Month: August 2020

President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s campaign pollster is warning that swing-state voters oppose a bipartisan bill meant to protect patients from “surprise” medical bills they receive when going out-of-network for emergency care, according to a polling memo obtained exclusively by The Hill.

A survey of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania conducted by Tony Fabrizio, the president’s campaign pollster, found that a majority of voters in three battleground states believe that health insurers should be on the hook when patients receive “surprise” medical bills for out-of-network emergencies.

ADVERTISEMENT

The polling data comes as Trump is considering whether to support a bipartisan measure that would put a federally mandated rate cap on the amount that insurers have to pay doctors for out-of-network emergency care.

“Swing state voters see Surprise Medical Billing as a major problem and siding with Insurers who look to sidestep paying these bills is crossways with overwhelming voter sentiment,” Fabrizio wrote in the polling memo.

The survey asked likely voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who should be responsible for paying for an emergency out-of-network procedure.

Fifty-three percent of voters in Michigan, 56 percent in Pennsylvania and 56 percent in Wisconsin responded to say that the health plan should be on the hook. Between 18 and 23 percent said the patient should pay, and between 9 and 12 percent responded that the doctor or clinic should be responsible.

Only 6 percent of voters in Wisconsin said a government program should address the matter, while 10 percent of Michigan voters and 13 percent of Pennsylvania voters said they support a government program to control costs.

“An overwhelming majority of voters in each state agree emergency care should be covered by health insurance companies regardless of network,” Fabrizio wrote. “Any policy to address this issue that appears to side with the insurance companies could backfire because they are seen as the problem.”

The rate cap bill is sponsored by Sens. Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderState, city education officials press Congress for more COVID-19 funds Hillicon Valley: Senators raise concerns over government surveillance of protests | Amazon pauses police use of its facial recognition tech | FBI warns hackers are targeting mobile banking apps Republicans prepare to punt on next COVID-19 relief bill MORE (R-Tenn.) and Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayA national testing strategy to safely reopen America Exclusive investigation on the coronavirus pandemic: Where was Congress? The coronavirus crisis has cut the child care sector MORE (D-Wash.) and moved out of the Senate Health Committee in June. A similar measure from Reps. Greg WaldenGregory (Greg) Paul WaldenIn Trump response to coronavirus, left sees environmental injustice GOP lawmakers say Steve King’s loss could help them in November Overnight Health Care: Hydroxychloroquine ineffective in preventing COVID-19, study finds | WHO to resume hydroxychloroquine clinical research | WHO says no evidence coronavirus is mutating MORE (R-Ore.) and Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneDem chairmen urge CMS to prevent nursing homes from seizing stimulus payments Federal watchdog finds cybersecurity vulnerabilities in FCC systems Overnight Health Care — Presented by That’s Medicaid — Deal on surprise medical bills faces obstacles | House GOP unveils rival drug pricing measure ahead of Pelosi vote | Justices to hear case over billions in ObamaCare payments MORE (D-N.J.) advanced from the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July.

A separate bill sponsored by Sen. Bill CassidyWilliam (Bill) Morgan CassidySenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote GOP senators dodge on treatment of White House protesters The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – US virus deaths exceed 100,000; Pelosi pulls FISA bill MORE (R-La.) would allow a third-party arbitrator to work out the disputed costs, rather than setting price controls.

More than 3 out of 4 voters in the swing states agreed that an arbitrator should settle billing disputes between insurers and doctors and that patients should be left out of it.

“In every state, more than three quarters agree and a majority ‘strongly’ agree that medical billing disputes should be settled through arbitration with patients left out of the middle,” Fabrizio wrote. “Arbitration is a good solution that comes without the political risks that rate-setting legislation comes with.”

About 80 percent of voters in all three states view “surprise” emergency medical billing as a significant problem, with 56 percent of Michigan and Pennsylvania voters and 47 percent of Wisconsin voters describing it as a “major” problem.

There has been a growing drumbeat on the right to oppose the rate capping bill, which is viewed government intervention on behalf of the insurance industry.

“Government price controls on healthcare aren’t the answer! We need more freedom in healthcare, not more government control!” Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants Louisville passes ‘Breonna’s Law’ banning no-knock warrants Rand Paul aide joins Trump campaign, RNC fundraising group MORE (R-Ky.) wrote in a tweet this month.

