bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Tim Graham: The News That Biden Voters Didn’t Know

Journalists have strongly slanted the `` news '' during the Trump era in order to destroy Donald Trump 's presidency , and to destroy it early if possible .
Their actions betray that they feel they have important and influential platforms from which they can and should run America in between elections .
The voters can have a say for about two weeks every two years .
Recall 2004 , when Newsweek 's Evan Thomas admitted the press would go all in for Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees John Kerry and John Edwards , and that the effort would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' That was n't enough in 2004 .
But what about in elections decided by 3 or 4 points ?
The media felt robbed in 2016 because they had tried so hard .
And then they never let up .
The president 's being infected with coronavirus did n't even cause them to stop beating their war drums for a moment .
In this election , it was n't just the reporting power of the news media but the censorship power of Big Tech that could be credited with shaping the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Democrats harnessed the power of Big Tech to win this election . ''
In his partisan nightly newsletter , CNN 's Brian Stelter mocked Carlson : `` These are Jell-O arguments , all about emotion .
But I suspect that this will be the go-to position for many GOP media stars : Trump was robbed , thus we were robbed — no , we ca n't prove it , but we know it in our guts . ''
This is not an emotional argument .
You can watch the difference between CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and CNN reporters at President-elect Joe Biden 's press events .
It 's the difference between rabid tigers and domesticated kittens .
A new Media Research Center poll of 1,750 voters in seven swing states , conducted by The Polling Company , demonstrates how the suppression of news that was potentially damaging to Biden was successful : — Forty-five percent of Biden voters were unaware of the financial scandals of Hunter Biden , which were wrapped up in then-Vice President Joe Biden 's foreign-affairs power during Barack Obama 's presidency .
— Thirty-five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tara Reade 's allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her on Capitol Hill when she worked for him .
— Twenty-five percent of Biden voters said they did n't know about Sen. Kamala Harris ' left-wing ideology , that she was ranked America 's most `` progressive '' senator in 2019 .
The media also suppressed good news on President Trump 's record : — Forty-nine percent of Biden voters had no idea economic growth surged by 33 % in the third quarter of 2020 , which would be unheard of if not for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter .
— The five preelection jobs reports from June 5 to Oct. 2 showed a record 11.1 million jobs were created in the summer and fall .
But 39.4 % of Biden voters said they did n't know about this good news .
— Fifty-one percent of Biden voters did not know that in 2018 , the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in nearly 70 years .
— Forty-four percent of Biden voters had no idea that Trump 's team had helped broker historic agreements between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Biden voters said they did not know about the administration 's key role in promoting coronavirus vaccine research through Operation Warp Speed .
In every case , Biden voters said they might not have been Biden voters if the `` news '' media had done their job and reported all the news , rather than burying stories that did n't match their manipulative narratives .
One of every 6 Biden voters we surveyed ( 17 % ) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This would have swung the swing states the other way .
That 's why the media hit the Mute button .
Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org .
To find out more about Tim Graham , and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com .

Journalists have strongly slanted the "news" during the Trump era in order to destroy Donald Trump's presidency, and to destroy it early if possible. Their actions betray that they feel they have important and influential platforms from which they can and should run America in between elections. The voters can have a say for about two weeks every two years.
Recall 2004, when Newsweek's Evan Thomas admitted the press would go all in for Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees John Kerry and John Edwards, and that the effort would "be worth maybe 15 points." That wasn't enough in 2004. But what about in elections decided by 3 or 4 points? The media felt robbed in 2016 because they had tried so hard. And then they never let up. The president's being infected with coronavirus didn't even cause them to stop beating their war drums for a moment.
In this election, it wasn't just the reporting power of the news media but the censorship power of Big Tech that could be credited with shaping the election. Fox News' Tucker Carlson said that "Democrats harnessed the power of Big Tech to win this election."
In his partisan nightly newsletter, CNN's Brian Stelter mocked Carlson: "These are Jell-O arguments, all about emotion. But I suspect that this will be the go-to position for many GOP media stars: Trump was robbed, thus we were robbed — no, we can't prove it, but we know it in our guts."
This is not an emotional argument. You can watch the difference between CNN reporters at President Trump's press conferences and CNN reporters at President-elect Joe Biden's press events. It's the difference between rabid tigers and domesticated kittens.
A new Media Research Center poll of 1,750 voters in seven swing states, conducted by The Polling Company, demonstrates how the suppression of news that was potentially damaging to Biden was successful:
— Forty-five percent of Biden voters were unaware of the financial scandals of Hunter Biden, which were wrapped up in then-Vice President Joe Biden's foreign-affairs power during Barack Obama's presidency.
— Thirty-five percent of Biden voters were unaware of Tara Reade's allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her on Capitol Hill when she worked for him.
— Twenty-five percent of Biden voters said they didn't know about Sen. Kamala Harris' left-wing ideology, that she was ranked America's most "progressive" senator in 2019.
The media also suppressed good news on President Trump's record:
— Forty-nine percent of Biden voters had no idea economic growth surged by 33% in the third quarter of 2020, which would be unheard of if not for the extraordinary pandemic lockdown during the second quarter.
— The five preelection jobs reports from June 5 to Oct. 2 showed a record 11.1 million jobs were created in the summer and fall. But 39.4% of Biden voters said they didn't know about this good news.
— Fifty-one percent of Biden voters did not know that in 2018, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in nearly 70 years.
— Forty-four percent of Biden voters had no idea that Trump's team had helped broker historic agreements between Israel and Arab nations.
— Thirty-six percent of Biden voters said they did not know about the administration's key role in promoting coronavirus vaccine research through Operation Warp Speed.
In every case, Biden voters said they might not have been Biden voters if the "news" media had done their job and reported all the news, rather than burying stories that didn't match their manipulative narratives. One of every 6 Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. This would have swung the swing states the other way. That's why the media hit the Mute button.
Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Bitcoin Falls $3,000 After Nearing All-Time-High

LONDON — Bitcoin has plunged by close to $ 3,000 in less than 24 hours after hitting highs not seen since the end of 2017 .
The price of bitcoin was trading at $ 19,374 at 1:45 p.m. London time Wednesday when it began its slide .
The losses accelerated overnight , with the price falling from $ 18,824 at 2 a.m. Thursday to $ 16,857 by 9 a.m. , according to data from industry site CoinDesk .
Bitcoin has been on a tear in 2020 , skyrocketing over 150 % in a jump crypto enthusiasts have credited to unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid-19 crisis , as well as interest from big-name investors such as Paul Tudor Jones and Stanley Druckenmiller .
The latest tumble comes as many predicted the cryptocurrency would soon hit an all-time high of $ 20,000 .
Antoni Trenchev , a managing partner and co-founder of Nexo , which bills itself as the world 's biggest crypto lender , said he expects bitcoin to rally well into the $ 20,000s and beyond .
`` Long term I do n't see anything derailing Bitcoin 's irrevocable rise higher , '' said Trenchev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wo n't have pullbacks along the way .
Look what happened in March ; Bitcoin plunged 40 % in one day during the coronavirus market panic .
20-30 % falls can and should be expected . ''
He added : `` Any healthy market needs to have pullbacks and periods of consolidation .
Already in 2020 we 've seen a gain of 160 % . ''

LONDON — Bitcoin has plunged by close to $3,000 in less than 24 hours after hitting highs not seen since the end of 2017.
The price of bitcoin was trading at $19,374 at 1:45 p.m. London time Wednesday when it began its slide. The losses accelerated overnight, with the price falling from $18,824 at 2 a.m. Thursday to $16,857 by 9 a.m., according to data from industry site CoinDesk.
Bitcoin has been on a tear in 2020, skyrocketing over 150% in a jump crypto enthusiasts have credited to unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus in response to the Covid-19 crisis, as well as interest from big-name investors such as Paul Tudor Jones and Stanley Druckenmiller.
The latest tumble comes as many predicted the cryptocurrency would soon hit an all-time high of $20,000.
Antoni Trenchev, a managing partner and co-founder of Nexo, which bills itself as the world's biggest crypto lender, said he expects bitcoin to rally well into the $20,000s and beyond.
"Long term I don't see anything derailing Bitcoin's irrevocable rise higher," said Trenchev. "That doesn't mean we won't have pullbacks along the way. Look what happened in March; Bitcoin plunged 40% in one day during the coronavirus market panic. 20-30% falls can and should be expected."
He added: "Any healthy market needs to have pullbacks and periods of consolidation. Already in 2020 we've seen a gain of 160%."


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Michael Barone: No, GOP’s Gerrymandering Edge Is Not a Threat to Democracy

If Americans listened only to Democrats , they might be under ...

