Biden just called a Democratic voter fat and challenged him to an IQ contest

Behold, the Democratic front-runner for president.

An elderly man at a town hall meeting in Iowa asked Biden about his son, Hunter’s, board position with a corrupt energy company in the Ukraine. He says he is concerned with television reports that Biden may have put his son in a position to peddle influence.

Biden responds by calling the man “a damn liar,” challenging him to a push-up contest and an IQ test contest, and calling him fat. He’s not sparring with a fellow candidate here. He’s talking to a voter. And not just any voter. A Democratic voter.

Watch how he reacts to an elderly man in a sweater who speaks humbly and then imagine him in a debate with Trump.

The Biden folks (really the DNC and the media as well) seem to think that they are going to bully people into believing that asking questions about his family’s business enterprises while he was the architect of foreign policy is going to be an effective way of evading questions.

You are irrational if you think the guy who was smoking crack in the VIP room of DC strip clubs and who told a court just this week that he was dead broke to avoid paying child support for his illegitimate child with a stripper in Arkansas (who had to get a DNA test and take him to court) was not a great candidate in his own right to be on the board of directors of an energy company to the tune of a million dollars a year in a foreign country his VP father just happened to be dealing with. Irrational. More than that, you are a bad person for questioning this. You should be publicly demeaned and humiliated.

And they don’t just treat Trump supporters this way. They treat Democratic voters who question leadership this way. They’ve even called one of their own candidates a Russian asset. You will repeat the goddamn talking points or we will destroy your personhood.

Between this event, an incoherent Biden talking about children rubbing his legs to watch the hairs stand up, Biden leaning forward to bite his wife’s finger while she’s speaking, etc. it’s hard deny that the chap is senile. And this is probably why his handlers and the party’s machinery have to act this way to prop him up.

They can run as many ads caricaturing Trump on policy and saying he’s an unserious person and the world is laughing at him, but their front-runner just bit his wife’s finger on television.

I personally don’t think Trump’s campaign should spend a dime pretending they are in a general election battle with Biden because the dynamic will probably change after results from early voting states (and crowd-sourced memes are free anyway). But, boy, do they have a lot of material for attack ads portraying him as a zombie if he is the nominee.

Google Trends shows how little interest there is in the impeachment clown show

Morning Consult has an article today saying their polling shows impeachment is not making Trump any less popular. His approval rating has remained statistically unchanged in 37 states, including most battleground states in the presidential election. Right now, Trump is on par with past presidents who have been easily re-elected in terms of support. If previous experiences with polling matter, these polls are probably underestimating Trump’s popularity, if anything.

This is pretty much what any rational person would think would happen with such a partisan clown show. The notion, after 3 years of Democrats lighting their hair fire every hour of every day, even over jokes and satire, calling every stupid thing a “constitutional crisis,” that there is a single person in the country that is undecided in how they feel about Trump is hilarious. If anything, Democrats have ensured that Republican voters and conservative-leaning Independents will walk through fire to re-elect the man. Trump’s campaign manager, who uses electronic data to track who shows up at rallies, routinely brags about how many registered Democrats are showing up at Trump rallies. Given that you generally have to camp out to make it, they likely aren’t there to rubberneck.

I fear for the mental health of Democrats on most days, but I really fear for their mental health if they vote to impeach Trump, he’s acquitted in the Senate because duh, and then he gets re-elected.

What I find incredible, however, is how little interest there is in the impeachment hearings overall. I mean, I guess I shouldn’t, because they are boring as hell even to policy wonks. Here’s 8 hours of Democrats passionately shouting the word bribery – because they finally settled on that after quid-pro-quo and blackmail – and trying to explain mechanically how you can “bribe” someone with something they were going to get already. (Now every politician who has slow-walked a line-item appropriation in a budget for whatever reason is committing an impeachable offense. Yay! We are so smart! We can law!) They’ve lived in their social media echo chamber for so long that they think if they say it a million times you will think they are onto something and not epic fucking lunatics who have been such pathetic losers for so long that it’s already election season again.

As it turns out, most Americans have something better to do with their day. And the bar for what counts as “better” is really, really low.

