bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Weekly Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level Since Pandemic Began

New filings for jobless claims in the U.S. totaled 787,000 last week , nearly the lowest total since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic .
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting 875,000 for the week ended Oct. 17 .
It was their lowest total since Oct. 3 and their second-lowest mark since March 14 , just before an avalanche of layoffs that followed shutdown efforts to combat the virus .
The total reflected a decline of 55,000 from the downwardly revised 842,000 in the previous week .
One reason for the decline in jobless claims has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their regular benefits and have moved to the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance emergency compensation program .
That total increased by 509,828 for the week ended Oct. 3 to 3.3 million .
Recipients under that part of the program get an extra 13 weeks of compensation after having exhausted the initial 26 weeks of eligibility .
In addition to the substantial drop in the headline number , continuing claims also showed another hefty decline .
The level of those getting benefits for at least two weeks dripped by 1.02 million to 8.37 million .
Continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the headline number .
The trend pulled the insured unemployment rate , a simple measure of those collecting benefits against the total labor force , down 0.7 percentage points to 5.7 % .
`` We 're happy to see continuing claims fall , but the decline — even allowing for the PEUC/extended benefits effect — does not map one-to-one onto rising payrolls , '' said Ian Shepherdson , chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics .
`` Some people no longer claiming benefits may have dropped out of the labor force , while some might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moreover , continuing claims lag initial claims , so if initial claims start rising again , continuing claims will follow . ''
Claims surged in the week of March 21 amid a government-imposed lockdown that impacted businesses across the economic spectrum , particularly in high-contact and service industries such as bars and restaurants , hotels and airlines .
The weekly total peaked at 6.9 million in late March , but the jobless level has remained a problem in the ensuing months .
Since May , the economy has recaptured about 11.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost during the shutdown remain sidelined .
The most recent week 's total remains above the pre-pandemic high of 695,000 in October 1982 .
Opposing factions in Washington have been negotiating another round of stimulus aimed at helping those still impacted .
However , key details remain unresolved , and expectations have diminished that a deal will be done before Election Day .
This week 's count resolved one technical issue that had left previous weeks ' totals in question .
California had suspended processing claims until it implemented safeguards against fraud and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the week before it implemented the halt .
The state over the past week reported 158,877 claims , and 176,083 for the prior week , according to data not adjusted for seasonal factors .
Those numbers compare to the 225,000 total the state had been using as a placeholder until it resolved the issues with its system , so that helps account for the downward drift to the total for all states .
Correction : This story has been updated to reflect that weekly jobless claims hit their second-lowest level since March 14 @

watch now
New filings for jobless claims in the U.S. totaled 787,000 last week, nearly the lowest total since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting 875,000 for the week ended Oct. 17. It was their lowest total since Oct. 3 and their second-lowest mark since March 14, just before an avalanche of layoffs that followed shutdown efforts to combat the virus. The total reflected a decline of 55,000 from the downwardly revised 842,000 in the previous week.
Zoom In Icon Arrows pointing outwards
One reason for the decline in jobless claims has been the migration of workers who have exhausted their regular benefits and have moved to the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance emergency compensation program. That total increased by 509,828 for the week ended Oct. 3 to 3.3 million. Recipients under that part of the program get an extra 13 weeks of compensation after having exhausted the initial 26 weeks of eligibility. In addition to the substantial drop in the headline number, continuing claims also showed another hefty decline. The level of those getting benefits for at least two weeks dripped by 1.02 million to 8.37 million. Continuing claims operate on a one-week lag from the headline number.
Zoom In Icon Arrows pointing outwards


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--RBG Would Have (Probably) Supported Ted Cruz’s Constitutional Amendment Banning Court-Packing

Even a few years ago , the idea that packing the Supreme Court would be a serious issue in a US election would have seemed absurd .
But now , it is no exaggeration to say that the very independence of the judiciary branch of our federal government may be in jeopardy if “ court-packing ” proponents make gains in the November election .
So , it ’ s easy to see why some conservative senators might want to take court-packing off the table—permanently .
Senator Ted Cruz has officially introduced a constitutional amendment permanently setting the number of justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The amendment is co-sponsored by many of his colleagues such as Sens .
Thom Tillis , Martha McSally , Roger Wicker , Kelly Loeffler , and Cindy Hyde-Smith .
If ratified , this constitutional amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists who ’ d rubber-stamp their agenda .
The Supreme Court has had only nine justices since 1869 .
Yet as written now , the Constitution does not specify the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this kind of “ court-packing ” would be legal—even though it would be an assault on checks and balances and judicial independence .
Grappling with this threat is no intellectual exercise , though , because proposals to pack the Supreme Court are actually gaining traction among prominent elected officials : Meanwhile , presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to rule out packing the Supreme Court .
They continue to flirt with the radical proposal .
As I have previously explained for FEE.org , court-packing is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the path toward authoritarianism : It would erode the separation of powers that prevents government officials ( of either party ) from violating our rights .
It subverts the highest level of the judicial branch to the whims of the executive and legislative branches .
It removes a crucial check on the other branches and leaves the Supreme Court as little more than a red-stamp for the president ’ s agenda , no matter how authoritarian it may be .
The Founding Fathers purposefully enshrined the separation of powers into our system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one branch or official wields too much power , nothing prevents the slow slide into tyranny .
“ If the Democrats pack the court , the GOP will respond in kind , as soon as they get the chance , ” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin has written .
“ The predictable result will not only be a loss of ‘ credibility ’ for the Supreme Court , but also the elimination of judicial review as an effective check on the other branches of government.
” “ If the president can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her party controls both houses of Congress , they can prevent the court from making decisions that curb unconstitutional policies they may wish to enact , ” Somin continued .
“ It is no accident that court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy , recently used in such countries as Hungary , Turkey , and Venezuela.
” Cruz and his colleagues are right to want to take this authoritarian measure off the table .
No president or Senate—of any party—should be able to attack the independence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their authority to heel .
“ Packing the Court means one very specific thing : expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome , ” the Texas senator said .
“ It is wrong .
It is an abuse of power ... a partisan assault on the Court.
” “ For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country , we must preserve our independent judiciary , ” Cruz concluded .
This isn ’ t a partisan position .
The late liberal hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few years ago .
`` Nine seems to be a good number .
It 's been that way for a long time , '' she said .
`` I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court . ''
`` If anything would make the court look partisan , '' Ginsburg concluded .
`` It would be that — one side saying , 'When we 're in power , we 're going to enlarge the number of judges , so we would have more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to . '
'' Ginsburg never specifically endorsed an amendment banning court-packing , but it seems reasonable to guess she might have supported one .
This really is a trans-partisan issue ; or at least , it should be .
It is an oversight that our Constitution does not set the number of justices in stone .
It thus leaves the door open to such dangerous legislative proposals , even though they would undoubtedly endanger the system of checks and balances that the Constitution takes great care to establish .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a two-thirds majority would have likely blocked court-packing from passing .
But it looks likely the filibuster will be eliminated after the November election .
Of course , there is a long , difficult path for any constitutional amendment to become law .
Cruz and his colleagues ’ proposal would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate , and then be ratified by at least 38 of 50 states .
But if even political leaders as ideologically disparate as Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then passing a constitutional amendment is surely not impossible .

