Twitter Freaks Debate Deplatforming Libs of TikTok, Again, In Leaked Thread; Taylor Lorenz, Who Cries About Her Own Alleged 'Death Threats,' Mocks the Death Threats Libs of TikTok Receives

At AoSHQ, "The Purplehair Nosering Genderfux of Twitter are at it again, reports Libs of TikTok on her blog."

Michigan Congressman Peter Meijer Buys 'Body Armor', Claims 'Someone May Try to kill Us' Ahead of Joe Biden's Inauguration (VIDEO)

The guy's prolly a "Never-Trumper" nutjob, sheesh.

At the Detroit Free Press, "Rep. Meijer says legislators buying body armor as precaution: 'Someone may try to kill us'."

Watch on Twitter (since YouTube shoved this clip down the memory hole), "Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI), who voted to impeach Trump, says he and other lawmakers believe their lives are in danger following yesterday’s impeachment."

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem: 'Election Day Needs to Be Fair, Honest, and Transparent, and We Need to Be Sure We Had an Honest Election Before We Decide Who Gets to Be in the White House...'

She's so cool, calm, and collected, and George Stephanopoulos is left nearly speechless and bumbling, "Buh buh but Governor Noam, do you have any evidence that it wasn't an honest election...", blather, spittle, dribble, belch!

At ABC News, on our country's most dangerous news organizations:

Joe' Biden's 'One Opportunity' Campaign Ad Featuring Eminem's 'Lose Yourself' (VIDEO)

Louise Mensch practically creamed her shorts over this, pfft.

Mark Levin Absolutely Explodes

 Man, I like Mark Levin, but sheesh, he needs some mood stabilizers or something.

Dang!

My appearance on Hannity TV last night pic.twitter.com/ghhC7M85bE

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) October 30, 2020

Unmasking the Deep State

At the Other McCain, "The ‘Deep State’ Unmasked: Joe Biden Targeted Trump Aide Gen. Flynn."

Also, bombshell at AoSHQ, "Oh Wow: Devin Nunes Says That Criminal Referrals Are Coming. Not Just for the FBI/CIA Coupists. But for Mueller's Team of 13 Angry Democrats."

And the ominous flaming skull, "LUNATIC LAWLESS "JUDGE" EMMIT SULLIVAN ENLISTS HIS OWN PRIVATE PROSECUTOR TO PRESS CASE AGAINST FLYNN; CONSIDERS IMPOSING HIS OWN CHARGES OF PERJURY AND CONTEMPT ON FLYNN."

Timeline of FBI's FISA Abuse

At the Epoch Times, an amazing newspaper, "Timeline of FBI’s FISA Abuse in Trump Campaign Investigation":

INFOGRAPHIC🔎Timeline of #FISAAbuse in Trump Campaign Investigation: https://t.co/pkDss2owxg#EpochTimes provides a comprehensive timeline of details from the #IGReport, describing how @FBI rushed to #Spy on the Trump campaign and the flaws in its case. pic.twitter.com/mDbwxGGdp2

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) May 12, 2020

In its pursuit of establishing surveillance on the Trump campaign, the FBI turned its attention to Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the spring of 2016, culminating in the issuance of a FISA warrant—which allows for some of the most intrusive spying methods on an American citizen.

As part of this process, the FBI relied extensively on the flawed Steele dossier, leading an FBI legal counsel to note that this was “essentially a single source FISA.”

A report issued by Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz reveals a surprising number of details on how this process developed, as well as numerous problems with the evidence that was presented to the FISA court.

Important information was at times altered or not properly shared with the DOJ.

Here we provide a comprehensive timeline of details from the inspector general’s report, describing how the FBI rushed to spy on the Trump campaign and the flaws in its case...

Click through to see the whole thing, with an amazing graph of the timeline. I had to register by email, but apparently you get 20 "free" articles a month, which is the most for any pay-walled newspaper I've seen.

Unmasked

At WSJ, "The Flynn Unmaskers Unmasked":

The Flynn Unmaskers Unmasked: Now we know who knew about the Russian calls, including Joe Biden. https://t.co/KVJhdV4Nra

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 13, 2020

When news stories appeared in early 2017 about Michael Flynn’s conversation with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., these columns wondered how Mr. Flynn’s call was so widely known. The names of private U.S. citizens caught on tape by U.S. intelligence are supposed to be “masked” so their privacy is protected.

