at a legitimate question about Hunter Biden?"

Answer: yup.

Now she's framing a quote out of context to help Biden. She doesn't hide her bias. pic.twitter.com/SocugNhPJz

— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) February 2, 2020


Daily Wire Editor at Large Josh Hammer highlighted Biden’s policy views in an in-depth profile piece last September:

On The Issues: Although Biden now presents himself as a moderate, centrist figure, the totality of his political career, overall, suggests that he is a firm leftist. Biden has dabbled at times in moderation, including previous support for tough-on-crime legislation and his longstanding stance that he is “personally pro-life” despite his support of legalized abortion. However, he has long been a progressive on legal issues, economic issues, and foreign policy issues, and even preempted President Obama’s “evolution” when, in 2012, he confirmed that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage.

Constitution: As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987–1995, Biden oversaw two of the most contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations in recent memory: Those of Reagan nominee Robert Bork and Bush nominee Clarence Thomas. Along with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Biden helped orchestrate and lead the personally nasty, full-frontal assault that ultimately resulted in the Bork nomination’s failure. Biden’s legislative posture has indicated an expansive view of congressional regulatory power: He helped lead the passing of the Violence Against Women Act, which was partially invalidated on constitutional grounds by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000.

Economy: Biden is best described as a Keynesian who believes in the purported economic benefits of large-scale government investments and deficit spending. Along with then-President Obama, Biden shepherded through a massive fiscal stimulus package in the duo’s first year in office, oversaw the passing of the regulation-heavy Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, dramatically expanded the national debt, and hiked income taxes on the wealthy. Biden has long been supportive of a greater federal role in infrastructure spending. On the issue of trade, Biden voted for NAFTA in 1993. Biden has opposed the privatization of Social Security.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/02/msnbcs-reid-trumps-lackey-gop-senators-including-mcconnell-likely-to-lose-to-democrats-in-2020/

Host Joy Reid predicted on MSNBC on Sunday that the Republican senators up for reelection in 2020 who voted against witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump were likely to lose to a Democrat.

Reid said, “If you look at the polling people have become more and more and more convinced Trump should be removed. There is now a majority to remove him. There is a majority saying he should not be president. That was an important outcome of impeachment.”


She continued, “I think also for people when they go to vote in the United States Senate race those are going to take on a lot more importance now because of the way these senators have behaved. Now when you are voting for or against Martha McSally or Joni Ernst here in the state of Iowa you are not just voting for whether you like her better than the Democratic opponent, you are voting for whether or not you want a senator who is a separate and equal branch of government and will defend that or who is just a lackey who is somebody who will submit to somebody who clearly wants to be the king.”



She added, “I think that people are going to think a lot more seriously about who they vote for, for United States Senate. By the way, you know Kentucky, don’t feel that confident Mitch McConnell because a Democrat just won statewide. A Democrat can win in any of these states. Anyone can win if you vote for them. Every Republican senator should look sharp that is up in November.”

[soonernvolved]

And President Trump wins again:

[soonernvolved]

www.businessinsider.com/alice-johnson-trump-clemency-pardon-kim-kardashian-west-2018-5

And his second Super Bowl ad:

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/02/02/des-moines-register-cancel-iowa-poll-pete-buttigieg/

Des Moines Register Cancels Release Of Iowa Poll After Buttigieg Voices Concerns About Possible Error

The upcoming Des Moines Register-CNN-Mediacom poll of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers was cancelled just before it was supposed to be released Saturday after complaints from a campaign.

Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaign voiced concerns to CNN and the Register about the poll being conducted in error. One interviewer reportedly used a bigger font size on their monitor, and candidate names were potentially cut off, two sources familiar with the poll said according to Politico.


The media outlets were unable to determine how many interviews were affected and decided to scrap the entire poll. This means the results of the poll won’t be released before Monday, when caucuses begin.

“Our campaign received a report from a recipient of the Iowa Poll call, raising concerns that not every candidate was named by the interviewer when asked who they support,” Lis Smith, a Buttigieg campaign senior advisor, tweeted.

