Category: Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Is Doomed, and Feminists Can’t Understand Why (And a BONUS Bidenfreude Update)

Posted on Comments

 

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren placed fourth in yesterday’s New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary with less than 10% of the vote, as she was eclipsed by Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who more than doubled Warren’s vote total. Dana Pico at First Street Journal called attention to feminist Amanda Marcotte’s “hot take” on Warren. “If Warren was a man, this would be over already,” Marcotte wrote Tuesday:

Warren is a rock star. Crowds love her and she tends to get bigger cheers than anyone, even Sanders. She always takes her analysis to the next level, but manages to explain complex topics without dissembling. The ideas that sound radical in Bernie’s mouth (probably by design, to be fair) sound like common sense coming from Warren. She’s probably the single most popular candidate in the field, with people talking about her positively, even if they support someone else.
It’s clear, however, after months of cable news seeding the idea that the public is too sexist to elect a woman, that voters aren’t backing her. This created a weird dynamic in New Hampshire, where Warren drew big crowds, often due in large part to political tourists from other states who came to see the hottest act in town, not because she was actually rallying local voters here. So because of sexism, the most popular politician in the field will probably falter in the actual primary.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is crazy.

Marcotte credits “cable news” with creating the (false) belief “that the public is too sexist to elect a woman,” which scarcely explains why Klobuchar (who, last time I checked, was also a woman) should have zoomed up from obscurity to finish third in New Hampshire.

Of course, to her devoted admirers, Warren is a “rock star,” but you know who’s an even bigger rock star? President Trump, who consistently draws overflow crowds to gigantic rallies in sports arenas. The fact that Marcotte can’t put this in a realistic perspective — she is incapable of viewing Warren objectively — is testimony to the solipsistic nature of the feminist worldview. Staunch conservative that I am, my profession as a journalist requires me to summon the mental focus necessary to step back from my personal prejudice, to think about what the political spectacle looks like to, say, a housewife in the Philly suburbs or a truck driver in Michigan. Like most other observers, I underestimated the strength of Trump’s populist appeal in 2016, but unlike feminists, my miscalculation wasn’t due to an ax-grinding personal bias.

Here is what Amanda Marcotte can’t understand: Elizabeth Warren is not losing because of cable news creating a sexist narrative. Elizabeth Warren is losing because she’s a transparent phony. When Trump calls her “Pocahontas,” this is not merely a personal insult, it’s a reminder that Warren falsified her own identity, claiming Native American ancestry in order to get affirmative action status in hiring at Harvard.

Moreover, Warren is losing because ordinary people (i.e., those who are not feminist fanatics) dislike her self-righteous persona. Politics is not merely about who advocates policies that are popular, it’s also about whose personality voters find most appealing. We may wish that this were not so, desiring politics to be an intellectual exercise, but that’s just the nature of the game, especially in terms of a national presidential campaign, where most people form their judgments of candidates based on television coverage. Many people (including some Republicans) dislike Donald Trump because he comes across on TV as an arrogant bully. People who know Trump personally might claim that Trump is really just a lovable teddy bear who wouldn’t hurt anybody, but his televised persona reminds many people of every blustering bully they ever knew.

If I, a conservative who voted for Trump and who plans to vote for him again in November, can acknowledge the perception problem that Trump faces in attempting to win over more moderate voters, why can’t Amanda Marcotte accept that Warren has a similar problem? Warren reminds me of certain middle-school teachers who couldn’t tolerate mischievous boys, sending me to the principal’s office whenever I made a wisecrack in class.

Amy Klobuchar, by contrast, seems like the nice kindergarten teacher who gave me punch and cookies. She is personally likable, even though she is a Democrat, and I would never vote for a Democrat. In that way, Klobuchar is quite Obama. A lot of white people who can’t stand the Jesse Jackson-style “civil rights” race-hustler politician found Obama much more likable, and so Obama won where Jesse never could have won.

Why isn’t Amanda Marcotte encouraged by Klobuchar’s success? One would think that the Minnesota senator’s popularity would give hope to feminists, but feminists like Marcotte aren’t pro-woman so much as they are anti-male. They want to send wisecracking mischievous boys to the principal’s office, long after we have finished middle school.