Well, now we know. GOP Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson on Wednesday released a declassified list of Obama Administration officials who in their waning days in power “unmasked” the conversations of Mr. Flynn, who was set to become President Trump’s National Security Adviser. It seems everyone but the night janitor wanted to know who Mr. Flynn was talking to.

A stunning 39 separate officials snooped on Mr. Flynn’s conversations with foreign actors, lodging nearly 50 unmasking demands between Nov. 30, 2016 and Jan. 12, 2017. Our sources say the nearly dozen redacted names on the list are likely intelligence types—who might have a legitimate interest in knowing who their foreign targets were speaking to in the U.S. But most of the rest are partisan officials who had no business spying on their successors.

The list includes then White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, then Vice President Joe Biden, and then Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew. Ambassador to the U.N. and Obama confidante Samantha Power made no fewer than seven requests, though she told Congress she had no recollection of unmasking Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Flynn was unmasked by at least four U.S. ambassadors, six Treasury officials, and people connected to the Energy and Justice departments and NATO, among others. Then FBI Director James Comey, then CIA Director John Brennan and then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also made the list. This means they had access to the transcripts of any phone conversations Mr. Flynn had with foreign sources as he prepared to take power.

The media cordon sanitaire that protects Democrats will say this is no big deal because unmasking is routine and legal. But if the masking rule means nothing in practice, why pretend it exists?

The Flynn unmasking is important because it occurred amid a media frenzy over supposed Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Leaks to the Washington Post about the conversations between the Russian ambassador and both Mr. Flynn and soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions were played up as central to the collusion scandal. They caused Mr. Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia probe and Mr. Flynn to be fired. While unmasking isn’t illegal, leaking intelligence is.

There are other dots to connect. Documents released last week show that former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates first learned about the Flynn wiretapping from no less than President Barack Obama in a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting. At least one of the unmaskers must have told Mr. Obama.

The dates of the unmaskings raise further questions. The FBI’s interest in Mr. Flynn was supposedly triggered by conversations starting Dec. 29, 2016. Yet Mr. Flynn was first unmasked a month earlier—shortly after Mr. Trump named him security adviser.

The McDonough unmasking takes place on Jan. 5, 2017—the day of the Oval Office meeting at which Mr. Flynn was discussed. Mr. Biden’s unmasking request was made on Jan. 12, 2017—the day the Washington Post reported on the Flynn-Russia conversation. Mr. Biden has some explaining to do.

All of this is fodder for U.S. Attorney John Durham as he tries to unmask the origins of the Russia collusion political ambush...

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: The 'Senate's Time is at Hand' (VIDEO)

It's impeachment trial, Day 2.

The Majority Leader skewers the Dems and it's hilarious.

At at New York Times, via Memeorandum, "Trump Legal Team to Add Starr and Dershowitz for Senate Trial."

Lev Parnas Breaks With Trump and Giuliani

This is getting really tiring.

The House Democrat Majority had all the time they needed to conduct the impeachment inquiry. They don't get to relitigate it in the Republican-controlled Senate. That's how it works.

Dems are virtually guaranteeing 45's reelection.

At the New York Times, "Lev Parnas, Key Player in Ukraine Affair, Completes Break With Trump and Giuliani."

Breaking News: Lev Parnas, a key player in the Ukraine pressure campaign, said that President Trump was fully aware of efforts to find damaging information on his rivals https://t.co/JoLY1zMK4s

— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 16, 2020

Elizabeth Warren Accused Bernie Sanders of Calling Her a 'Liar on National TV (VIDEO)

Most people are with Bernie on this, but it hasn't been disproved to me that Bernie's not a misogynist, as much as I like the guy.

The Bernie Bros mimic their model.

In any case, at LAT, "Can a woman win the presidency? Democratic debate delves into sexism in politics."

And the Other McCain, "Elizabeth Warren’s Media Helpers Try to Revive Her Campaign at Bernie’s Expense":

Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate was so white that Antifa would punch it in the face, and moderators for CNN made it clear who they favored among the six white Democrats assembled on the Des Moines stage. We haven’t seen the memo from CNN chief Jeff Zucker, but it was obvious that the assignment was to (a) attack Bernie Sanders and (b) boost Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps many Sanders supporters — who saw their candidate get cheated out of the 2016 nomination by DNC insiders working for Hillary Clinton — will now agree with President Trump’s assessment of the media as “the enemy of the people.”

Tom Steyer Surges

Well, money buys political viability. Who knew?