Even a few years ago, the idea that packing the Supreme Court would be a serious issue in a US election would have seemed absurd. But now, it is no exaggeration to say that the very independence of the judiciary branch of our federal government may be in jeopardy if “court-packing” proponents make gains in the November election.
So, it’s easy to see why some conservative senators might want to take court-packing off the table—permanently. Senator Ted Cruz has officially introduced a constitutional amendment permanently setting the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine. The amendment is co-sponsored by many of his colleagues such as Sens. Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, Roger Wicker, Kelly Loeffler, and Cindy Hyde-Smith.
Democrats plan to pack the Supreme Court if they win the election. That’s why my colleagues & I are taking action today to safeguard #SCOTUS & the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance by introducing two proposals to maintain nine Supreme Court justices on the bench. — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) October 19, 2020
If ratified, this constitutional amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists who’d rubber-stamp their agenda. The Supreme Court has had only nine justices since 1869. Yet as written now, the Constitution does not specify the number of judges on the Supreme Court, so this kind of “court-packing” would be legal—even though it would be an assault on checks and balances and judicial independence.
Grappling with this threat is no intellectual exercise, though, because proposals to pack the Supreme Court are actually gaining traction among prominent elected officials:
Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. — Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) September 19, 2020
If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court. 1/2 https://t.co/BDYQ0KVmJe — Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) September 19, 2020
If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021.
It’s that simple. — Rep. Joe Kennedy III (@RepJoeKennedy) September 19, 2020
Meanwhile, presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to rule out packing the Supreme Court. They continue to flirt with the radical proposal.
As I have previously explained for FEE.org, court-packing is a dangerous tactic that could put the country on the path toward authoritarianism:
It would erode the separation of powers that prevents government officials (of either party) from violating our rights. It subverts the highest level of the judicial branch to the whims of the executive and legislative branches. It removes a crucial check on the other branches and leaves the Supreme Court as little more than a red-stamp for the president’s agenda, no matter how authoritarian it may be. The Founding Fathers purposefully enshrined the separation of powers into our system of governance. They knew that if one branch or official wields too much power, nothing prevents the slow slide into tyranny.
“If the Democrats pack the court, the GOP will respond in kind, as soon as they get the chance,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin has written. “The predictable result will not only be a loss of ‘credibility’ for the Supreme Court, but also the elimination of judicial review as an effective check on the other branches of government.”
“If the president can pack the court any time his or her party controls both houses of Congress, they can prevent the court from making decisions that curb unconstitutional policies they may wish to enact,” Somin continued. “It is no accident that court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy, recently used in such countries as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.”
Cruz and his colleagues are right to want to take this authoritarian measure off the table. No president or Senate—of any party—should be able to attack the independence of the judiciary branch and bring its check on their authority to heel.
“Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome,” the Texas senator said. “It is wrong. It is an abuse of power... a partisan assault on the Court.”
“For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary,” Cruz concluded.
This isn’t a partisan position. The late liberal hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly repudiated court-packing in an interview just a few years ago.
"Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time," she said. "I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court."
"If anything would make the court look partisan," Ginsburg concluded. "It would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'"
Ginsburg never specifically endorsed an amendment banning court-packing, but it seems reasonable to guess she might have supported one. This really is a trans-partisan issue; or at least, it should be.
It is an oversight that our Constitution does not set the number of justices in stone. It thus leaves the door open to such dangerous legislative proposals, even though they would undoubtedly endanger the system of checks and balances that the Constitution takes great care to establish.
In the past, the Senate legislative filibuster requiring a two-thirds majority would have likely blocked court-packing from passing. But it looks likely the filibuster will be eliminated after the November election.
Of course, there is a long, difficult path for any constitutional amendment to become law. Cruz and his colleagues’ proposal would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and then be ratified by at least 38 of 50 states.
But if even political leaders as ideologically disparate as Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree that court-packing would be bad for America, then passing a constitutional amendment is surely not impossible.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Your Tax Dollars at Work: NPR Says Covering Hunter Biden Story Is a “Waste of Time”

State-funded National Public Radio said on Thursday that they are not covering the bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden 's alleged influence peddling scheme because `` we do n't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories ... '' '' Why have n't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post 's Hunter Biden story ? ''
NPR asks , and answers : `` Read more in this week 's newsletter . ''
`` We do n't want to waste out time on stories that are not really stories , and we do n't want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' time on stories that are purely distractions , '' NPR wrote .
The tweet signs off `` Terence Samuels , NPR 's Managing Editor for News on the NY Post Hunter Biden story . ''
Samuels ' actual title appears to be `` Managing Editor for News . ''
The newsletter addresses NY Post and the Hunter Biden issue , saying that NPR determined that the Post `` did no forensic work '' to verify the images and emails .
They do not appear to have contacted the Post to ask about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the oldest continuously published newspaper in the country .
Emma-Jo Morris , who broke the Hunter Biden story for the Post , noted that NPR is state-funded .
NPR is not the only mainstream , left-leaning outlet to have determined they just do n't want to cover the story .
Both The New York Times and Washington Post have alleged that the reporting by the Post was insufficient .
Twitter blocked the story from being shared , and blocked the Post itself from using the platform .
However , no one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or from the Biden family have come forward to substantively discredit the story .
As part of the data found on the laptop from whence the allegations came were images and correspondence that potentially implicate Hunter Biden in engaging in an inappropriate , sexual way with a minor .
When these materials were found , the hard drive was turned over to the FBI .
Also the FBI is investigating the money laundering scheme .
Despite NPR 's claim that this is not a story worth telling , and insinuations that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plot , both the FBI and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have stated unequivocally that it is not .
NPR wrote : `` Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight .
Even if Russia ca n't be positively connected to this information , the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect . ''
Facebook and Twitter have both been caught censoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently .
NPR offered no insight as to how they conducted their analysis or investigation .

State-funded National Public Radio said on Thursday that they are not covering the bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden's alleged influence peddling scheme because "we don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories..."
"Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story?" NPR asks, and answers: "Read more in this week's newsletter."
Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter?? https://t.co/CJesPgmGvo pic.twitter.com/jAi7PnpbZf — NPR Public Editor (@NPRpubliceditor) October 22, 2020
"We don't want to waste out time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the readers' or listeners' time on stories that are purely distractions," NPR wrote.
The tweet signs off "Terence Samuels, NPR's Managing Editor for News on the NY Post Hunter Biden story." Samuels' actual title appears to be "Managing Editor for News."
The newsletter addresses NY Post and the Hunter Biden issue, saying that NPR determined that the Post "did no forensic work" to verify the images and emails. They do not appear to have contacted the Post to ask about their investigative practices, and the Post is the oldest continuously published newspaper in the country.
Funded by tax dollars, by the way https://t.co/uQ3dBemD7O — Emma-Jo Morris (@EmmaJoNYC) October 22, 2020
Emma-Jo Morris, who broke the Hunter Biden story for the Post, noted that NPR is state-funded. NPR is not the only mainstream, left-leaning outlet to have determined they just don't want to cover the story.
Both The New York Times and Washington Post have alleged that the reporting by the Post was insufficient. Twitter blocked the story from being shared, and blocked the Post itself from using the platform. However, no one, not in media, the Biden/Harris campaign, or from the Biden family have come forward to substantively discredit the story.
Three basic facts Joe Biden has not denied:
1. Hunter Biden’s emails are authentic.
2. Joe Biden is in fact “the big guy.”
3. If any of this were untrue, the Bidens would say so. — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) October 21, 2020
As part of the data found on the laptop from whence the allegations came were images and correspondence that potentially implicate Hunter Biden in engaging in an inappropriate, sexual way with a minor. When these materials were found, the hard drive was turned over to the FBI. Also the FBI is investigating the money laundering scheme.
The FBI seized Hunter Biden’s laptop during a money laundering investigation and it contains emails connecting Joe Biden to influence peddling, but NPR says this isn’t a real story. https://t.co/AYLSphqd1V — David Marcus (@BlueBoxDave) October 22, 2020
Despite NPR's claim that this is not a story worth telling, and insinuations that the laptop itself is part of a Russian plot, both the FBI and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have stated unequivocally that it is not.
NPR wrote: "Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight. Even if Russia can't be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect."
Facebook and Twitter have both been caught censoring the Hunter Biden stories from their networks recently. NPR offered no insight as to how they conducted their analysis or investigation.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--President Trump Corners Biden on “Laptop From Hell,” Biden Panics and Screams “Russia!”

This gets INTENSE .
Joe Biden has no answers for the Biden family scandal .

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at bongino.locals.com
This gets INTENSE. Joe Biden has no answers for the Biden family scandal.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--President Trump: If Biden Did a Good Job I Wouldn’t Have Had to Run for President

`` Why did n't he do it four years ago ?
Why did n't you do that four years ago @ @ @ @ @ all these things you 're going to do and you 're going to do this @ @ @ @ @ just a short time ago .
And you guys did nothing ''

"Why didn't he do it four years ago? Why didn't you do that four years ago....You keep talking about all these things you're going to do and you're going to do this. But you were there just a short time ago. And you guys did nothing"


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--President Trump on Lockdowns: We Can’t All Stay in the Basement Like Joe

`` He has this thing about living in a basement . ''

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at bongino.locals.com
"He has this thing about living in a basement."