One of the many big surprises in this month’s surprising election was the Democrats’ failure to overturn Republican majorities in state legislatures. Various Democratic committees budgeted $88 million to flip majorities in big states such as Texas, Florida and North Carolina. Total gains: zero.
That’s a bad return on lavish investments in money and psychic energy. Liberals have been bemoaning partisan redistricting as a betrayal of democracy, as politicians removing choice from the people.
Such rhetoric is overheated and ahistorical. Those who have followed redistricting since the Supreme Court’s equal population decisions in 1964, as I have, know that redistricting can give a party a marginal and temporary advantage — but that the voters have the final say.
I remember few lamentations about the evils of redistricting in the cycles following the 1960, 1970 and 1980 censuses, when Democrats mostly controlled state legislatures and when Phillip Burton, who held what is now Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco seat, was crafting clever plans.
Partisan redistricting, plus skillful young politicians first elected in the Watergate years and crafty conservatives from the South, enabled Democrats to control the House for 40 straight years. High-minded liberals had no problems with redistricting then.
That started to change in the ’90s, as Watergate babies and Dixiecrats retired, died or were defeated and Newt Gingrich’s Republicans won a House majority in 1994. Redistricting was a partisan wash after the 1990 census, and Republicans had a clear advantage in the 2000 and 2010 census cycles. That helped them hold House majorities for 20 of the past 26 years and control 59 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers.
Hence the denunciations of partisan redistricting as the death of democracy.
Yet the GOP’s partisan advantage isn’t as overwhelming as it seems. Some eight states give some role in redistricting to supposedly nonpartisan independent commissions. Democrats have proved adept at gaming their proceedings. Voters have imposed restrictions on redistricters, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Democratic governors can veto Republican legislatures’ plans.
Technically, after this month’s elections, Republicans control redistricting in states with 188 congressional districts, and Democrats control it in states with only 47. But redistricters’ leverage is limited in the 35 states with fewer than 10 congressional districts.
The most important thing to understand about redistricting is that the equal-population standard set by the Supreme Court in 1964 limits the advantage any party or faction can gain over the 10-year period between censuses.
If you create too many 53 percent districts, you may end up losing most of them if your party’s percentage of the population there falls five points. That happened to Michigan Republicans in the 2010s, just as it did to California Democrats in the 1960s.
The other problem for partisan redistricters is that political alignments can change over a decade. As parties gain among one segment of the electorate (as Democrats have with high-credential voters and Republicans among blue-collar whites), districts that favored one party at the beginning of a decade swing toward the other before it ends. The affluent Houston and Dallas seats, which were the most Republican congressional districts in the nation in the 1980s, elected Democrats in 2018 and 2020.
Such changes are the rule rather than the exception. Neither party has won House majorities in all five congressional elections following the censuses of 1990, 2000 or 2010.
Next month, the Census Bureau will release the 2020 census totals that trigger the statutory formula reapportioning the 435 House seats among the states. Texas and Florida, which account for about one-third of the nation’s population growth since 2010, are expected to gain multiple seats, and five other states are expected to gain one each. New York, Illinois and (for the first time ever) California are among the 10 states expected to lose one each.
Then redistricters get to work in the states. RealClearPolitics analyst Sean Trende writes that with “non-aggressive” redistricting, Republicans could gain six seats, and Democrats could lose six seats — a small number, though enough to cost the Democrats their apparent 222-213 majority.
Partisan redistricters may get more aggressive, as Republicans did in the 2010 cycle after Illinois Democrats created multiple “bacon strip” districts extending from Chicago wards out through suburbs and into the countryside.
That could raise Republican net gains up to a dozen. But that’s about as many as they gained in this nonredistricting year.
One factor helping Republicans over the past two decades has been demography. Democratic voters — blacks, Hispanics, gentry liberals — tend to be clustered geographically, in central cities, sympathetic suburbs and university towns. Republican voters are spread around more evenly.
But maybe this is changing. This year, Donald Trump ran better than previous Republicans among Hispanics and blacks, and Joe Biden ran better than previous Democrats in affluent highly educated suburbs. Partisan redistricters will want to take these trends into account, but how long will the trends last, and how far will they extend? The perfect partisan redistricter requires a knowledge of the future, as well as the past.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--John Stossel: Private Property’s Harvest

Yes , we 've got the pandemic , lockdowns , a worsening deficit , etc .
But we still live in a relatively free country at the most prosperous time in human history .
The pandemic showed that when people are faced with crises , we adjust .
Restaurants switched to takeout and outdoor dining .
Grocery stores began curbside pickup .
Companies mass-produced masks , hand sanitizer , ventilators and , now , vaccines .
I hide from COVID-19 by staying home ; yet , thanks to new services such as Zoom , I can research this column and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That 's brought benefits .
I no longer have to deal with traffic congestion .
Traffic jams are a good example of what ecologist Garrett Hardin called the `` Tragedy of the Commons . ''
Because roads are free , more people drive , and roads are often congested .
If roads were subject to `` peak-load pricing , charging higher prices during times of peak demand and lower prices at other times , '' Hardin wrote , then we 'd have fewer traffic jams .
I bring this up now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Commons nearly killed the Pilgrims .
When they landed at Plymouth Rock , they started a society based on sharing .
But sharing , basically , is collective or communal farming , which is socialism .
Food and supplies were distributed based on need .
Pilgrims were forbidden to selfishly produce food for themselves .
That collective farming was a disaster .
When the first harvest came , there was n't much food to go around .
The Pilgrims nearly starved .
Since no individual owned crops from the farm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to produce extra that they might sell to others .
Since even slackers got food from the communal supply , there was no penalty for not working .
William Bradford wrote in his `` History of Plymouth Plantation '' that the colony was ridden with `` corruption '' and `` much was stolen both by night and day , before it became scarce eatable . ''
People eager to provide for their families were less eager to provide for others .
Bradford wrote , `` young men , that were most able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men 's wives and children without any recompense . ''
Ultimately , said Bradford , shared farming `` was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort . ''
The Pilgrims `` begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could , and obtaine a beter crope ( so ) they might not still thus languish in miserie . ''
Languishing in misery is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1623 , the collective farm was split up , and every family was given a plot of land .
People could grow their own food and keep it or trade it .
`` It made all hands very industrious , so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been . ''
wrote Bradford .
`` Women now went willingly into the field , and took their little ones with them to set corn ; which before would allege weakness and inability . ''
The Pilgrims flourished because they turned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be grateful for private property , a foundation of capitalism .
Your grocery may not have the small turkey you wanted this year , but they have much more of what you want than people in the Soviet Union ever got .
When you 're shopping for dinner or stocking up for Lockdown 2.0 , be glad that you have so many options available .
If government controlled the production of turkeys and toilet paper , this would be a very , very unhappy Thanksgiving .
John Stossel is author of `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exposed Hucksters , Cheats , and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media . ''

I'm thankful.
Yes, we've got the pandemic, lockdowns, a worsening deficit, etc.
But we still live in a relatively free country at the most prosperous time in human history.
The pandemic showed that when people are faced with crises, we adjust. Restaurants switched to takeout and outdoor dining. Grocery stores began curbside pickup. Companies mass-produced masks, hand sanitizer, ventilators and, now, vaccines. I hide from COVID-19 by staying home; yet, thanks to new services such as Zoom, I can research this column and make my weekly videos from my couch.
That's brought benefits. I no longer have to deal with traffic congestion.
Traffic jams are a good example of what ecologist Garrett Hardin called the "Tragedy of the Commons."
Because roads are free, more people drive, and roads are often congested. If roads were subject to "peak-load pricing, charging higher prices during times of peak demand and lower prices at other times," Hardin wrote, then we'd have fewer traffic jams.
I bring this up now, before Thanksgiving, because a similar Tragedy of the Commons nearly killed the Pilgrims. When they landed at Plymouth Rock, they started a society based on sharing.
Sharing sounds great.
But sharing, basically, is collective or communal farming, which is socialism. Food and supplies were distributed based on need. Pilgrims were forbidden to selfishly produce food for themselves.
That collective farming was a disaster. When the first harvest came, there wasn't much food to go around. The Pilgrims nearly starved.
Since no individual owned crops from the farm, no one had an incentive to work harder to produce extra that they might sell to others. Since even slackers got food from the communal supply, there was no penalty for not working.
William Bradford wrote in his "History of Plymouth Plantation" that the colony was ridden with "corruption" and "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
People eager to provide for their families were less eager to provide for others. Bradford wrote, "young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."
Ultimately, said Bradford, shared farming "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."
The Pilgrims "begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope (so) they might not still thus languish in miserie."
Languishing in misery is what people in Venezuela do now.
The Pilgrims' solution: private property.
In 1623, the collective farm was split up, and every family was given a plot of land. People could grow their own food and keep it or trade it. "It made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." wrote Bradford. "Women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability."
The Pilgrims flourished because they turned to private property.
So, this Thanksgiving, be grateful for private property, a foundation of capitalism.
Your grocery may not have the small turkey you wanted this year, but they have much more of what you want than people in the Soviet Union ever got.
When you're shopping for dinner or stocking up for Lockdown 2.0, be glad that you have so many options available.
If government controlled the production of turkeys and toilet paper, this would be a very, very unhappy Thanksgiving.
John Stossel is author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media."