At the Des Moines Register, "Is Tom Steyer surging? Businessman qualifies for Des Moines debate after polls show him in top 3 in Nevada, South Carolina":

Holy cow Steyer’s at 15 percent in South Carolina?!! #Dems #TomSteyer #BigMoney #BILLIONAIRE 💰🇺🇸🤓 https://t.co/wGNkFkCdxZ

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 10, 2020

I don't think these Steyer numbers are a mistake. Remember, we've had basically no polling out of NV and SC and for months now he's been spending a fortune in both while the other candidates focus on IA and NH. He's had the run of the place.

— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) January 9, 2020

OK the links now work:

NV
Biden 23%
Sanders 17%
Steyer 12%
Warren 12%
Buttigieg 6%
Yang 4%
Booker 3%
Bloomberg 2%
Gabbard 2%
Klobuchard 2%

SC
Biden 36%
Steyer 15%
Warren 14%
Sanders 10%
Buttigieg 4%
Bloomberg 2%
Booker 2%
Yang 2% https://t.co/YJqNyYG9Qehttps://t.co/2LllHmMrJn

— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) January 9, 2020

WASHINGTON – Political activist Tom Steyer will be on the Democratic primary debate stage Tuesday, barely making the cut after surging in a Nevada and a South Carolina poll were released Thursday evening.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is leading in Nevada at 23%, according to a Fox News poll. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont follows at 17%. Steyer and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are tied in third place at 12%.

Pete Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana mayor, trailed those four candidates at 6%, followed by entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 4%.

The Nevada poll was conducted Jan. 5 to Jan. 8, with 1,505 Nevada voters interviewed on both landlines and cellphones. Interviews were offered in English or Spanish. Of those interviewed, 635 identified as potential participants in the Democratic caucus. There is a margin of error plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In a separate Fox News South Carolina poll, Biden again led the pack with 36% support. Steyer is in second place with 15%, followed by Sanders at 14% and Warren at 10%.

The South Carolina poll was conducted Jan...

Also at Memeorandum.

Turmoil in Middle East Upends Democrat Primaries

I think Dems are jockeying to see who's the most anti-American.

At the Los Angeles Times, "U.S.-Iran turmoil scrambles Democrats’ 2020 race, shifting focus to war and peace":

Actually it's not just "the economy, stupid." Voters always rank foreign policy low on their priorities. But it consistently rattles elections. @hookjan anchors our look at how Iran tensions scramble the primary. https://t.co/M1zScu6z6G

— Evan Halper (@evanhalper) January 8, 2020

WASHINGTON  —  President Trump’s order for the targeted killing of a top Iranian general and Iran’s quick retaliation have scrambled the 2020 campaign, thrusting issues of war and peace to the center of a contest that so far has been dominated by domestic issues.
Iran’s launch of more than a dozen ballistic missiles against a U.S. military base in Iraq on Tuesday night guarantees that the political fallout from the killing of Gen. Qassem Suleimani will not fade any time soon.

“What’s happening in Iraq and Iran today was predictable,” former Vice President Joe Biden said at an event in Philadelphia as news of the attack broke. “Not exactly what’s happening but the chaos that’s ensuing,” he said, faulting Trump for both his past action — abandoning an international nuclear deal with Iran in 2018 — and his more recent decision last week ordering Suleimani’s death by an armed drone in Baghdad.

“I just pray to God as he goes through what’s happening, as we speak, that he’s listening to his military commanders for the first time because so far that has not been the case.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, opening a rally in Brooklyn Tuesday night, said of the retaliatory attacks, “This is a reminder of why we need to deescalate tension in the Middle East. The American people do not want a war with Iran.”

In the days before Iran’s strikes, the rising international tensions had abruptly sharpened Democrats’ disagreements about the U.S. role in the world, personified by the sparring between two front-runners for their party’s nomination — Biden, who’s had a hand in decades of U.S. foreign policy, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an anti-interventionist critic of those policies. Warren has echoed Sanders as she seeks to revive her flagging campaign.

The president’s strike order against Suleimani crystallized what Americans love or hate about Trump: It was the kind of impulsive show of force that fans embrace as tough-guy swagger, but critics fear as his dangerously erratic, even unhinged, behavior. “This brings together a lot of the critiques around Trump,” said Derek Chollet, a former Obama administration Pentagon official who is now executive vice president of the German Marshall Fund. “The weakening of our alliances, the haphazard process, the impulsive decision making, the almost fanatical desire to undo anything Barack Obama did, regardless of whether it is working or not.”