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--President Trump and Biden Clash in Final Debate

President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden are facing off Thursday night in the final presidential debate before the election @ @ @ @ @ the Nashville , Tenn. , event is a reaction to the first presidential debate , @ @ @ @ @ which saw repeated clashes between the two candidates .
The final presidential debate will be @ @ @ @ @ Kristen Welker .
Follow below for updates .
Mobile users click here .

President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden are facing off Thursday night in the final presidential debate before the election.
The new format for the Nashville, Tenn., event is a reaction to the first presidential debate, Sept. 29 in Cleveland, which saw repeated clashes between the two candidates.
The final presidential debate will be moderated by NBC News' Kristen Welker.
Follow below for updates. Mobile users click here.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--CBP: U.S. on Track for 450 Miles of New Border Wall Constructed by End of Year

CBP: Total of 450 miles of new border wall to be completed by end of the year
Border wall in El Paso (credit: KFOX14/CBS4)


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says Mailed Ballots Can’t Be Rejected Over Mismatched Signatures

HARRISBURG , Pa. ( CBS/AP ) — Pennsylvania ’ s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mail-in ballots in the presidential battleground state , prohibiting counties from rejecting ballots because the voter ’ s signature on it may not resemble their signature on their registration form .
Two Republican justices joined five Democratic justices in the decision .
The verdict was a victory for the state ’ s top election official , Kathy Boockvar , a Democrat who had asked the court to back her up in a legal dispute with President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees , or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons , ” the justices wrote .
Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a battle to win Pennsylvania ’ s 20 electoral votes .
According to the CBS News Battleground Tracker , Biden leads Trump by seven points in Pennsylvania — 53 % to 46 % .
In her court filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejections pose “ a grave risk of disenfranchisement on an arbitrary and wholly subjective basis , ” and without any opportunity for a voter to verify their signature before their ballot is disqualified .
“ Voters who use a mail-in ballot have their identity verified in the initial application , often using a drivers ’ license number .
Pennsylvania ’ s voter identification system is safe and secure .
We are protecting every eligible vote and ensuring each is counted .
Make your plan to vote and we will keep doing our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Shapiro said in a statement .
The decision comes amid a surge in mail-in voting and rising concerns that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots will be discarded in the presidential election over a variety of technicalities .
Stimulus Package Update : What Happens To The Economy Without A Second Stimulus ?
Carson Wentz Carries Shorthanded Eagles To Comeback Win Over Giants , First Place In NFC East

HARRISBURG, Pa. (CBS/AP) — Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mail-in ballots in the presidential battleground state, prohibiting counties from rejecting ballots because the voter's signature on it may not resemble their signature on their registration form. Two Republican justices joined five Democratic justices in the decision.
The verdict was a victory for the state's top election official, Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat who had asked the court to back her up in a legal dispute with President Donald Trump's campaign and Republican lawmakers.
"County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons," the justices wrote.
Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a battle to win Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes. According to the CBS News Battleground Tracker, Biden leads Trump by seven points in Pennsylvania -- 53% to 46%.
In her court filing, Boockvar had said that any such rejections pose "a grave risk of disenfranchisement on an arbitrary and wholly subjective basis," and without any opportunity for a voter to verify their signature before their ballot is disqualified.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro called this "another win for voters."
"Voters who use a mail-in ballot have their identity verified in the initial application, often using a drivers' license number. Pennsylvania's voter identification system is safe and secure. We are protecting every eligible vote and ensuring each is counted. Make your plan to vote and we will keep doing our work to make sure your voice is heard," Shapiro said in a statement.
The decision comes amid a surge in mail-in voting and rising concerns that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots will be discarded in the presidential election over a variety of technicalities.
(© Copyright 2020 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
MORE FROM CBS PHILLY:
Stimulus Package Update: What Happens To The Economy Without A Second Stimulus?
Carson Wentz Carries Shorthanded Eagles To Comeback Win Over Giants, First Place In NFC East
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf Announces Plan To Waive Liquor License Fees For Restaurants, Bars


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--AOC Complains About People Calling Her AOC

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized President Donald Trump Thursday night for calling her “ AOC ” during the presidential debate .
The New York congresswoman said while “ the people ” can call her “ AOC , ” Republican use of her nickname shows “ disrespect of women.
” “ I wonder if Republicans understand how much they advertise their disrespect of women in debates when they consistently call women members of Congress by nicknames or first names while using titles & last names when referring to men of = stature , ” the congresswoman tweeted from her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is @ AOC .
“ Women notice .
It conveys a lot.
” “ AOC is a name given to me by community & the people , ” she continued .
“ Y ’ all can call me AOC .
Government colleagues referring to each other in a public or professional context ( aka who don ’ t know me like that ) should refer to their peers as ‘ Congresswoman , ’ ‘ Representative , ’ etc .
Basic respect 101.
” Her comments referred to Thursday night ’ s presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he mocked Biden ’ s environmental plan .
( RELATED : Joe Biden Checks Watch As Debate Ends ) “ His plan is an economic disaster , ” Trump said .
“ If you look at what he wants to do , you know who developed it ?
AOC plus three .
They know nothing about the climate .
I mean she ’ s got a good line of stuff but she knows nothing about the climate .
And they are all hopping through hoops for AOC plus three.
” The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintained by federal staff to share services and legislation relevant to constituents of NY-14 ” with the handle “ @ RepAOC.
” She tweeted later Friday about shirts that say “ AOCplusme.
” Ocasio-Cortez ’ s nickname is commonly used throughout media , as the National Review ’ s Alexandra DeSanctis pointed out .
Thursday night reporting on the debate from publications such as CNN , Mother Jones , the New York Post , and other outlets included references to the New York congresswoman using the nickname in headlines .
CNN also used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez in copy .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized President Donald Trump Thursday night for calling her “AOC” during the presidential debate.
The New York congresswoman said while “the people” can call her “AOC,” Republican use of her nickname shows “disrespect of women.”
“I wonder if Republicans understand how much they advertise their disrespect of women in debates when they consistently call women members of Congress by nicknames or first names while using titles & last names when referring to men of = stature,” the congresswoman tweeted from her personal Twitter account, the handle of which is @AOC. “Women notice. It conveys a lot.”
“AOC is a name given to me by community & the people,” she continued. “Y’all can call me AOC. Government colleagues referring to each other in a public or professional context (aka who don’t know me like that) should refer to their peers as ‘Congresswoman,’ ‘Representative,’ etc. Basic respect 101.”
Her comments referred to Thursday night’s presidential debate, where Trump mentioned Ocasio-Cortez as he mocked Biden’s environmental plan. (RELATED: Joe Biden Checks Watch As Debate Ends)
“His plan is an economic disaster,” Trump said. “If you look at what he wants to do, you know who developed it? AOC plus three. They know nothing about the climate. I mean she’s got a good line of stuff but she knows nothing about the climate. And they are all hopping through hoops for AOC plus three.”
WATCH:
The New York congresswoman also has a Twitter account “maintained by federal staff to share services and legislation relevant to constituents of NY-14” with the handle “@RepAOC.”
She tweeted later Friday about shirts that say “AOCplusme.”
A lot of folks have been asking for #AOCplusMe shirts, but we‘re struggling to make a design! Anyone out there want to give it a shot????? If so, reply w your design & submit it via this link. If we find a popular one we’ll reach out abt producing it: https://t.co/kAPqMLfJ1g https://t.co/6SQ8TO3E9h — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 23, 2020
Ocasio-Cortez’s nickname is commonly used throughout media, as the National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis pointed out.
Thursday night reporting on the debate from publications such as CNN, Mother Jones, the New York Post, and other outlets included references to the New York congresswoman using the nickname in headlines.
CNN also used the name “AOC” to describe Ocasio-Cortez in copy.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--The Media Couldn’t Protect Biden From Himself