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Walter E.Williams: Discrimination and Prejudice

Some of the confusion in thinking about matters of race stems from the ambiguity in the terms that we use .
I am going to take a stab at suggesting operational definitions for a couple terms in our discussion of race .
Good analytical thinking requires that we do not confuse one behavioral phenomenon with another .
Let 's start with `` discrimination . ''
Discrimination is the act of choice , and choice is a necessary fact of life .
Our lives are spent discriminating for or against different activities and people .
Some people shop at Wegmans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students discriminate against George Mason University in favor of attending Temple University .
Many people racially discriminate by marrying within their own race rather than seeking partners of other races .
People discriminate in many ways in forming contracts and other interrelationships .
In each case , one person is benefitted by discrimination and another is harmed or has reduced opportunities .
What about prejudice ?
Prejudice is a useful term that is often misused .
Its Latin root is praejudicium , meaning `` an opinion or judgment formed ... without due examination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prejudicial act as one where a decision is made on the basis of incomplete information .
The decision-maker might use stereotypes as a substitute for more complete information .
We find that in a world of costly information , people seek to economize on information costs .
Here is a simple yet intuitively appealing example .
You are headed off to work .
When you open your front door and step out , you are greeted by a full-grown tiger .
The uninteresting prediction is that the average person would endeavor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why he would do so is more interesting .
It is unlikely that the person 's fear and decision to seek safety is based on any detailed information held about that particular tiger .
More likely , his decision to seek safety is based on tiger folklore , what he has been told about tigers or how he has seen other tigers behave .
He prejudges that tiger .
He makes his decision based on incomplete information .
He uses tiger stereotypes .
If a person did not prejudge that tiger , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to his decision to run .
He might attempt to pet the tiger , talk to him and seek safety only if the tiger responded in a menacing fashion .
The average person probably would not choose that strategy .
He would surmise that the expected cost of getting more information about the tiger is greater than the expected benefit .
He would probably conclude , `` All I need to know is he 's a tiger , and he 's probably like the rest of them . ''
By observing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way one can say unambiguously whether the person likes or dislikes tigers .
Similarly , the cheaply observed fact that an individual is short , an amputee , black , or a woman provides what some people deem sufficient information for decision-making or predicting the presence of some other attribute that 's more costly to observe .
For example , if asked to identify individuals with doctorate degrees in physics only by observing race and sex , most of us would assign a higher probability that white or Asian men would have such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suppose you are a police chief and you 're trying to find the culprits breaking into cars , would you spend any of your resources investigating people in senior citizen homes ?
Using an observable attribute as a proxy for an unobservable or costly-to-observe attribute lies at the heart of decision theory .
Lastly , is there a moral dimension to discrimination and prejudice ?
Should one be indifferent about whether he attends Temple University or George Mason University and thus makes his decision by flipping a coin ?
Is it more righteous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to marry within or outside his race ?
Is it morally superior to be indifferent with respect to race in marriage , employment and socializing ?
Can one make a rigorous moral case for government coercion to determine whether one attends Temple University or George Mason University , marries outside of his race , or is indifferent about the racial characteristics of whom he employs ?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University .
To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com .

Some of the confusion in thinking about matters of race stems from the ambiguity in the terms that we use. I am going to take a stab at suggesting operational definitions for a couple terms in our discussion of race. Good analytical thinking requires that we do not confuse one behavioral phenomenon with another.
Let's start with "discrimination." Discrimination is the act of choice, and choice is a necessary fact of life. Our lives are spent discriminating for or against different activities and people. Some people shop at Wegmans and thus discriminate against Food Giant. Some students discriminate against George Mason University in favor of attending Temple University. Many people racially discriminate by marrying within their own race rather than seeking partners of other races. People discriminate in many ways in forming contracts and other interrelationships. In each case, one person is benefitted by discrimination and another is harmed or has reduced opportunities.
What about prejudice? Prejudice is a useful term that is often misused. Its Latin root is praejudicium, meaning "an opinion or judgment formed ... without due examination." Thus, we might define a prejudicial act as one where a decision is made on the basis of incomplete information. The decision-maker might use stereotypes as a substitute for more complete information.
We find that in a world of costly information, people seek to economize on information costs. Here is a simple yet intuitively appealing example. You are headed off to work. When you open your front door and step out, you are greeted by a full-grown tiger. The uninteresting prediction is that the average person would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch. Why he would do so is more interesting. It is unlikely that the person's fear and decision to seek safety is based on any detailed information held about that particular tiger. More likely, his decision to seek safety is based on tiger folklore, what he has been told about tigers or how he has seen other tigers behave. He prejudges that tiger. He makes his decision based on incomplete information. He uses tiger stereotypes.
If a person did not prejudge that tiger, then he would endeavor to seek more information prior to his decision to run. He might attempt to pet the tiger, talk to him and seek safety only if the tiger responded in a menacing fashion. The average person probably would not choose that strategy. He would surmise that the expected cost of getting more information about the tiger is greater than the expected benefit. He would probably conclude, "All I need to know is he's a tiger, and he's probably like the rest of them." By observing this person's behavior, there's no way one can say unambiguously whether the person likes or dislikes tigers.
Similarly, the cheaply observed fact that an individual is short, an amputee, black, or a woman provides what some people deem sufficient information for decision-making or predicting the presence of some other attribute that's more costly to observe. For example, if asked to identify individuals with doctorate degrees in physics only by observing race and sex, most of us would assign a higher probability that white or Asian men would have such degrees than black men or women. Suppose you are a police chief and you're trying to find the culprits breaking into cars, would you spend any of your resources investigating people in senior citizen homes? Using an observable attribute as a proxy for an unobservable or costly-to-observe attribute lies at the heart of decision theory.
Lastly, is there a moral dimension to discrimination and prejudice? Should one be indifferent about whether he attends Temple University or George Mason University and thus makes his decision by flipping a coin? Is it more righteous to use the same technique when choosing to marry within or outside his race? Is it morally superior to be indifferent with respect to race in marriage, employment and socializing? Can one make a rigorous moral case for government coercion to determine whether one attends Temple University or George Mason University, marries outside of his race, or is indifferent about the racial characteristics of whom he employs?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Salesforce in Talks to Buy Slack

Salesforce in Talks to Buy Slack

Salesforce is in talks to acquire Slack , and a deal could be announced as soon as next week , according to a person familiar with the matter .
Shares of Slack closed almost 38 % higher Wednesday after the Wall Street Journal first reported that Salesforce held talks to buy the company .
Salesforce , whose stock closed down 5 % on Wednesday , is scheduled to release its fiscal third-quarter earnings next week .
It 's unclear how much the deal would be worth .
Slack 's market cap ballooned to more than $ 20 billion following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been on an acquisition spree , taking advantage of its market cap growth in recent years to buy growing companies .
It acquired MuleSoft for $ 6.5 billion in 2018 , the company 's biggest deal ever at the time , to help connect cloud applications .
The following year it spent more than twice that amount on Tableau , acquiring the data visualization company for $ 15.3 billion .
Slack would be one of the biggest software deals ever for the industry .
It would rank among IBM 's $ 34 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Microsoft 's $ 27 billion purchase of LinkedIn in 2016 and Facebook 's $ 19 billion purchase of WhatsApp in 2014 .
`` This would be a game changer move for Benioff & Co. to further build out its collaboration engine and product footprint as cloud spending ramps across the enterprise , '' Wedbush Securities ' Dan Ives told CNBC , referring to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff .
Shares of Microsoft , which competes with Slack through its Teams offering , also dipped slightly on the report .
Microsoft already competes with Salesforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 TechCrunch reported that Microsoft looked at buying Slack for up to $ 8 billion , but no deal came about .
Later that year Microsoft introduced the Teams communication app .
`` Our primary competitor is currently Microsoft Corporation , '' Slack said when it sought to become a public company in 2019 .
Microsoft has a large customer base it has been able to convert to Teams , and Salesforce could give Slack a similar benefit .
Slack last said in October 2019 that it had more than 12 million daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Teams had racked up 115 million daily active users .
Spokespeople for Salesforce and Slack were not immediately available to comment .
-- CNBC 's Ari Levy and Jordan Novet contributed to this report .

Salesforce is in talks to acquire Slack , and a deal could be announced as soon as next week, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Shares of Slack closed almost 38% higher Wednesday after the Wall Street Journal first reported that Salesforce held talks to buy the company. Salesforce, whose stock closed down 5% on Wednesday, is scheduled to release its fiscal third-quarter earnings next week.
It's unclear how much the deal would be worth. Slack's market cap ballooned to more than $20 billion following the WSJ's original report.
Salesforce has been on an acquisition spree, taking advantage of its market cap growth in recent years to buy growing companies. It acquired MuleSoft for $6.5 billion in 2018, the company's biggest deal ever at the time, to help connect cloud applications. The following year it spent more than twice that amount on Tableau, acquiring the data visualization company for $15.3 billion.
Slack would be one of the biggest software deals ever for the industry. It would rank among IBM 's $34 billion purchase of Red Hat in 2019, Microsoft's $27 billion purchase of LinkedIn in 2016 and Facebook 's $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp in 2014.
"This would be a game changer move for Benioff & Co. to further build out its collaboration engine and product footprint as cloud spending ramps across the enterprise," Wedbush Securities' Dan Ives told CNBC, referring to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff.
Shares of Microsoft , which competes with Slack through its Teams offering, also dipped slightly on the report.
Microsoft already competes with Salesforce in software for tracking customers. In 2016 TechCrunch reported that Microsoft looked at buying Slack for up to $8 billion, but no deal came about. Later that year Microsoft introduced the Teams communication app.
"Our primary competitor is currently Microsoft Corporation," Slack said when it sought to become a public company in 2019. Microsoft has a large customer base it has been able to convert to Teams, and Salesforce could give Slack a similar benefit.
Slack last said in October 2019 that it had more than 12 million daily active users. In October Microsoft said Teams had racked up 115 million daily active users.
Spokespeople for Salesforce and Slack were not immediately available to comment.
-- CNBC's Ari Levy and Jordan Novet contributed to this report.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Student Debt Forgiveness Is Extremely Unpopular Among Economists