Trump’s decision, which surprised even his own military advisors, came just weeks before Democrats’ nominating contest begins with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, highlighting the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the top candidates.

Biden immediately embraced the opportunity to emphasize the value of his foreign policy experience in a world roiled by Trump’s “America first” policies, touching on his years in the Senate, including as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as President Obama’s trusted wing man. He did so in Iowa on Saturday, but Tuesday he gave a more formal speech in New York.

Against a backdrop designed to exude presidential leadership — royal-blue draperies and a row of American flags — Biden promised relief from Trump-era chaos. “I understand better than anyone that the system will not hold unless we find ways to work together,” he said. To Democratic critics who dismiss his faith in his ability to work with Republicans, Biden said, “That’s not a naive or outdated way of thinking. That’s the genius and timelessness of our democratic system.”

Sanders has seized on the crisis to remind voters that he, unlike Biden, voted against the Iraq war and has long warned of the risks of U.S. interventions abroad.

“I have consistently opposed this dangerous path to war with Iran,” Sanders said at a recent Iowa stop. “We need to firmly commit to ending the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, in an orderly manner, not through a tweet.”

That message energizes his antiwar base but may be less appealing to party voters more broadly. A November CNN poll found that 48% of Democratic voters thought Biden was best equipped to handle foreign policy; 14% said Sanders was.

Warren has similarly expressed anti-interventionist sentiment, but Sanders’ supporters initially complained she wasn’t pointed enough in condemning Trump. That underscored the challenges she faces as she tries to appeal to Sanders supporters on the left while also appealing to more moderate voters.

Warren “wants to show contrast and pass the commander-in-chief test at the same time,” said Heather Hurlburt, a former Clinton administration foreign policy official at New America, a think tank.

For Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and an Afghanistan war veteran, the Middle East tumult is a double-edged sword, spotlighting his status as the only top-tier candidate who has served in the military, but also his political inexperience.

Whether the issue will continue to grab candidates’ and voters’ attention will hinge on the unpredictable fallout in coming days and weeks. Trump’s response to the Iranian attacks will be fraught with political risks, especially to the extent he is seen as having provoked the hostilities. Typically in campaign seasons, most polls find that foreign policy is not a high priority for voters more preoccupied with economic issues, but when American lives are at risk, the stakes rise.

In most national elections since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, issues of war and peace have been powerful factors. In 2002, Republicans benefited from the post-9/11 political environment under President George W. Bush, whose approval rating was over 60%, and the president’s party gained congressional seats in a midterm election for only the second time since 1934.

In 2004, Democrats’ growing opposition to the Iraq war helped propel Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a Vietnam War veteran, to the presidential nomination. “I’m reporting for duty,” he said at the convention. But Republicans savagely misrepresented his military record, helping Bush to eke out a reelection victory.

Four years later, opposition to the war also helped vault first-term Sen. Barack Obama first to the party’s nomination over Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted in 2002 to authorize the war, and then to victory over the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a hawkish supporter of the war.

When Clinton ran again in 2016, her early support for the war again was attacked by her primary opponent, this time Sanders. During the general election campaign against her, Trump tapped into Americans’ rising weariness with what he called “endless wars” and promised to bring troops home and to reduce America’s military role in the world.

To date, Democrats’ 2020 campaign had focused mostly on domestic issues — healthcare, income inequality, gun control and climate change — and on Trump’s fitness for office.

A Legitimate Contender, Establishment Democrats Afraid Bernie Sanders Could Win

Frankly, I hope he does win.

We'll have a very clear choice in November. And at least with Bernie, the rank-and-file won't be able to claim their party's "not socialist."

At the Associated Press:

He raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the last quarter — virtually all of it from small-dollar donors — and he’s considered a legitimate contender to win Iowa and New Hampshire next month. https://t.co/v9zn6oBtlb

— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) January 8, 2020

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party’s presidential nominee, establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier House, Senate and governors’ races.

The urgent warnings come as Sanders shows new signs of strength on the ground in the first two states on the presidential primary calendar, Iowa and New Hampshire, backed by a dominant fundraising operation. The Vermont senator has largely escaped close scrutiny over the last year as his rivals doubted the quirky 78-year-old’s ability to win the nomination. But less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, previously a senior aide to President Barack Obama, warned Democrats that Sanders’ status as a democratic socialist and his unwavering support for “Medicare for All” won’t play well among swing voters in the states that matter most in 2020.

“You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.”

The increasingly vocal concerns are coming from a number of political veterans tied to the Obama administration and the 2020 field’s moderate wing, including those backing former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

In some ways, the criticism is not surprising.

Sanders has spent decades fighting to transform the nation’s political and economic systems, creating a long list of political adversaries along the way. Many people connected to Hillary Clinton, for example, still blame Sanders for not working hard enough to support her after their long and bitter presidential primary feud in 2016. Some Democrats still accuse him of not being enough of a team player.

Sanders’ chief strategist Jeff Weaver dismissed the growing criticism as a reflection of the strength of his candidacy.

He raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the last quarter — virtually all of it from small-dollar donors — and he’s considered a legitimate contender to win Iowa and New Hampshire next month...

Letter from President Donald J. Trump to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

Leftists have freaked out after President Trump defended himself against Speaker Pelosi's impeachment circus.

For example, at New York Magazine, via Memeorandum, "Trump Writes Insane Letter to Pelosi Showing Why He's Unfit for Office," and "It is hard to capture how bizarre and frightening Trump's letter to Pelosi is."

Cut through the fog. Read it yourself.

Via Mollie:

Media coverage of ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩’s letter to Pelosi is unhinged. Really worth reading actual letter instead of mediated interpretation from emotional and frustrated journalists. https://t.co/LZ60A5Fs45

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 18, 2019

Lisa Page Explains 'Insurance Policy' Texts (VIDEO)

At Newsweek, "LISA PAGE REGRETS PETER STRZOK TEXT MESSAGES, REBUKES TRUMP FOR MOCKING HER WITH 'VILE, SIMULATED SEX ACT' PERFORMANCE."

Elizabeth Warren Too Far Left?

You don't say?

At LAT, "Does her healthcare plan make Warren too liberal to win?":

Does her healthcare plan make Warren too liberal to win? https://t.co/0qpF0wp73A

— L.A. Times Politics (@latimespolitics) November 8, 2019

WASHINGTON  —  Among her many proposals, an interviewer asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren, which three would she like to sign into law first?

Her anti-corruption plan, an end to the Senate filibuster and a wealth tax, the Massachusetts senator responded Thursday to Angela Rye, the liberal activist and CNN commentator.

Notice something missing?

Warren never wanted health care to dominate her campaign. After a week in which her detailed, sweeping Medicare for all plan has done exactly that, she’d still prefer to focus elsewhere.

The issue threatens significant harm to her presidential ambitions. Her inability to escape it provides a clear lesson in the power that activists wield to box in candidates on issues they care about.

THE ACTIVIST TRAP

In 2018, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) gave clear instructions about healthcare to her candidates: Put Republicans on the defensive; focus on GOP efforts to wipe out protections for people with preexisting health problems; don’t get drawn into a debate over Medicare for all.

That strategy worked: Democrats swept to a majority in the House, capturing 40 seats — one of the largest electoral waves since World War II — and healthcare played a major role.

That game plan remains available to the Democratic presidential candidates; the Trump administration has given them plenty of ammunition. For example, administration lawyers in July asked a federal court to declare the Affordable Care Act invalid — protections for preexisting conditions and all — and a decision in that case could come any day.

Instead, the candidates have largely done the opposite of what Pelosi recommended. They’ve occasionally attacked Trump over his efforts to take health coverage away from millions of potential voters, but they’ve more often gone after each other on their respective plans to expand coverage.

The path they’ve taken illustrates a key dynamic that shapes primary campaigns, often regardless of candidates’ wishes, said Patrick J. Egan, a political scientist at New York University who studies the way parties define themselves to voters through ownership of specific issues.

“Both parties’ coalitions include single-issue activists” who “propel policy agendas and major legislation that contributes substantially to the party’s brand,” Egan said in an email.

That can help a party cement its position because the public generally trusts each party more on the issues it “owns,” such as “terrorism and crime for the Republicans and the environment and health care for the Democrats,” he said.

But that can be a two-edged sword. Activists “wield an immense amount of influence in party primaries” because they can help marshal volunteers, grassroots donors and energy, Egan noted. At the same time, however, they push policies that are “often more extreme than the public wants” — huge tax cuts for the wealthy, in the case of Republicans, for example, and Medicare for all in the current Democratic debate.

What’s the evidence that Medicare for all is “more extreme” than voters want? Some of the best information comes from a new study of voters in four key electoral battlegrounds — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota — that the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report released Thursday.