In the final debate , President Trump and former Vice President Biden had one last opportunity to move the sliver of undecided voters in the handful of states that will decide this election .
Unfortunately for the Biden campaign , President Trump made the most of that opportunity while Biden squandered it .
From the very beginning of this campaign , the media has been doing everything they can to protect Joe Biden .
The media ’ s wall around Biden has never been more obvious than it has been during the Hunter Biden laptop scandal .
Despite the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ever said that the laptop or the emails were fake , the media has chosen to disregard the story , with some in the media bizarrely claiming that the laptop wasn ’ t “ verified ” while others pushed baseless conspiracy theories that the laptop was somehow the product of a “ Russian disinformation campaign.
” RELATED : DNI John Ratcliffe Says ‘ Hunter Biden ’ s Laptop Is Not Part Of Some Russian Disinformation Campaign ’ But the media ’ s efforts to protect Joe Biden didn ’ t start with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrapped up the Democratic nomination in the spring , the media has refused to press Biden on any issue of note .
They have given him a free pass to try and have it both ways on the Green New Deal , on Court packing , on crime , on Antifa , the list goes on and on .
RELATED : Axios Analysis Shows How The Media Obsession With Trump Is Allowing Biden To Escape Scrutiny The one thing the media couldn ’ t protect Biden from was front and center last night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks in part to debate rules that the organizers thought would hurt Trump , the President offered some of his most cogent and strong defenses of his record and his policies , while at the same time painting Biden as a do-nothing career politician .
Biden ’ s Radical Comments On Fracking And The Oil Industry Trump called out Biden ’ s double talk on fracking – a huge issue in the key swing state of Pennsylvania – and got Biden to admit that he wants to do away with fossil fuels all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Prove He Said He Would Ban Fracking – So Trump Did Biden got so flustered during the debate when talking about the President ’ s response to the Coronavirus pandemic , that when the moderator asked him if he wanted to respond to President Trump ’ s point that Biden didn ’ t think we should have closed the border with China , Biden simply said , “ no.
” Biden ’ s attacks on Trump fell painfully flat .
When the former Vice President tried to attack Trump over his tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It wasn ’ t just on Trump ’ s taxes where an attempted Biden attack on the President boomeranged back at Biden .
On the question of family separation at the border , Trump asked , “ who built the cages , Joe ?
” Biden attempted to dodge that question three times , before falling back on the “ I was just the Vice President ” defense .
RELATED : Obama ’ s ICE Chief : Those Cages For Illegal Kids Were Built By Obama Administration Trump Won The Debate And Landed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s attacks fell flat , and often came back to bite him , President Trump landed devastating blow after devastating blow .
In probably the most memorable and powerful back and forth of the night , in response to an answer by Biden about what he would do on criminal justice reform , Trump said : “ But why didn ’ t he do it four years ago ?
Why didn ’ t you do that four years ago ?
Even less than that .
Why didn ’ t you when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about all these things you are going to do , and you are going to do this , but you were there just a short time ago and you guys did nothing .
You know Joe , I ran because of you .
I ran because of Barack Obama , because you did a poor job .
If I though you did a good job , I would ’ ve never run .
I ran because of you .
I ’ m looking at you now , you ’ re a politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last night , was a clear reminder of why the press has worked so hard to protect Joe Biden – he ’ s an absolute disaster .
The media couldn ’ t protect him on that debate stage and the American people got to see first-hand just how unprepared to lead Biden actually is .

In the final debate, President Trump and former Vice President Biden had one last opportunity to move the sliver of undecided voters in the handful of states that will decide this election.
Unfortunately for the Biden campaign, President Trump made the most of that opportunity while Biden squandered it.
From the very beginning of this campaign, the media has been doing everything they can to protect Joe Biden. The media’s wall around Biden has never been more obvious than it has been during the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Why haven’t you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week’s newsletter➡ https://t.co/CJesPgmGvo pic.twitter.com/jAi7PnpbZf — NPR Public Editor (@NPRpubliceditor) October 22, 2020
Despite the fact that neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden has ever said that the laptop or the emails were fake, the media has chosen to disregard the story, with some in the media bizarrely claiming that the laptop wasn’t “verified” while others pushed baseless conspiracy theories that the laptop was somehow the product of a “Russian disinformation campaign.”
RELATED: DNI John Ratcliffe Says ‘Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Not Part Of Some Russian Disinformation Campaign’
This exchange between Trump and Lesley Stahl is insane. She repeatedly insists the Biden laptops “can’t be verified” so reporters shouldn’t talk about it. Trump asks her why it can’t be verified. Her answer: “Because it can’t be verified.” pic.twitter.com/cf9hcSGnrm — Anders Hagstrom (@Hagstrom_Anders) October 22, 2020
Media Runs Cover For Joe Biden
But the media’s efforts to protect Joe Biden didn’t start with the Hunter Biden scandal.
Since Biden wrapped up the Democratic nomination in the spring, the media has refused to press Biden on any issue of note.
They have given him a free pass to try and have it both ways on the Green New Deal, on Court packing, on crime, on Antifa, the list goes on and on.
RELATED: Axios Analysis Shows How The Media Obsession With Trump Is Allowing Biden To Escape Scrutiny
The one thing the media couldn’t protect Biden from was front and center last night: Biden himself.
Last night, thanks in part to debate rules that the organizers thought would hurt Trump, the President offered some of his most cogent and strong defenses of his record and his policies, while at the same time painting Biden as a do-nothing career politician.
Biden’s Radical Comments On Fracking And The Oil Industry
Trump called out Biden’s double talk on fracking – a huge issue in the key swing state of Pennsylvania – and got Biden to admit that he wants to do away with fossil fuels all together.
Hey @JoeBiden – your lie is so bad even @CNN couldn’t cover for you and called you out on it. Biden falsely claims he never opposed fracking – CNNPolitics https://t.co/oYapGeulwV — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 23, 2020
RELATED: Biden Challenges Trump To Prove He Said He Would Ban Fracking – So Trump Did
Biden got so flustered during the debate when talking about the President’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic, that when the moderator asked him if he wanted to respond to President Trump’s point that Biden didn’t think we should have closed the border with China, Biden simply said, “no.”
Biden’s attacks on Trump fell painfully flat. When the former Vice President tried to attack Trump over his tax returns, Trump delivered this uppercut:
“Let me just say this, Mueller and 18 angry Democrats and FBI agents all over the place spent $48 million. They went through everything I had, including my tax returns, and they found absolutely no collusion and nothing wrong, $48 million. I guarantee you, if I spent $1 million on you, Joe, I could find plenty wrong…”
It wasn’t just on Trump’s taxes where an attempted Biden attack on the President boomeranged back at Biden. On the question of family separation at the border, Trump asked, “who built the cages, Joe?”
Biden attempted to dodge that question three times, before falling back on the “I was just the Vice President” defense.
RELATED: Obama’s ICE Chief: Those Cages For Illegal Kids Were Built By Obama Administration
Trump Won The Debate And Landed All His Punches On Hapless Biden
While Biden’s attacks fell flat, and often came back to bite him, President Trump landed devastating blow after devastating blow.
In probably the most memorable and powerful back and forth of the night, in response to an answer by Biden about what he would do on criminal justice reform, Trump said:
“But why didn’t he do it four years ago? Why didn’t you do that four years ago? Even less than that. Why didn’t you when you were Vice President. You keep talking about all these things you are going to do, and you are going to do this, but you were there just a short time ago and you guys did nothing. You know Joe, I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama, because you did a poor job. If I though you did a good job, I would’ve never run. I ran because of you. I’m looking at you now, you’re a politician. I ran because of you.”
“You know Joe…I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama…cause you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would of never run. I ran because of you…I’m looking at you now…your a politician…I ran because of you.” @realDonaldTrump #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/B9Dnn1aIGp — Dan Scavino🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) October 23, 2020
Last night, was a clear reminder of why the press has worked so hard to protect Joe Biden – he’s an absolute disaster.
POLL: Do You Think Trump's Strong Performance Will Win Him The Election? Yes - Trump was that good Yes - Biden was that bad No - Biden is too far ahead Email By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information. Results Vote
The media couldn’t protect him on that debate stage and the American people got to see first-hand just how unprepared to lead Biden actually is.
RELATED: Trump’s Homerun: The Happy Warrior Hits His Stride


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--This Could Be Joe Biden’s E-Mail Pseudonym

Hunter Biden ’ s e-mail account appears to show that his father , former Vice President Joe Biden , used @ @ @ @ @ ” when trading e-mails with his family , the National Pulse can exclusively reveal .
@ @ @ @ @ the big guy ” – has his real name attached to his private account for @ @ @ @ @ around early 2016 , going from “ Joseph Biden ” to “ Peter Henderson ” @ @ @ @ @ .
It is unclear whether this change was on Hunter ’ s end ( on @ @ @ @ @ Joe ’ s , but Peter Henderson ’ s e-mails included messages such as “ @ @ @ @ @ Dad ” and shared links – often about Hillary Clinton .
In Tom Clancy ’ @ @ @ @ @ “ Peter Henderson ” is the name of a KGB mole that infiltrated the United @ @ @

Hunter Biden’s e-mail account appears to show that his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, used the pseudonym “Peter Henderson” when trading e-mails with his family, the National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
While Biden – or “the big guy” – has his real name attached to his private account for some time, it changed around early 2016, going from “Joseph Biden” to “Peter Henderson” in Hunter’s e-mails.
It is unclear whether this change was on Hunter’s end (on his devices) or on Joe’s, but Peter Henderson’s e-mails included messages such as “Keep in touch, Love Dad” and shared links – often about Hillary Clinton.
In Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan series, “Peter Henderson” is the name of a KGB mole that infiltrated the United States government.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--Biden Pledges to “Transition Away From” (Destroy) U.S. Oil Industry

When asked if he would close down the oil industry as part of his climate change mission , Joe Biden told Americans he `` would transition from the oil industry , yes '' Biden said .
`` It pollutes significantly . ''
This was a big statement by the former Vice President , who in the name of fixing climate change has vowed to upend the entire energy industry .
This promise to transition away from fossil fuels comes at a time when , as Trump confirmed , the US has achieved energy independence .
Trump , who has put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the United States during his time in office , was quick to highlight the economic significance of Biden 's verbal commitment .
`` Oh… that 's a big statement , '' said Trump .
`` That 's maybe the biggest statement in terms of business [ he 's made ] . ''
Back in 2017 , the oil industry supported 10.3 million jobs in the United States and accounted for nearly 8 percent of the nation 's economy , according to a statement released by the American Petroleum Institute .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 181 billion dollars of production revenue .
`` The U.S. oil and gas industry supports the American economy like no other industry .
We spur economic growth through hundreds of billions of dollars investing right here at home every year , '' the API report read .
According to a map put out by the Washington Post , the United States has three main areas for drilling .
These are located in the greater Texas area , the northern Appalachian Basin , and along the northern Midwest of the country .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three areas on the debate stage .
`` Will you remember that , Texas ?
Will you remember that Pennsylvania , Oklahoma ? ''
Trump asked viewers .
Biden has been very clear on his intentions regarding the fossil fuel industry .
When he shared the debate stage with Bernie Sanders back in March of this year , Biden unequivocally said he would terminate the industry should he become President of the United States .
`` No More subsidies for the fossil fuel industry .
No more drilling on Federal land .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability for the oil industry to continue to drill .
Period , '' Biden told voters .
Biden may have been exaggerating his plans in an attempt to win over democratic candidates while pitted against Bernie Sanders .
Sanders had called Biden 's plans , `` not nearly enough , '' reprimanding the candidate for not taking the issue seriously .
But from what Biden said about fossil fuels Thursday night , he might have meant it .

When asked if he would close down the oil industry as part of his climate change mission, Joe Biden told Americans he "would transition from the oil industry, yes" Biden said. "It pollutes significantly."
This was a big statement by the former Vice President, who in the name of fixing climate change has vowed to upend the entire energy industry.
This promise to transition away from fossil fuels comes at a time when, as Trump confirmed, the US has achieved energy independence.
MN is home to 2 refineries in the metro area, one of which supplies 80% of the jet fuel to MSP. Another refinery is just across the border in Superior.
Nowhere would Biden’s threat to end the oil industry be more devastating than here in MN.
And @TinaSmithMN agrees with this?! https://t.co/5kDjA220GP — Jason Lewis (@LewisForMN) October 23, 2020
Trump, who has put a large emphasis on bringing energy production back to the United States during his time in office, was quick to highlight the economic significance of Biden's verbal commitment.
"Oh… that's a big statement," said Trump. "That's maybe the biggest statement in terms of business [he's made]."
Back in 2017, the oil industry supported 10.3 million jobs in the United States and accounted for nearly 8 percent of the nation's economy, according to a statement released by the American Petroleum Institute. The next year, oil accounted for more than 181 billion dollars of production revenue.
"The U.S. oil and gas industry supports the American economy like no other industry. We spur economic growth through hundreds of billions of dollars investing right here at home every year," the API report read.
According to a map put out by the Washington Post, the United States has three main areas for drilling. These are located in the greater Texas area, the northern Appalachian Basin, and along the northern Midwest of the country. Trump made an appeal to voters in all three areas on the debate stage.
"Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?" Trump asked viewers.
Biden has been very clear on his intentions regarding the fossil fuel industry. When he shared the debate stage with Bernie Sanders back in March of this year, Biden unequivocally said he would terminate the industry should he become President of the United States.
"No More subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on Federal land. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill. Period," Biden told voters.
Biden may have been exaggerating his plans in an attempt to win over democratic candidates while pitted against Bernie Sanders. Sanders had called Biden's plans, "not nearly enough," reprimanding the candidate for not taking the issue seriously. But from what Biden said about fossil fuels Thursday night, he might have meant it.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--FBI Asks to Interview Former Hunter Biden Business Associate

The FBI has asked Tony Bobulinski , a former associate of Hunter Biden 's , for an interview this morning .
Yesterday , Bobulinski appeared in front of cameras before the second presidential debate , where he confirmed Joe Biden 's involvement in a secret China deal for a $ 5 million forgivable loan .
A 2017 email from a top official with Chinese energy firm CEFC details the terms of an agreement in which the firm gave the $ 5 million non-secured , forgivable loan to the Bidens .
This is according to a Breitbart interview with Bobulinski .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements from Bobulinski Thursday morning that confirmed that Joe Biden was referred to as `` the big guy '' in emails discussing payments , Bobulinski confirmed yesterday .
`` I am making the statement to set the record straight , '' Bobulinski said .
`` Everything I am saying is corroborated , '' he continued as he stated that he has three phones that he intends to hand over to the FBI this morning .
Bobulinski said that he would be meeting with Senate committees concerning the matter , and that he would @ @ @ @ @ @

The FBI has asked Tony Bobulinski, a former associate of Hunter Biden's, for an interview this morning.
Yesterday, Bobulinski appeared in front of cameras before the second presidential debate, where he confirmed Joe Biden's involvement in a secret China deal for a $5 million forgivable loan.
A 2017 email from a top official with Chinese energy firm CEFC details the terms of an agreement in which the firm gave the $5 million non-secured, forgivable loan to the Bidens. This is according to a Breitbart interview with Bobulinski.
The New York Post reported on new statements from Bobulinski Thursday morning that confirmed that Joe Biden was referred to as "the big guy" in emails discussing payments, Bobulinski confirmed yesterday.
"I am making the statement to set the record straight," Bobulinski said. "Everything I am saying is corroborated," he continued as he stated that he has three phones that he intends to hand over to the FBI this morning.
Bobulinski said that he would be meeting with Senate committees concerning the matter, and that he would be working with the FBI.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--Emails From Hunter Biden’s Alleged Hard Drive Credit Him With Lobbying His Father

Newly uncovered e-mails from Hunter Biden ’ s hard drive reveal he was “ totally credited ” for lobbying his father , the Vice President of the United States at the time , on behalf of big corporate and union lobbyists , the National Pulse can exclusively reveal .
Following the bombshell revelation that Hunter Biden pledged to lobby his Vice President father Joe Biden – contrary to what the Biden family has often claimed – the National Pulse can now reveal how lobbyists “ totally credit [ ed ] ” Hunter for “ saving the day ” for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden on December 14 2010 .
The request was simple and unethical : secure an assist from the son of the Vice President .
The lobbyists needed help circumventing official channels and leveraging the family connection to get Joe Biden to call to his clients .
In a reply , Hunter agreed and told Harple of his father : “ If I ask he will do it.
” Now The National Pulse can reveal that he did indeed do it , and just 6 days later Hunter Biden was credited with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ clients .
Hunter told the lobbyists less than a week later : “ Mark and JRB [ Joseph R. Biden ] spoke live today and plan to meet in New Year- let me know what Sean [ McGarvey – the client ] says.
” “ Talked to Sean [ McGarvey ] .
He and Mark Ayers totally credit you for saving the day .
I was a little taken aback over their enthusiasm , but they truly felt – for once – they were being heard .
These guys are the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sugar coat things and with the man calling them directly means the world to them .
“ I personally thank you for doing this .
It will help along the way .
This is why I have always been a fan to have a true labor person on staff.
” The news flies in the face of repeated claims by Joe Biden and the left-wing media that Hunter Biden did not lobby his father .

