Bernie takes New Hampshire from Mayor Pete as two-way race emerges, Biden, Warren on the ropes:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/bernie-takes-new-hampshire-from-mayor-pete-as-two-way-race-emerges-biden-warren-on-the-ropes/

A two-way race has emerged in the Democratic presidential nomination as Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a self-professed democratic socialist, narrowly defeated former Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) in the all-important New Hampshire primary, 25.7 percent to 24.4 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.) were distant fourth and fifth place showings, putting their campaigns on life support without wins in the first two contests. This could be their political swan songs. Now, late-deciding voters in subsequent contests will likely choose between Sanders and Buttigieg — which is what usually happens. In more than three-quarters of the years where no incumbent Democrat was running for president — 1976, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016 — the nominee had won either Iowa or New Hampshire. It’s winner’s bias. Iowa and New Hampshire narrow the field. If you start off losing, and losing badly, then it’s harder to make a case that your campaign is viable. Do you donate money? Time? Energy? Or do you bet on the candidates who have a shot? History suggests the latter. What do you think?

National debt could hit $100 trillion by 2037 if Trump budget is ignored, cuts $4.4 trillion over 10 years:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/national-debt-could-hit-100-trillion-by-2037-if-trump-budget-is-ignored-cuts-4-4-trillion-over-10-years/

President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget have completed another budget, this time for Fiscal Year 2021, that proposes $4.4 trillion of spending cuts over the next decade and reaching balance within 15 years. Put another way, the Trump administration proposes spending $56.3 trillion over the next decade instead of the $60.7 trillion projected to be spent under current law. But, unless Congress acts on those proposals, the federal government will continue to spend the monies already allocated under the law—and then some—causing the national debt, now $23.2 trillion, to continue to skyrocket. Since 1980, the national debt has averaged 8.74 percent growth a year while the economy has only managed 5.4 percent nominal growth, that is, before adjusting for inflation. If these trends continue without any fiscal adjustments by Congress, by 2037, the national debt will reach a whopping $100 trillion, or about 192 percent of debt to GDP, which will only be about $56.5 trillion by that time. Will Congress ever cut spending?

Republican Presidents including Trump will have appointed a majority of federal judges before the end of 2020:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/republican-presidents-including-trump-will-have-appointed-a-majority-of-federal-judges-before-the-end-of-2020/

One of the effects of the Senate impeachment’s abrupt conclusion in President Donald Trump’s favor is that the Republican Senate can get right on with the business of confirming constitutionalists to federal court, of which Trump recently touted 191 having been confirmed. Since 1952, presidents have averaged 163 judges confirmed per term of office, which puts Trump well ahead of the game compared to other presidents. There are only 81 vacancies now, and 25 nominations pending, giving the President and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a clear window to get even more judges confirmed this year. Now, almost 50.8 percent of current federal judges have been appointed by Democratic presidents — 404 to 390 — according to the latest data from the Federal Judicial Center. Just consider that, to get to parity between the political parties on federal courts has taken three years of a Republican president, just to get it even. And even then, Republicans still don’t have a majority of judges, but they will soon. If the remaining 81 vacancies are filled, that number will fall to 46 percent, giving Republicans 54 percent of federal judges. Maybe that’s why Democrats wanted to slow down the Senate in 2020 with an endless impeachment trial. What do you think?

If not for President Trump’s courage and fortitude, the deep state coup might have succeeded:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/if-not-for-president-trumps-courage-and-fortitude-the-deep-state-coup-might-have-succeeded/

President Donald Trump has been locked in an unprecedented struggle with intelligence agencies and a rogue Justice Department that sought to destroy him, his campaign and eventually his presidency, since before he was elected—an effort if not to disenfranchise then certainly to demoralize the 63 million Americans who voted for him in 2016. President Trump is standing up for the Constitution, his office and the American people to secure liberty for everyone and to keep us out of war. No other president could have withstood this assault on our constitutional form of government and the basic ability to conduct foreign relations. But the damage has been palpable. For years to come, this will create a real obstacle for this President and future presidents to deal with Russia diplomatically. Future presidents might cower from Russia hawks in future administrations who might use similar blackmail to strong arm policy, leading us potentially into a unnecessary conflict. Under similar circumstances, with such allegations of treason pervasive against an administration, incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis might not be able to be resolved peacefully, making this madness, this national or at least partisan hysteria about Russia a bona fide threat to national security. In the nuclear age, presidents must have the ability to deal diplomatically with other nuclear powers. There is simply too much at stake. What do you think?

Trump exonerated with full acquittal in the Senate, but will Democrats ever accept election outcome and move this country forward?
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/trump-exonerated-with-full-acquittal-in-the-senate-but-will-democrats-ever-accept-election-outcome-and-move-this-country-forward/

President Donald Trump is riding high after a triumphant State of the Union Address and full acquittal by the U.S. Senate in his impeachment trial, and with a great, booming economy, it is looking increasingly unlikely whoever the Democratic nominee is will be able to defeat President Trump in November. Trump’s opponents can blame themselves as in many ways, Trump’s durability is a phenomenon of his opponents’ own making. The President has had to endure unending, sequential attempts either to prevent him from taking office or to promptly remove him once he did — only to emerge stronger each time. President Trump has prevailed against everything his opponents have thrown at him: Russiagate, Mueller, impeachment and so forth. Combine the President’s stamina with the lowest peacetime unemployment in modern history, sustained economic growth, new trade deals with Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and South Korea, and new tax cuts and deregulation, which the President highlighted in his State of the Union Address, and you have a solid recipe for reelection in 2020. This is a President who never gives up and will never surrender. He keeps winning, so why would 2020 be any different? The real question is: Will Democrats ever accept as legitimate the verdict of the American people if and when Trump wins again?

Dems feel the Bern as Sanders wins popular vote in Iowa, leads in New Hampshire as Democratic nomination could go socialist:
http://dailytorch.com/2020/02/dems-feel-the-bern-as-sanders-wins-popular-vote-in-iowa-leads-in-new-hampshire-as-democratic-nomination-could-go-socialist/

Believe it or not, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) may be the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination after ending essentially in a tie with Pete Buttigieg in Iowa and leading polls in New Hampshire, making it more likely that the self-avowed socialist will be the nominee to take on President Donald Trump in November. Former Vice President Joe Biden was a distant fourth place behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and should he lose in New Hampshire next week, the odds will be stacked against him. That’s because more likely than not, in the modern primary system for selecting party nominees, the candidate who wins either Iowa or New Hampshire is usually the candidate. In more than three-quarters of the years where no incumbent Democrat was running for president — 1976, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016 — the nominee had won either Iowa or New Hampshire. There are two notable exceptions. Bill Clinton managed to secure the nomination in 1992 without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire, and so did George McGovern back in 1972. Still, the advantage shifts to Sanders in this early going, making socialized single-payer medicine, universal basic income and the Green New Deal key issues on the front burner this election year on the Democratic side. Are Democrats about to nominate a socialist?