The total value of outstanding student loans in the United States currently stands at over $1.6 trillion. During the coronavirus crisis, federal student loan payments have been suspended to the end of the calendar year. Following the presidential election, there have been wider discussions of whether the incoming administration may consider some level of forgiveness of the debt.
Read More...
We invited our US panel to express their views on these issues. We asked the experts whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements, and, if so, how strongly and with what degree of confidence:
(a) Having the government issue additional debt to pay off all current outstanding student loans would be net regressive.
(b) Having the government issue enough additional debt to pay off student loans up to a threshold, for borrowers whose income is below a certain level, could be progressive.
(c) Extension of the suspension of payments on student loans after the end of the year would support the recovery more effectively than devoting equivalent resources to general income-based transfer payments.
Paying off all student loans
Of our 43 US experts, 42 participated in this survey. On the first statement about whether cancelling all student debt would be regressive – that is, benefiting people on higher incomes more than those on lower incomes – nearly three-quarters of the panel agreed, over a quarter were uncertain, and no one disagreed. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 25% of the panel strongly agreed, 48% agreed, 27% were uncertain, and 0% disagreed.
More details on the experts’ views come in the short comments that they are able to include when they participate in the survey. For example, David Autor at MIT, who strongly agrees with the statement, says: ‘Alongside my kids’ student loans, I’d like the government to pay off my mortgage. If the latter idea shocks you, the first one should too.’ Anil Kashyap at Chicago points to a recent Washington Post article by Adam Looney at the University of Utah and Brookings, as well as his earlier piece with Sandy Baum on who owes student debt.
Other panelists also direct us to background reading. Judith Chevalier at Yale notes: ‘While the Dynarski paper I cite is a few years old, the central finding that many people with substantial earnings have loans remains true’; and James Stock at Harvard links to another Brookings piece by Adam Looney analyzing Elizabeth Warren’s proposal during the Democratic primaries to forgive up to $50,000 of student debt for borrowers with household incomes of less than $250,000.
A number of experts refer to the characteristics of the likely beneficiaries of debt forgiveness. Eric Maskin at Harvard comments: ‘Blanket loan forgiveness would help those who went to college at the expense of those who didn’t’; Joseph Altonji at Yale remarks: ‘College graduates and advanced degree holders have higher earnings along with student loans’; and Aaron Edlin at Berkeley adds: ‘College graduates earn more than non-graduates though presumably those who pay off loans or didn’t borrow and wouldn’t benefit earn even more.’
Austan Goolsbee at Chicago, who says he is uncertain, comments: ‘The largest dollar amounts of student debt come from professional schools – MD, JD, MBAs. Waiving those is high income oriented.’ Richard Schmalensee at MIT adds: ‘Because of for-profit schools that added little value, one can’t be confident that former students have above-average median wealth.’ But Steven Kaplan at Chicago concludes: ‘Whether regressive or not, it is not a good idea for fairness and efficiency reasons.’
Several of the experts who say they are uncertain do so because it is unclear how paying off all student loans would ultimately be funded. Ray Fair at Yale says: ‘It depends on how the government debt will eventually be paid off.’ And Emmanuel Saez at Berkeley remarks: ‘Depends on how the government debt is going be repaid: progressive versus regressive taxation, or implicit inflation tax’.
Abhijit Banerjee at MIT, who agrees with the statement, nevertheless notes: ‘The answer depends on the financing of the extra government debt. I am assuming that it will be financed like everything else.’ Robert Hall at Stanford is of a similar view: ‘Depends on how the incremental debt is financed, a guessing game. But why would we think of paying off debt of people who are well off?’ And Daron Acemoglu at MIT says: ‘Would depend on how it’s done. Yes lots of student debt among those earning more than 100K a year. So risk of handout to yuppies is there.’
Paying off some student loans
On the second statement about whether forgiving student loans up to a threshold, for borrowers whose income is below a certain level, could be progressive, over 90% agreed and again none disagreed. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 11% of the panel strongly agreed, 80% agreed, 9% were uncertain, and 0% disagreed.
Of the many who agree, Daron Acemoglu says: ‘Yes this would be much better. Student debt is a problem for low and middle-income households, not those earning more than $100,000 or $150,000.’ Judith Chevalier notes: ‘There is evidence that extant income-driven repayment [IDR] plans are underutilized. Some form of ex post IDR strategy likely sensible.’ Richard Schmalensee comments: ‘Seems more likely than not, if ‘income’ is properly measured.’ And Christopher Udry at Northwestern concludes: ‘The design is not trivial, but it could be done.’
But even among the panelists who agree, there is some caution. David Autor warns: ‘This could create terrible incentives, both for labor supply and (bad) educational investments. Proceed with great caution.’ Robert Shimer at Chicago says: ‘But this may also lead to high implicit marginal tax rates and hence poor incentives.’ And Anil Kashyap notes: ‘Depends on the threshold and the limit, but chosen carefully this could be progressive. There are still major fairness issues with this idea’.
Of the panelists who are uncertain, Jonathan Levin at Stanford says: ‘Perhaps, but seems unlikely if you’re providing funds only to people who have attended college.’ And Caroline Hoxby at Stanford remarks: ‘An empirical, not logical, question. It would depend on the details. Data/analysis would be needed.’
Suspension of payments on student loans
On the third statement about the potential impact on the recovery of extending the suspension of payments on student loans after the end of this year, a majority disagreed that it would be more effective than devoting equivalent resources to general income-based transfer payments, and more than a third were uncertain. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 5% of the panel agreed, 37% were uncertain, 55% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed.
Of the experts who say they are uncertain, Larry Samuelson at Yale says: ‘Both would support recovery, but would be most effective if targeted to those in most need, and it’s not clear which would do this better’; but David Autor points out: ‘General income-based transfer payments could always be used to pay student loans. That’s the beauty of cash over in-kind transfers.’
Others comment on the targeting of the different policies. Among those who say they are uncertain, Caroline Hoxby explains: ‘People with student loans vary from young, living with parents, to older, supporting family on a reduced income. This would poorly targeted relief.’ Of those who disagree with the statement, Steven Kaplan notes: ‘Suspect you could target aid to those more in need than the typical student loan recipient.’
Richard Thaler at Chicago adds: ‘Seems like a weak stimulus. College grads are already saving a lot. It’s the bottom quartile that needs help the most and will spend it.’ And Aaron Edlin comments: Targeting aid to those who need it is most humane. That is probably also the best stimulus. Though stimulus doesn’t stop the pandemic.’
Several panelists reflect on the ease of implementing the two kinds of policy to support the recovery. Emmanuel Saez, who says he is uncertain, notes: ‘Cancelling interest on student debt is easy to implement. Income-based transfers based on current income (not past years’ income) is very hard.’ Austan Goolsbee, who also says he is uncertain, comments: ‘We do know one thing for certain: targeted debt relief is more stimulus than Congress not being able to do anything.’
Jose Scheinkman at Columbia disagrees with the statement but remarks on the potential politics: ‘However it may be easier to suspend student loan payments than to pass income-based transfer payments with a Republican Senate.’
All comments made by the experts are in the full survey results.
Romesh Vaitilingam
@econromesh
November 2020


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--(Watch) Alex Trebek Recorded Inspiring Thanksgiving Message Before His Death

Longtime “ Jeopardy !
” host Alex Trebek may have passed , but that doesn ’ t mean he can ’ t still influence us for the better .
Prior to his death at age 80 after an uphill battle with pancreatic cancer , the game show host took the time to record a Thanksgiving message that the show released on Thursday on its official Twitter account .
In the 20-second message , Trebek asked his fellow Americans to be thankful despite all the pain they have experienced .
“ Happy Thanksgiving , ladies and gentleman .
You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the world is experiencing right now , there are many reasons to be thankful .
There are more and more people extending helpful hands to do a kindness to their neighbors , and that ’ s a good thing , ” he said .
Trebek concluded his message by advising people to “ keep the faith.
” “ Keep the faith , we ’ re gon na get through all of this , and we will be a better society because of it , ” Trebek said .
Trebek died on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half battle with stage 4 pancreatic cancer .
As The Daily Wire reported , Trebek initially appeared to be on the mend after a first round of treatment that was eventually undone : The TV icon , whose avuncular personality and biting wit made the daily show a must-see for millions of Americans , announced in March 2019 that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer .
He went through chemotherapy after the diagnosis but said he had no plans to retire .
Trebek stayed on as host for another full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks of great depression that made me wonder if it was really worth fighting on.
” In one statement at the end of a show , Trebek noted that the odds of surviving a second year with pancreatic cancer were just 7 % , but said he hoped to be an outlier on that statistic .
Despite his overall positive message , Trebek did admit that he occasionally struggled with depression and sadness while battling the disease .
“ My oncologist told me one of the symptoms , if you will , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments of depression , sadness , ” Trebek said .
Trebek added that his wife , Jean , had to sometimes “ tread lightly ” in his presence as she took care of his difficult symptoms .
“ It ’ s always tough for caretakers because [ Jean ] has to deal with her worrying about my well-being , ” said Trebek .
“ I ’ m not always the most pleasant person to be around when I ’ m experiencing severe pain or depression , and she has to tread lightly around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon how his fight with pancreatic cancer helped him reflect upon his own mortality .
“ I have learned something in the past year and it ’ s this : We don ’ t know when we ’ re going to die , ” Trebek said .
“ Because of the cancer diagnosis , it ’ s no longer an open-ended life , it ’ s a closed-ended life because of the terrible … survival rates of pancreatic cancer .
Because of that , and something else that is operating here , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to let me know now , while I ’ m alive , about the impact that I ’ ve been having on their existence.
” The Daily Wire is one of America ’ s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news , opinion , and entertainment .
Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member .