The chart below shows Google interest in “Disney” (red line) and “impeachment” (blue line). This captures anyone who went looking for news or commentary on impeachment proceedings, the impeachment schedule, impeachment testimony, and so on, over the past 12 months. Watergate this is not. In fact, interest of people of all persuasions has fallen off a cliff as the process has carried on. And Nancy Pelosi thinks they are going to milk impeachment into next year. (They’ve already been at this for over 100 days.) You go girl! Keep it coming! This is so much smarter than ratifying a trade deal with Mexico and China. You are going to sweep the Heartland like a wildfire!

In fact, it’s not hard to find anything that shows higher interest than impeachment. More people searched for Peloton this week than impeachment. More people searched for Tesla truck during Schiff’s hearings. Folks just don’t care. They’d rather watch “sexist” advertisements for an overpriced stationary bike or Elon Musk destroy his own product for giggles. Even worse for Democrats, engagement on social media for the entire 2020 field of candidates is low. Much like impeachment, people don’t care about them either.

So apparently there are many people on the left who are simultaneously (1) not interested in the details of impeachment, but (2) will tell a pollster that they absolutely want Trump removed from office during an election year. I think it says a lot about their understanding of civics and anti-democratic sentiment / goodwill toward the country in general. They genuinely do think “I want someone removed from office because he gives me bad feelings and I don’t like him” is a good operating principle for the government. These are not people who are going to persuade their friends to vote in another direction or win any converts going door-to-door for a campaign. (In fact, they’ve probably been unfriended a lot, or in the South, had their hearts blessed behind their backs.) But Pelosi depends on getting these exact same people to rock the vote.

How the AARP scams seniors on health insurance

I feel like I am a fairly cynical person when it comes to government and finance. I enjoy the whodunit aspect of corruption – i.e. the wonky mechanics of some scheme that participants never imagined someone would pay attention to. But corruption itself rarely surprises me anymore. It’s ubiquitous in Washington DC.

Before today, I was passively confused by the political positions of the American Association of Retired Persons (what everyone knows as the AARP). Now that I understand the appalling, anti-social business model behind their politics, I think this organization should not be allowed to exist. Literally all the AARP does is screw old people out of money with their bogus charity.

Most people think of the AARP as a nonprofit organization that lobbies federal policymakers on behalf of seniors. That’s because that’s how the AARP markets itself. When someone mentions the AARP, the first thing that comes to mind is snail mail spam. Apart from the World Wildlife Federation offering you a stuffed tiger from some sweatshop in Asia and a lifetime supply of address stickers with the name of the person who lived in your house 15 years ago in exchange for a $25 donation, seemingly no nonprofit generates as much physical waste as the AARP. I think I started getting junk mailers from the AARP after my 30th birthday. Lavender hair, here I come!

But member donations actually make up a very small fraction of the AARP’s revenues. The AARP cash cow is financial services – specifically insurance services.

The AARP is not benevolently helping seniors manage their financial risks, however. The AARP is using its political connections to create financial risk that seniors have to pay the AARP to manage.

I happened to start looking at the AARP after a conversation I had with a family member about insurance coverage for our parents. An AARP-affiliated plan was one of the options. Said family member remarked that the AARP had turned into a “liberal lobbyist group” and carried on for a while about how the AARP now routinely backs legislation that most seniors in the country vehemently oppose.

He cited the AARP’s support for Obamacare and Nancy Pelosi’s new prescription drug legislation. (Pelosi’s legislation aims to establish federal price controls for prescription drugs – something that any economist will tell you never works out well. Arguably, the countries elsewhere in the world that have imposed price controls have merely been free-riding off of Americans who will pay higher prices for medication and for health insurance to fund research and development enterprises that humanity in general benefits from. They have lower drug costs only because they have passed the costs on to our marketplace. It’s really not all that different than people in high-tax states passing their state and local tax bills on to federal taxpayers prior to tax reform, if you think about it. When everyone has imposed price controls, you will see significantly less R&D and fewer cures for important diseases. But I digress.) I was as puzzled by these policy stances as he was. There are not a lot of cheerleaders for socialized medicine and tax increases in retirement communities. You are talking about people who are living on a fixed income. There’s a reason Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lives in New York and her retired mother lives in Florida.

