powerlineblog--2020-10-27--An intervenor in the DOJ’s suit against Yale!

Students for Fair Admissions , Inc. ( SFFA ) has filed a motion to intervene in the Department of Justice ’ s suit against Yale .
The DOJ ’ s suit alleges discrimination by Yale against Whites and Asians/Asian Americans in undergraduate admissions .
You can read SFFA ’ s motion and proposed complaint here .
If SFFA is permitted to intervene — and I can think of no reason why it won ’ t be — this will mean the case can go forward even if Joe Biden is elected president and his administration decides to drop the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Hence the exclamation point in the title of this post .
SFFA is the organization that sued Harvard for discrimination .
Harvard won in the district court .
The case has been argued in the Second Circuit and is awaiting decision .
However , one of the three judges who heard the case , Juan Torruella , died yesterday .
SFFA is represented in the Yale case by the same law firm that represents it in the Harvard litigation — Consovoy McCarthy .
One couldn ’ t ask for more experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case against Harvard , filed years ago , seemed tailored to the thinking of Justice Kennedy , who was then the swing vote on the Supreme Court .
There is no longer any need to cater to Kennedy .
It is probably for this reason , at least in part , that the proposed complaint accompanying SFFA ’ s motion has a somewhat different emphasis than its complaint against Harvard , and follows the DOJ ’ s lead in important respects .
Assuming no “ court packing , ” the current Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action against Yale than the Court would have been in Justice Kennedy ’ s times .
In addition , the Second Circuit Court of Appeals , which will have jurisdiction over any appeal from the district court , will very likely be more receptive to this case than the First Circuit seems to be in the case against Harvard .
And at the district court level , the DOJ drew a considerably less liberal judge than SFFA got in the Harvard case .
The six claims against Yale by SFFA are : ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) racial balancing , ( 3 ) using race as more than a mere “ plus factor , ” ( 4 ) using race for more than filling the “ last few ” seats in an entering class , ( 5 ) failing to use race-neutral alternatives , and ( 6 ) unlawfully using race as a factor in admissions .
SFFA seeks to forbid Yale from using race as a factor in all future admissions decisions .
In terms of “ standing ” to bring the case , SFFA says : That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint alleges discrimination against White applicants , as well .
It would be nice if SFFA finds a White member to whom Yale has also denied admissions on account of race .
( Yale is probably discriminating against White applicants as I write this post . )
However , I don ’ t believe that allegations of discrimination against a White member of SFFA are essential in order for SFFA effectively to challenge Yale ’ s admissions policies .
Explaining SFFA ’ s decision to intervene in this case , Edward Blum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : By moving to intervene , SFFA pretty much ensures that the lawsuit will , in fact , be vigorously litigated , regardless of the outcome of the presidential election .

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) has filed a motion to intervene in the Department of Justice’s suit against Yale. The DOJ’s suit alleges discrimination by Yale against Whites and Asians/Asian Americans in undergraduate admissions. You can read SFFA’s motion and proposed complaint here.
If SFFA is permitted to intervene — and I can think of no reason why it won’t be — this will mean the case can go forward even if Joe Biden is elected president and his administration decides to drop the case against Yale (as it surely would). Hence the exclamation point in the title of this post.
SFFA is the organization that sued Harvard for discrimination. Harvard won in the district court. The case has been argued in the Second Circuit [correction, the First Circuit] and is awaiting decision. However, one of the three judges who heard the case, Juan Torruella, died yesterday.
SFFA is represented in the Yale case by the same law firm that represents it in the Harvard litigation — Consovoy McCarthy. One couldn’t ask for more experienced lawyers in a case like this.
The case against Harvard, filed years ago, seemed tailored to the thinking of Justice Kennedy, who was then the swing vote on the Supreme Court. There is no longer any need to cater to Kennedy. It is probably for this reason, at least in part, that the proposed complaint accompanying SFFA’s motion has a somewhat different emphasis than its complaint against Harvard, and follows the DOJ’s lead in important respects.
Assuming no “court packing,” the current Supreme Court will be more receptive to the action against Yale than the Court would have been in Justice Kennedy’s times. In addition, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which will have jurisdiction over any appeal from the district court, will very likely be more receptive to this case than the First Circuit seems to be in the case against Harvard. And at the district court level, the DOJ drew a considerably less liberal judge than SFFA got in the Harvard case.
The six claims against Yale by SFFA are: (1) intentional discrimination, (2) racial balancing, (3) using race as more than a mere “plus factor,” (4) using race for more than filling the “last few” seats in an entering class, (5) failing to use race-neutral alternatives, and (6) unlawfully using race as a factor in admissions. SFFA seeks to forbid Yale from using race as a factor in all future admissions decisions.
In terms of “standing” to bring the case, SFFA says:
At least one of SFFA’s members was denied admission to Yale’s 2020 entering class on account of his race. This applicant is ready and able to apply to transfer to Yale when it stops discriminating against applicants on the basis of race and ethnicity.
That applicant is Asian-American. However, the complaint alleges discrimination against White applicants, as well.
It would be nice if SFFA finds a White member to whom Yale has also denied admissions on account of race. (Yale is probably discriminating against White applicants as I write this post.) However, I don’t believe that allegations of discrimination against a White member of SFFA are essential in order for SFFA effectively to challenge Yale’s admissions policies.
Explaining SFFA’s decision to intervene in this case, Edward Blum, the organization’s president, said:
It is important that this lawsuit continues to be vigorously litigated through the courts during the coming months and years. Using race and ethnicity in college admissions decisions is unfair, unconstitutional and is fraying the social fabric that holds our nation together.
By moving to intervene, SFFA pretty much ensures that the lawsuit will, in fact, be vigorously litigated, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Mobs Attack Police in Philadelphia [Updated]