Longtime “Jeopardy!” host Alex Trebek may have passed, but that doesn’t mean he can’t still influence us for the better.
Prior to his death at age 80 after an uphill battle with pancreatic cancer, the game show host took the time to record a Thanksgiving message that the show released on Thursday on its official Twitter account.
In the 20-second message, Trebek asked his fellow Americans to be thankful despite all the pain they have experienced.
“Happy Thanksgiving, ladies and gentleman. You know, in spite of what America and the rest of the world is experiencing right now, there are many reasons to be thankful. There are more and more people extending helpful hands to do a kindness to their neighbors, and that’s a good thing,” he said.
Trebek concluded his message by advising people to “keep the faith.”
“Keep the faith, we’re gonna get through all of this, and we will be a better society because of it,” Trebek said.
High on our list of things to be thankful for this year: Alex's Thanksgiving message from today's show. We hope you have a safe and happy Thanksgiving! pic.twitter.com/8OlpkSGi9r — Jeopardy! (@Jeopardy) November 26, 2020
Trebek died on November 8 after a year and a half battle with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. As The Daily Wire reported, Trebek initially appeared to be on the mend after a first round of treatment that was eventually undone:
The TV icon, whose avuncular personality and biting wit made the daily show a must-see for millions of Americans, announced in March 2019 that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He went through chemotherapy after the diagnosis but said he had no plans to retire. Trebek stayed on as host for another full year and talked openly about “massive attacks of great depression that made me wonder if it was really worth fighting on.” In one statement at the end of a show, Trebek noted that the odds of surviving a second year with pancreatic cancer were just 7%, but said he hoped to be an outlier on that statistic.
Despite his overall positive message, Trebek did admit that he occasionally struggled with depression and sadness while battling the disease.
“My oncologist told me one of the symptoms, if you will, of pancreatic cancer is that you get these moments of depression, sadness,” Trebek said.
Trebek added that his wife, Jean, had to sometimes “tread lightly” in his presence as she took care of his difficult symptoms.
“It’s always tough for caretakers because [Jean] has to deal with her worrying about my well-being,” said Trebek. “I’m not always the most pleasant person to be around when I’m experiencing severe pain or depression, and she has to tread lightly around me.”
With that, Trebek reflected upon how his fight with pancreatic cancer helped him reflect upon his own mortality.
“I have learned something in the past year and it’s this: We don’t know when we’re going to die,” Trebek said. “Because of the cancer diagnosis, it’s no longer an open-ended life, it’s a closed-ended life because of the terrible … survival rates of pancreatic cancer. Because of that, and something else that is operating here, people all over America and abroad have decided they want to let me know now, while I’m alive, about the impact that I’ve been having on their existence.”


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--China State Media Tries to Deflect Blame for Coronavirus

Chinese state media outlets are claiming that “ all available evidence suggests ” the coronavirus did not originate in Wuhan but instead came to China via imported frozen food .
“ All available evidence suggests that # COVID19 did not start in central China ’ s Wuhan , but may come into China through imported frozen food products and their packaging : experts , ” the Chinese state-run People ’ s Daily tweeted .
The claim was also pushed by the Chinese tabloid Global Times , but it has been disputed by health experts worldwide , including the Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is “ no evidence ” handling or consuming food transmits the disease .
“ When and where did the virus start circulating ?
Tracing the virus can not answer all questions , but it is very likely that the virus had co-existed in multiple places before being spotted in Wuhan , ” Zeng Guang , the former chief epidemiologist of China ’ s Center for Disease Control , Global Times .
Most health experts have concluded that the coronavirus although there is a dispute as to where specifically in that region the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suggest , however , that the virus was present in other places earlier than scientists previously thought , including a study released last week suggesting that the virus was .
The social media platform Twitter has been criticized since China ’ s claim was reported for not warning users of possible “ misinformation ” in a similar fashion to how the company handles concerns of other coronavirus claims or voter fraud .
“ There is no Twitter misinformation label on this tweet , ” Spectator contributor Stephen L. Miller tweeted .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The CCP needs to tread carefully , ” Sen. Ted Cruz ’ s national security adviser Omri Ceren posted .
“ If they post nonsense like this 16 or 17 more times , they may find themselves tagged by Twitter with a warning label , maybe.
” “ Honestly , why does n't this have a disclaimer from Twitter ?
” Heritage Foundation social media manager Lyndsey Fifield tweeted .
“ This is not just a debunked story — this is literal Chinese communist propaganda.
” Twitter did not immediately respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Examiner .

Chinese state media outlets are claiming that “all available evidence suggests” the coronavirus did not originate in Wuhan but instead came to China via imported frozen food.
“All available evidence suggests that #COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan, but may come into China through imported frozen food products and their packaging: experts,” the Chinese state-run People’s Daily tweeted.
All available evidence suggests that #COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan, but may come into China through imported frozen food products and their packaging: experts https://t.co/PPakQ6vJzW pic.twitter.com/540HQNrrr1 — People's Daily, China (@PDChina) November 25, 2020
The claim was also pushed by the Chinese tabloid Global Times, but it has been disputed by health experts worldwide, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said there is “no evidence” handling or consuming food transmits the disease.
“When and where did the virus start circulating? Tracing the virus cannot answer all questions, but it is very likely that the virus had co-existed in multiple places before being spotted in Wuhan,” Zeng Guang, the former chief epidemiologist of China’s Center for Disease Control, said in a Global Times article .
Most health experts have concluded that the coronavirus originated in Wuhan, China, although there is a dispute as to where specifically in that region the spread began .
There is some data to suggest, however, that the virus was present in other places earlier than scientists previously thought, including a study released last week suggesting that the virus was circulating in Italy in September 2019 .
The social media platform Twitter has been criticized since China’s claim was reported for not warning users of possible “misinformation” in a similar fashion to how the company handles concerns of other coronavirus claims or voter fraud.
“There is no Twitter misinformation label on this tweet,” Spectator contributor Stephen L. Miller tweeted. “It's been up for 14 hours.”
There is no Twitter misinformation label on this tweet. It's been up for 14 hours. https://t.co/riS8kksLka — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 25, 2020
“The CCP needs to tread carefully,” Sen. Ted Cruz’s national security adviser Omri Ceren posted. “If they post nonsense like this 16 or 17 more times, they may find themselves tagged by Twitter with a warning label, maybe.”
The CCP needs to tread carefully. If they post nonsense like this 16 or 17 more times, they may find themselves tagged by Twitter with a warning label, maybe. https://t.co/g529NLtGKB — Omri Ceren (@omriceren) November 25, 2020
“Honestly, why doesn't this have a disclaimer from Twitter?” Heritage Foundation social media manager Lyndsey Fifield tweeted. “This is not just a debunked story — this is literal Chinese communist propaganda.”
Honestly, why doesn't this have a disclaimer from Twitter? This is not just a debunked story—this is literal Chinese communist propaganda. https://t.co/kQH1O7ZzIo — Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) November 25, 2020
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Gov. Cuomo Responds to SCOTUS Ruling by Calling It “Irrelevant”

Upper Manhattan , parts of Staten Island and Long Island are ...