Being something of a public policy geek, I wondered why an entity that purportedly lobbied on behalf of seniors would support legislation that hurt seniors financially. Legislation that destabilized Medicare and raised taxes. AARP lawyers obviously aren’t stupid, so they had to have some motivation.

To understand why the AARP takes political positions against its own constituency, you first have to understand what Obamacare does. And I do mean what Obamacare does, in reality, not how it was sold to Americans politically.

From a policy perspective, Obamacare was essentially a giant Medicaid expansion. (For the uninitiated, Medicaid provides health care benefits for low-income households. Medicare provides health care benefits for seniors.) Most Americans probably don’t realize that because politicians on the left talk incessantly about the health care exchanges, which turned out to be epic failures, with major insurers exiting some marketplaces entirely. Obamacare drove rapid consolidation in the health care industry and the creation of geographical health care monopolies. The only real legacy of Obamacare is that there are a lot more people eligible for Medicaid and everyone else’s premiums increased fourfold because that’s what happens to captive consumers. Of course, if universal health care at any cost is your ultimate goal, that’s a feature not a bug.

The Medicaid expansion reduced the number of “uninsured” people in the country by changing the income thresholds at which someone would qualify for entitlement status, among other things.

A Medicaid expansion and all the other mandates the legislation involved were not cheap for federal taxpayers. The Obama administration had to find some way to offset massive new spending in the federal budget, and they accomplished that by raising taxes on various demographics and by cutting funds to Medicare. So the AARP was backing a piece of legislation that adversely impacted their constituents’ financial interests in several ways.

If you are lobbying on behalf of seniors, wouldn’t preserving Medicare be a major concern of yours? Did they get something that otherwise helps seniors in return? Likewise with the concept of imposing federal price controls on prescription drugs. The loss of funding for research and development would have the largest impact on the aging population. Young whippersnappers don’t care about cancer research and less destructive heart medications. Seniors do.

And as the actual execution of Obamacare eventually revealed, young whippersnappers were quite willing to take the financial hit and opt out of the whole Obamacare system altogether, because you can do that when you do not have any immediate ailments. A little over a third of the folks who paid a tax penalty for being uninsured had incomes under $25,000. Almost 80% of the folks taking the penalty had incomes under $50,000 (link takes you to Internal Revenue Service data). It was an unequivocal slap in the face for the working class and younger generations – or, if you prefer, Obamacare is how you got Trump.

So why does the AARP take these positions? The answer is that like most organizations peddling influence in Washington DC, the AARP does not make money the way you probably think they do. Because you associate a charity with donations.

The AARP has a partnership with UnitedHealth such that the AARP receives a kickback for selling Medigap insurance policies to seniors, which supplement the health benefits provided by the underfunded Medicare program. UnitedHealth, which is based in Minnesota, is the largest health insurance company in the world, with annual revenues of over a quarter-trillion dollars. When the AARP threw its support behind Obamacare as it was drafted, they were in fact actively lobbying to prevent Medigap reform. They were making sure seniors had to seek additional coverage over the program they had paid their entire working lives to fund. Your Medigap policy is a paycheck to the folks at the AARP, so there better be a funding gap. And Obamacare made one.

In its financial statements, the AARP likes to call these kickbacks “royalties,” as if receiving a kickback is a form of intellectual property. I imagine that is no accident, either. I am sure they are counting on the semantics to make what they are doing seem legal-ish.

The Obamacare legislation included language providing a specific carve-out for the UnitedHealth / AARP arrangement. It also exempted the AARP arrangement from other provisions that made competing health plans less competitive, like not rejecting someone for pre-existing conditions. In fact, Obamacare had harsh implications for a specific population of seniors – disabled seniors who were over the age of 65, who qualified for Medicare because of their disability, but the disability would have counted as a pre-existing condition, which would not be covered by gap insurance.

Yet you never hear Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Nancy Pelosi bitching about the AARP though, because the AARP supports liberal policy ideas while engaging in blatant rent-seeking behavior. (In economics, rent-seeking behavior refers to manipulating public policy in order to profit from artificial circumstances.) In fact, Senate Democrats have routinely tried to shut down inexpensive short-term insurance plans which would compete with the AARP’s kickback scheme. Because they care so deeply about your access to health care.