We shared this with the organizations behind the poll, who conducted an internal investigation and determined not to release it. We applaud CNN and the Des Moines Register for their integrity. (2/2)

— Lis Smith (@lis_Smith) February 2, 2020

The Register appeared to agree with Buttigieg’s concerns, writing the issue “could have compromised the results of the poll.”


Primis Player Placeholder


“It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate,” according to the publication. (RELATED: Carson King Gets His Own Busch Light Can After Raising More Than $675,000 For An Iowa Children’s Hospital)

“While this appears to be isolated to one surveyor, we cannot confirm that with certainty. Therefore, the partners made the difficult decision to not to move forward with releasing the Iowa Poll.”

CNN also added in a statement Saturday evening that the media outlets weren’t able to determine how much the possible mishap had affected the results.

Statement on the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll: pic.twitter.com/vIRpqMXKfQ

— CNN Communications (@cnnpr) February 2, 2020


The Iowa Poll has been published by The Register for 76 years, the publication added.

“It is imperative whenever an Iowa Poll is released that there is confidence that the data accurately reflects Iowans’ opinions,” The Register reported.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/now-that-brexit-is-complete-its-time-to-strengthen-the-anglosphere/

Now That Brexit Is Complete, It’s Time To Strengthen The Anglosphere
A new world order demands new geopolitical thinking and new leadership. An informal trade, research, and defense bloc that values national sovereignty would be a good start.

Sumantra MaitraBy Sumantra Maitra
FEBRUARY 3, 2020

As the Big Ben gong struck 11 p.m. GMT on January 31, marking the moment the United Kingdom left the European Union, thousands of people started singing “Rule Britannia” in Parliament Square. Next to the statue of Winston Churchill was a British Army Parachute Regiment flag—apt, given that the EU is German-dominated—and a few large American flags.

Churchill was half American, and Americans in London clearly love a good independence party. A world where British people are free to vote and kick out their representatives might be hard in the days to come, but it is far, far better than one that was inexorably going towards a European empire. As one of the most striking placards read, “Britain isn’t supposed to be one of the many stars in someone else’s flag.” The period from 1973 to 2020 was a historical aberration.


Perhaps this is why Brexit vexes liberals so much. Brexit is important in ways more than the simple freedom and slavery dichotomy. It ruins a much vaunted and hitherto untouchable narrative. A recent IPSOS-MORI poll shows that Remainers, those who preferred to live in the EU, are less tolerant than Leavers of other people’s opinion. A earlier survey from 2016 found U.S. Democratic women block people on social media far more than do Republican women.

This is because, to leftists, their ideology is like a religion. All politics therefore is theological and Manichean, an existential battle between the forces of good and evil, where dissenting opinion is akin to heresy. For all the talk of diversity, Liberals are the most homogenous ideologically. As William Buckley said once, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

No one likes to see their gods bleed. Brexit did that. The world was supposed to be inexorably moving towards a providential liberal-democratic borderless future, ruled by a technocratic elite with same sexual, social, and economic beliefs, where faith, flag, family, duty, propriety, culture, and civilization didn’t matter, and the only variables were financial prosperity and freedom of the loins. The idea was a pagan animalistic existence in an atomized jungle, ruled by distant overlords you cannot touch or fight.

Brexit proved there’s something much more important than just cheap supermarket goods. And the pull of an earlier, greater if anachronistic world of nation-states, great powers, and national freedom is not over yet. Internationalism at the cost of national sovereignty is not a done deal.


History isn’t one-directional. One cannot only just “stand athwart History and yell stop,” one can actually turn back time. The direction of History can be actually reversed. The decline of a great nation or civilization isn’t inevitable. That’s a lesson for several other countries. Look at those Brits and their roast-beefs, singing “Britannia rules the waves, Britons never, never shall be slaves.” Those are not just mere words. They have actual meanings.

Conservative academic works have critiqued the EU as imperial and Soviet-lite. But of course, those suffered from the same folly of every historical work. The job of historians is to try and find thematic similarities, because history rhymes, but readers interpret that as sameness and discard the works.

The EU doesn’t have rusty steel barriers or soulless concrete blocks guarded by jackbooted, dead-eyed soldiers. But Brussels has the same flattening instinct as its older cousins had in Moscow. You don’t need goose-stepping soldiers to rip off the identity of every single nation-state and individuality of every single culture—you can do it with mind-numbing legalese and relentless financial and jurisdictional pressure.

Peter Hitchens writes of when he was moved the most by the plight of a lone Englishman, a shop-keeper Steve Thoburn, who refused to sell in EU-mandated kilograms and instead chose to sell in imperial measures, like pounds. The relentless harassment that ensued is a stuff of legends in these isles.


Hitchens writes, “I watched a British shopkeeper called Steve Thoburn be spitefully, relentlessly prosecuted for the crime of selling bananas to his customers in English pounds rather than continental kilograms. This is the kind of thing that makes me uncontainably furious; I glimpsed for the first time what each of the multiple humiliations of subjugation and occupation by foreigners must feel like. And at that point I became what my old friend had been: an Ancient Mariner, eyes glittering, gnarled fingers clutching the wrists of passersby, gripped with a seething passion I could not communicate. Who cares about your silly old ounces and inches and furlongs? And yet I did, involuntarily.”

Thoburn died of a heart attack in 2004, but I wish he were alive to see this day.

The struggle ahead of Boris Johnson’s Britain isn’t any less just because the U.K. is nominally out of the EU. The Unionist parties of Scotland, far greater in total number compared to the Scottish National Party, need to be united under one flag.

Most importantly, the British education system needs to be restructured. British universities and media are foreign-funded hubs of anti-Western propaganda led by hard-leftists. Unless future generations are taught that their civilization, despite some flaws, is objectively glorious and not irredeemably racist, sexist, colonial, and xenophobic, this fire of freedom will inevitably die in another internationalist push.


A new world order demands a new geo-political thinking. The EU now will face a massive tax burden as British contributions dry up, and with that, potentially British security patrols in the Baltics. This will likely lead to a further push for forced financial centralization and a European army, which will fuel further national secessionist tendencies, and the rift between North and South Europe.

Not to mention the inevitable clash of interests between the United States and the EU. Two suns can be in the same sky only in a Star Wars film. In geopolitical reality, two power centers will inevitably compete. Washington and London should take note of that.

The Anglosphere needs to be renewed and strengthened. Trade deals with America and Australia are an urgent priority. The combined economic and military potential of the United States, U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand can overwhelm any other trade bloc or geopolitical power. Add likeminded countries, such as Japan, India, and Singapore, and you have a powerful bloc incomparable in human history—one that values national sovereignty, but can pull together research and development, military might, and financial power.

The EU was supposed to be like that before it turned into a borderless quasi-imperial project. Yet a simple trade and financial bloc didn’t need a parliament and human-rights court that forces its diktats on vassal states. Only conquered countries accept that fate from their imperial overlords. Great Britain was never conquered.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/the-democratic-establishment-still-fears-an-open-socialist-winning-the-nomination/

The Democratic Establishment Still Fears An Open Socialist Winning The Nomination
The Democrat Party's donor class has openly courted and even supported socializing medicine, college, child care, and more. Now that Sen. Bernie Sanders might win Iowa, they're worried he's too radical, too soon.

FEBRUARY 3, 2020 By Erielle Davidson

On Sunday evening, NBC News reported that former Secretary of State John Kerry, while stumping for former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa, was overheard in a Des Moines hotel describing the steps he would have to take to run for president, given “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.” If true, Kerry’s remarks are just the tip of the iceberg in highlighting the general discomfort felt by many establishment figures within the party.

Although Kerry responded with a profanity-laced tweet denying the allegations (later deleting the tweet and replacing it with the PG version), the notion that establishment Democrats may in fact be fearful of a Sanders candidacy is not new. Now, I don’t feel bad for establishment Democrats scrambling to find a left-of-center candidate to challenge the surging self-declared socialist rising in their midst. For years, Democrats in Washington have played footsie with the avante garde Marxists within their party, yet now have the audacity to feign shock at the possibility that these Marxists might actually seek to run the party.