The Supreme Court’s order temporarily blocking New York from setting coronavirus capacity limits at houses of worship is “irrelevant” and “moot,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo claimed Thursday.
In the 5-4 decision, the court sided with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Orthodox Jewish synagogues, who sued Cuomo over his restrictions on congregating in state-designated coronavirus hot spots, saying his actions trampled on religious freedom.
Cuomo, in a Thanksgiving Day conference call with reporters, insisted the order was moot because the houses of worship in question in the curt battle are no longer in designated red and orange zones in Brooklyn in Queens so the restrictions no longer apply to them.
The safety restriction to tame the pandemic imposed attendance caps at houses of worship from 10 to 25 people, respectively. The plaintiffs argued that the restrictions violated their religious freedoms under the First Amendment and unfairly targeted them while businesses deemed essential, including groceries and takeout restaurants, were allowed to operate.
“The Supreme Court made a ruling. It’s more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo said, noting the court’s new conservative bent with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump.
“It’s irrelevant of any practical impact because of the zone they were talking about is moot. It expired last week,” the governor said, adding, “It doesn’t have any practical effect.”
“The lawsuit was about the Brooklyn zone. The Brooklyn zone no longer exists as a red zone. That’s mooted. So that restriction is no longer in effect. That situation just doesn’t exist because those restrictions are gone.”
The governor’s legal adviser Beth Garvey, said houses of worship are now governed by less restrictive 50 percent capacity limits.
In its decision, the nation’s highest court said its decision temporarily blocking Cuomo’s executive order on the 10- and 25-person occupancy limits remains in effect pending further deliberation in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They acknowledged the order narrowly addressed the zones in question, which are outdated.
Still in the larger context, the five justices in the majority warned they won’t tolerate violations of the First Amendment right to religious freedom — telegraphing what they might do on broader cases involving statewide restrictions on houses of worship, for example.
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the judges said.
“The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.
“There can be no question that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm…. If only 10 people are admitted to each service, the great majority of those who wish to attend Mass on Sunday or services in a synagogue on Shabbat will be barred.”
The justices noted that while worshippers can watch services on television or remotely, it’s not the same as personal attendance. Catholics who watch a Mass at home cannot receive communion and there are important religious traditions in the Orthodox Jewish faith that require personal attendance, the majority said.
Critics of Cuomo’s pandemic restriction hailed the order as a victory for religious freedom.
“Power-hungry Democrats like Cuomo have used the pandemic as an excuse to target people of faith with radical restrictions. It has no basis in science, and the Supreme Court agrees,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy.
“This is a win for religious liberty, and a reason to be thankful today!”
Said Staten Island Congresswoman-elect Nicole Malliotakis, “Last night’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for religious institutions, their congregations and all freedom-loving Americans.
“Governor Cuomo’s arbitrary restrictions not only infringed on our First Amendment rights but did not take into account building capacity or safety protocols put in place. It is fitting that the Court’s decision was made on the eve of Thanksgiving, a holiday founded by Pilgrims who settled in North America in search of religious freedom. New Yorkers and all Americans have one more thing to be thankful for today.”
Brooklyn Councilman Kalman Yeger (D-Borough Park) responded in a tweet, “Thanks to @AgudahNews & @BrooklynDiocese for fighting this important battle! On this #ThanksgivingDay, I’m thankful that the U.S. Constitution still protects New Yorkers.”


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Texas Judge Pleads Guilty to Violating His Own Stay-at-Home Order

A judge in Texas , Bill Gravell , pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after he violated his stay-at-home order to attend his grandson ’ s birthday party .
“ While I carry the heavy public burden of guiding the policies that best protect our citizens , I am also a husband , father and grandfather , ” Gravell said in a statement .
“ It was in this role that I visited my 5-year-old grandson on his birthday .
Pawpaw Bill made an error in judgement that County Judge Gravell deeply regrets.
” Gravell was caught on camera in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment from the county , which also resulted in the fire chief apologizing for providing the judge something he could “ not provide everyone.
” The judge issued the stay-at-home order in March , which prohibited all public and private gatherings outside of a person 's household , closed nonessential businesses , and restricted residents from using public transit except to carry out essential activities .
County residents faced jail time and fines for leaving their homes unless it was for essential business .
Gravell pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor in exchange for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges , abuse of official capacity and official oppression .
According to Gravell ’ s lawyer , Bill Hines , the judge is the only person in the county to be prosecuted for violating the order and will pay a $ 1,000 fine .
“ He does accept responsibility , ” Hines said .
“ He made a mistake as a grandfather .
He ’ s paying the maximum penalty for that .
”

A judge in Texas, Bill Gravell, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after he violated his stay-at-home order to attend his grandson’s birthday party.
“While I carry the heavy public burden of guiding the policies that best protect our citizens, I am also a husband, father and grandfather,” Gravell said in a statement. “It was in this role that I visited my 5-year-old grandson on his birthday. Pawpaw Bill made an error in judgement that County Judge Gravell deeply regrets.”
Gravell was caught on camera in April going to the birthday party in firefighting equipment from the county, which also resulted in the fire chief apologizing for providing the judge something he could “not provide everyone.”
The judge issued the stay-at-home order in March, which prohibited all public and private gatherings outside of a person's household, closed nonessential businesses, and restricted residents from using public transit except to carry out essential activities. County residents faced jail time and fines for leaving their homes unless it was for essential business.
Gravell pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor in exchange for special prosecutor Bill Torrey dropping two other charges, abuse of official capacity and official oppression.
According to Gravell’s lawyer, Bill Hines, the judge is the only person in the county to be prosecuted for violating the order and will pay a $1,000 fine.
“He does accept responsibility,” Hines said. “He made a mistake as a grandfather. He’s paying the maximum penalty for that.”


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Biden’s Labor Secretary Candidate Oversaw Hundreds of Millions in Fraudulent Payments to California

Biden’s Labor Secretary Candidate Oversaw Hundreds of Millions in Fraudulent Payments to California Prison Inmates

A frontrunner to be president-elect Joe Biden 's labor secretary oversaw the payment of nearly $ 1 billion in fraudulent benefits to California prison inmates .
Julie Su is the secretary of California 's Labor and Workforce Development Agency , which operates the state 's pandemic unemployment system .
The system paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent unemployment payments to prison inmates and convicts , prosecutors announced on Tuesday .
The fraud involved over 35,000 unemployment claims filed between March and August under the names of California state prison inmates .
The inmates included two serial killers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight people , as well as the well-known murderer Scott Peterson , who was convicted in 2004 for killing his pregnant wife .
The Sacramento County district attorney called the scandal `` one of the biggest fraud of taxpayer dollars in California history . ''
A spokeswoman for the agency 's Employment Development Department told the Washington Free Beacon the department has been working with the U.S. Labor Department to identify fraudulent claims from inmates and is `` pursuing how to integrate such cross-matches moving forward as part of enhanced prevention efforts during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country . ''
The agency 's logistical problems also resulted in the delay of unemployment payments for as many as 1.8 million Californians during the initial stages of the state 's shutdown over the coronavirus pandemic .
Su took responsibility for the agency 's logistical delays in April .
She said she needed to `` own the things that we are not doing right '' and fix the agency 's problems .
The Employment Development Department still experienced delays and fraud throughout the year , however , and faced demands from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President-elect Biden 's transition team did not respond to a request for comment on Su 's candidacy for labor secretary .
One of the district attorneys leading the task force investigating the fraud said the `` vast majority '' of the money will never be repaid .
California is not the only state to be plagued by unemployment fraud amid the coronavirus pandemic .
The Labor Department 's inspector general said a total of $ 26 billion in federal aid programs could be lost to fraud by the end of the crisis .

A frontrunner to be president-elect Joe Biden's labor secretary oversaw the payment of nearly $1 billion in fraudulent benefits to California prison inmates.
Julie Su is the secretary of California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which operates the state's pandemic unemployment system. The system paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent unemployment payments to prison inmates and convicts, prosecutors announced on Tuesday.
The fraud involved over 35,000 unemployment claims filed between March and August under the names of California state prison inmates. The inmates included two serial killers responsible for the deaths of at least eight people, as well as the well-known murderer Scott Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 for killing his pregnant wife. The Sacramento County district attorney called the scandal "one of the biggest fraud of taxpayer dollars in California history."
A spokeswoman for the agency's Employment Development Department told the Washington Free Beacon the department has been working with the U.S. Labor Department to identify fraudulent claims from inmates and is "pursuing how to integrate such cross-matches moving forward as part of enhanced prevention efforts during this unprecedented time of pandemic-related unemployment fraud across the country."
The agency's logistical problems also resulted in the delay of unemployment payments for as many as 1.8 million Californians during the initial stages of the state's shutdown over the coronavirus pandemic.
Su took responsibility for the agency's logistical delays in April. She said she needed to "own the things that we are not doing right" and fix the agency's problems. The Employment Development Department still experienced delays and fraud throughout the year, however, and faced demands from lawmakers for an audit in September.
President-elect Biden's transition team did not respond to a request for comment on Su's candidacy for labor secretary.
One of the district attorneys leading the task force investigating the fraud said the "vast majority" of the money will never be repaid.
California is not the only state to be plagued by unemployment fraud amid the coronavirus pandemic. The Labor Department's inspector general said a total of $26 billion in federal aid programs could be lost to fraud by the end of the crisis.


bonginoreport--2020-11-26--Michigan Gov Whitemer Nominated for Time “Person of the Year”

Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) has been nominated to be Time magazine ’ s “ Person of the Year.
” The magazine published the list on Wednesday .
Perhaps the most notable person listed is President Donald Trump , who was previously named “ Person of the Year ” in 2016 after winning the presidency .
Whitmer is in the running with : New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) is the only other state level politician in the running .
Like Cuomo , Whitmer has faced backlash from state residents over the heavy-handed nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo , Whitmer has been met with criticism over her controversial policy of putting virus-infected patients into nursing homes to recuperate .
In June , state Sen. Peter Lucido ( R ) vowed if he was elected Macomb County prosecutor , he would charge the governor over the deaths of nursing home patients in that county .
If we have the information that supports a conviction , which means I can look down at the data , which is not there , the science , which is not there , and have doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical decisions that were made here were made unilaterally by one person only — Gretchen Whitmer — you ’ re damn right he ’ s going to get charged because she deserves to own up to those deaths in those nursing homes .
Republican state Rep. Matt Maddock recently announced an effort to impeach Whitmer over her handling of the scandal .
He argued if Whitmer had not acted unilaterally , such a disastrous policy would not have been implemented .
“ There would have been open debate and discussion on the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not this was a good idea or a bad idea to send people who are Covid-positive into our nursing homes with people who are frail , ” Maddock said .
“ And I guarantee you this : There would not be one vote on the House or the Senate floor that would have allowed her to do that or thought that was a good idea , ” he said , dubbing Whitmer a “ Mean Karen.
” “ Some of them starved themselves to death , ” he said .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many families watched their grandparents and great-grandparents die in a Zoom call .
Can you believe that ?
” Kyle Olson is a reporter for Breitbart News .
He is also host of “ The Kyle Olson Show , ” syndicated on Michigan radio stations on Saturdays—download full podcast episodes .
Follow him on Parler .