UPDATE: Jonathan Chait sticks the fork in Uncle Joe:

Biden has run for president three times. He has not yet managed to finish higher than fourth in any primary or caucus. Biden may, or may not, have been a good enough politician to win a presidential campaign in his prime. He is now well past his prime. . . .
If not for Biden, a mainstream liberal Democrat might well have begun to consolidate support of a party establishment that is not looking for a candidate who will embrace wildly unpopular policies and a wildly unpopular socialist label while emphasizing transformative economic change in the midst of the best economy in a generation. . . .
Biden’s campaigns in 1988 and 2008 ended in disaster for Biden. His 2020 campaign is going to end in a disaster for the whole party.

Hat-tip to Stephen Green at Instapundit, who calls this “a nice shot of schadenfreude in my coffee.” No, it’s Bidenfreude, and it’s delicious.




 

NEW HAMPSHIRE RESULTS

Posted on

 

Well, I suppose I might as well do one of these, since it’s the first time Democrats will vote in a situation where the party hacks can’t steal votes from Bernie. The polls in New Hampshire will close at 8 p.m. ET and . . . Wow, it must suck to be Joe Biden tonight.

 

UPDATE 8:10 p.m. ET: As I noted this morning, the possibility of a fifth-place finish for Joe Biden in New Hampshire could not be ruled out, and that’s how it seems to be shaping up. How can he continue his campaign after getting less than 10% of the vote in New Hampshire? Of course, the doddering old fool keeps talking about South Carolina, but I can’t imagine him doing so well there as to recover his “frontrunner” status. Biden was supposed to be Mister Electability, remember?

UPDATE 8:30 p.m. ET: Beside the Biden zombie campaign, you know who else is finished tonight? Elizabeth Warren. She’s heading for fourth place in her own backyard, losing to Amy Freaking Klobuchar, a nothingburger of Minnesota niceness. Warren was trying to be Hillary 2.0, selling what was supposed to be a new and improved version of The First Female President™ narrative. She finished third in Iowa and is now fourth in New Hampshire and where, pray tell, does she expect to actually win anything? So it looks like the feminist sisterhood is screwed, unless they can rally behind Klobuchar, who doesn’t strike me as the kind of Angry Bitch that feminists could be expected to support.

 

UPDATE 9:25 p.m. ET: Watching MSNBC tonight, and the anti-Trump network is in need of an intervention. They simply don’t want to deal with the reality: Bernie is winning, Biden is hopelessly doomed, and Warren probably won’t make it to Super Tuesday. Klobuchar did surprisingly well in New Hampshire, but she has neither the money nor the staff to campaign effectively for the Super Tuesday delegate bonanza. More to the point, there is no end in sight for this divided party, because multi-billionaire Mike Bloomberg has made a big play for Super Tuesday. Suppose, then, that Bloomberg is able to buy something around 10% of the vote on Super Tuesday. Assuming the Biden or Warren haven’t struck the tent by then, that will mean five candidates (Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar) vying for the “Anybody But Bernie” vote. Even if Warren and Biden quit before Super Tuesday, however, there would still be three candidates trying to stop Sanders, who is good for 30% of the vote in just about any Democratic primary or caucus.

Meanwhile, both Andrew Yang and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennett have ended their campaigns, having gotten exactly zero delegates — the same number as Biden and Warren so far, I hasten to add.

 

UPDATE 9:50 p.m. ET: Looking at the numbers now, you’re struck by how weak Warren and Biden performed. Neither of them broke 10% and this outcome just won’t do. You’re not a viable contender if you can’t make double digits in New Hampshire. Considering that Biden was the consensus front-runner, leading nearly every national poll and with near universal name recognition, how does he explain this debacle?

Fourth place in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire? Zero delegates?

Biden flew to South Carolina and gave another rambling semi-coherent speech, emphasizing the idea that black voters haven’t had any real influence in the results in the two early states, but so what? Does he expect black voters to stampede to the polls to save the old white man? Like they owe him something, and it’s time to pay up?

No sensible person would expect such a thing, and look at the calendar: We’re now about 10 days from the Feb. 22 Nevada caucuses (which Biden will lose), and the South Carolina primary isn’t until Feb. 29. Does anyone think Biden will recover enough momentum in the next 18 days to make his appeal to black voters in South Carolina more credible? Or would you guess, as I do, that most black voters are becoming disgusted with the choices offered to them in this primary campaign? Neither of the most promising black candidates (Kamala Harris and Cory Booker) even made it as far as Iowa, so why should black Democrats — offered a choice between five or six white candidates, none of them likely to beat Trump in November — get excited about voting for any of them?

