Is Kamala Harris the likely Democratic nominee in 2020?

Power Line  . . . "Speaking of superdelegates, the Democrats are probably going to sharply reduce their number. Hillary Clinton gave them a bad name last time.

"Add it all up, and the situation looks quite favorable for Harris. She will run as a progressive in the Obama-Sanders mold. Like Obama she has the advantage of being African-American. She may not move African-Americans to the same degree as Obama and Jesse Jackson did, but she should massively outperform Sanders with this cohort.
. . . 

"Finally, Harris will benefit from the decline of anything resembling a Democratic center. As Olsen points out, in 2016 “very liberal” Democrats made up a significantly larger percentage of Democratic primary voters than they did as recently as 2008, while moderate conservative primary voters were outnumbered in virtually every state.

"However, Harris’ path to the nomination is littered with uncertainty, as one would expect this far out. She might have to share the progressive vote with Sanders and/or others. She might have to share the African-American vote with Cory Booker. If Joe Biden runs, it’s conceivable that, given his service to Barack Obama, he could win a decent share of the African-American vote as the establishment candidate.

"Harris might also turn out to be a dud on the campaign trail.

"So if the bet is Kamala Harris vs. the field, I’d take the field. If it’s Harris vs. any single candidate, I’d bet on Harris." . . .

A Message From Parkland You Won’t See In The Establishment Media

Daily Caller  "Andrew Pollack’s daughter was killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Kyle Kashuv is a student there. They both have a message that the media – for some reason – doesn’t seem to want to push.

"Pollack and Kashuv joined The Daily Caller to talk about how making schools safe shouldn’t be focused on enacting new gun control laws.

"On Saturday, thousands of students flooded the streets in Washington, DC to protest for school safety, yet have shut out voices — like Kashuv and Pollack — looking to protect the Second Amendment." . . .

Women’s March Loses Members Due to Leaders’ Ties to Farrakhan

Mary Chastain

"Leaders of the org love the anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist Nation of Islam leader."

. . . "Leader Carmen Perez loves Farrakhan and notorious anti-Semitic, Israel hater Linda Sarsour spoke at one Nation of Islam even in 2015.

Their support has enraged supporters. The New York Post continued:

“If . . . these Women’s March leaders are attending his sermons and cheering him on, they should be called out and removed from their roles immediately,” Brooklyn activist Tali Goldsheft told The Post.

Goldsheft is behind a Change.org petition that calls on Women’s March sponsors to cut ties to “hate” and seeks a purge of the movement’s leadership.

“You feel stabbed in the back. It feels like someone you trust just punched you in the gut . . . I’m really wounded,” said former Women’s March supporter Nisi Jacobs, 49, a Manhattan resident.

Jacobs, who helped draft the Change.org petition to depose Mallory and the rest of the Women’s March leadership, has launched an alternative group, Women’s March For All.

“I’d had enough,” Jacobs said.

"I honestly doubt that this will affect anyone. After all, we have known for the looooongest time that Farrakhan hates Jews, gays, and white people. Professor Jacobson pointed this out in The Washington Times:

“Many progressive Jews have reacted with shock to the Farrakhan adoration from leaders of the Women’s March,” said Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson. “That Farrakhan connection, however, has been public and unapologetic for years.”

Even before Mr. Farrakhan gave a shout-out to Ms. Mallory at his Feb. 25 Saviours’ Day speech, the Women’s March had been accused of anti-Semitism through its link to convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who has been embraced by Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour.

“Rather than treating the alignment of the Women’s March leaders with a notorious anti-Semite as an aberration, progressive Jews need to ask themselves whether it reflects a deeper anti-Semitism in the progressive world, masquerading as anti-Zionism,” said Mr. Jacobson, who runs the conservative Legal Insurrection blog.

Hogg Silent After Pro-Gun Parkland Survivor Challenges Him on Gun-Control

Jeff Dawald‎atExpose Liberal Media Bias

Conservative Tribune  . . . "But not all of the Parkland students are in favor of strict gun control as a solution to prevent mass shootings, most notably Kyle Kashuv, who instead of calling for ineffective and unconstitutional gun bans spent time speaking with legislators on both sides of the political aisle and helped get school safety legislation passed as part of the recent omnibus spending bill.

"As these two students continue to emerge as leading young figures on both sides of the gun control issue, The Daily Wire reported that libertarianesque classical liberal political pundit Dave Rubin offered to moderate a civil debate on the issue between both of the students, after the idea was suggested by one of his Twitter followers." . . .

"The truth is, such a debate on the gun control issue as proposed is unlikely to happen, as it is highly doubtful that Hogg will accept the offer from Rubin or challenge from Kashuv.

"It had been shown in a previous back-and-forth on Twitter that while Kashuv has taken the time to study and inform himself of what gun laws are already in existence — as well as their effectiveness — Hogg has done little more than regurgitate a variety of liberal talking points and displayed no real knowledge of the issue." . . .

Earl of Taint

CNN Has Just Gone Full Propaganda – Not Even Trying to Hide It

Liberals and their media continue to stalk Trump

Waiting for the first photo of Stormy Daniels with Maxine Waters or even Hillary.

Stormy Daniels gets spotlight that Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick never got  . . . "It’s also worth noting that CBS famously passed on interviews in the 1990s and thereafter with Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick – one of whom won a sensational sexual harassment case against former President Clinton and the who accused him of a brutal rape." . . .

Let me suggest to you that the difference is the media’s hatred of Donald Trump and the fact that he won the 2016 presidential election – ironically defeating a woman who helped cover up serious charges by other women victimized by her husband, some of which took place while he was president.

Five Questions That Remain Now That The Stormy Daniels Interview Has Aired   "In her long-awaited 60 Minutes interview, Stormy Daniels talked about the relationship she says she had with Donald Trump a decade before he ran for president — but the questions going forward are, primarily, legal ones about things that happened over the past two years." . . .

Legal Insurrection: The Stormy Daniels story is not about Stormy Daniels  "It’s about #TheResistance"

. . . "But I did later read the transcript, and some things jumped out at me that led me to watch at the 60 Minutes website.

"If you want to lose 26 minutes of your life that you’ll never get back, head over to the links and watch.

"Some observations, in no particular order.

1. Anderson Cooper did a good job. He asked the right questions about her credibility and that of her lawyer Michael Avennatti (a former Rahm Emanuel oppo researcher and obviously someone seeking to make name for himself as a hero of #TheResistance). Cooper conducted himself as professionally as possible given the subject matter.2. This is not Bill Clinton stuff. No allegation of sexual harassment or assault (Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, etc.), or abusing power over an underling (Lewinsky). It’s not even Al Franken territory of alleged non-consensual sexual touching. According to Daniels, there was a single encounter in 2006 that was completely consensual.3. No minds were changed about Trump as a result of the interview or the story itself. Trump allegedly cheating on a wife is a Casablanca moment. No one actually cares about the story, it’s just political posturing.4. The Stormy Daniels story is not about Stormy Daniels. It’s about removing Trump from office in one of two ways:(a) getting Trump under oath in the hope that he will lie, providing a basis for impeachment should Democrats regain control of the House and Senate, or prosecution.(b) providing material for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to use to try to pressure Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen into turning on Trump.

"It will take time to percolate, but I have zero doubt that this is not about clearing Stormy Daniel’s name, as she claimed, or about righteousness, as Avenatti claimed was his motivation. It’s about #TheResistance.

"As such, this non-story holds danger great for Trump."

Bolton’s appointment is a brilliant America first move

Caroline Glick  "President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint former UN Ambassador John Bolton to serve as his National Security Advisor is arguably the most significant single step he has taken to date toward implementing his America First foreign policy.

The news hit America’s enemies and competitors — from Pyongyang to Teheran to Moscow to Beijing — like a wall of bricks Thursday night.

"Early criticisms on the political right of Bolton’s appointment have centered on two points. First, it is argued that Bolton, who has been involved in U.S. foreign policymaking since the Reagan administration, is a creature of the Washington foreign policy swamp.

"While it is true that Bolton is from Washington – or Baltimore, to be precise – and although it is true that he held senior foreign policy positions in both Bush administrations, he has always been a thorn in the side of the establishment rather than a member of that establishment.

"For the better part of three decades, Bolton has bravely held positions that fly in the face of the establishment’s innate preference for appeasement. He was a vocal critic, for example, of then-President Bill Clinton’s disastrous nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.

"The 1994 “Agreed Framework” that Clinton concluded with Pyongyang was touted as a peaceful resolution of the nuclear crisis with North Korea. In exchange for shuttering – but not destroying — its nuclear installations, North Korea received light water reactors from the U.S. and massive economic relief. As Bolton warned it would, North Korea pocketed the concessions and gifts and continued to develop its nuclear weapons. In other words, far from preventing North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework preserved the North Korean nuclear program and enabled the regime to develop it effectively with U.S. assistance.

"For his warnings, Bolton has been reviled as a “warmonger” and a “superhawk” by the foreign policy elite, which has gone out if its way to undercut him." . . .