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has been nominated to be Time magazine’s “Person of the Year.”
The magazine published the list on Wednesday. Perhaps the most notable person listed is President Donald Trump, who was previously named “Person of the Year” in 2016 after winning the presidency.
Whitmer is in the running with:
Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos
Rapper Kanye West
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai
Pope Francis
Singer Billie Eilish
Dr. Anthony Fauci
Prince Harry
Artist Megan Thee Stallion
Vice President Mike Pence
Global warming activist Greta Thunberg, who won in 2019
Artist Bad Bunny
Black Lives Matter activists
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is the only other state level politician in the running.
Like Cuomo, Whitmer has faced backlash from state residents over the heavy-handed nature of her coronavirus-related edicts. And like Cuomo, Whitmer has been met with criticism over her controversial policy of putting virus-infected patients into nursing homes to recuperate.
In June, state Sen. Peter Lucido (R) vowed if he was elected Macomb County prosecutor, he would charge the governor over the deaths of nursing home patients in that county.
Lucido told the No BS News Hour podcast:
If we have the information that supports a conviction, which means I can look down at the data, which is not there, the science, which is not there, and have doctors come to testify to support that the medical decisions that were made here were made unilaterally by one person only — Gretchen Whitmer — you’re damn right he’s going to get charged because she deserves to own up to those deaths in those nursing homes.
Republican state Rep. Matt Maddock recently announced an effort to impeach Whitmer over her handling of the scandal.
He argued if Whitmer had not acted unilaterally, such a disastrous policy would not have been implemented.
“There would have been open debate and discussion on the House floor and in the Senate about whether or not this was a good idea or a bad idea to send people who are Covid-positive into our nursing homes with people who are frail,” Maddock said.
“And I guarantee you this: There would not be one vote on the House or the Senate floor that would have allowed her to do that or thought that was a good idea,” he said, dubbing Whitmer a “Mean Karen.”
“Some of them starved themselves to death,” he said. “They were so depressed, they stopped eating. Many families watched their grandparents and great-grandparents die in a Zoom call. Can you believe that?”
Kyle Olson is a reporter for Breitbart News. He is also host of “The Kyle Olson Show,” syndicated on Michigan radio stations on Saturdays—download full podcast episodes. Follow him on Parler.


bonginoreport--2020-11-27--Michael Barone: Republicans Retain a Marginal Advantage in Redistricting

One of the many big surprises in this month 's surprising election was the Democrats ' failure to overturn Republican majorities in state legislatures .
Various Democratic committees budgeted $ 88 million to flip majorities in big states such as Texas , Florida and North Carolina .
Total gains : zero .
That 's a bad return on lavish investments in money and psychic energy .
Liberals have been bemoaning partisan redistricting as a betrayal of democracy , as politicians removing choice from the people .
Such rhetoric is overheated and ahistorical .
Those who have followed redistricting since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1964 , as I have , know that redistricting can give a party a marginal and temporary advantage — but that the voters have the final say .
I remember few lamentations about the evils of redistricting in the cycles following the 1960 , 1970 and 1980 censuses , when Democrats mostly controlled state legislatures and when Phillip Burton , who held what is now Nancy Pelosi 's San Francisco seat , was crafting clever plans .
Partisan redistricting , plus skillful young politicians first elected in the Watergate years and crafty conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control the House for 40 straight years .
High-minded liberals had no problems with redistricting then .
That started to change in the 1990s , as Watergate babies and Dixiecrats retired , died or were defeated and Newt Gingrich 's Republicans won a House majority in 1994 .
Redistricting was a partisan wash after the 1990 census , and Republicans had a clear advantage in the 2000 and 2010 census cycles .
That helped them hold House majorities for 20 of the past 26 years and control 59 of the nation 's 99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of partisan redistricting as the death of democracy .
Yet the Republicans ' partisan advantage is not as overwhelming as it seems .
Some eight states give some role in redistricting to supposedly nonpartisan independent commissions .
Democrats have proved adept at gaming their proceedings .
Voters have imposed restrictions on redistricters , and in Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin , Democratic governors can veto Republican legislatures ' plans .
Technically , after this month 's elections , Republicans control redistricting in states with 188 congressional districts , and Democrats control it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' leverage is limited in the 35 states with fewer than 10 congressional districts .
The most important thing to understand about redistricting is that the equal-population standard set by the Supreme Court in 1964 limits the advantage any party or faction can gain over the 10-year period between censuses .
If you create too many 53 % districts , you may end up losing most of them if your party 's percentage of the population there falls 5 points .
That happened to Michigan Republicans in the 2010s , just as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The other problem for partisan redistricters is that political alignments can change over a decade .
As parties gain among one segment of the electorate ( as Democrats have with high-credential voters and Republicans among blue-collar whites ) , districts that favored one party at the beginning of a decade swing toward the other before it ends .
The affluent Houston and Dallas seats , which were the most Republican congressional districts in the nation in the 1980s , elected Democrats in 2018 and 2020 .
Such changes are the rule rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won House majorities in all five congressional elections following the censuses of 1990 , 2000 or 2010 .
Next month , the Census Bureau will release the 2020 census totals that trigger the statutory formula reapportioning the 435 House seats among the states .
Texas and Florida , which account for about one-third of the nation 's population growth since 2010 , are expected to gain multiple seats , and five other states are expected to gain one each .
New York , Illinois and ( for the first time ever ) California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose one each .
Then redistricters get to work in the states .
RealClearPolitics analyst Sean Trende writes that with `` non-aggressive '' redistricting , Republicans could gain six seats , and Democrats could lose six seats — a small number though enough to cost the Democrats their apparent 222-213 majority .
Partisan redistricters may get more aggressive , as Republicans did in the 2010 cycle after Illinois Democrats created multiple `` bacon strip '' districts extending from Chicago wards out through suburbs and into the countryside .
That could raise Republican net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 's about as many as they gained in this nonredistricting year .
One factor helping Republicans over the past two decades has been demography .
Democratic voters — blacks , Hispanics , gentry liberals — tend to be clustered geographically , in central cities , sympathetic suburbs and university towns .
Republican voters are spread around more evenly .
But maybe this is changing .
This year , Donald Trump ran better than previous Republicans among Hispanics and blacks , and Joe Biden ran better than previous Democrats in affluent highly educated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take these trends into account , but how long will the trends last , and how far will they extend ?
The perfect partisan redistricter requires a knowledge of the future as well as the past .
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner , resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics .

One of the many big surprises in this month's surprising election was the Democrats' failure to overturn Republican majorities in state legislatures. Various Democratic committees budgeted $88 million to flip majorities in big states such as Texas, Florida and North Carolina. Total gains: zero.
That's a bad return on lavish investments in money and psychic energy. Liberals have been bemoaning partisan redistricting as a betrayal of democracy, as politicians removing choice from the people.
Such rhetoric is overheated and ahistorical. Those who have followed redistricting since the Supreme Court's equal population decisions in 1964, as I have, know that redistricting can give a party a marginal and temporary advantage — but that the voters have the final say.
I remember few lamentations about the evils of redistricting in the cycles following the 1960, 1970 and 1980 censuses, when Democrats mostly controlled state legislatures and when Phillip Burton, who held what is now Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco seat, was crafting clever plans.
Partisan redistricting, plus skillful young politicians first elected in the Watergate years and crafty conservatives from the South, enabled Democrats to control the House for 40 straight years. High-minded liberals had no problems with redistricting then.
That started to change in the 1990s, as Watergate babies and Dixiecrats retired, died or were defeated and Newt Gingrich's Republicans won a House majority in 1994. Redistricting was a partisan wash after the 1990 census, and Republicans had a clear advantage in the 2000 and 2010 census cycles. That helped them hold House majorities for 20 of the past 26 years and control 59 of the nation's 99 state legislative chambers.
Hence the denunciations of partisan redistricting as the death of democracy.
Yet the Republicans' partisan advantage is not as overwhelming as it seems. Some eight states give some role in redistricting to supposedly nonpartisan independent commissions. Democrats have proved adept at gaming their proceedings. Voters have imposed restrictions on redistricters, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Democratic governors can veto Republican legislatures' plans.
Technically, after this month's elections, Republicans control redistricting in states with 188 congressional districts, and Democrats control it in states with only 47. But redistricters' leverage is limited in the 35 states with fewer than 10 congressional districts.
The most important thing to understand about redistricting is that the equal-population standard set by the Supreme Court in 1964 limits the advantage any party or faction can gain over the 10-year period between censuses.
If you create too many 53% districts, you may end up losing most of them if your party's percentage of the population there falls 5 points. That happened to Michigan Republicans in the 2010s, just as it did to California Democrats in the 1960s.
The other problem for partisan redistricters is that political alignments can change over a decade. As parties gain among one segment of the electorate (as Democrats have with high-credential voters and Republicans among blue-collar whites), districts that favored one party at the beginning of a decade swing toward the other before it ends. The affluent Houston and Dallas seats, which were the most Republican congressional districts in the nation in the 1980s, elected Democrats in 2018 and 2020.
Such changes are the rule rather than the exception. Neither party has won House majorities in all five congressional elections following the censuses of 1990, 2000 or 2010.
Next month, the Census Bureau will release the 2020 census totals that trigger the statutory formula reapportioning the 435 House seats among the states. Texas and Florida, which account for about one-third of the nation's population growth since 2010, are expected to gain multiple seats, and five other states are expected to gain one each. New York, Illinois and (for the first time ever) California are among the 10 states expected to lose one each.
Then redistricters get to work in the states. RealClearPolitics analyst Sean Trende writes that with "non-aggressive" redistricting, Republicans could gain six seats, and Democrats could lose six seats — a small number though enough to cost the Democrats their apparent 222-213 majority.
Partisan redistricters may get more aggressive, as Republicans did in the 2010 cycle after Illinois Democrats created multiple "bacon strip" districts extending from Chicago wards out through suburbs and into the countryside.
That could raise Republican net gains up to a dozen. But that's about as many as they gained in this nonredistricting year.
One factor helping Republicans over the past two decades has been demography. Democratic voters — blacks, Hispanics, gentry liberals — tend to be clustered geographically, in central cities, sympathetic suburbs and university towns. Republican voters are spread around more evenly.
But maybe this is changing. This year, Donald Trump ran better than previous Republicans among Hispanics and blacks, and Joe Biden ran better than previous Democrats in affluent highly educated suburbs. Partisan redistricters will want to take these trends into account, but how long will the trends last, and how far will they extend? The perfect partisan redistricter requires a knowledge of the future as well as the past.
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.