For months, Democratic leaders, as well as big Democrat donors, have expressed consternation at the thought of a directly socialist candidate leading the Democratic Party. The New York Times reported in April of last year about the growing discontent felt among the Democratic donor class about a Sanders nomination, while AP reported mere weeks ago about the rising crescendo of fear within the Democratic party, citing a host of Obama administration veterans and Democratic leaders who believe Sanders presents a “tough” platform for Democrats across the country to run on.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a senior aide to President Obama, pointed to the difficulties of a Sanders’ candidacy, given the senator’s identity as a democratic socialist and staunch support of radical health-care redistribution, like “Medicare for All.”

Even President Obama has joined the anti-Bernie fray. Back in November, Politico reported that President Barack Obama privately assured that he would “speak up” to stop Sanders if it looked as if the Vermont politician were going to clinch the Democratic nomination.

But again, it’s hard to feel sympathy for establishment Democrats fearing a socialist wave. These are the same individuals who championed the rise of the socialist-laden “Squad” and shamed anyone for daring to question the communist-like “Green New Deal” proposed by one of their members. These are also the same people who have championed government-run medicine since at least Hillary Clinton during the early ’90s. In a Soviet-like maneuver, these are the same individuals who reinvigorated class warfare rhetoric to challenge President Trump’s tax cuts, the repeal of net neutrality, and basically any anti-socialist policy.

Indeed, Speaker of the House and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi sat idly by as members of her own party proposed abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reminiscent of the sort of borderless world rhetoric that emanates from those chasing a socialist utopia.

When conservative figures attempted to warn the left about the rise of socialism on college campuses, they were summarily dismissed and their speakers chased off those campuses. Democrats saw the potential for young voters to keep them in office and consequently did their utmost not to criticize rabid left-wingers, exhibiting the sort of desperation that you would expect from the Resistance.

As it stands now, polling reveals that the majority of Millennials and Generation Z tend towards socialist policies. According to an Axios poll conducted last year, almost three-quarters of Millennials and Generation Zers support socialist health care, funded by the government. Nearly 70 percent believe taxpayers should pay for all college costs. Half of them state that they would prefer to live in a socialist country, and more than 40 percent support abolishing ICE.

While it’s comforting to see establishment Democrats alarmed at the radical left’s takeover of the party, the recognition is simply too little, too late. If Sanders wins the nomination, it will be because the left didn’t take the threat of socialism seriously and embraced it for political gain. Someone savvy should ask Pelosi whether her Time cover with the “Squad” was worth the destruction of her party. I have a feeling her answer will be interesting.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/brexit-supporters-overcome-decades-establishment-opposition/

Brexit Supporters Say ‘Free at Last’ as Britain Leaves the EU
By JOHN FUND
February 2, 2020 7:42 PM

After decades of opposition from the establishment — from Obama to Blair to the BBC and the IMF — the Brexiteers won the day


William F. Buckley Jr. entitled one of his anthologies of conservative thought “Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?” In it, he expressed his hope that the ideas in it would become reality.

Last Friday, I attended a party in London where leading Brexit supporters celebrated their nation’s departure from the European Union. Several of them privately told me they never thought that such a day would ever arrive. But the left-wing Guardian newspaper paid the Brexit rebels their due in 2016. It noted that they’d “worked for little else, with no reward, and with no sign that they would ever prevail.” The paper compared the Brexit “sect” to medieval monks who copied their manuscripts “waiting for the Dark Ages to come to an end.”

Friday’s party, organized in part by Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts and held at a private club in Mayfair, was full of toasts and speeches reminding the world of the great odds that battlers for Brexit had overcome. Rising just before the clock struck 11 p.m., the point at which Britain formally left the EU, Roberts brought the house down by declaring:

We faced an establishment that hadn’t been so unanimous on any single issue since appeasement and Munich. It was the BBC, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, David Cameron, the powers of Oxford and Cambridge, the civil service, the Bank of England, the Confederation of British Industries, Goldman Sachs, and even the International Monetary Fund which warned Brexit would lead to a 10 percent decline in GNP — a decline greater than that during World War II.

But, Roberts continued: “The British people were conscious of their history, an extraordinary thing given they hadn’t been taught it in schools for the last half century. They instinctively understood the patriotic part of it. They were lions, they never were daunted, and the lions roared back in 2016.”