 

UPDATE WEDNESDAY: Elizabeth Warren Is Doomed, and Feminists Can’t Understand Why.




 

Elizabeth Warren’s Media Helpers Try to Revive Her Campaign at Bernie’s Expense

Posted on

 

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.”

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass:

What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair.
And it was shameful. . . .
What happened on CNN in Iowa was bad for journalism. But it sure was good for Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.
Sanders, the authentic candidate on the left in this cycle, as he was in the last, was surging in the Iowa polls. Warren, also on the left, was fading, desperate and in full panic. She began waving her gender card on that dangerous Intersectionality Highway where Democrats, addicted to identity politics, often crack up.
Just before the debate, CNN ran a story portraying Sanders as misogynist who thinks a woman couldn’t be elected president. That’s ridiculous. He doesn’t believe that.
And at the CNN debate, moderator Abby Phillip took Warren’s gender card, fashioned it into a knife and stabbed Sanders just weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
“Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Phillip asked of Sanders.
“Well,” Sanders said, “as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it.
“I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want,” Sanders added. . . .
Before Sanders was shivved, Democratic establishment candidate Biden looked lost and frail and unsure.
Biden was like some elderly Uncle Joe retiree in line at 4 p.m. for the early bird dinner with the free Jell-O.
But who remembers that after Warren pointedly refused to shake her “friend” Bernie’s hand? Biden wasn’t even touched by CNN’s debate moderators. His questions were wrapped in pillows.
You might think all this is a coincidence, but then, you might be a moron. . . .

Obviously it was not a coincidence: The CNN moderators were there to trash Sanders, support Warren and — by ginning up conflict between these two left-wingers — thereby help “moderate” Joe Biden in the Iowa caucuses, by preventing Bernie from surging to a solid victory on Feb. 4.

It’s media malpractice like this that causes people to believe in conspiracy theories — the fix is in and the game is rigged — because it doesn’t require any evidence to see what is happening in front of our eyes and realize that it could not be happening by mere coincidence. No, some actual human beings at CNN decided that this would be the script for the Iowa debate, and it’s plainly obvious that CNN is against Bernie Sanders just as much as it is obvious that CNN is against Donald Trump.

Elizabeth Warren to Bernie after debate:
“I think you called me a liar on national TV”

Was this narrative of Bernie being a sexist who doesn’t believe a woman can be president manufactured by the “fake news” media? It doesn’t matter — Bernie’s supporters recognize it as a dirty trick. Whatever it was that Bernie actually said to Warren in that meeting, the timing of the story in the run-up to Tuesday’s debate was clearly not a coincidence. The people in charge at CNN want Biden as the 2020 nominee, and anyone can look at the polls as an explanation of what happened Tuesday.

 

In early September, according the Real Clear Politics average of Iowa polls, Biden had a commanding lead in the state, 28.5%, with Warren and Sanders neck-and-neck in second place at 18% and 17.5% respectively. A month later, Warren moved into the lead (23% to Biden’s 18% by Oct. 1) but then, over the next six weeks, however, Warren faded badly while Pete Buttigieg surged to first place in Iowa. Then in December, Buttigieg began fading, and Bernie moved into first place as Warren dropped into fourth place. Who benefits from CNN’s promotion of Warren at the expense of Sanders? It’s not just Warren they’re helping, it’s Biden — the Democratic establishment candidate in the same sense that Hillary was the establishment candidate four years ago.

As I say, this kind of blatant manipulation by the media feeds into the paranoid mentality of the left-wing populists who support Sanders. Regardless of who wins Iowa, Bernie’s supporters now have more reason than ever to believe that a corrupt establishment is attempting to prevent their candidate from winning. If the only way Biden can get the nomination is to have CNN and other establishment media do his dirty work for him, what will that mean for Democrats in November?