The AARP’s kickback scheme is nothing to shrug at either. Since Obamacare was enacted, the AARP has collected over $4.5 billion in “royalties” from UnitedHealth. In case you didn’t make the connection there, that’s $4.5 billion that the AARP has taken from the savings of seniors. Did I mention that the umbrella entity here is a tax-exempt organization? Oh, and they get investment income from those payments. I’m sure the 25% return on the S&P 500 has been gooooood to the AARP.

It turns out, member donations account for only around a fifth of the AARP’s funding. The lion’s share comes from this insurance kickback scheme.

When people ask me why I oppose socialized medicine, I can name a lot of reasons. I have had three medical emergencies in my family, and I cannot conceive of how those events would have proceeded if the government was in 100% control of my loved one’s fates, applying some fucked up cost-benefit analysis to every line of treatment they were receiving along the way. Beyond that, as someone who has worked in finance and economics my entire life, these programs are not the kind of thing any economically literate person should support.

But the best argument against letting politicians run the health care industry is that they simply do not have your best interests in mind. They care a million times more about some trampy female lobbyist covering their steak dinner than they ever will about your kid who was just in a car accident. Most people could not invent the elaborate schemes DC folks come up with to steal money from ordinary people if they tried. They do this over and over and over again, and then they go on television in committee hearings and on debate stages, and they cry crocodile tears and they speak with dramatic pauses and they wag their finger at The Man. And some people will be dumb enough not to realize that they are looking at The Man. And the charlatans can park their asses in DC for four decades and send their kids to the very best schools so their kids can then do the same thing to another generation. All on your dime.

Probably the easiest reform that would revolutionize how our country operates is fixing how the federal tax code defines a charitable organization. Right now, we have shit like local authorities that operate sports stadiums for highly profitable teams being classified as a charity. We have “charities” dropping hundreds of millions of dollars in elections. Special interest groups have produced more fake news than the most aspiring Russian troll farm ever will. But it will never happen. Because influence has created both a wage bubble and a real estate bubble in Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. They’ll never let the music stop.

Democrats' big lie about the state of the economy dies under the Christmas tree

Only a few weeks ago, if you listened to the Democratic political operatives in the mainstream media – er, I mean “journalists” – the US economy was collapsing, spiraling into a recession, and President Trump’s “only” accomplishment was going to be a giant dumpster fire heading into the election.

Back in September, I dropped my basket on registered-Democrat family members (yeah, I actually have a few of those, believe it or not) on this very topic. Recessions do not sneak up on you absent some life-altering global catastrophe (and if one of those occurs, it will not be a subject of partisan debate). You do not see freeways packed with Amazon and Target semi trucks and restaurants with lines out the door when the economy is in turmoil. People you know start getting laid off and saving every penny they have.

It’s the dumbest of dumbass political talking points in a year with no shortage of spectacularly dumbass talking points. And, in general, it’s a bad idea to get your financial markets commentary from millennial journalism majors with six figures of student debt. Yeah, I know that’s cruel, but so is outright lying to people about the state of the economy so your lefty political lords will pat you on your head.

So here we are at the end of 2019, and GDP figures were just revised upward. That’s despite a 40-day strike at Government Motors and the grounding of Boeing’s 737 Max airliner, both major employers with a major impact on the economy.

Literally every asset class has proven to be a winner this year, which is an unbelievably rare event in the financial markets. The highest-returning asset was crude oil, in a year when the United States finally became an energy-independent net exporter for the first time in 70 years.

The S&P 500 is up more than 25% this year. The tech sector is up over 40% this year. Communication services, industrials, financials, real estate, and consumer sectors are all up more than 20% this year. No kidding, we could have a repeat of the Great Recession and the stock market would still be in positive territory – that’s how well the market has performed under Trumponomics.

Oil, gold, and corporate bonds have all returned double-digits this year. You’d actually have to work hard to lose money in this market (but I’m sure some hedge funds have managed it, lol).

And at this point, you have to be brain-dead to think tax reform has not had an incredibly positive impact on domestic investment and employment.


It is no exaggeration to say that we are currently living in the strongest labor market in the history of the United States. Unemployment is at historic lows and wages have finally started to grow under President Trump in the first sizable increases since the financial crisis in 2008. (And no, the financial crisis was not an example of a recession that sneaked up on the country. The country was already in a recession in 2007. The financial crisis was a quite predictable puke, and betting against real estate minted a number of billionaires.)