Among those in attendance were some of the people who helped give the public its voice on Brexit. Take Daniel Hannan, a Euroskeptic member of the European Parliament for 21 years until last Friday night. He concluded as a student at Oxford in 1990 that the European Union was turning into a superstate; that prompted him to devote much of his career to wrenching Britain free of its embrace. “The EU went from being a club, an association of nations that was mainly a free-trade zone, into an entity immersed in immigration policy, foreign policy, defense, and culture,” he told me.

Hannan ’s indefatigable efforts paid dividends, and he became Britain’s leading pro-Brexit ideologist.


Douglas Carswell, a former Conservative member of parliament, told the Guardian: “When I heard Boris Johnson and all those others making those brilliant points they made, I thought, ‘Compare it to making a film: these guys on the silver screen are brilliant. But the script is written by Hannan, and this is largely a Hannan production.’”

NOW WATCH: 'Boris Johnson's Brexit Bill Passes in Historic Vote'

But there were also two elections that had to be waged and won for Brexit to become reality. One was the actual referendum in 2016, and the other was last December’s general election, in which Boris Johnson won a landslide mandate to bring in Brexit.

Prime Minister Johnson himself held his own party at 10 Downing Street last Friday to mark Brexit. There he gave recognition to a man who helped do so much to win both campaigns: the eccentric political consultant Dominic Cummings (portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch in a recent docudrama on Brexit that’s available on Amazon Prime).

According to the Telegraph, Prime Minister Johnson introduced Cummings last Friday by saying: “It was he, I seem to remember, who came up with the famous phrase that we should ‘take back control.’ It was also Dom who came up with the other three-word epigram, that the policy of the government should be to ‘get Brexit done.’” Johnson then picked up a mallet and rang a gong several times to imitate Big Ben’s chimes as the 11 p.m. hour arrived.


Despite the celebratory mood among Brexit enthusiasts last Friday, many acknowledged that much work remains to be done. A new free-trade agreement will have to be concluded between Britain and the EU before year’s end, and a bilateral pact between the U.S. and Britain will no doubt see President Trump drive a hard bargain. Andrew Roberts recently told the Wall Street Journal that he worries that his friend Boris will pursue politics that include “high social spending and intervention in the economy” in order to hold the Labour-party strongholds captured by surprise by the Conservatives in the last election.


But for now, Britain has a chance for a fresh start and, as Roberts put it to me, the opportunity to escape “the bloated, sclerotic beast” the EU had become and to forge a new relationship with India, China, and the U.S. “The irony is, Brexit supporters were criticized as ‘Little Englanders’ these last few years,” Roberts says, “But in the next few years, we’re going to prove we are truly international in outlook and actually ‘Great Britons.’”

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/02/10/the-democrats-2020-playbook/

The Democrats’ 2020 Playbook
By MATTHEW SCULLY
January 23, 2020 10:35 AM

A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, by David Plouffe (Penguin, 256 pp., $25), and How to Beat Trump: America’s Top Political Strategists on What It Will Take, by Mark Halperin (Regan Arts, 253 pp., $22)


Settling in over the holidays to study these two books offering a Democratic take on 2020 presidential politics, I looked forward to a week or two of relief from the “Resistance” hysteria that the subject invites. The hard numbers, the electoral map, and perhaps some strategy intel from the shrewdest minds in the Democratic party were all I wanted. But it turns out that even when they are trying their very best to think straight and focus simply on winning, there is no escape from the melodrama.



Here, for instance, is Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe, a very capable man who I was sure would have all kinds of smart things to say about the shape of the coming race. “The year 2016,” he begins, “will scar us for as long as we breathe the same air that Trump befouls with his every word.” It was a “historically disturbing and perhaps democracy-destroying outcome,” that night when a “racist,” “idiot,” and “sociopath” became America’s president-elect. Elsewhere, at length and repeatedly in A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, Plouffe asks like-minded readers to relive the torment and trauma they endured as states once “Obama blue” turned red, the better to strengthen their resolve and heighten their sense of grievance, closing with his idea of a stirring exhortation for 2020: “On November 3, let’s make them pay for their attack on our Democracy.”