Newly uncovered e-mails from Hunter Biden’s hard drive reveal he was “totally credited” for lobbying his father, the Vice President of the United States at the time, on behalf of big corporate and union lobbyists, the National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
Following the bombshell revelation that Hunter Biden pledged to lobby his Vice President father Joe Biden – contrary to what the Biden family has often claimed – the National Pulse can now reveal how lobbyists “totally credit[ed]” Hunter for “saving the day” for them.
Lobbyist Chuck Harple had written to Hunter Biden on December 14 2010. The request was simple and unethical: secure an assist from the son of the Vice President. The lobbyists needed help circumventing official channels and leveraging the family connection to get Joe Biden to call to his clients.
In a reply, Hunter agreed and told Harple of his father: “If I ask he will do it.”
Now The National Pulse can reveal that he did indeed do it, and just 6 days later Hunter Biden was credited with “saving the day” for the lobbyists’ clients.
Hunter told the lobbyists less than a week later: “Mark and JRB [Joseph R. Biden] spoke live today and plan to meet in New Year- let me know what Sean [McGarvey – the client] says.”
Harple replied 15 minutes later:
“Talked to Sean [McGarvey]. He and Mark Ayers totally credit you for saving the day. I was a little taken aback over their enthusiasm, but they truly felt – for once – they were being heard. These guys are the best. A person never has to bs or sugar coat things and with the man calling them directly means the world to them.
“I personally thank you for doing this. It will help along the way. This is why I have always been a fan to have a true labor person on staff.”
The news flies in the face of repeated claims by Joe Biden and the left-wing media that Hunter Biden did not lobby his father.


bonginoreport--2020-10-23--LA Times Focus Group Chooses Trump After Watching Debate

A focus group of “ undecided voters ” convened by pollster Frank Luntz for the Los Angeles Times chose President Donald Trump overwhelmingly after watching the final debate of the presidential election on Thursday night .
Though many participants complained about Trump ’ s “ personality ” in general , many also felt he had been more “ presidential ” on the night .
And many complained that Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden seemed vague and elusive in his answers .
Some voters expressed feelings of guilt in admitting they would vote for Trump , but said they simply could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One said that his age was a concern ; another said that voting for Biden felt like voting for an “ idea , ” since he seemed unlikely to be running his own administration .
Another undecided voter said that he felt that Trump had shown , at least , what he could do over the past four years .
Luntz ended the discussion after asking participants whom they would choose , after watching the debate .
Of the eight “ undecided ” voters he asked , seven chose Trump and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event at the Los Angeles Times .
A CNN poll of debate watchers gave the win to Biden by 14 points That was considerably narrower than the margin in CNN ’ s poll of the first debate , which gave Biden a 32-point win .
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m .
ET ( 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT ) .
His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Presidency .
His recent book , RED NOVEMBER , tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective .
He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship .
Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .

A focus group of “undecided voters” convened by pollster Frank Luntz for the Los Angeles Times chose President Donald Trump overwhelmingly after watching the final debate of the presidential election on Thursday night.
Though many participants complained about Trump’s “personality” in general, many also felt he had been more “presidential” on the night. And many complained that Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden seemed vague and elusive in his answers.
My focus group’s words to describe Trump tonight:
• “Controlled”
• “Reserved”
• “Poised”
• “Con artist”
• “Surprisingly presidential” Words to describe Biden tonight:
• “Vague”
• “Unspecific”
• “Elusive”
• “Defensive”
• “Grandfatherly” 👉🏻 https://t.co/LOOQDLAjoT pic.twitter.com/qa54f6F94S — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 23, 2020
“I really really really wanted to vote for Joe Biden. I really really do. But, I just, based on tonight’s performance, Donald Trump…” – Jennifer from Michigan pic.twitter.com/TGJyWnJxpR — Tomas Morales (@TomasMorales_iv) October 23, 2020
Some voters expressed feelings of guilt in admitting they would vote for Trump, but said they simply could not trust Biden to do the job. One said that his age was a concern; another said that voting for Biden felt like voting for an “idea,” since he seemed unlikely to be running his own administration.
Another undecided voter said that he felt that Trump had shown, at least, what he could do over the past four years.
Luntz ended the discussion after asking participants whom they would choose, after watching the debate. Of the eight “undecided” voters he asked, seven chose Trump and one still seemed undecided.
Watch the full event at the Los Angeles Times.
A CNN poll of debate watchers gave the win to Biden by 14 points
CNN poll of debate watchers: Biden won 53-39. In first debate, poll of debate watchers said Biden won over Trump 60-28 — Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 23, 2020
That was considerably narrower than the margin in CNN’s poll of the first debate, which gave Biden a 32-point win.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


bonginoreport--2020-10-24--Josh Hammer: How to Prepare for a Contested Election

The 2020 presidential election , pitting against each other two diametrically opposed visions of the American regime and way of life , is unprecedented in the modern history of the republic .
On the merits -- the sustainability and survivability of what Abraham Lincoln called `` that government of the people , by the people , for the people '' -- it is perhaps the most important presidential election since the most recent threat to the American regime in 1860 .
The reality is that no one alive today has seen the legal , political and cultural foundations of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now by the destructive , intersectional , `` woke '' forces of the radical left .
But in this most chaotic of years , characterized by a global pandemic and insurrectionist violence of the most sordid sort rocking the nation 's urban corridors , there are a myriad of other unique factors that risk undermining public confidence in the integrity of our quadrennial presidential election .
Due to the widespread fear of in-person voting due to COVID-19 , as many as half of the overall ballots -- disproportionately consisting of Democratic voters -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Risking a pall cast over the entire process , a recent Washington Post analysis found that roughly 5 % of all mail-in ballots fail to result in a counted vote , due to either fraud , a late postmark or an invalid signature .
Overall , what is now impending is unlike anything our electoral system has ever handled , and there are hundreds of election-related lawsuits currently winding their way through the federal courts .
Recently , I was one of 35 participants in a wargame election simulation , co-hosted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Foundation , which assigned roles and sought to game out various possible scenarios for the 79 days from Election Day 2020 to Inauguration Day 2021 .
According to the wargame , in the likely probability of an ambiguous result on Nov. 3 , the ubiquity of underfunded/understaffed state ballot-counting infrastructures and the extraordinary number of nationwide election-related lawsuits could lead to domestic unrest , foreign interference and a public crisis of faith in our electoral and governmental legitimacy .
Exacerbating that public crisis of faith would be a repeat of the 2000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court .
Perhaps , like in Bush v. Gore , it might even be decided by a bare 5-to-4 Court majority .
But there is an extraordinarily straightforward constitutional path to mitigating the prospects of such a fraught , bleak outcome .
Although the election litigation now unfolding throughout the states oftentimes entails tortured , labyrinthine legal reasoning , a dissent this week in an en banc Fourth Circuit case out of North Carolina provides the roadmap for a salutary path forward -- as both a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salving the political fractiousness of a nation increasingly teetering on the brink .
As Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote on behalf of the three dissenting judges in Wise v. Circosta ( aside : Why were all three of President Donald Trump 's nominees to the Fourth Circuit , including the highly touted Judge Allison Jones Rushing , in the misguided majority ? )
, the Constitution provides , in unmistakable fashion , a clear binary question reviewing judges ought to ask themselves in order to determine whether any particular election regulation this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlines , ballot drop box distributions and so forth -- meets constitutional muster .
Consider the elections clause of Article I , Section 4 of the Constitution : `` The times , places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives , shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof . ''
As Wilkinson wrote , the Constitution `` clearly and explicitly delegates '' the power over managing and regulating state elections not to any court , not to any governor and not to any statewide election board .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing and regulating the `` manner of holding elections '' is the plenary power that resides in the state legislatures .
Put another way , federal judges throughout the country should follow one exceedingly simple and dispositive legal rule in adjudicating the myriad of lawsuits unfolding , and yet to unfold , pertaining to all things election-related .
If a regulation is the product of the state legislature , then it is constitutional ( pending consideration of any possible heightened criteria emanating from other legal sources , such as the various states ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the product of any rulemaking body other than a state legislature , though , it is invalid .
Widespread judicial acceptance and utilization of the elections clause of Article I , Section 4 is not merely a proper application of black-letter law , though .
If implemented -- including , if need lamentably be , at a Bush v. Gore-style final Supreme Court case -- it could go long a way toward defusing partisan tensions and solidifying electoral legitimacy due solely to the fact that its legal reasoning is so readily accessible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alike .
Given the tumult that we are likely to see unfold before our eyes over the next few weeks , that would be just what the doctor ordered .

The 2020 presidential election, pitting against each other two diametrically opposed visions of the American regime and way of life, is unprecedented in the modern history of the republic. On the merits -- the sustainability and survivability of what Abraham Lincoln called "that government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- it is perhaps the most important presidential election since the most recent threat to the American regime in 1860. The reality is that no one alive today has seen the legal, political and cultural foundations of this great nation more besieged than it is now by the destructive, intersectional, "woke" forces of the radical left.
But in this most chaotic of years, characterized by a global pandemic and insurrectionist violence of the most sordid sort rocking the nation's urban corridors, there are a myriad of other unique factors that risk undermining public confidence in the integrity of our quadrennial presidential election. Due to the widespread fear of in-person voting due to COVID-19, as many as half of the overall ballots -- disproportionately consisting of Democratic voters -- cast this year could be mailed in. Risking a pall cast over the entire process, a recent Washington Post analysis found that roughly 5% of all mail-in ballots fail to result in a counted vote, due to either fraud, a late postmark or an invalid signature. Overall, what is now impending is unlike anything our electoral system has ever handled, and there are hundreds of election-related lawsuits currently winding their way through the federal courts.
Recently, I was one of 35 participants in a wargame election simulation, co-hosted by the Claremont Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which assigned roles and sought to game out various possible scenarios for the 79 days from Election Day 2020 to Inauguration Day 2021. According to the wargame, in the likely probability of an ambiguous result on Nov. 3, the ubiquity of underfunded/understaffed state ballot-counting infrastructures and the extraordinary number of nationwide election-related lawsuits could lead to domestic unrest, foreign interference and a public crisis of faith in our electoral and governmental legitimacy.
Exacerbating that public crisis of faith would be a repeat of the 2000 presidential election -- wherein the election is ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps, like in Bush v. Gore, it might even be decided by a bare 5-to-4 Court majority. But there is an extraordinarily straightforward constitutional path to mitigating the prospects of such a fraught, bleak outcome. Although the election litigation now unfolding throughout the states oftentimes entails tortured, labyrinthine legal reasoning, a dissent this week in an en banc Fourth Circuit case out of North Carolina provides the roadmap for a salutary path forward -- as both a matter of law and as a matter of salving the political fractiousness of a nation increasingly teetering on the brink.
As Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote on behalf of the three dissenting judges in Wise v. Circosta (aside: Why were all three of President Donald Trump's nominees to the Fourth Circuit, including the highly touted Judge Allison Jones Rushing, in the misguided majority?), the Constitution provides, in unmistakable fashion, a clear binary question reviewing judges ought to ask themselves in order to determine whether any particular election regulation this year -- pertaining to mail-in ballot postmark deadlines, ballot drop box distributions and so forth -- meets constitutional muster. Consider the elections clause of Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." As Wilkinson wrote, the Constitution "clearly and explicitly delegates" the power over managing and regulating state elections not to any court, not to any governor and not to any statewide election board. Rather, the exclusive source of power for managing and regulating the "manner of holding elections" is the plenary power that resides in the state legislatures.
Put another way, federal judges throughout the country should follow one exceedingly simple and dispositive legal rule in adjudicating the myriad of lawsuits unfolding, and yet to unfold, pertaining to all things election-related. If a regulation is the product of the state legislature, then it is constitutional (pending consideration of any possible heightened criteria emanating from other legal sources, such as the various states' own constitutions). If a regulation is the product of any rulemaking body other than a state legislature, though, it is invalid.
Widespread judicial acceptance and utilization of the elections clause of Article I, Section 4 is not merely a proper application of black-letter law, though. If implemented -- including, if need lamentably be, at a Bush v. Gore-style final Supreme Court case -- it could go long a way toward defusing partisan tensions and solidifying electoral legitimacy due solely to the fact that its legal reasoning is so readily accessible and easily understood by lawyers and laymen alike. Given the tumult that we are likely to see unfold before our eyes over the next few weeks, that would be just what the doctor ordered.


bonginoreport--2020-10-24--Larry O’Connor: Here’s Why Trump’s Final Debate Was a Game-Changer

Anyone who has read this byline over the years knows that I 'm not in the prediction business .
I rarely take the precious space this fine website grants me to tell you what I think or believe may happen in the future , especially when it comes to how Americans will vote .
Anyone who tries to predict how the American electorate will respond to the candidacy of Donald Trump is lying to you and themselves and engaged in a fool 's errand .
This is a political figure who has defied every ounce of conventional wisdom in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in electoral politics , and if the 2020 election is any indication thus far , that phenomenon continues .
Remarkably , the majority of my very well-paid colleagues who dabble in the dark art of political commentary and analysis on television did n't learn this simple lesson after the 2016 presidential election .
But , there they are again , telling their viewers that the election is `` Biden 's to lose '' and `` Trump is way behind '' and ( my personal favorite ) `` Biden is favored to win in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , taking into account the well-executed disclaimer above , I 'd like to take a few moments to explain why I think President Trump 's debate performance Thursday night could very well be the game-changing event he needed to head straight to re-election eleven days from now .
I 'm not one of those voters who really gives a flip about whether a politician `` sounds presidential '' or not .
Most of the men who have held the office of president of the United States have had huge egos .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself out there as a potential `` leader of the free world , '' is n't it ?
I expect that most of the presidents and presidential candidates in my lifetime have been insufferable jerks behind the scenes and they put on their phony `` presidential '' face to con the voters .
That said , we must recognize that many voters do crave a straight-forward , serious tone in their president , and their opinions on this matter should not be dismissed .
After all , they vote too .
The latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 51 % to 42 % .
( I know , the national polls are irrelevant because of the electoral college , but for the point I am about to make , the national polls actually serve a purpose . )
To me , the remarkable aspect of this poll is not that Biden is leading .
It 's that it shows 7 % of the electorate is undecided .
Really ?
Undecided ?
This late in the game ?
And with these two politicians ?
One who has been fed into our consciousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past five years and is currently the president and the other who was vice president and has been in the public sphere for nearly five decades ?
Who in the hell are this 7 % who ca n't make up their minds ?
And then it hit me : They are n't undecided , they lean Trump , but they are waiting to make that final commitment .
Something is stopping them .
Something relatively intangible .
It 's the `` tone '' thing .
They are down with his policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the guy 's attitude .
They prefer the `` presidential '' thing .
Last night , Trump gave them just enough of that tone to help them make that commitment in the final days of the campaign .
Again , I do n't give a flip about the tone thing ; I evaluate results .
Would I like my president to be the second coming of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln ?
Sure .
Is that guy even running for office in this era ?
Hell no ...
I mean , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real Washington and Lincoln , so why would our era 's version step up ?
It ca n't be overstated : Trump getting Biden to admit that he will end the oil industry was a seminal moment .
It was the perfect confirmation of just how radical , out-of-touch and destructive Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have become .
The proof is in the Biden campaign 's embarrassing attempt to gaslight the world and tell us all that what we heard Biden say is not at all what we heard Biden say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about subsidies .
OK ... let 's watch the moment together , shall we ?
Biden has been telling the country that he is not beholden to the radicals in his party pushing the Green New Deal .
Of course , we do n't really believe him , but many voters are more than prepared to allow themselves to be fooled by such gaslighting .
But this is indisputable .
It comes from his own mouth and semi-coherent words .
It 's less about oil , although , in Pennsylvania , Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cars ( I hear cars are big in Michigan ) , than it is about Biden voluntarily confirming that he is aligned with the radical Left to upend our nation 's economy and way of life .
There 's one other thing about this moment that helps Trump .
Watch the video again .
Do you see it ?
Trump created this moment .
He had to take charge of the stage , raise his hand to stop the moderator from moving along , and challenge Biden directly with the question that should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is an Alpha-leadership move and it is the kind of thing that people genuinely want in a leader , regardless of politics .
Donald Trump has been president for four years .
He is the leader of the free world and has been at the center of every American political issue for over five years .
And yet , somehow , he is still running as an outsider .
He got an assist from the Democrats since they nominated the longest-serving politician in America who has been the ultimate insider and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that entire time .
Trump skillfully took that gift and hammered home the most important message of his candidacy last night .
`` That ’ s a typical political statement .
Let ’ s get off this China thing , and then he looks : 'The family around the table , ' everything .
Just a typical politician when I see that .
I 'm not a typical politician .
That ’ s why I got elected . ''
`` See , it 's all talk , no action with these politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done ?
[ You say ] , 'That 's what I 'm going to do when I become president ' – you were vice president along with Obama as your president , your leader for eight years .
Why did n't you get it done ?
You had eight years to get it done . ''
`` Joe , I ran because of you .
I ran because of Barack Obama .
Because you did a poor job .
If I thought you did a good job , I would have never run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate , Trump was able to settle into this theme very comfortably .
It 's no wonder it 's what vaulted him into the lead in the 2016 Republican primary and on to victory that November .
Anyone who is still undecided is probably a voter who does not traditionally align themselves on a regular basis with one party or the other .
They are independent .
These voters like outsiders .
They liked Ross Perot .
They like Barack Obama .
They like Donald Trump .
He was able to remind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , he 's still the consummate outsider compared to the likes of Joe Biden .
Again , I do n't pretend to tell you how voters will line up in eleven days , and I wo n't insult your intelligence by assuring you that this thing is settled for either of these candidates .
If I had that kind of undeserved arrogance and hubris , I 'd be a television analyst .
I only say this ; President Trump had a couple of important goals to achieve in this last debate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commit to him .
In my opinion , for what it 's worth , he achieved those important goals .
And then some .