bonginoreport--2020-11-27--Larry Elder: ‘Never’ and ‘Infrequent’ Voters Vote Democrat

The campaigns of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden aggressively pursued votes from those who never voted or who only did so infrequently .
In October , The New York Times wrote : `` Both parties are succeeding in one of their chief goals this year : to motivate large numbers of infrequent voters or nonvoters to come off the sidelines for what supporters of both nominees call the most crucial election of a lifetime . ''
How successful have the campaigns been in shaking loose these never or infrequent voters ?
According to TargetSmart , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Due to the coronavirus pandemic , some 7.3 million infrequent and first-time voters cast ballots as of Oct. 20 , over twice the number cast at the same time during the 2016 election .
Who are these `` never '' or `` infrequent '' voters ?
According to TargetSmart , a `` first-time '' voter `` has no vote history reported in any general or primary election currently available '' and an `` infrequent '' voter `` is in the bottom two quintiles of voting frequency for general and primary elections . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nate Silver , the former New York Times writer/statistician , found : `` Of the 8,000-plus people we polled , we were able to match nearly 6,000 to their voting history .
We analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group , and found that they fell into three broad groups : 1 ) people who almost always vote ; 2 ) people who sometimes vote ; and 3 ) people who rarely or never vote .
People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group ( 44 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote . ''
It turns out that their failure to vote is not because they do n't know how to register or because they find registration is difficult or inconvenient .
The Heritage Foundation noted in 2013 : `` Of the 146 million people who the Census Bureau reported were registered to vote in 2008 , 15 million ( 10 percent ) did not vote .
Of those who did not vote , only 6 percent cited registration problems as the reason for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these registered but nonvoters said they did not vote for reasons ranging from forgetting to vote to not liking the candidates or the campaign issues or simply not being interested .
... '' Only 4 percent of individuals reported not registering to vote because they did 'not know where or how to register . '
... '' Thus , according to the federal government 's own surveys , the claim that 'the single greatest cause of voting problems in the United States ' is the voter registration system is false .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not voting are their lack of interest in politics and candidates and other reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with registration or lack of registration . ''
So , which party benefits more from getting the never/infrequent voters ?
According to TargetSmart 's CEO , Tom Bonier , `` If we want to look at it in terms of who has more intensity and where does the advantage lie , it 's in these infrequent and first-time voters . ''
He estimates that this advantage group is plus 16 percentage points for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` A rise in that number appears to be good news for Democrats .
Forty-three percent of the infrequent and new voters are registered Democrats , compared to a quarter who are Republicans .
The remaining third are registered as independents or with a minor party -- a group that tends to favor Democratic candidates . ''
Take Pennsylvania .
Before the election , the AP wrote : `` The obstacle for Trump is that Democrats -- they had a competitive presidential primary -- have more voters and generated a better return rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered but did not vote in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties in 2016 .
But during this year 's primary , more than 34,300 of them became voters and cast ballots .
That 's more than double the gains in Republicans from the 10 leading Trump counties . ''
This should not be surprising .
Democrats want statehood for Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico because this would produce four new Democratic senators .
Do you think they want ex-cons to be able to register to vote because they 're Goldwater Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to `` progressive '' ideas -- in other words , Democrats .
President Barack Obama had no doubt that a surge of never or infrequent voters would benefit Democrats .
In a 2015 town hall , Obama addressed a question about the effect of a policy of `` mandatory voting . ''
He said : `` Other countries have mandatory voting .
It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything .
...
The people who tend not to vote are young , they 're lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward immigrant groups and minorities .
...
There 's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls . ''
That sounds about right .
The people who do n't vote or rarely vote do so because they chose not to , because they 're indifferent or because they do n't believe their vote will make any difference .
Sounds like Democrats to me .
Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host .
His latest book , `` The New Trump Standard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for Nook , Kindle , iBooks and GooglePlay .
To find out more about Larry Elder , or become an `` Elderado , '' visit www.LarryElder.com .
Follow Larry on Twitter @ LarryElder .

The campaigns of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden aggressively pursued votes from those who never voted or who only did so infrequently. In October, The New York Times wrote: "Both parties are succeeding in one of their chief goals this year: to motivate large numbers of infrequent voters or nonvoters to come off the sidelines for what supporters of both nominees call the most crucial election of a lifetime."
How successful have the campaigns been in shaking loose these never or infrequent voters? According to TargetSmart, a Democratic voting analytical firm, very. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, some 7.3 million infrequent and first-time voters cast ballots as of Oct. 20, over twice the number cast at the same time during the 2016 election.
Who are these "never" or "infrequent" voters?
According to TargetSmart, a "first-time" voter "has no vote history reported in any general or primary election currently available" and an "infrequent" voter "is in the bottom two quintiles of voting frequency for general and primary elections."
FiveThirtyEight, the website set up by Nate Silver, the former New York Times writer/statistician, found: "Of the 8,000-plus people we polled, we were able to match nearly 6,000 to their voting history. We analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group, and found that they fell into three broad groups: 1) people who almost always vote; 2) people who sometimes vote; and 3) people who rarely or never vote. People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group (44 percent), while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote."
Why don't they vote?
It turns out that their failure to vote is not because they don't know how to register or because they find registration is difficult or inconvenient. The Heritage Foundation noted in 2013: "Of the 146 million people who the Census Bureau reported were registered to vote in 2008, 15 million (10 percent) did not vote. Of those who did not vote, only 6 percent cited registration problems as the reason for not participating. Rather, the vast majority of these registered but nonvoters said they did not vote for reasons ranging from forgetting to vote to not liking the candidates or the campaign issues or simply not being interested. ...
"Only 4 percent of individuals reported not registering to vote because they did 'not know where or how to register.' ...
"Thus, according to the federal government's own surveys, the claim that 'the single greatest cause of voting problems in the United States' is the voter registration system is false. The greatest causes of individuals not registering and not voting are their lack of interest in politics and candidates and other reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with registration or lack of registration."
So, which party benefits more from getting the never/infrequent voters?
According to TargetSmart's CEO, Tom Bonier, "If we want to look at it in terms of who has more intensity and where does the advantage lie, it's in these infrequent and first-time voters." He estimates that this advantage group is plus 16 percentage points for Democrats. The Associated Press said: "A rise in that number appears to be good news for Democrats. Forty-three percent of the infrequent and new voters are registered Democrats, compared to a quarter who are Republicans. The remaining third are registered as independents or with a minor party -- a group that tends to favor Democratic candidates."
Take Pennsylvania. Before the election, the AP wrote: "The obstacle for Trump is that Democrats -- they had a competitive presidential primary -- have more voters and generated a better return rate. There are 258,000 Democrats who were registered but did not vote in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties in 2016. But during this year's primary, more than 34,300 of them became voters and cast ballots. That's more than double the gains in Republicans from the 10 leading Trump counties."
This should not be surprising. Democrats want statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico because this would produce four new Democratic senators. Do you think they want ex-cons to be able to register to vote because they're Goldwater Republicans? Free college tuition means more people exposed to "progressive" ideas -- in other words, Democrats.
President Barack Obama had no doubt that a surge of never or infrequent voters would benefit Democrats. In a 2015 town hall, Obama addressed a question about the effect of a policy of "mandatory voting." He said: "Other countries have mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything. ... The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities. ... There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."
That sounds about right. The people who don't vote or rarely vote do so because they chose not to, because they're indifferent or because they don't believe their vote will make any difference. Sounds like Democrats to me.
Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. His latest book, "The New Trump Standard," is available in paperback from Amazon.com and for Nook, Kindle, iBooks and GooglePlay. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryElder.