The first post-debate polls on the Democratic presidential candidates are out.
Senator Kamala Harris saw the largest jump in support – mostly siphoned from Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. She jumped from 7.9% before the two evenings of debate, to 6.3% after the first night, then up to 16.6% after both nights.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro also saw increases in support.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Saw her stock rise from 12.6% before the first debate to 18% after, only to fall back down to 14.4% following the second debate. As a result, Warren’s differential stands at a fairly paltry +1.8%.
Interestingly, she pulled support from Sanders, Harris, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg after participating in Wednesday night’s debate, but her loss the next night went almost entirely to Harris.
Senator Bernie Sanders garnered support following both debates. After the first debate (in which he did not participate), Sanders’ support went from 14.4% to 16.4%. Following his performance in the second debate, he gained almost another percentage point, rising to 17.3#, for a total differential of +2.9%.
According to an infographic available at FiveThirtyEight, Sanders was the only candidate to see his stock increase both nights.
Julian Castro, who began with 0.7% support before jumping to 2.1% after his performance in the first debate, dropped down to 1.7% after the second debate (in which he did not participate). This may seem like nothing, but it’s a 142% increase in support for a candidate with little name ID.
The biggest loser this week (at least by the numbers) was former Vice President Joe Biden, who led with 41.5% of the vote prior to the first debate. His support fell to 35.4% after the first night (in which he did not participate) and then to 31.5% after night two.
Other losers include Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Cory Booker, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke.
Buttigieg, who began with 6.7% support, ended the debates with just 4.8%. His supporters fled to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
Booker lost 0.2% support, moving from 3% to 2.8% after all was said and done. The senator’s support was primarily siphoned by three candidates – Sanders, Harris, and Biden.
O’Rourke, who came into the debates with 3.6% support, left with just 2.2%. His losses came mostly at the hands of Joe Biden.
Ouch – how much would it hurt to lose support to Biden, who himself fell 10% over the two nights?
Perhaps most interesting to me? Tulsi Gabbard netted no change in support, despite being the most Googled candidate following her performance Wednesday night. She both started and ended at 0.7%, though she briefly fell to 0.6% after the first debate.
Of course, none of this means too much yet, as this is just one of twelve debates scheduled into next year. Hold on to your hats, it’s going to be a long 16 months.
The Trump administration wants use to certain funds from the National Defense Authorization Act to build a wall and provide security at our southern border. Several lawsuits have been brought claiming that using the funds in such a way violates federal law.
At least one federal trial court judge agrees.
A federal district judge issued a permanent injunction on Friday blocking construction of President Donald Trump’s border wall, holding that it was illegal for his administration to spend current funding for that purpose. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will immediately appeal.
There are several ongoing lawsuits trying to stop the border wall. This case is before Judge Haywood Gilliam for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who was appointed by Barack Obama. The left-wing Sierra Club brought suit in that court because it is currently one of the most liberal federal trial courts in the nation.
Courts are not supposed to be “liberal” or “conservative.” Courts are supposed to interpret the law as written, whether they agree with it or not. You shouldn’t be able to shop for a more favorable jurisdiction based on the ideological leanings of the specific judges. But I digress.
The DOJ argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue to enforce the National Defense Authorization Act and that, in using the funds, the Defense Department satisfied the requirements of the Act. Judge Gilliam rejected those arguments. He also held that the funds could only be used for “unforeseen military requirements,” which do not include construction of a border wall.
However, Judge Gilliam did agree with the Trump administration regarding the National Environmental Policy Act:
One win for the Trump administration in this case is that Gilliam continued to reject Sierra Club’s claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The left has had high hopes that it could block the wall by arguing that building the wall is illegal because the federal government has not gone through NEPA’s cumbersome and time-consuming requirements, but even Gilliam acknowledge that the Department of Homeland Security had authority to waive those requirements, which the department did.
Judge Gilliam certified his decision for immediate appeal. The Justice Department will now take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, another court notorious for its liberal leanings.
Defense establishment sources say that moves promoted recently by Israel, such as upsetting the balance between the Jewish and democratic characteristics of the country, may disrupt the Palestinian Authority’s control of the West Bank and harm Israel’s relations with Arab states.
They say that new laws, such as ones allowing retroactive approval of land expropriation and the withholding of $140 million owed to the Palestinian Authority, may lead to civil protests that could result in violent clashes led by Hamas and others opposing the Authority. They added that if Israel continues to hold on to Palestinian funds, the Authority may soon start losing its grip on areas it controls.
>> Read more: While Jews and Arabs mingled in Bahrain, Israelis and Palestinians met a thousand miles away | Analysis
In a forum of senior political and defense officials, the possibility was raised that Israel’s standing among moderate Arab countries such as Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia would be damaged by an increased emphasis on more religious elements of Israel’s character, rather than its democratic character. Experts were of the opinion that Israel’s democratic nature was being eroded in favor of its Jewish one at a time when Israel is viewed as a key player in the Middle East in addressing the Iranian threat. Trump’s policies toward Iran and Europe’s involvement with its own internal affairs have strengthened Israel’s position, according to a senior defense official. Israel is exploiting this situation for forging strategic alliances with Arab states, although this does not necessarily imply a normalization of relations with these states.
The official added that Israel’s improved standing derived in part from its being perceived as a democratic state, secular and economically stable, a country with an independent judiciary that abides by international law. This perception, along with concerns these countries have about Iran, have sidelined Palestinian nationhood in their list of priorities. However, assessments presented to political echelons suggest that extreme actions and legislation that harms the Palestinian economy will force these countries to condition any cooperation on addressing national Palestinian aspirations.
This assessment is shared by others outside the defense establishment. In a 2018 strategic assessment by the Institute for National Security Studies, attorney Pnina Sharvit-Baruch and Dr. Tzipi Israeli, senior INSS research fellows, argued that “relinquishing liberal values has practical implications for national defense” and that “this could have negative implications for Israel’s foreign relations, for its strategic alliance with the U.S. and for its cooperation with other Western states.”
There is consensus within the defense establishment that for now, economic hardships is the main issue that concerns Palestinians, and that the Arab world is indifferent to Palestinian national aspirations. If expectations are not met that the crisis be resolved, partly at the Bahrain economic conference, frustration with the Authority and Israel could create tension. Addressing national issues will only take center stage after an improvement in the security and economic situation in Gaza and the West Bank. For years, discussions between Jerusalem and Ramallah gave the Authority international legitimacy, with Israel benefiting from security coordination. Severing these links took the Palestinian issue off the agenda of Arab countries, but Israel must still contend with it.
Along with new laws and discussions of annexing parts of the West Bank, issues which made headlines in the recent election, the right is trying to transfer the authority of the Civil Administration [which runs Israeli-held territory in the West Bank] to government ministries. Knowledgeable sources say that in discussions over forming a coalition government, the Union of Right-Wing Parties demanded that relevant ministries handle West Bank infrastructure. Intelligence reports say that this will be perceived as annexation, since infrastructure is shared by Palestinians and settlers. Such a move could evoke violent protests by Palestinians, who are worried about Israel’s attempts to weaken the Civil Administration, says one defense official. Right now, there are no contacts between Israel and the Authority, other than security coordination.
If the Authority starts to collapse following moves by Israel, such as withholding funds in lieu of payments to families of security prisoners or of killed terrorists, President Abbas will find himself in a war of succession. This may lead to acts of terror against Israel. It is most probable that Abbas will transfer power to one of his associates. Israel believes he’s lost interest in diplomatic moves by the U.S. as long as Trump is president, but that he’s not bent on terror, even if his international standing plummets. He may allow limited clashes that remain under his control.
Abbas’ main problem, according to an assessment presented to political echelons, is his difficulties in handling the economic crisis. A further deterioration, along with a sense of national humiliation among Palestinians following Trump’s deal of the century (which will probably not address their position regarding Jerusalem and the holy sites, or the prisoner and refugee problems), may lead to protests which bring forth a younger alternative to the Authority, even at the cost of a violent internal struggle. Israel’s defense establishment does not know of figures that could set up an alternative leadership, but an extreme economic crisis could lead the public to impose a new leader on the Authority.
Polls show that more than 70 percent of West Bank residents do not trust Abbas and wish he be replaced. This is worrisome given his ability to control security forces who, according to IDF sources, are starting to express frustration with Abbas. For three months they’ve only been paid half their salary, with junior members required to work extra hours.
Defense establishment sources warned politicians that if junior Palestinian policemen see Hamas members getting full salaries, this will lead to frustration and thoughts that only violence leads to understandings with Israel. A senior military figure said recently that security coordination is vital for both sides. The Authority needs it for preventing Hamas from taking over the West Bank, while Israel needs it for preventing terror. Any disruption of this balance can harm both sides in unpredictable ways.
[Screenshot from TheDC Shorts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=172&v=eHKwY3gzM5k]
On Saturday, I covered the list of 2020 Democratic candidates Bill Maher thinks should get off the stage (here).
Here’s a gong from The View co-host Meghan McCain.
During a conversation Friday on the popular overwhelmingly-left-wing daytime show, the fiery chick — who called Joy Behar a “b*tch” on the air June 20th — said White House hopeful Eric Swalwell needs to “take a seat.”
Meghan also affirmed he’s “an asterisk” in the scope of the election.
The ladies were discussing Eric’s comment Thursday that Joe Biden should “pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.”
Meghan didn’t like that slam.
The talkative daughter of Sen. John McCain is like The Hulk — don’t make her angry; you wouldn’t like her when she’s angry.
Here’s Eric’s remark:
“I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention and said, ‘It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.’ That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago. He’s still right today.”
Seems kinda mean.
“So, it’s almost like calling him, so Gramps wants to run for president. I thought it was, like, really, you little whippersnapper? Shut up. You know? I don’t know. That wasn’t nice. That was an ageist comment. And pushing your way through because you’re young. Come on.”
Behar scores a gold star with me!
Ana Navarro Amen’d, reducing the 38-year-old California representative to a symbol. But not the cool kind like Prince used:
“It was a guy who is an asterisk in the polls, Swalwell trying to make a name for himself by doing something that was inflammatory, and it was very provoking.”
Then the show’s David Banner got in the mix. She pointed with swagger and attitude during the “asterisk” part. It was easy to imagine the “-terisk” part not being there:
“Did it change my opinion of him? No, but what I will say is Eric Swalwell with this ageist crap? I hate it. I work with women of all ages. I want experience and people who know how Washington works and who have served and had a life and experiences they can bring that to the White House, whoever that is. I thought Pete Buttigieg looked real young last night and real green, and Eric Swalwell, take a seat. As [Ana] said, you’re an asterisk on the end. Okay??”
I’d guess that many feel the same. The debate audience didn’t seem to appreciateEric’s stunning lack of respect for his elder.
Bill Maher’s in Meghan’s camp. Here’s what he thought of Mr. Get-Off-the-Stage-Old-Man:
“Eric Swalwell. I like him. But, you know, too young. … Get the **** out.”
Of course, Meghan has an additional reason to give Eric the finger over his dis: As I wrote in April, her Republican family announced they’ll be backing Biden in his bid to oust Donald Trump (here).
2020’s gonna be interesting.
Relevant RedState links in this article: here.
See 3 more pieces from me:
After Walking Around With Two Constructed Vaginas, Man Identifying As Woman Gets New Single Vagina Made From A Fish
A Powerful Tribute: Through Tears, Gene Simmons Tells The Pentagon His Late Mother’s Greatest Lesson About America
13-Time Felon Accidentally Shoots Himself In The Testicles While Carrying Drugs In His Anus – As You Do
Find all my RedState work here.
And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”
Cruz: “To federal law enforcement: investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists.”
On Saturday, independent journalist and Quillette editor Andy Ngo was brutally attacked by an antifa-fascist mob in Portland, Oregon. Since then, reaction has been mixed, with leftists actually expressing delight over Ngo being assaulted in broad daylight on a crowded city street and conservatives expressing outrage and demanding that people be held accountable.
There is new footage of Ngo being attacked, and it’s very difficult to watch. These antifa-fascists are screeching and cheering and acting like pack-hunting wild animals. It’s terrifying just to watch; I can’t imagine what Ngo was thinking and feeling.
Ngo’s attorney posted an update last night on Ngo’s condition.
He also has a few choice words for those defending antifa-fascists.
As of this writing, Michelle Malkin’s GoFundMe for Ngo has so far raised over $115,000. He’s going to need every penny to replace his stolen equipment and for his medical bills and future security needs. If you can help and care to, please do so here.
Portland police were reportedly present but did not intervene to help Ngo or any of the other people assaulted by the antifa-fascists. They claim to have arrested three people in relation to the mob violence; eight people, including three police officers, were injured.
The Oregonian reports:
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and the city’s police force have come under criticism after an attack on a conservative writer at dueling protests on Saturday.
. . . . Police were lined up along the perimeter of the park before the attack, but no one intervened to break up the fight. Late Saturday, police reported that three people had been arrested, including one for assault, but it was unclear if that person had anything to do with the attack on Ngo.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is livid and is calling for legal action against Portland’s mayor who reportedly had ordered police not to protect victims of the antifa-fascist mob.
Meanwhile, Malkin and attendees of the Portland melee are attempting to identify the alleged perpetrators. Click over to read the whole thread with all of the antifa thugs pictured.
On the left, the response has been gruesome, loathsome, and vile. In other words, perfectly predictable.
And from well-known parody/troll account:
In all fairness, the reaction from the left hasn’t been all in that vein.
Mostly, though, leftie media types—when they refer to the horrifying assault at all—are blaming Ngo or just looking for an “angle.”
Dave Rubin and Kyle Morris nail it: