from one of the comments; apparently bolton is harder to subpoena after exec privilege in legal bro world on this than mulvaney is.
dems have talked a bolton for biden trade behind the scenes but I don’t know if R’s go for that. They prefer to do things like not take that deal then whine that dems aren’t willing to do deals kind of thing. Then again all the hearings on BENGHAZI worked out for them so who knows. They’re probably winging this like trump is.
republicans block evidence and witnesses
then immediately go on fox news with
they don’t have evidence or any witnesses against trump!
btw, the real vote on that is after the opening stuff.
But Republicans were expected to block the Democratic attempt to get an agreement on Bolton at the outset of the trial. The rules resolution being debated late Tuesday does not guarantee that additional witnesses or documents will be called. Instead, it sets up a vote after opening arguments and questions from senators on whether witnesses and documents will be in order.
If a simple majority votes that they are in order, both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team could then make motions to call witnesses. The Senate would then have to vote on whether or not to call those witnesses.
Democrats will need four Republican votes to support calling witnesses at the mid-trial juncture.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has indicated she is curious what Bolton might have to say, though she hasn’t committed to voting to call any witnesses.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) reiterated on Tuesday that he wants to hear from Bolton and anticipates he would vote to call witnesses later in the trial, but that he believes the vote on calling him should wait until after the initial phase of the trial.
“I will be in favor of witnesses I presume after hearing the opening arguments. I would like to hear from John Bolton,” he said.
I bought some Bolton at 26ish yeah why not. Also some steyer at.$.02 
It was at 71 cents earlier today
Bloomberg to win a single state seemed crazy high to me last time I checked in. Anyone really think he’s >20% chance to win anywhere? Name the state he’s going to win. All my gambling money is tied up right now but I would snap max-bet NO here.
I have the bloom no max bet thing, but I’m getting a little skittish, he just passed pete nationally (average is pretty close, recent average he’s ahead) and has a SB ad but nowhere is he 10% in a state that I’ve seen. CA/FL are either at his national numbers or just below them so I don’t know which super tuesday (or ish) states he’s gotta be over 10 in to make those numbers work. Maybe michigan?
Steyer got support in SC/NV because so many people have no idea anyone else is running.
It’s not like Yang where if Yang got over 5% anywhere but a troll state like NH I’d be like what?
I tied up all my sports gambling money on props already, there’s so many of them and a bunch are like, seriously?
There’s some discussion of it upthread, the scenario would be Biden exploding on stage and Bloomberg managing to capture the mantle of establishment favourite. It’s possible if unlikely. No is probably a decent bet but it’ll take a while before you get the return on your money.
either way, after march 10th it’s over (really probably the 3rd). Then it’s about what you’ll settle for now vs when it settles. 3rd is super tuesday, if bloom doesn’t win anything there it’s basically over, but I gave it the 10th, for MI and a few other states.
Dumping my McCabe and loading up as much as I can on Bloomberg. Jut don’t see how he has any path in any state.
My question as a casual observer is why does he spend $200 million on ads if he doesn’t even have a shot at placing 1st in any state?
He has access to same data we do and more. Why does he think he has a shot? Is it all hubris?
My assumption is just that there’s a lot of people in his orbit, that he trusts, telling him that he can win. And why shouldn’t they tell him that? They want him to like them, so they tell him what he wants to hear.
The fact that his candidacy, if it’s doing anything, is just helping bernie is just fucking gravy.
I’ve had this sneaking fear in the back of my mind since he started hopelessly blowing hundreds of millions on ads that it’s to set up a third party run.
I don’t think that’s likely but I’m not ruling it out.
bloomberg is also paying everyone way more than everyone else is. The campaign is actually going to other people’s staffers and telling them we’ll pay you more to work for me. (poaching is nothing new, but I don’t think I’ve heard of here’s more money to come work for us, more like that campaign is going down soon come over here sort of thing)
You gonna turn down a pile of money just because you don’t think he can actually win? People are smart enough to just do whatever he says rather than try to fight him.
helping bernie win the nomination just to run as a third party is some ±200IQ strat.
anyway, I think the bloom path is what’s happening in NH, pete/klob are hammering biden’s political lane there, maybe enough where biden strikes out in the state and then maybe biden’s lead in the midwest starts getting killed off, those voters then probably turn to the guy they saw on TV.
(except the south, where biden will win, but if bernie picks up anything down there, it’s a win for him)
Still very long Sanders in NH, but unloading some of the excess overweight acquired during the lol-Monmonth poll dip as we rise back to those pre-poll levels. If another Monmouth or Anslem comes out and it drops us back down, I’ll look to go overweight again.
still getting 90 or so on bernie to win Vermont is ridiculous. (it’s super tuesday, unlike delaware, for biden which is at the end of this)
Those biden leading NH polls were poor ones. I didn’t get much in there sadly.
I don’t have a math background and suspect this is pretty worthless from a predictit perspective, but I’ve been thinking about the 15% precinct level threshold for a candidate to remain viable. Someone who is polling statewide at 15% would fail to earn any delegates from like half of the precincts, while one polling at 30% would likely be viable in all of them. Seems like the kind of thing where there might be a huge difference between polling at say, 18% vs 22%, regardless of your relative position in the polls. I never see any real analysis of that kind of thing, though.