In a Fox News essay called “Beware of #RINOcare,” conservative activist Charlie Kirk warned that the bill would put the U.S. on the path to “socialized medicine.”

“Republicans like Sen. Lamar Alexander are considering the legislative equivalent of a gift basket to the insurance companies, which basically just gives them more leeway to stiff doctors,” Kirk wrote. “The result of this would be a health care market marginally less connected to economic reality, and all the dysfunctions that come with it.”

The Fabrizio survey found that “Medicare for All” is opposed by more than 70 percent of Republicans in the three states, and Fabrizio warned in his memo that any linkage between the “surprise” billing legislation and Medicare for All “would cause problems with the Republican base.”

The Fabrizio, Lee & Associates survey of 500 likely 2020 general election voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was conducted Aug. 26-28 and has a 4.4 percentage point margin of error.

Click Here: cd universidad catolica

A new poll showing Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.) leading former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE in Iowa has shaken up the Democratic nomination battle — and insiders across the party are gaming out what it all means.

Warren currently has 22 percent support to Biden’s 20 percent, according to the well-respected Des Moines Register–CNN–Mediacom poll, released Saturday night. The two are well clear of the rest of the field, with Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) in third place with 11 percent support.

Biden’s team had already been playing down expectations in the Hawkeye State before the poll came out. An unnamed senior adviser told reporters earlier this month that the former vice president did not need to win the state, which holds its caucuses on Feb. 3.

ADVERTISEMENT

But a loss in the first contest would be a grave problem for Biden, not least because it would reinforce the sense that he is an unusually weak front-runner. 

The nature of the primary calendar also makes it unlikely that the former vice president could right his ship immediately. The next contest is in New Hampshire, adjacent both to Warren’s Massachusetts and Sanders’s Vermont.

Click Here: Putters

In such a scenario, Biden would likely be looking to South Carolina, the fourth contest, as a potential firewall, given his strength with African American voters and the centrality of those voters to the outcome in the Palmetto State.

One Biden ally seemed to be preparing the ground for such an outcome on Monday, telling The Hill that “his coalition can’t be shown in states that are primarily white.” 

The ally also insisted, however, that “there’s always going to be an alternative candidate, but we’re feeling good about where we are.”

Another ally concluded, “It’ll be a battle for delegates, and we’re feeling good about where we are in the early states.”

Others who are unaligned with any campaign think the picture is bleaker for Biden.

Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said Biden is “already skating on thin ice as it is.”

“Defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are both battleground states next fall, would highlight questions about electability, which is his key selling point. Biden can’t afford to play the long game. Losses in both early states could bring the entire shaky structure down,” Bannon said.

ADVERTISEMENT

For Biden, there is also the danger that a loss in Iowa would change the shape of the race in an instant. There are precedents, albeit inexact ones, for such a scenario. 

When then-Sen. Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaHarris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Five ways America would take a hard left under Joe Biden Valerie Jarrett: ‘Democracy depends upon having law enforcement’ MORE (D-Ill.) beat then-Sen. Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE (D-N.Y.) in Iowa in 2008, it was a shock from which her campaign never truly recovered — and it persuaded black voters that Obama was electable even in states that seemed demographically challenging. Although Clinton came back to win a surprise victory in New Hampshire, Obama thrashed her in South Carolina.

Referring to the position of the Biden campaign in this election cycle, Democratic strategist Eddie Vale said, “If they get blown out in both [Iowa and New Hampshire], as we’ve seen in primaries on both sides of the aisle, enthusiasm and polling can swing quickly, along with the earned media attention, and having firewall states like candidates used to rely on in the past isn’t really a viable strategy anymore.”

Warren can take heart from Iowa’s favorable history with insurgent candidates, at least in the recent past. 

In addition to Obama’s 2008 victory, Sanders came within a whisker of beating Clinton in 2016. If the Vermont senator fades this time around — a plausible outcome but not a guaranteed one — Warren could emerge as the left’s standard-bearer against the more establishment-friendly Biden. In caucuses that tend to attract the most committed party activists, that is a good spot to be in.

Still, positioning oneself against the party establishment is far from a sure-fire guarantee of success, even in Iowa. 

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean ignited enormous excitement among young progressives — only to fall to a third-place showing in Iowa behind then-Sen. John KerryJohn Forbes KerryThe Memo: Trump’s troubles deepen as voters see country on wrong path The continuous whipsawing of climate change policy Budowsky: United Democrats and Biden’s New Deal MORE (D-Mass.), the winner and eventual nominee, as well as then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). 

Back in 2000, Vice President Al GoreAlbert (Al) Arnold GoreCNN coronavirus town hall to feature science author David Quammen, ‘Empire’ actress Taraji Henson Top Democratic pollster advised Biden campaign to pick Warren as VP Melania Trump to appear on CNN coronavirus town hall Thursday night MORE vanquished progressive challenger Bill Bradley in Iowa by almost 30 points.

“The secret, whether progressive or centrist, is whether a candidate is able to rally their respective forces,” said David Yepsen, who covered presidential campaigns in the state for several decades with the Des Moines Register. “Warren could win if moderates are fractured among other candidates, or Biden could win if Warren and Sanders split progressives.”

Yepsen also noted that Warren has vaulted into the leading position in the state very early, which is good on its face but will also inevitably bring sharper attacks from her rivals. At televised debates so far, Warren has neither faced nor launched especially aggressive jabs.

“The goal here is to peak at the right time,” Yepsen said. “The downside for Warren is that there is going to be more scrutiny of her.”

But Warren also has another advantage, at least for now, in that she began organizing in the state early. Biden is now making more of an effort in that department, according to Pat Rynard, who runs the political website IowaStartingLine.

“Warren certainly had a head start, but Biden seems to have caught up enough in recent months,” Rynard said.

Still, he added that Warren has been drawing bigger crowds in the state and has made a name for herself.

“Iowa is a place where, if you spend the time and organize and build a good campaign, you can become the front-runner. Elizabeth Warren combines her star power with a good campaign organization, and that’s put her in a great position,” he said.

With more than four months to go, the experts all agree that it’s too early to make solid predictions. But the battle for Iowa is heating up by the day.

“I don’t think anyone is taking any of the states, particularly the early states, for granted,” the first Biden ally said. “I think the last couple of presidential races taught us that.”

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) raised more than $25 million over the past three months, his presidential campaign said Tuesday, eclipsing his fundraising total from the second quarter of the year. 

Sanders’s $25.3 million haul was fueled by some 1.4 million donations and bolstered by a strong final day of fundraising on Monday, which the campaign said was its second-best day for donations since its launch in February. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The staggering third-quarter total, the highest reported by any Democratic presidential hopeful so far this year, could help give Sanders a boost at a time when he has seen his support in the polls wane. His chief progressive rival, Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.), has risen in recent surveys.

Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey

The latest cash haul brings the Vermont senator’s total fundraising for the year to $61.5 million, the campaign said, which does not include an additional $2.6 million transferred from other campaign accounts. 

“Bernie is proud to be the only candidate running to defeat Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE who is 100 percent funded by grassroots donations – both in the primary and in the general,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager, said. 

“Media elites and professional pundits have tried repeatedly to dismiss this campaign, and yet working-class Americans keep saying loudly and clearly that they want a political revolution.”

The average donation in the third quarter was $18.07, according to Sanders’s team, which added that more than 99.9 percent of his donors had not yet hit the maximum contribution amount of $2,800, meaning they can give again.

Sanders’s $25.3 million third-quarter haul surpassed at least one of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPete ButtigiegScaled-back Pride Month poses challenges for fundraising, outreach Biden hopes to pick VP by Aug. 1 It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process MORE’s campaign announced early Tuesday that he had raised roughly $19.1 million in the last three months, short of the $24.8 million he raised in the second quarter. 

Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (D-Calif.) raised $11.6 million for her presidential bid, while another Democratic hopeful, Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants Black lawmakers unveil bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk MORE (D-N.J.), said on Monday that he had raised more than $2 million in the last 10 days of September.

Booker had previously warned that he would exit the presidential race if he did not raise at least $1.7 million by the end of the month. He has not yet disclosed his full third-quarter fundraising haul.

No other candidate has released fundraising totals yet for the third quarter, which spans from July 1 to Sept. 30. Campaigns have until Oct. 15 to file their fundraising and spending reports with the Federal Election Commission, though many candidates are expected to release fundraising totals beforehand. 

Sanders’s latest fundraising total is a marked improvement over his second-quarter fundraising. Between April 1 and June 30, he brought in roughly $18 million, putting him behind three other candidates, Buttigieg, Warren and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE. 

Sanders has seen his standing in national and early state polls slide in recent months as Warren has gained ground on both him and Biden, the contest’s ostensible front-runner. Sanders’s allies have dismissed the downturn, pointing to his fundraising efforts — he has received contributions from over 1 million individual donors — as evidence that he still has momentum in the race.

Like Warren, Sanders has eschewed the kind of high-dollar fundraisers typical in presidential campaigns, and has instead powered his campaign with small-dollar, online donations and what he has dubbed “grassroots fundraisers,” events with relatively low ticket prices and supporters of all means are invited.

Sanders’s fundraising surge came at a time in the campaign season when the pace of donations typically slows down. Donors tend to focus less on the campaign in the summer months, particularly in July and August, because of vacations and the extended congressional recess.

— Updated at 4:22 p.m.

Democratic presidential contenders lined up to slam President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s move to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria as Turkey pursues a military operation, calling the decision “irresponsible” and “reckless.” 

The White House announced late Sunday that Turkey would be moving forward with a long-threatened offensive in northern Syria and that U.S. troops would not be in the “immediate area” when it happens.

“This decision is a betrayal of our ally in the fight against ISIS and risks American lives,” Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (D-Calif.) said in a tweet. “We have a president who is telling our allies and our adversaries that America doesn’t keep her word.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetSome realistic solutions for income inequality Democratic senators kneel during moment of silence for George Floyd 21 senators urge Pentagon against military use to curb nationwide protests MORE (D-Colo.) also criticized the move, calling it “erratic.” 

“The President’s decision to rapidly withdraw U.S. forces from N. Syria & abandon our SDF allies in the fight against ISIS risks our national security and jeopardizes our credibility,” Bennet tweeted. “This is the kind of erratic foreign policy we’ve come to expect from Trump. And it’s reckless.”

Meanwhile, progressive Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.), who have been critical of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, warned the decision would lead to chaos. 

“I support bringing our troops home from Syria,” Warren tweeted. “But President Trump’s reckless and unplanned withdrawal undermines both our partners and our security. We need a strategy to end this conflict, not a president who can be swayed by one phone call.”

“I have long believed the U.S. must responsibly end our military interventions in the Middle East,” Sanders said in a tweet. “But Trump’s abrupt announcement to withdraw from northern Syria and endorse Turkey’s incursion is extremely irresponsible. It is likely to result in more suffering and instability.” 

Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers

 

Republicans just can’t quit Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE. 

In recent weeks, as Clinton has made the rounds to promote a new book, the rumors have come fast and furious from the GOP: She’s running for president again. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Stephen Bannon, the former adviser to President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE, was one of the first to promote the idea of another Clinton run. 

“She is running,” Bannon said on Fox Business earlier this month. “She’s just trying to decide how to fit her way in.”

The whisper campaign, potentially setting up a rematch between Trump and Clinton, has been going strong ever since. 

“Is Hillary Clinton secretly planning to run in 2020?” writer Michael Goodwin wondered in the conservative New York Post. 

“Hillary Clinton is up to something,” Goodwin wrote in July. “Five times in the last month alone, she sent emails touting her super PAC’s role in combating President Trump.”

The narrative even made its way onto the Drudge Report with a banner headline on Tuesday. “Dem Halloween: Hillary Leaves Door Open.” (The accompanying photo showed Clinton in a witch hat.) 

The headline linked to a story in the right-wing American Mirror that said Clinton had not endorsed any of the Democratic candidates and “essentially described herself as the ideal candidate to take on Trump in 2020.”

Republicans — from members of Congress to strategists — seem convinced a Clinton 2020 candidacy is going to happen. 

They point to her recent appearances on late-night shows and her criticism of presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardGabbard drops defamation lawsuit against Clinton It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process 125 lawmakers urge Trump administration to support National Guard troops amid pandemic MORE (D-Hawaii) last week where she labeled the congresswoman “a Russian asset.” 

“Why else would she be out there as much as she is?” one strategist told The Hill. “I can’t open up a news site without reading about something she’s said.” 

But the talk of a Clinton candidacy seems to largely be a fantasy, and people in her orbit say there’s simply no truth to the rumors. 

“It’s Bannon-created,” said Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime communications adviser. “What his ratio is between honest belief and troublemaking is hard to know. Obviously though he doesn’t have any sources.”

Clinton allies scoff at the idea that she could be a late entry to the race. 

“The Republican Party has made such a long-term investment in obsessing about Hillary Clinton that they literally can’t stop,” said Tracy Sefl, who served as a surrogate to the Clinton campaign in 2016. 

“In some ways, she’s all they know. She’s the permanent Mad Libs subject matter of the GOP.” 

Several sources in Hillaryland say that in her heart of hearts, Clinton would love nothing more than to take on Trump again. 

“It would be the ultimate vindication,” one Clinton ally said. “Of course, she’s thought about it.” 

The source then quickly added: “But that doesn’t mean that she’s running.”

Not all of the chatter is coming from the right, when it comes to talk of a Clinton run.

The New York Times also reported on Tuesday that Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael BloombergMichael BloombergEngel scrambles to fend off primary challenge from left It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process Liberals embrace super PACs they once shunned MORE have told people in recent conversations that they would join the Democratic primary “if they thought they could win.” But they were “skeptical there would be an opening.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Since losing the election in 2016, some Democrats have said there isn’t room for Clinton in a party that is trying to move forward after a stunning defeat. 

Clinton has taken an active role in the party’s rebuilding with fundraising and assistance to candidates in the midterm elections. Clinton has also served as a sounding board for many candidates, including former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE and Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.).

Democrats who are not enthralled by any of the candidates during this presidential cycle have looked to Clinton as an option. 

“I think people look at Joe Biden and they wonder if he’s a strong enough candidate and they look at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE and think she’s too progressive and that’s why people are still looking elsewhere,” one Democratic donor said. 

And Clinton hasn’t exactly poured cold water on the storyline.

“She’s keeping herself in the headlines,” said Republican strategist John Feehery, who is also a columnist for The Hill. “She’s pretty active on Twitter.” 

The former secretary of State has been on a tour to promote “The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience,” which she co-authored with daughter Chelsea Clinton. 

During a stop this weekend in Portland, Ore., when an audience member suggested that she should enter the presidential race, Clinton laughed it off. “Oh my, thank you!” she said. 

During an interview with “PBS NewsHour” earlier this month, Clinton appeared to egg Trump on, when she quipped, “Maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again.” 

Trump has also kept his focus on Clinton, using her name as a tool to rally his base during press conferences, at campaign rallies and on Twitter. 

On Monday in an interview with Fox News, Trump said he’d like Attorney General William BarrBill BarrMilley discussed resigning from post after Trump photo-op: report OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ MORE to investigate Clinton. 

“Anybody that is opposed to her is a Russian agent,” Trump said in the interview with Sean HannitySean Patrick HannityHannity calls for abolishing chokeholds: Develop ‘rigorous system’ to hold ‘crooked cops accountable’ Former NYPD commissioner Kelly: If unrest continues, ‘we are going to need the National Guard’ Cable news audience numbers jump amid coronavirus, protests MORE. “These people are sick. There’s something wrong with them.” 

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

Breezango are getting their shot at the NXT Tag Team titles next week.

It was announced tonight that Breezango will challenge Imperium (Marcel Barthel & Fabian Aichner) for their Tag Team titles on NXT next Wednesday. Breezango became the number one contenders to the titles by defeating Undisputed Era’s Roderick Strong & Bobby Fish and Oney Lorcan & Danny Burch in a triple threat match last week.

That number one contender’s match was Fandango’s return to the ring after being out of action since December. It was said on commentary that he opted for physical therapy instead of surgery to heal the UCL injury he suffered in his left elbow.

A video highlighting Breezango aired on NXT tonight. It covered Fandango debuting at WrestleMania 29, the success Breeze had during his first stint in NXT, and them losing their focus on SmackDown. Breezango said they’re going to focus on entertaining the fans until the first bell rings and on winning until the second one rings.

Click Here: camiseta seleccion argentina

Imperium became the NXT Tag Team Champions by defeating Matt Riddle & Timothy Thatcher last month.