In the sweep of history, the reader wonders, might we find another presidential election that, by instructive contrast to the “stain” of 2016, provides a shining example of “America’s revered political system in action”? I don’t want to ruin it for you, but let’s just say that when you’re dealing with David Plouffe, only one candidate gets credit for “the audacity to win.”

That was the title of his insider account of the 2008 Democratic campaign against John McCain, and in this book, too, all things exalted are summed up in the figure of one man, and in that one Eternal Moment for progressives amid the raptures of Grant Park. Such a “blissful” time for Democrats, Plouffe writes, such a “virtuous circle,” as “me” became “we” and so many embraced the joy of “living part of their lives every day through and on behalf of Barack Obama” — the kind of high that the “MAGA gang” will never know. This leaves the problem that some 7 or 8 million citizens who supported Obama also decided to vote for Donald Trump — only because, says Plouffe, “they were duped, obviously,” and now the party must “undupe” them. Part of the mission in 2020 will be persuading them “to come back to the light.”

I’m not sure those voters would care for the ring of that, but it doesn’t really matter because, in A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, they are quickly forgotten anyway and most of Plouffe’s boots-on-the-ground coaching is directed to the teens and twenty-or thirtysomethings he is counting on to rise up this year with their own “Yes, we can!” That explains the page after page of breezy rapping about the unique “passion and creativity” his youthful readers can offer the cause (by painting campaign posters or street art, texting political messages, posting stuff on Facebook — whatever’s “your jam”), his fatherly advice for driving voters to the polls (“Treat every supporter of our nominee as a precious, fragile egg”), some John Lennon lyrics to get the activism vibe going, storytime reminiscences of Barack versus Mitt, and constant scary talk about how democracy itself might not survive a Trump second term.

The seething over 2016 always leads to reveries about 2008. American democracy is to be “revered” only when it produces satisfactory results. Indeed, concluding his save-our-democracy checklist for Millennials, Plouffe adds a few therapeutic touches to advise on viewing election returns — where and with whom to watch, what meals to prepare — so that everybody will feel safe that night and able to cope with the anxieties of an experience that might not always conform to their precise wishes. And remember,

if you’re with family and you have kids who were old enough to be traumatized by Trump’s election and all that has come since, make sure they have friends with them as well. They’ll give you a furtive hug or a high-five, but sharing and celebrating a return to the America they want to grow up in and will soon enough eventually contribute to and lead will be most meaningful with people their own age, both the memories that are created and the conversations they will have.

When the winner is declared, he suggests, switch over to the folks on Fox News to savor their trauma. A good chance to teach the kids the thrill of revenge.

He is a serious, accomplished fellow, and the book, by his own terms, is well meant. The effort is undone by a tone so relentlessly silly and overwrought that it takes on the feel of some mischievous parody, A Citizen’s Guide to Self-Defeating Liberal Sanctimony. And all of this as he also pauses to warn us that “hyperbole infects our political coverage and commentary.”

Likewise, turning to Mark Halperin’s How to Beat Trump: America’s Top Political Strategists on What It Will Take, we have another book promising straightforward political analysis but quickly overtaken by the moral preening its topic inspires.


Here, too, we find political professionals in a state of “sheer terror” as they grapple with the mystery of how someone they so detest can hold such appeal to the voters they need. “Democrats all across the country,” Halperin reports, “are declaring they will do absolutely anything to prevent Trump from causing further damage to American democracy” — the initial damage having been done by prevailing in an election. “In their view,” we learn, “a Trump loss would signify a restoration of order, balance, decency. A Trump reelection, meanwhile, would portend the death of reason, the end of all that is good in America, and the potential downfall of human civilization.”

Oh, to see order, balance, and decency again! Think of Democrats during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the rebirth of reason all that foreshadowed. The high-minded talk becomes only more unbearable when one of the strategists gets sentimental: “He’s not just ignorant, he’s insulting,” the man says of Trump. “I think we all have a different idea of what the enemy looks like. John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney. They’d all be fine presidents. George H. W. Bush, 41. What I wouldn’t give to have a person like that in the White House today.” A touching look back to that better time in American life when these now-lionized Republican statesmen were treated with honorable self-restraint by the Democratic Left, and never with malice. Remember that? Figure out what else our nominees of 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 had in common and you have the key to retroactive enshrinement in the liberal pantheon of civility and decency.


–– ADVERTISEMENT ––


An unavoidable sidebar to the great civilizational struggle described in How to Beat Trump concerns the author himself. Halperin must have winced at the outbursts of self-pity and feigned outrage he was jotting down, having himself recently discovered what a thoroughly uncharitable lot they can be on the left. An industrious and once celebrated reporter and MSNBC analyst, he’s venturing a comeback after a 2017 career crash involving sexual harassment. The offenses, occurring a decade or so earlier, were by his own admission awful; he has emphatically apologized to his victims; and a statement from his publisher, Judith Regan (“I have . . . lived long enough to believe in the power of forgiveness, second chances, and offering a human being a path to redemption”), will for most readers hit the right note. Not good enough, however, for the hanging judges who determine such matters and who have insisted that Halperin be shunned, his book be ignored by reviewers and cable shows, and the strategists who dared speak with him make public confessions of their error.

We should credit Halperin for perseverance, for striving contritely to earn back his livelihood and dignity, as a man and as the father of a young son, and, not least, for conceiving as propitiatory a book title as could be imagined to try, at least, softening up his former friends in the media elite. Beating Trump is their “jam,” as Plouffe might put it. And when we get past the posturing by Democrats, including the solemn pronouncements of constitutional crisis they were offering even before a contrived impeachment, the book offers lessons that warrant attention.

Much of the advice from strategists, typical in their field, hangs in the air awaiting elaboration. How can a Democratic nominee beat Trump? Well, “you have to tell a better story about America than he does.” “Find the right tone and say the right things.” “You’ve got to be extremely disciplined in terms of message delivery.” What about Obama-to-Trump voters? “You have to spend some time with these people.” A few Republicans disdainful of Trump are also consulted, mostly to share their continuing concerns about the coarsening influence of millions of working people suddenly arriving in the party formerly known as the “Big Tent.” But skipping all that, the book’s recurring theme is hard to miss: how, in the Democratic party, progressive fanaticism threatens to blow an otherwise attainable victory.

Inflamed by the moment, many Democrats yearn to run with an all-out, “woke,” go-for-broke campaign. It’s time for America to hear the whole “intersectional” list of outrages and demands — all-pervading racism, recognition of assorted genders, abortion at any stage, “white-male privilege,” open borders, wealth redistribution, reparations for slavery, “climate justice,” and more — as 2020 promises a historic, fully mobilized “coalition of the ascendant” against the despised foe. Meanwhile a few party elders cited in the book, such as David Axelrod, advise a more measured and judicious approach, lest those “precious, fragile eggs” of Plouffe’s start hatching again into Trump voters.


If you’ve got that, then you are current on the state of play in the Democratic primaries, about which Halperin’s strategists were already getting nervous last year. Here was an elementary political challenge involving the lost loyalty, in 2016, of millions of mostly white working men and women whose votes made the difference in the swing states, giving Trump his Big Three — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — by fewer than 78,000 votes combined. Whom has the Democratic party lined up to reclaim those pivotal votes? Among the contenders: The gruff socialist from Burlington, Vt. The preposterous former “woman of color” from Harvard Law School. And, also bearing the Harvard stamp, the preachy former mayor of a college town. (Although we can’t afford to take Mayor Pete Buttigieg too lightly because he was, after all, placed in that crucible of leadership by the votes of 11,000 people in total, which is very nearly the population of Wasilla, Alaska.)

Axelrod, the level-headed former chief strategist and presidential aide to Obama, describes to Halperin a more moderate course designed to exploit “the sheer sense of exhaustion that Trump has created,” doubtless recognizing that the Democratic Left has an “exhaustion” factor of its own. And, of course, this approach would square with the party’s winning general-election formula, since at least their catastrophe of 1972, of advancing liberal causes under cover of calming, moderate rhetoric. Why wouldn’t this offer their best chance again in 2020?

Unless the late-arriving Michael Bloomberg can catch on, the most plausible candidate attempting the feat is Joseph Biden, who, as it happens, was first elected to the Senate in that same year of ’72, when McGovern lost to Nixon. It’s an era so remote that back then you had to be a Soviet commissar to profit off Ukrainian gas, not just a clueless American consultant trading on Dad’s influence. A Biden nomination in 2020 would be as if, instead of finding its perfect torchbearer in 1960, the Democratic party had given the nod to a man whose Senate path had begun in 1912 and who had first sought a presidential nomination in 1928. Or as if Republicans in 1980 had offered another shot to Tom Dewey, who that year would have been just six months older than Biden is now. Yes, for good old Joe it comes to 48 years of faithful service to the party. But as Plouffe will tell you, it’s going to be tough to get those Millennials in “the ultimate Rainbow Coalition” doing their door-knocking and street-painting for an establishment nominee with that kind of mileage.

2
Even so, as we’re often reminded in How to Beat Trump, it’s a “volatile” electorate, and you just never know. There has never been a fourth consecutive two-term presidency, second terms generally don’t go well, and when progressives vow massive turnout and organizational energy this year we needn’t doubt them. If so many Obama-to-Trump voters were possible, moreover, then who’s to say that given a dose or two of bad news for the economy there can be no such thing as the Obama-to-Trump-to-Warren voter — or, easier to picture, the Obama-to-Trump-to-Sanders voter? Swing voters and independents are not exactly defined by consistency of judgment, and it wouldn’t take many of them to again tip the scales where it matters. If we imagine a book titled “How to Reelect Trump,” a million-dollar idea that apparently no one thought of, it would caution against presumption of any kind, in any region or in any aspect of the effort. It might also advise a little more of Trump as he presents in State of the Union outings, casting a core conservative agenda in the kind of big, generous, classy themes he’ll need from the convention speech onward.

One illusion these two beat-Trump books relieve us of, in any case, is that the campaign of 2020 would be a far quieter affair without him. Even if its leading man were not such an uncontrollable, unconventional cat, all of the hysteria on the Democratic left is just a more riotous version of a show we would be watching anyway. Take the same set of signature issues and policies as this president’s, the same kind of court nominations, the same support of the same kind of people, and above all the same comic failure to play along with official pieties and euphemisms, and chaos would follow even if he had the style and demeanor of Calvin Coolidge. We’re supposed to blame Trump because liberals feel provoked, outraged, and traumatized? As if they ever need a reason.

[soonernvolved]

Late yesterday, it was reported that former Presidential hopeful Democrat John Kerry is not happy about Bernie being in the lead in the Democrat Party Presidential race. Kerry, who is involved in the Ukraine scandals as much as the Bidens, freaked out in a tweet using the f-word. He then deleted the tweet and replaced it:

Kerry was also reportedly heard freaking out in a hotel in Des Moines. Gregg Re at FOX News reports:

www.foxnews.com/politics/john-kerry-now-deleted-expletive-laced-tweet-addresses-report-2020-run

Former Secretary of State John Kerry was reportedly overheard in a hotel restaurant Sunday warning of the very real “possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole,” according to an NBC News report that sent shockwaves through an already-fractured liberal constituency bracing for a potentially historic Sanders win in Monday’s pivotal Iowa caucuses.

Kerry, in the Renaissance Savery Hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, on the eve of the caucus vote, also reportedly remarked that “maybe I’m f—ing deluding myself here,” but that he could conceivably launch a run for president now that donors “have the reality of Bernie” surging in the polls.

Kerry and Biden know that another four years of President Trump increases the probability that their crimes during the Obama years in the Ukraine, China and who knows where else, see sunlight. They are freaking because they know Bernie can’t win the National election.

[soonernvolved]

MSNBC’s Morning Joe was like a funeral parlor this morning and the results from tonight’s Iowa caucuses have not even been announced yet.
Chris Matthews looked sick to his stomach as he told his fellow liberals that he is “not happy” with any of the candidates running and that they can’t beat Trump.

Matthews then went on to compare Socialist Bernie Sanders to historic failure George McGovern.

And Matthews predicted that Bernie will win tonight in Iowa “real big.”

They’re not happy.