Anyone who has read this byline over the years knows that I'm not in the prediction business. I rarely take the precious space this fine website grants me to tell you what I think or believe may happen in the future, especially when it comes to how Americans will vote.
Anyone who tries to predict how the American electorate will respond to the candidacy of Donald Trump is lying to you and themselves and engaged in a fool's errand. This is a political figure who has defied every ounce of conventional wisdom in the five short years he has been engaged in electoral politics, and if the 2020 election is any indication thus far, that phenomenon continues.
Remarkably, the majority of my very well-paid colleagues who dabble in the dark art of political commentary and analysis on television didn't learn this simple lesson after the 2016 presidential election. But, there they are again, telling their viewers that the election is "Biden's to lose" and "Trump is way behind" and (my personal favorite) "Biden is favored to win in 87 out of 100 scenarios!"
However, taking into account the well-executed disclaimer above, I'd like to take a few moments to explain why I think President Trump's debate performance Thursday night could very well be the game-changing event he needed to head straight to re-election eleven days from now.
1. The Tone
I'm not one of those voters who really gives a flip about whether a politician "sounds presidential" or not. Most of the men who have held the office of president of the United States have had huge egos. It's sort of a pre-requisite to put yourself out there as a potential "leader of the free world," isn't it? I expect that most of the presidents and presidential candidates in my lifetime have been insufferable jerks behind the scenes and they put on their phony "presidential" face to con the voters.
That said, we must recognize that many voters do crave a straight-forward, serious tone in their president, and their opinions on this matter should not be dismissed. After all, they vote too.
The latest RCP average of polls shows Biden leading 51% to 42%. (I know, the national polls are irrelevant because of the electoral college, but for the point I am about to make, the national polls actually serve a purpose.)
To me, the remarkable aspect of this poll is not that Biden is leading. It's that it shows 7% of the electorate is undecided. Really? Undecided? This late in the game? And with these two politicians? One who has been fed into our consciousness in every aspect of our lives over the past five years and is currently the president and the other who was vice president and has been in the public sphere for nearly five decades? Who in the hell are this 7% who can't make up their minds?
And then it hit me: They aren't undecided, they lean Trump, but they are waiting to make that final commitment. Something is stopping them. Something relatively intangible. It's the "tone" thing. They are down with his policies and achievements, but they just don't like the guy's attitude. They prefer the "presidential" thing.
Last night, Trump gave them just enough of that tone to help them make that commitment in the final days of the campaign.
Again, I don't give a flip about the tone thing; I evaluate results. Would I like my president to be the second coming of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln? Sure. Is that guy even running for office in this era? Hell no... I mean, the mobs are tearing down statues of the real Washington and Lincoln, so why would our era's version step up?
2. The Oil
It can't be overstated: Trump getting Biden to admit that he will end the oil industry was a seminal moment. It was the perfect confirmation of just how radical, out-of-touch and destructive Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have become.
The proof is in the Biden campaign's embarrassing attempt to gaslight the world and tell us all that what we heard Biden say is not at all what we heard Biden say.
Biden's team seeks to clarify Biden's remarks on the oil industry, with @KBeds saying that Biden was referring to ending oil subsidies. — Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) October 23, 2020
Yeah right. He was just talking about subsidies. OK... let's watch the moment together, shall we?
Trump: "Would you close down the oil industry?"
Biden: "I would transition from the oil industry, yes"
Trump: "That's a big statement"
Biden: "That is a big statement"
That big statement will lose Joe Biden the election. His plan is too radical and will destroy our economy! pic.twitter.com/UVYXm8MmUv — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 23, 2020
Biden has been telling the country that he is not beholden to the radicals in his party pushing the Green New Deal. Of course, we don't really believe him, but many voters are more than prepared to allow themselves to be fooled by such gaslighting. But this is indisputable. It comes from his own mouth and semi-coherent words.
It's less about oil, although, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and really anywhere else people like cars (I hear cars are big in Michigan), than it is about Biden voluntarily confirming that he is aligned with the radical Left to upend our nation's economy and way of life.
There's one other thing about this moment that helps Trump. Watch the video again. Do you see it? Trump created this moment. He had to take charge of the stage, raise his hand to stop the moderator from moving along, and challenge Biden directly with the question that should have been asked and forced the agenda. This is an Alpha-leadership move and it is the kind of thing that people genuinely want in a leader, regardless of politics.
3. The Outsider
Donald Trump has been president for four years. He is the leader of the free world and has been at the center of every American political issue for over five years. And yet, somehow, he is still running as an outsider.
It's an amazing thing.
He got an assist from the Democrats since they nominated the longest-serving politician in America who has been the ultimate insider and personification of stagnant, do-nothing DC politics for that entire time. Trump skillfully took that gift and hammered home the most important message of his candidacy last night.
A sample:
"That’s a typical political statement. Let’s get off this China thing, and then he looks: 'The family around the table,' everything. Just a typical politician when I see that. I'm not a typical politician. That’s why I got elected."
"See, it's all talk, no action with these politicians. Why didn't he get it done? [You say], 'That's what I'm going to do when I become president' – you were vice president along with Obama as your president, your leader for eight years. Why didn't you get it done? You had eight years to get it done."
President @realDonaldTrump to Joe Biden: “you had 8 years to get it done…you’re all talk and no action”https://t.co/gPwo1VdWqE pic.twitter.com/dcxMURBMVf — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 23, 2020
"Joe, I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama. Because you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would have never run."
“You know Joe...I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama...cause you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would of never run. I ran because of you...I’m looking at you now...your a politician...I ran because of you.” @realDonaldTrump #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/B9Dnn1aIGp — Dan Scavino?????? (@DanScavino) October 23, 2020
In the final third of the debate, Trump was able to settle into this theme very comfortably. It's no wonder it's what vaulted him into the lead in the 2016 Republican primary and on to victory that November. Anyone who is still undecided is probably a voter who does not traditionally align themselves on a regular basis with one party or the other. They are independent. These voters like outsiders.
They liked Ross Perot. They like Barack Obama. They like Donald Trump.
He was able to remind them that even though he's the president, he's still the consummate outsider compared to the likes of Joe Biden.
Again, I don't pretend to tell you how voters will line up in eleven days, and I won't insult your intelligence by assuring you that this thing is settled for either of these candidates. If I had that kind of undeserved arrogance and hubris, I'd be a television analyst.
I only say this; President Trump had a couple of important goals to achieve in this last debate to give Trump-shy or Trump-hesitant voters enough reason to commit to him. In my opinion, for what it's worth, he achieved those important goals. And then some.