I will say that I have serious doubts that Bloomberg for President will survive first contact with the Hudson River. I say this as someone who thinks Bloomberg did or continued a lot of good things in New York City. But I strongly suspect that a Bloomberg for President insurgency would create a movement on the scale of Lieberman for President.
After all, he wants your gun, your soda and your union card. Should go great.
As someone who's just loved Bill Clinton since I was right out of college, I feel like this is about to get painful. He's now going after Bernie Sanders. And he's (rightly) saying he needs to be careful about what he says as the election gets "hotter." Yes, you do, Bill. You really do.
The attacks I heard yesterday don't seem terribly out of line. I think there's a good argument that Sanders somewhat one-dimensional diagnosis of the country's ills doesn't capture the fullness of the challenges we face as a country. But now we're also seeing the inevitable rumor mill about a post New Hampshire Clinton campaign shake up. This is starting to feel a lot like how 2008 did when Barack Obama started to look like he was an existential threat to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
We will of course know soon enough. But I just wanted to flag that we have almost no New Hampshire poll data since the Rubio debacle at the Saturday night debate. With the exception of the two tracking polls conducted by UMass Lowell and ARG, all the late polls (Monmouth, CNN/UNH/WMUR, Franklin Pierce) finished collecting their sample sometime on Saturday. So they may have made a few calls after or during the debate. But nothing after the Rubot press frenzy began. And probably few if any after it even happened.
Those two tracking polls both show Rubio tracking down one point between yesterday and today. That's hard to read too much into. But that can mean Sundays numbers came in poorly but we offset by Saturday and Fridays numbers.
Giuliani: Beyoncé's Super Bowl performance as 'attack' on cops. Watch.
When it comes to playing 'dominance politics', it is all about showing, not saying. And boy did Chris Christie ever show it with his surgical disembowelment of Marco Rubio on Saturday night. (He removed so many of Rubio's organs that it almost turns into an issue of co-pays and insurance coverage.) But I wanted to flag the Trumpesque, tough guy language he used the next day on CNN's Sunday show ... (emphasis added)
Rubio attacks media for pointing out that he repeated his scripted line 4 times during the debate.
I confess I had figured Jeb! was one vote away from ditching the race and signing on a spokesman for Low-T drugs. But now we're seeing that there are initial indications that Marco Rubio's momentum at least has been broken by the Rubot incident. The latest tracking polls show only a tiny drop from his earlier numbers but they are enough indicate that the rush of support in his direction was arrested by Saturday's debate, which is probably all his opponents needed, or the minimum they needed.
(This is not so much a post for the moment. But for years I've answered this question in a million different emails. And I have long wanted to do one post about it so I could simply refer to it when asked.)
Why are there no comments on the Editors' Blog?
Good question. What we now call the 'Editor's Blog' was the entirety of TPM for the first five-plus years of the site's existence. And fifteen years ago, comments were not something you could just spin up easily as you can today. In fact, for roughly the first three years the site was online I coded each post by hand, by which I mean I wrote each successive post directly into a handful of html documents I'd written myself. There was no CMS. And yes, once or twice I actually inadvertently overwrote a weeks worth of posts. Luckily, both times I was able to find some reader who had the deleted posts in their browser cache and sent it along to me. Creating pages by hand like that, there's simply no way to have comments.
Believe it or not, I hadn't seen Larry David's Bernie Sanders impersonation until this morning. It wasn't that I wasn't interested. I didn't need to. Larry David has been doing a proto-Bernie Sanders impersonation for the last twenty years. I've seen it a million times.
Watching the fall out from last night's debate, the Rubio camp's response strikes me as very Clintonesque. But the key for me is that's not a negative word and in this case I don't mean it in a negative way. I'm just dubious it will work. The Rubio camp - and in this case, I use that collective term very intentionally - is responding to last night's gaffe in the best and only way they can. Don't run away from it, don't ignore it: try to repackage it and drive right into it at full speed with a semi-truck. This is a big thing I remember from Clinton's 92 campaign. Never go on defense. Find a way to repackage it as offense and keep hitting, keep running forward.
This was a debate in primary colors. There's little doubt who did well or who didn't. The real question is what effect if any it will have on Tuesday's vote.
In terms of the debate, there's little question Marco Rubio had the worst of it. I don't know if it will do him any good. But Chris Christie simply eviscerated Rubio. He came after him on each of the signature issues - scripted, accountability, immigration. If we judge him on his ability to achieve a specific aim, this was unquestionably Christie's best debate. The most memorable moment, of course, was Christie coming at Rubio about being scripted and having Rubio go off balance and keep returning to the same verbatim scripted answer. As they always say in writing classes, don't say, show. Christie showed. That's what made it devastating. Christie demonstrated his point better than saying it a thousand times.
10:13 PM: Rubio campaign pushing out on all cylinders that he's coming in second in a Google poll of who's winning the debate.
10:15 PM: Rote memory of stump speeches is how you end up saying the Air Force is about to be as small as it's been in a hundred years.
10:23 PM: "Lovemember" is the best new word of this debate.
10:43 PM: One thing that seems very clear coming out of this debate is that Cruz's team worked with him to tone down his tone compared to the Iowa. He came off very badly, notwithstanding the win.
10:47 PM: Just after the debate on ABC, all the ABC pundits agreeing the Rubio had a terrible night.
Here's the actual verbatim transcript of the Rubio Trifecta. It's even better seeing the actual words.
9:57 PM: It's terrible for Rubio since he cannot get out of or do anything else but repeat his same script lines. So each new answer recalls Christie's evisceration.
9:18 PM: Here's Rubes' epic repeat the same stump line three times moment.
9:26 PM: Yep, Cruz does not know what carpet bombing means.
9:30 PM: Debaters have allowed Rubio to get back to scripted lines. Curious whether they'll come after him again.
9:34 PM: Starting to feel like the major players feel like they made their points or did what they needed to do and are now hanging back.
9:40 PM: For all the bad things I've said about Ted Cruz over the last couple years, I don't think I've ever heard him stumble over his words or be at a loss for words. I think he found himself halfway through that torture answer and realized, wow, I'm lost here. This sounds terrible. So he stopped for a moment to try to think how to talk his way out of his answer. It was neither principled nor hardcore in terms of torture and the rule of law. He was lost. I've never seen him lost before.
9:45 PM: I'm getting the sense that Christie feels like if he goes after Rubio again it'll seem like bullying or maybe even a war crime.
9:47 PM: Here's the write up of the second time Christie went after Rubio, this time over his explanation of abandoning his own immigration bill.
9:50 PM: I've give him this. This story of his sister is a strong moment for Cruz. Sort of ruining it now (from my POV, not necessarily his audience) by pivoting to immigrant bashing. But, a strong moment for Cruz.
9:52 PM: Christie also has a very strong moment on drug overdose issue, demonstrates his key argument: that he has real world experience, has been accountable for solutions.