Former border super-hawk Kirsten Gillibrand: Sure, I could support tearing down some border fencing

Let this serve as your daily reminder that she is, in fact, The Worst™. I don’t use the term “border super-hawk” lightly either but she earned it for her approach to immigration as a young Blue Dog Dem representing a conservative district in upstate New York 10 years ago. In some alternate reality she never got appointed to the Senate and is currently Trump’s most hardcore Democratic backer in the House, pissing off progressives by backing him to the hilt on the wall.

Nah, I’m just kidding. A Twitter pal is right that she would have been wiped away as part of the big red wave of 2010. Instead we’re stuck in this reality, where she’s a pretend leftist who’s headed for one percent of the vote in the Democratic primaries. That’s the only consolation in watching this clip. Beto really might support open borders on the merits but Gillibrand’s simply saying the most expedient thing she can say, as she does at every moment. If a miracle occurred to make her the nominee and she suddenly had to face a purplish national electorate, she’d drop her open-borders stance as quickly as she dropped her strong-borders stance before.

Speaking of centrists and the Democratic primaries, Howard Schultz somehow figured out a way to get the left to hate him even more, a feat I would not have guessed was possible:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said Thursday that he would be willing to abandon his presidential ambitions midstream if Democrats nominate a centrist who makes it too difficult for him to win as an independent candidate…

A more moderate Democratic nominee, such as former vice president Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, could complicate Schultz’s perceived path to victory.

“I would reassess the situation if the numbers change as a result of a centrist Democrat winning the nomination,” Schultz said.

Having an independent run by Schultz scare Democratic primary voters into supporting a centrist as party nominee is the worst-case scenario for progressives, I assume. If they had to choose between, say, a binary Biden-versus-Trump race and a three-way contest between Bernie Sanders, Trump, and Schultz, I think they’d take the latter. At least in the second situation they get a nominee about whom they’re truly excited and who would push the country much further left if elected. And there’s no guarantee that Schultz would, as most pundits expect, end up pulling more votes from Sanders than from Trump. He *might* benefit Democrats by jumping in and stealing some center-right votes from suburbanites who dislike Trump but would otherwise prefer him to the Democratic candidate. Schultz is doing what little he can here to push them towards their least favorite outcome.

And when I say “little,” I do mean little. Very, very little.

Exit question: Has Open-Borders Beto finally decided to jump in? Sure sounds like it.