Most of the benefit from wage growth under President Trump, moreover, has been in the lower half of earners in the country, not the self-proclaimed elites (see the chart below from Goldman Sachs). When Emerson polls tell you that more than a third of black voters now support President Trump, look at the inversion here in hourly earnings growth beginning in late 2017 – early 2018. And the trend is persistent. Income inequality has decreased under Trump, not increased. Unless you think statistics from the federal Department of Labor are a vast right-wing conspiracy (and I’m sure MSNBC can find some panelist to argue as much).

But probably a third of the country – the same people who have spent well over a hundred days now bitching and moaning about a ten-minute phone call, nuking millions of taxpayer dollars in the process – think the country is in the throes of some economic Armageddon. They truly believe this garbage…. as they go out and buy a new iPhone or a $50 metal thermos for the sake of conspicuous sustainability (the struggle is real).

When this country does eventually experience a recession – and there’s no telling when that will be, as there is no law that expansions have an expiration date and the US has already proved incredibly resilient to global economic headwinds – these folks are really going to get a lesson in economics. Because, baby, this is as good as it gets.

One can only imagine that this delusion belongs to a very small portion of the electorate, considering that Baby Yoda now has more social media interactions than the entire Democratic field, and it isn’t even close. Not even Hunter Biden knocking up a stripper in flyover country while simultaneously banging his brother’s widow and then claiming in court filings that he’s broke and can’t pay child support, even though everyone knows a corrupt Ukrainian company was paying him at least $50,000 a month and that’s no malarkey, can get people to care enough about Democratic candidates to chatter about them on social media. That’s a fine proxy for how well the doom and gloom is selling (graphic courtesy of Axios), and that’s pretty much the only public policy suggestions they have.

Americans are headed into what should be a financially merry holiday season. I’m not sure toxicity is going to be a winning strategy politically. But I do look forward to watching them try.

San Francisco loses Charles Schwab headquarters in TD Ameritrade deal

Charles Schwab has been headquartered in San Francisco since its Sacramento-born founder established the company in the 1970s. Alas, that is no more. Charles Schwab announced today that it was acquiring TD Ameritrade, and in the process, it is moving its headquarters to … wait for it… Westlake, Texas.

The company says that it will still keep some of its workforce in the city (for the time being), but this is a major loss for the city (and the State of California). The company was already intent on moving its operations to Texas, and with the new acquisition is picking up major facilities in other low-cost states. Divesting from California just became a lot easier.

Schwab personally made $100,000 in campaign donations to oppose 2018’s Proposition C, which raised taxes on companies’ gross receipts over $50 million to fund homelessness services. The city has become a magnet for homeless and drug addicts, and now has more drug addicts than children enrolled in public high schools.

Schwab is only the latest major defection telling San Francisco (and the State of California) to pound sand. Not to point out the obvious here, but this investment adviser is literally following all the money to Texas.

In June, North Face finished moving from Alameda to Denver. In April, the McKesson Corporation – which sells medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and is one of the largest companies in the world – ditched San Francisco for Los Colinas, Texas. In June of last year, Bechtel – the massive engineering firm that created San Francisco’s BART transit system – moved to Virginia. Before that, Jamba Juice moved to Frisco, Texas.

San Francisco’s economy is now almost completely built on the tech industry. From a government perspective, having a highly concentrated economy makes the city’s tax structure very fragile. While it may seem like high times in San Francisco now (literally and figuratively), the next recession will likely have a profound impact on the city. That should be of even more concern to folks there, as government services are already breaking them in a robust economy. Demand for government services only increases during a recession.

And even beyond that, Silicon Valley representatives have already suggested that problems with California’s electrical grid may start driving (highly inter-connected) tech companies to less dysfunctional states.

A bad political landscape can destroy economic value a heck of a lot faster than you’d think. California needs to get its act together big time.

Clinton Foundation is hemorrhaging cash now that there’s not a Clinton in office

This is pretty funny. The Center for Responsive Politics (which runs the Open Secrets website, tracking political donations) has posted the latest round of tax returns for the Clinton Foundation.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation posted $249 million in revenues. Many of these donors were people who just happened to have business before the State Department.

See this Vox article, which lists 181 Clinton Foundation donors that lobbied Clinton’s State Department.

And this Associated Press article on how many Clinton Foundation donors showed up for meetings at the State Department:

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million …

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Folks on the left used to lose their minds if you suggested that the Clintons were using their foundation to sell influence. In fact, this was the central point of the controversy of Clinton’s server. (No, the email scandal was not actually about email. It was about why she felt she needed to have a separate line of communications while at the State Department in violation of laws regarding the retention of government records. Did she not want people doing business with the foundation to be archived through public records laws, where their correspondence would then be made available to journalists and other political observers?) Incidentally, Clinton’s legal team negotiated an agreement with James Comey that any communications related to the Clinton Foundation would be exempt from the FBI’s review. Comey negotiated this agreement even as several FBI field offices were investigating the foundation. Thus, if the Clintons were selling influence, the government would not have known. And yet the Clintons still hate James Comey.

At any rate, now that there is not a Clinton in any government position, the foundation has posted three straight years of financial losses and is raising about a tenth of the revenues at its peak. The latest is a loss of $16.8 million on revenue of $30.7 million in 2018. The foundation director continues to be paid $362,000 despite the rapid decline in fundraising.

Here is their latest tax return.

Whereas the Clinton Foundation was raking in money from countries and business leaders with global interests during her tenure in government, most of the money donated to the foundation now comes from only 9 donors.

Probably all a strange coincidence, however, and has nothing to do with selling influence.

Take one down, pass it around

I think any serious person watching (or half-watching) the impeachment circus understands that the biggest loser in this whole spectacle is Joe Biden. (Of course, Don Jr nuking The View had a higher viewership than these hearings, so the pool of serious observers is pretty small.)

Biden was always a weak candidate. Even in a country that is sick and tired of people clutching their pearls with fake concern for the state of our democracy, Biden manages to raise eyebrows. He can’t take a picture with a woman without trying to smell her hair or putting his hand around her waist like a lover. He even does that to preteen girls and it’s gross. He makes stuff up, invents memories from public service, constantly. “Sir, you weren’t vice president during the Florida school shooting. The victims did not come visit you in the White House and patiently absorb your wisdom.” Blah blah blah. The guy is such a bad candidate that it’s boring to talk about what a bad candidate he is.

But now… Thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, there is not a single person in this country who does not associate the Bidens with corruption in some way. You have some very small minority of Democrats who will defend the Bidens despite all evidence, but their arguments are self-mocking. The more fervently they try to defend Biden, the sleazier he looks. The sleazier they look. The sane thing to do if you were a political strategist would be to stop talking about him and move on. But Pelosi and Schiff staked out a public position on this topic, and they are going to ride that limping, whining, sputtering horse into the sunset.

Meanwhile, with the other candidates, there’s only insanity. The electorate has tried on several candidates as a front-runner after becoming disillusioned with Biden. They tried on Kamala Harris, whose record with prosecutions was so bad it was absurd anyone from the political machine held her up as a viable candidate. (“Hey, let’s nominate someone who kept an innocent man on death row.”) They tried on Elizabeth Warren, until people started asking her where she was going to get new tax revenue for her plans. Instead of giving them an honest answer, she upped her health care spending to over $50 trillion. They started off branding her as a policy wonk, but it turns out she’s as much of a policy wonk as she is a Native American. Paired with her is Sanders, who is running on “hell, yes, I will take your health care providers away.” Half of the country will walk through fire to vote against them.

Now they are going to try on Buttigieg, the mayor of a college town with barely 100,000 residents who decided out of nowhere to run for president. And the charm will last until someone notices that he’s polling at 0% with black voters. It is statistically impossible for any Democratic candidate to win with even a slight decline in participation from black voters, so Buttigieg would be like conceding the race now. (And that’s before the Republicans dig up dirt on Buttigieg, like his support for an abortion doctor that had the corpses of thousands of babies in his house and the trunk of his car. Behold, your moderate candidate!)

The Democratic machine has already proclaimed that Tulsi Gabbard, despite serving in the US military, is actually a Russian agent.

So that leaves Klobucher and Booker for the electorate to try on, and then its brutally unpopular nanny state billionaires all the way down.

Republicans thank you for the clown show, Nancy.