Trump carried three of those four states in 2016 and almost surely needs to win them again for reelection. Currently, he’s deeply unpopular in the states he won: 57% disapprove of him in Wisconsin; 58%, in Michigan; 61%, in Pennsylvania, the survey found. Across the four states, half of voters say they “strongly disapprove” of Trump.

The poll also found Democrats have an edge in enthusiasm in those states and that Trump is the biggest motivator for voters.

Another piece of good news for Democrats: Health care ranks with the economy as the most important issue for voters in all four states, and a majority of voters disapprove of how Trump has handled the issue.

The bad news? A majority of voters in those states also say that a national Medicare for all plan that would eliminate private insurance — the sort of plan Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders advocate — would be a “bad idea”: 56% in Pennsylvania, 58% in Michigan, 59% in Wisconsin, 60% in Minnesota.

Even among Democratic voters, Medicare for all is not a top priority: About 60% of Democrats in the four states call it a good idea, but that’s notably less than the support for proposals such as a path to citizenship for undocumented residents or a ban on assault weapons.

Warren’s a smart politician, and for months she steered as clear of the healthcare debate as she could. Even as her advocacy of highly specific policy ideas fueled her steady rise in the Democratic race, she demurred when pressed on the specifics of healthcare.

“No one’s raised it,” she told reporters early this year when asked why she hadn’t released a specific healthcare plan. The consistent message from Warren’s campaign was that Medicare for all was “Bernie’s issue,” not theirs...

More.

'One has to wonder whether the dismissal of the entire field isn't just a machination to generate a late draft-Hillary movement...'

Following up, "Is There Anybody Else?"

Interesting. I hadn't thought of a "draft Hillary late" movement, but then, I don't think the country --- much less the Democrats --- could stand a third attempt by Crooked Hillary to win the presidency.

See Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "“Anxiety Rises”: Biden Opens Up Biggest Lead As Dems Fret Over 2020 Options."

Is There Anybody Else?

For the Democrats, the leading candidates are not inspiring.

At the New York Times, "Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’":

Does it really matter when they all sound the same?

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ - The New York Times https://t.co/n5pXKJSHwi

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 22, 2019

WASHINGTON — When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked. But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.

Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor? One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.

It’s that time of the election season for Democrats.

“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” said Leah Daughtry, a longtime Democrat who has run two of the party’s recent conventions.

With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.

It is a regular, if not quite quadrennial, tradition for a party that can be fatalistic about its prospects and recalls similar Maalox moments Democrats endured in 1992, 2004 and in the last primary, when it was Mr. Biden who nearly entered the race in October. But the mood of alarm is even more intense because of the party’s hunger to defeat President Trump and — with just over three months to go before voting starts in Iowa — their impatience with finding Mr. or Mrs. Right among the current crop of candidates.

“There’s more anxiety than ever,” said Connie Schultz, a journalist who is married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race. “We’re both getting the calls. I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me.”

“I can see it, I can feel it, I can hear it,” Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party. He said he thinks Mr. Biden is best positioned to defeat Mr. Trump but called the former vice president’s fund-raising “a real concern.”

Mr. Biden’s lackluster debate performances and alarmingly low cash flow — he has less than $9 million on hand, not even half of some of his rivals — has fueled the Democratic disquiet. But if the causes of the concern are plain to see, what exactly can be done about it is less clear.

And even some of those being wooed acknowledge that it can be hard to discern between people just being nice and those who genuinely want them in the race.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them.

Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in. But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party’s best nominee.

Another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder, is considering a last-minute entry but has conceded it may be too late, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking.

Mr. Brown, who nearly entered the race earlier this year, said the pressure on him to reconsider from labor leaders, Democratic officials and donors has “become more frequent.” And Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, who also weighed a campaign run before deciding not to, said he too has been nudged by friends to reconsider. “It’s nice to be rumored about,” he said, before notably refusing to rule out a last-minute entry. “Don’t ask me that question,” he said.

But Mr. Patrick suggested an 11th-hour bid was highly unlikely and had a message for increasingly angst-ridden Democrats: “Everybody needs to calm down, it’s early. It’s so early.”

More.

What John Durham Has Found May Be Quite Different From What Democrats Are Looking For

See former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's op-ed at the Wall Street Journal.

And Roger Simon has the breakdown, at Pajamas, "Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats."

Really worth a read. What U.S. Attorney John Durham has found on Ukraine may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for, writes Michael B. Mukasey https://t.co/tqKwlmuhcF via @WSJ

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 30, 2019