Yesterday a man with a knife charged two police officers in Philadelphia .
They retreated while yelling at the man to drop his knife .
He continued chasing them , and they shot him .
This is the video : There would be no story here if the man with the knife had been white , Asian or Hispanic , but because he was black , the city has exploded in violence .
The Free Beacon headlines : “ 30 Officers Injured in Anti-Police Protests in Philadelphia.
” Pro tip : If 30 officers were injured , they weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers were injured in Philadelphia on Monday night—including one sergeant who was hit by a truck—while responding to anti-police riots .
… NBC 10 Philadelphia reported that rioters then set police cars and dumpsters on fire and looted stores and restaurants .
Because setting fires and stealing stuff is how BLM/Antifa elements “ protest.
” Rioters also threw rocks and other projectiles at dozens of officers , who were later taken to the hospital .
The sergeant who was hit by a truck sustained a broken leg but is in stable condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this story , it is the likelihood that rioting in Philadelphia will help to put Pennsylvania firmly in the Trump column .
UPDATE : This video by the great Andy Ngo shows Philadelphians grieving over the death of the knife man by looting a clothing store .
This will universally be reported in the liberal press as a “ protest .
”

Yesterday a man with a knife charged two police officers in Philadelphia. They retreated while yelling at the man to drop his knife. He continued chasing them, and they shot him. This is the video:
There would be no story here if the man with the knife had been white, Asian or Hispanic, but because he was black, the city has exploded in violence. The Free Beacon headlines: “30 Officers Injured in Anti-Police Protests in Philadelphia.” Pro tip: If 30 officers were injured, they weren’t “protests.”
At least 30 police officers were injured in Philadelphia on Monday night—including one sergeant who was hit by a truck—while responding to anti-police riots. … NBC 10 Philadelphia reported that rioters then set police cars and dumpsters on fire and looted stores and restaurants.
Because setting fires and stealing stuff is how BLM/Antifa elements “protest.”
Rioters also threw rocks and other projectiles at dozens of officers, who were later taken to the hospital. The sergeant who was hit by a truck sustained a broken leg but is in stable condition.
If there is a silver lining to this story, it is the likelihood that rioting in Philadelphia will help to put Pennsylvania firmly in the Trump column.
UPDATE: This video by the great Andy Ngo shows Philadelphians grieving over the death of the knife man by looting a clothing store. This will universally be reported in the liberal press as a “protest.”


powerlineblog--2020-10-27--Pre-Election VIP Live on Friday!

Pre-Election VIP Live on Friday!

Please join your fellow VIPs for our big pre-election VIP Live event , Friday evening , beginning at 7 p.m. Central ( 5 Pacific , 8 Eastern ) .
We will make our official pre-election predictions and note less obvious results we should be watching for on Election Night .
Plus , it will be a pre-Halloween show .
Costumes are optional but encouraged .
If you are a VIP member , you will get an email with a link to a live address where you can watch the event and submit your own comments and questions .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can become one by clicking on the box in the upper right portion of our sidebar .
Membership costs $ 4.80 per month or $ 48 per year , and gives you access to Power Line Live events , as well as other occasional benefits like videos of Steve ’ s lectures .
You will eliminate most ads on our site .
And , most important , by becoming a VIP you support our work .
The URL to become a VIP is now : So if you are a VIP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central .
If you aren ’ t , please consider subscribing .