 

‘Inappropriate Behavior’: Elizabeth Warren Fires Organizing Director

Posted on Comments

 

The details are sketchy so far:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) campaign on Friday fired its national organizing director Rich McDaniel amid accusations of “inappropriate behavior.”
Warren campaign spokesperson Kristen Orthman released a statement on Friday, confirming that the campaign had been receiving “multiple complaints regarding inappropriate behavior by Rich McDaniel.”
“Over the past two weeks, senior campaign leadership received multiple complaints regarding inappropriate behavior by Rich McDaniel,” Orthman told Politico.
“Over the same time period, the campaign retained outside counsel to conduct an investigation,” she continued.
“Based on the results of the investigation, the campaign determined that his reported conduct was inconsistent with its values and that he could not be a part of the campaign moving forward,” Orthman added. . . .
Details of the accusations remain unclear, but Politico reported that the allegations did not involve sexual assault, according to a source.

So his behavior was “inappropriate,” but he didn’t rape anybody. Also, there were “multiple complaints.” I blame racism!



 

Elizabeth Warren Is Over

Posted on

 

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign is doomed. Anyone can look at the Real Clear Politics average of national polls and see that Warren — currently in third place, with an 8.3% average — is flat-lining. Although two recent polls (Quinnipiac in April and Emerson last week) show her in double digits, the Emerson poll shows her tied for third with California Sen. Kamala Harris. It is obvious that Warren and Harris are vying for the “Not a Man 2020” vote, to use feminist Jessica Valenti’s phrase. Warren is essentially a female Bernie Sanders, combining socialist economics with an identity-politics appeal to her fellow vagina-owners, and this will predictably fail. Why? First, because nearly every second- and third-tier candidate in the Democratic primary campaign is running to the Left, trying to compete for the Bernie vote, and second, because many of those candidates are also women. When the first Democrat debates happen next month, there will likely be six women — Warren, Harris, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and author Marianne Williamson — among the 20 candidates on stage for the two-night debates. This will dilute the “Not a Man 2020” advantage for Warren, who benefits from having more name-recognition. My guess would be that, after the first round of debates, Warren will fade and Harris will rise, because Harris is black and is obviously better qualified than the other black candidate, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Such is the logic of identity politics, in which Democrats are heavily invested.

By the way, don’t discount Williamson’s potential impact. Everybody thought I was crazy when I went down to South Carolina to cover her campaign in March — I was the only reporter covering her on that trip — but she is now making headlines regularly. As I noted last week, she’s hit the 65,000-donor threshold needed to qualify for the DNC debates. That landed Williamson an eight-minute appearance on MSNBC Sunday, and she also scored an interview with The Hill, with the headline, “Don’t tell Marianne Williamson she can’t win,” which got linked by Drudge. And, meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is dissing Fox News:

 

This tantrum is both counter-factual and self-destructive. Warren’s screed reads like it was written by an SPLC staffer.

Your ears must be tuned to a very high dog-whistle frequency to believe Fox News is “a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies” and “profits from racism and hate.” If any Democrats are reading this, trust me — it’s possible to click your remote and watch an hour or two of Fox News without becoming a Nazi, just like I can watch a few hours of CNN without becoming gay. The self-destructive aspect of Warren’s anti-Fox stance is obvious to Meagan Day of the left-wing magazine Jacobin:

When Sanders participated in the network’s town hall event, I explained why that was a good idea. Fox News is the most-watched cable news network in the country, and its viewers have the lowest average income of any major news network or outlet. Sanders’s campaign is centered around demands for ambitious redistributive reforms that will directly and materially improve life for all working-class people — some of whom, unfortunately, watch Fox News and currently vote for Republicans.

Obviously, I disagree with Day about whether the “reforms” advocated by Democrats will “materially improve life” for the working class, but her point about the Fox News audience deserves consideration:

Fox’s audience has one of the lowest average incomes of any major news source. Seventy-seven percent of Fox viewers make less than $75,000 a year, compared to 62 percent for the New York Times and 57 percent for NPR. A third of Fox News viewers make less than $30,000 a year. More than half are over the age of 50 and a quarter are over 65, which means a good number are subsisting primarily on Social Security.
Since Fox is the most-watched cable news network in the country, we can surmise that millions of its viewers are facing exactly the issues addressed in Sanders’ platform — like pension cuts, medical debt, job insecurity, and unaffordable housing and eldercare.

Most Democrats don’t understand why lower-income voters — the “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton called them — are watching Fox News. The fact is quite simple: Small-town and rural voters are the heart of the Republican grassroots, while Democrats appeal to wealthy urban elites.

You have to spend some time digging around in Census data and exit polls to understand this, and Elizabeth Warren, the former Harvard professor, is so out-of-touch she can’t fathom it. You don’t have to be rich to live a happy life in small-town America. It is only in the big metro areas, where only the wealthy can afford housing prices in good neighborhoods, that an income under $75,000 dooms you to living in squalor. Earlier this month, I visited a friend in Valdosta, Georgia, where the median household income is $31,701. If a married couple earned $75,000 between them, they’d be more than twice the median household income there — “rich” folks, by local standards. The quality-of-life advantages of small-town living are best understood by looking at real-estate prices. The median value of a single-family home in Valdosta is $116,000; by contrast, in the affluent Boston suburb of Brookline, the median home value is $829,300. Only the rich can afford to buy a house in a place like Brookline, whereas the working class have no problems finding affordable homes in Valdosta. There is more actual equality in rural South Georgia than in the posh Boston suburbs, and guess what? The population of Valdosta is 51% black, whereas the population of Brookline is only 3.3% black. Who are the real “racists,” the rural Georgians or Elizabeth Warren’s liberal voters in Brookline?

Elizabeth Warren will not win the Democratic nomination, but even if she did somehow emerge as the winner in the “clown car” primary, she would be certain to lose to Trump in November 2020. Even though Trump is a billionaire from New York, he still relates better to working-class voters than does the Harvard Law professor Warren. Right now, Joe Biden is riding atop the Democrat poll numbers and, while I don’t expect Biden to go the distance, the question is which of the other Democrats might beat him in the primaries. Bet money it won’t be Warren.

UPDATE: Although Warren is third in the national RCP poll average, she fares worse when we look at polls for the early caucus and primary states. In Iowa, she’s in fifth place, behind Biden, Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Harris. In New Hampshire, she’s fourth behind Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg. In Nevada, she’s fourth behind Biden, Sanders and Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. In South Carolina, she’s in fourth, behind Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker. In other words, despite having high national name recognition, Warren doesn’t appear likely to do better than fourth place in any of the early states, and therefore doesn’t appear to have a path to the nomination.

We are still nearly nine months away from the first votes (the Iowa caucus is Feb. 3), and a lot can change in that time, but does it seem likely that Warren’s candidacy will grow stronger between now and then? No. She’s doomed. She’s “pining for the fjords.”



 

The $100 Trillion Woman

Posted on

 

Elizabeth Warren wants to spend, spend, spend:

Sen. Warren believes she knows the way into Americans’ hearts: Lots of government spending.
In her CNN townhall Monday night, Sen. Warren responded to almost every question with a proposed new government program.
Over the course of the 80 minute forum, Sen. Warren endorsed Medicare-for-All, slavery reparations, universal childcare, universal pre-K, “universal pre-pre-K,” the creation of 3 million new federal housing units, increasing infrastructure spending several times, forgiveness of student loan debt, and the Green New Deal.
Add it all up, and it’s more than $100 trillion.
Estimates range on Warren’s proposed spending plans, but the Green New Deal has alone been projected to cost at least $93 trillion; slavery reparations have previously been pegged at upward of $14 trillion; and Warren says her universal child care, universal pre-K, and universal pre-pre-K programs can be done for $3 trillion.

That bitch is crazy.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Billion-Dollar Indian Casino Plan Defeated by Democrats

Posted on

 

Elizabeth Warren’s effort to gain credibility as the 1/1024th Native American candidate in the Democrat 2020 presidential primary field wasn’t limited to her creepy experiments in DNA “racial science.” Emily Zannotti at the Daily Wire recaps Senator Warren’s failed efforts to promote a Massachusetts tribe’s casino bid:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been working with a local Native American tribe in Massachusetts to push through authorization for a new casino on federal land — a casino that local Massachusetts residents, and the federal government, have repeatedly said they don’t want.
But the bill to build the casino died in the senate late last year, and now, it seems, some of Warren’s fellow Democrats may be to blame.
The Washington Times reports that the bill, which would have allowed the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe to build a “$1 billion resort in Taunton, Massachusetts,” never made it to the senate floor, thanks to the efforts of the two Democratic senators from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed, who pleaded with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to let the bill die in committee.
The bill reappeared in the House last week, this time sponsored by Reps. William Keating and Joe Kennedy III, both Massachusetts Democrats.
The bill overrides a federal court’s decision not to award the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe around 300 acres to build the billion-dollar tribal casino, based on rules granting tribal land only to those tribes recognized in an early-20th century federal agreement. The Mashpee Wampanoag received federal recognition, the Times reports, in 2007.
“As a result, federally recognized tribes in Rhode Island would argue that they hold the same standing as the Massachusetts tribe and request that similar legislation be introduced on their behalf,” the two Rhode Island senators wrote. “As you know, we have long opposed doing so due to potential conflicts with the 1978 Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, which ensures that settlement lands remain subject to Rhode Island state law.”

There are so many things wrong with the Mashpee Wampanoag casino bid that it’s difficult to say what’s the worst thing about it. The Massachusetts gaming commission will approve only three casinos in the state, each in a different region, so if the plan backed by Warren to put a casino in Taunton goes through, that would sabotage efforts by nearby Brockton to bring a casino to their struggling town:

Brockton Mayor William Carpenter said the Warren legislation on behalf of the Masphee Wampanoag tribe would destroy his community’s plans for a casino, a project designed to bring badly needed jobs and economic development to the blue-collar burg. . . .
Lobbying on behalf of the Warren-Keating legislation is the Genting Group, a Malaysia-based entity that has sunk a reported $400 million into the tribe’s First Light Resort and Casino project and could lose it all if the federal government fails to take the land into trust.
“We are up against a foreign company that’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars,” said [Taunton resident Michelle] Littlefield. “It’s a bottomless well on the other side. From day one, we’ve been the underdog, and the only thing we’ve ever had on our side was the law.”
She criticized lawmakers for attempting to overrule the judge’s orders [denying the Mashpee Wampanoag’s federal land claim]. “If we could just get the government to follow the law, not only the federal agencies involved, but every congressman and senator who’s taken the oath of office,” she said.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign money are involved:

The biggest push behind the effort has come from the Genting Group, a Kuala Lumpur-based company with a global portfolio of casino businesses that has $249.5 million invested in the troubled project and is slated to manage the First Light Resort & Casino if it’s completed, according to Malaysian reports.
Genting disclosed in its 2015 annual report its $249.5 million investment in promissory notes from the Mashbee Wampanoag Tribal Gaming Authority. It gained no equity from the investment, which was intended to “establish” its “growing presence in the U.S.”
There will be no return on investment until the casino is in operation and Genting is paid for management, an increasingly unlikely outcome that would result in Genting losing $274 million. In the case that no casino is ever built, the tribe says it won’t even have to pay back the investments made by Genting.
Genting hired lobbying firm Gavel Resources in February 2018 to make its case on the land use decision in Washington, D.C., according to official lobbying disclosure forms.

Heap big wampum, as you might say, has been invested in lobbying for this Indian casino that federal courts have declared illegal, but it’s being promoted by the 99.8% white Massachusetts Senator because . . . ?

I don’t know, “social justice,” or something.

Despite being the first Democrat to declare her presidential intentions for 2020, Senator Fauxcahontas isn’t actually popular with primary voters. Polls show her with less than 5% support, according to the Real Clear Politics average, far behind Joe Biden (27%) and Bernie Sanders (17%).

Perhaps the surest omen that Warren’s campaign is doomed, however, is the way Saturday Night Live spoofed her during the “Weekend Update” segment, with Kate McKinnon as the candidate mocking her DNA test (“The test came back 100% bad idea. Who knew race science wasn’t a good PR strategy?”) and comparing herself to a prostate exam. “Politico was accused of sexism for an article saying you aren’t likable,” host Colin Jost asked. “What do you think about that?”

“Look, yeah, I’m sorry I’m not young and pretty like Donald jackass Trump,” she said. “Look, Colin, was the article sexist, of course it was. Am I likable? Probably not. But neither is a prostate exam. But you need one or you’ll die.”
“This country is long overdue for a finger up its caboose. You might even like it,” she continued. “So bend over, America, and let Mama Warren get to work.”

No, thank you, ma’am.