Please join your fellow VIPs for our big pre-election VIP Live event, Friday evening, beginning at 7 p.m. Central (5 Pacific, 8 Eastern). We will make our official pre-election predictions and note less obvious results we should be watching for on Election Night. Plus, it will be a pre-Halloween show. Costumes are optional but encouraged.
If you are a VIP member, you will get an email with a link to a live address where you can watch the event and submit your own comments and questions.
If you are not already a VIP member, you can become one by clicking on the box in the upper right portion of our sidebar. Membership costs $4.80 per month or $48 per year, and gives you access to Power Line Live events, as well as other occasional benefits like videos of Steve’s lectures. You will eliminate most ads on our site. And, most important, by becoming a VIP you support our work.
The URL to become a VIP is now:
https://subscriptions.powerlineblog.com
So if you are a VIP, please tune in Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. Central. If you aren’t, please consider subscribing.


powerlineblog--2020-10-28--Big Tech On Trial

Big Tech On Trial

CEOs of Twitter , Facebook and Google testified today before the Senate Commerce Committee on Big Tech censorship , and @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party .
The hearing lasted for nearly four hours .
This exchange between Ted @ @ @ @ @ Jack Dorsey has been the most discussed moment in the hearing : We may add @ @ @ @ @ to our attention .
Basically , the Silicon Valley giants are sitting tight and counting @ @ @ @ @ the election .
If that happens , there will be no accounting .
But if @ @ @ @ @ face serious trouble .

CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google testified today before the Senate Commerce Committee on Big Tech censorship, and its naked support of the Democratic Party. The hearing lasted for nearly four hours. This exchange between Ted Cruz and the apparently homeless Jack Dorsey has been the most discussed moment in the hearing:
We may add further clips as they come to our attention. Basically, the Silicon Valley giants are sitting tight and counting on Joe Biden to win the election. If that happens, there will be no accounting. But if Trump wins, they could face serious trouble.


powerlineblog--2020-10-28--The First Honest Democratic Party Campaign Ad

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-10-28--The perils of managing by formula

The perils of managing by formula

I long railed on Power Line against the formulaic use of relief pitchers that was followed pretty much universally when we started our blog in 2002 , and for many years thereafter .
The formula was that the team ’ s “ closer ” would be used only in the ninth inning of games in which his team had a lead of one to three runs .
The closer would always start the ninth inning ; he would never be asked to enter the game with runners on base .
A “ set up ” man would handle the eighth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme defied common sense .
However , it wasn ’ t abandoned until “ analytics ” proved that it also defied the numbers .
In this year ’ s MLB playoffs , and especially the World Series , we have seen the wholesale abandonment of the traditional formula for using relievers .
Putative closers enter games in the early middle innings .
They often enter with runners on base .
The notion — myth , I would say — that relievers need highly defined roles to prosper has been overturned .
This doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers aren ’ t using formulas when it comes to relief pitchers .
They may be using new , more complicated formulas ( or algorithms ) that I ’ m not smart enough to discern .
One thing I have discerned is a bias against having a starting pitcher face the opponent ’ s lineup three times and against a reliever facing it twice .
The idea isn ’ t that the pitcher will be tired the third ( or second time ) through the lineup .
Rather , it ’ s that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tricks ” and that the batters will have adjusted to his approach by then .
This view is plausible in terms of common sense and is backed by numbers .
But that doesn ’ t mean it should rise to the level of religion .
Unfortunately , it did last night in Game Six of the World Series — to the detriment of the Tampa Bay Rays .
The Rays were down three games to two , so this was a must-win contest for them .
Fortunately , one of their ace pitchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Through five innings , he had allowed no runs and only one hit .
Nine of the 15 Dodgers he faced had struck out .
He hadn ’ t allowed a walk .
His pitch count was under 70 .
The Rays held a 1-0 lead .
Snell retired the first batter he faced in the sixth inning .
The second batter singled to center field , thus becoming the second Dodger baserunner of the game .
At this point , to the amazement of most ( and certainly to Snell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cash pulled his ace starter and brought in star reliever Nate Anderson .
Why ?
Because Snell was about to begin his third trip through the opposing lineup .
But Snell had twice struck out Mookie Betts , who was due to bat .
And Betts , as good as he is , struggled against left-handed pitchers this season .
Snell is left-handed .
Anderson is a righty .
Furthermore , Anderson , although great during the regular season , has not pitched well in the playoffs .
If I heard the announcer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in six consecutive outings .
In all , he had allowed eight runs in 14.1 post-season innings this year before last night ’ s game .
In sum , pulling Snell for Anderson with Betts coming to the plate was malpractice .
Sometimes managers get away with awful moves , but Cash did not .
Betts promptly doubled .
A wild pitch and a fielder ’ s choice later , the Dodgers had a 2-1 lead .
Anderson did manage to retire Justin Turner , albeit on a fly ball that looked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a home run .
After that , having faced the mandatory minimum of three batters , Anderson was pulled .
Cash ’ s malpractice very likely cost the Rays the lead , which the Dodgers never relinquished .
It probably did not cost the Rays , who scored only one run , the game .
As well as Snell was pitching , it ’ s doubtful that he and the relievers who presumably would have come on late in the game could have shut Los Angeles out .
Still , the lesson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purely by formula is a bad idea , even if , as a general matter , a formula has the imprimatur of “ analytics .
”

I long railed on Power Line against the formulaic use of relief pitchers that was followed pretty much universally when we started our blog in 2002, and for many years thereafter. The formula was that the team’s “closer” would be used only in the ninth inning of games in which his team had a lead of one to three runs. The closer would always start the ninth inning; he would never be asked to enter the game with runners on base. A “set up” man would handle the eighth inning under similar terms.
This rigid scheme defied common sense. However, it wasn’t abandoned until “analytics” proved that it also defied the numbers.
In this year’s MLB playoffs, and especially the World Series, we have seen the wholesale abandonment of the traditional formula for using relievers. Putative closers enter games in the early middle innings. They often enter with runners on base. The notion — myth, I would say — that relievers need highly defined roles to prosper has been overturned.
This doesn’t mean, though, that managers aren’t using formulas when it comes to relief pitchers. They may be using new, more complicated formulas (or algorithms) that I’m not smart enough to discern.
One thing I have discerned is a bias against having a starting pitcher face the opponent’s lineup three times and against a reliever facing it twice. The idea isn’t that the pitcher will be tired the third (or second time) through the lineup. Rather, it’s that the pitcher will be out of “tricks” and that the batters will have adjusted to his approach by then.
This view is plausible in terms of common sense and is backed by numbers. But that doesn’t mean it should rise to the level of religion.
Unfortunately, it did last night in Game Six of the World Series — to the detriment of the Tampa Bay Rays.
The Rays were down three games to two, so this was a must-win contest for them. Fortunately, one of their ace pitchers, Blake Snell, was pitching brilliantly. Through five innings, he had allowed no runs and only one hit. Nine of the 15 Dodgers he faced had struck out. He hadn’t allowed a walk. His pitch count was under 70. The Rays held a 1-0 lead.
Snell retired the first batter he faced in the sixth inning. The second batter singled to center field, thus becoming the second Dodger baserunner of the game.
At this point, to the amazement of most (and certainly to Snell’s), Tampa Bay manager Kevin Cash pulled his ace starter and brought in star reliever Nate Anderson.
Why? Because Snell was about to begin his third trip through the opposing lineup.
But Snell had twice struck out Mookie Betts, who was due to bat. And Betts, as good as he is, struggled against left-handed pitchers this season. Snell is left-handed. Anderson is a righty.
Furthermore, Anderson, although great during the regular season, has not pitched well in the playoffs. If I heard the announcer correctly, he had given up runs in six consecutive outings. In all, he had allowed eight runs in 14.1 post-season innings this year before last night’s game.
In sum, pulling Snell for Anderson with Betts coming to the plate was malpractice.
Sometimes managers get away with awful moves, but Cash did not. Betts promptly doubled. A wild pitch and a fielder’s choice later, the Dodgers had a 2-1 lead.
Anderson did manage to retire Justin Turner, albeit on a fly ball that looked, off the bat, like it might be a home run. After that, having faced the mandatory minimum of three batters, Anderson was pulled.
Cash’s malpractice very likely cost the Rays the lead, which the Dodgers never relinquished. It probably did not cost the Rays, who scored only one run, the game. As well as Snell was pitching, it’s doubtful that he and the relievers who presumably would have come on late in the game could have shut Los Angeles out.
Still, the lesson from last night is clear. Managing purely by formula is a bad idea, even if, as a general matter, a formula has the imprimatur of “analytics.”


powerlineblog--2020-10-28--Climate Virtue Signaling Falls Short

Climate Virtue Signaling Falls Short

Last week we reported on a survey that found climatistas fly more often than other academics/scientists/activists , a result entirely unsurprising to our readership .
Today Nature magazine gets around to reporting on the survey , passing along some additionally embarrassing facts that I missed the first time around .
The Nature story reports that , yes , indeed climate scientists fly more than other experts , but “ make greater effort to offset their emissions.
” That sentence appears in the subhed of the story .
How much greater effort to offset their flying emissions ?
Not until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual numbers : The study also showed that climate researchers are more likely to try to mitigate the damage of flying by buying carbon offsets .
Some 44 % of climate scientists and 26 % of non-climate scientists said they had done this at least once .
Never mind that carbon offsets are a virtue-signaling scam , designed to let the rich and powerful buy themselves a clean conscience—the Green Religion version of buying indulgences for sin .
I suggest an alternative headline : “ Survey Finds Mass Hypocrisy Among Climate Scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Only 44 percent of climate scientists have offset their emissions “ at least once ” ?
The “ at least once ” is the most delicious bit .
I guess climate indulgences come with a lifetime guarantee .

Last week we reported on a survey that found climatistas fly more often than other academics/scientists/activists, a result entirely unsurprising to our readership. Today Nature magazine gets around to reporting on the survey, passing along some additionally embarrassing facts that I missed the first time around.
The Nature story reports that, yes, indeed climate scientists fly more than other experts, but “make greater effort to offset their emissions.” That sentence appears in the subhed of the story. How much greater effort to offset their flying emissions? Not until the next to last paragraph do we get the actual numbers:
The study also showed that climate researchers are more likely to try to mitigate the damage of flying by buying carbon offsets. Some 44% of climate scientists and 26% of non-climate scientists said they had done this at least once.
Never mind that carbon offsets are a virtue-signaling scam, designed to let the rich and powerful buy themselves a clean conscience—the Green Religion version of buying indulgences for sin. I suggest an alternative headline: “Survey Finds Mass Hypocrisy Among Climate Scientists: Fewer Than Half Offset Their Emissions.” Only 44 percent of climate scientists have offset their emissions “at least once”?
The “at least once” is the most delicious bit. I guess climate indulgences come with a lifetime guarantee.


Do Masks Work?

With regard to COVID , we are awash in unreliable or even intentionally misleading empirical claims .
A neurosurgeon from D.C. who understands statistics analyzes a popular claim that is being made on behalf of mask mandates .
I encountered a Washington Post figure making its way through social media , suggesting that not wearing masks is conclusively the reason for COVID spread : If you look at the figure closely , the y-axis is “ % who know someone with COVID-19.
” Why on earth would any reasonable scientist or public health official use this “ survey ” variable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The reason is , it is not true .
I pulled the % wearing masks variable from the graph ( in and by itself a dubious measurement ) , and correlated it with the Rt value ( that you can pull from Rt.live ) .
The RT value is the exponential coefficient that suggests growth ( > 1 ) vs contraction ( < 1 ) of the virus .
I then plotted the results : There is no correlation whatsoever .
The “ trend line ” I plotted has a 0.02 correlation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When you take the outliers out ( WY , RI , MS , DC , SD ) , the correlation drops to 0.01 .
In fact , some of the states with the worst RTs right now ( NJ , CT , MA , RI ) have the highest “ mask wearing ” percentages !
Furthermore , the graph is titled “ Fewer covid-19 symptoms reported in states with higher rates of mask use ” — which is completely wrong !
The data do not graph symptoms , only the loose perceptions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were surveyed .
The fact that this passes off as “ journalism ” or “ science ” is incredibly pathetic — and it is being “ liked ” on social media by people who should know better .
The reasons for this are the obvious political implications .
Hope you can make a comment or two regarding this .
People need to understand what is going on here !
This kind of fake science is rampant , and as our correspondent says , the motivation is political .
The Washington Post is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one should take anything it says seriously .

With regard to COVID, we are awash in unreliable or even intentionally misleading empirical claims. A neurosurgeon from D.C. who understands statistics analyzes a popular claim that is being made on behalf of mask mandates.
I encountered a Washington Post figure making its way through social media, suggesting that not wearing masks is conclusively the reason for COVID spread:
If you look at the figure closely, the y-axis is “% who know someone with COVID-19.” Why on earth would any reasonable scientist or public health official use this “survey” variable to honestly study a scientific/public health effect? The reason is, it is not true.
I pulled the % wearing masks variable from the graph (in and by itself a dubious measurement), and correlated it with the Rt value (that you can pull from Rt.live). The RT value is the exponential coefficient that suggests growth (>1) vs contraction (<1) of the virus. I then plotted the results:
There is no correlation whatsoever. The “trend line” I plotted has a 0.02 correlation (1.0 means full correlation). When you take the outliers out (WY, RI, MS, DC, SD), the correlation drops to 0.01. In fact, some of the states with the worst RTs right now (NJ, CT, MA, RI) have the highest “mask wearing” percentages!
Furthermore, the graph is titled “Fewer covid-19 symptoms reported in states with higher rates of mask use” — which is completely wrong! The data do not graph symptoms, only the loose perceptions of individuals who “know” someone, who were surveyed.
The fact that this passes off as “journalism” or “science” is incredibly pathetic — and it is being “liked” on social media by people who should know better. The reasons for this are the obvious political implications.
Hope you can make a comment or two regarding this. People need to understand what is going on here!
This kind of fake science is rampant, and as our correspondent says, the motivation is political. The Washington Post is like the New York Times; no one should take anything it says seriously.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--Pre-Election VIP Live on Friday!

Pre-Election VIP Live on Friday!

Please join your fellow VIPs for our big pre-election VIP Live event, Friday evening, beginning at 7 p.m. Central (5 Pacific, 8 Eastern). We will make our official pre-election predictions and note less obvious results we should be watching for on Election Night. Plus, it will be a pre-Halloween show. Costumes are optional but encouraged.
If you are a VIP member, you will get an email with a link to a live address where you can watch the event and submit your own comments and questions.
If you are not already a VIP member, you can become one by clicking on the box in the upper right portion of our sidebar. Membership costs $4.80 per month or $48 per year, and gives you access to Power Line Live events, as well as other occasional benefits like videos of Steve’s lectures. You will eliminate most ads on our site. And, most important, by becoming a VIP you support our work.
The URL to become a VIP is now:
https://subscriptions.powerlineblog.com
So if you are a VIP, please tune in Friday at 7:00 p.m. Central. If you aren’t, please consider subscribing.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--Woke Whites vs. establishment Blacks

Woke Whites vs. establishment Blacks

The Washington Post reports on “ the racial undercurrents of city politics ” that loom over the upcoming city council election in Washington , D.C .
The city is no longer majority Black due to the influx of young Whites and , says the Post , this development threatens the hold of Black establishment politicians .
That ’ s a normal development .
However , the ideological consequences of this demographic shift might be surprising to those who haven ’ t been paying attention .
According to the Post , the new , young White residents are pushing D.C. politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black political establishment fear being “ sidelined ” by these voters : Council member Kenyan R. McDuffie , a business-friendly moderate , said some self-described progressives don ’ t grasp the anxiety among Black voters unsure of their place in a changing city .
“ There is a segment of the District within the Black community that I hear from who are not sure what the progressive agenda is , or whether the progressive agenda includes them , ” said McDuffie , who is Black .
“ [ People ] are talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re struggling to pay their rent.
” BLM , of course , sides with the woke White progressives against the Black establishment .
The clash has two elements .
The first is the ideological one .
The second is pure identity politics .
Will the city elect Blacks or Whites to its council ?
For some White liberals , the solution is to find Black candidates who take woke positions : Hey , why not try to get Black politicians to front for your woke , Green , anti-business agenda ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s report about the machinations behind the city council race .
Much of it is of the “ pass the popcorn ” variety — provided one doesn ’ t live in Washington , D.C .
The point I want to make , though , is that the same ideological clash the Post describes here exists nationally .
Let ’ s not forget that the White portion of the national Democratic base was merrily on its way to nominating Bernie Sanders for president .
It was only when Black voters weighed in , starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden began to overtake Sanders .
Without the solid support of Black voters , Biden wouldn ’ t have prevailed .
If there is a critical mass of non-radical Democrats these days , it ’ s Black Dems .
Old-fashioned working class White Democrats have migrated away from the party .
The ones who remain lack influence .
That ’ s why none of the relatively moderate candidates in the Democratic field — John Delaney , Michael Bennet , Tim Ryan , John Hickenlooper , and Tulsi Gabbard — got any traction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two charismatic left-wing Black candidates — Kamala Harris and Cory Booker — couldn ’ t gain serious traction , either .
They hoped to capture the Black vote , but had very little appeal to Blacks .
It was Joe Biden , running to the right of Harris and Booker , to whom Black voters flocked .
All of which sets up an interesting future for the Democratic Party .
And that ’ s without taking into account what surely will be an increasingly large and frisky Latino component .

The Washington Post reports on “the racial undercurrents of city politics” that loom over the upcoming city council election in Washington, D.C. The city is no longer majority Black due to the influx of young Whites and, says the Post, this development threatens the hold of Black establishment politicians.
That’s a normal development. However, the ideological consequences of this demographic shift might be surprising to those who haven’t been paying attention.
According to the Post, the new, young White residents are pushing D.C. politics to the left. Members of the Black political establishment fear being “sidelined” by these voters:
Council member Kenyan R. McDuffie, a business-friendly moderate, said some self-described progressives don’t grasp the anxiety among Black voters unsure of their place in a changing city. “There is a segment of the District within the Black community that I hear from who are not sure what the progressive agenda is, or whether the progressive agenda includes them,” said McDuffie, who is Black. “[People] are talking about bike lanes . . . while they’re struggling to pay their rent.”
BLM, of course, sides with the woke White progressives against the Black establishment.
The clash has two elements. The first is the ideological one. The second is pure identity politics. Will the city elect Blacks or Whites to its council?
For some White liberals, the solution is to find Black candidates who take woke positions:
[A] summer of Black Lives Matter protests. . .has prompted some White liberals to shift their support [away from the White progressive candidate] to former council aide Christina Henderson or Ward 8 school board member Markus Batchelor, both of whom are Black and left-leaning.
Hey, why not try to get Black politicians to front for your woke, Green, anti-business agenda?
There’s more in the Post’s report about the machinations behind the city council race. Much of it is of the “pass the popcorn” variety — provided one doesn’t live in Washington, D.C.
The point I want to make, though, is that the same ideological clash the Post describes here exists nationally. Let’s not forget that the White portion of the national Democratic base was merrily on its way to nominating Bernie Sanders for president. It was only when Black voters weighed in, starting with the South Carolina primary, that Joe Biden began to overtake Sanders. Without the solid support of Black voters, Biden wouldn’t have prevailed.
If there is a critical mass of non-radical Democrats these days, it’s Black Dems. Old-fashioned working class White Democrats have migrated away from the party. The ones who remain lack influence. That’s why none of the relatively moderate candidates in the Democratic field — John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, and Tulsi Gabbard — got any traction.
It was also noteworthy that the two charismatic left-wing Black candidates — Kamala Harris and Cory Booker — couldn’t gain serious traction, either. They hoped to capture the Black vote, but had very little appeal to Blacks. It was Joe Biden, running to the right of Harris and Booker, to whom Black voters flocked.
All of which sets up an interesting future for the Democratic Party. And that’s without taking into account what surely will be an increasingly large and frisky Latino component.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--Behind the bloody attacks in France

Behind the bloody attacks in France

The Islamist violence in France that John describes in his post below is the bloody tip of the spear of the Islamic world ’ s reaction to President Macron ’ s attempt to defeat terrorism .
Turkey ’ s president , the deplorable thug Erdogan , attacked Macron ’ s response to the beheading of that teacher in a Paris suburb , claiming that Macron “ needs treatment on a mental level.
” The Washington Post described Macron ’ s response as “ a crackdown on Muslim organizations it accuses of fomenting terrorist violence ” and a defense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the French values of secularism and free expression.
” The deadly assaults John describes confirm the need for the crackdown and for the affirmation of freedom of expression .
In a display of chutzpah for the ages , Erdogan accused Macron of “ not understand [ ing ] freedom of belief.
” The beheaded teacher was executed for defending freedom of belief and expression — the freedoms Macron has exalted since the execution .
France responded to Erdogan ’ s verbal attacks by withdrawing its ambassador to Turkey .
As always with Erdogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Macron .
France and Turkey are at loggerheads over the civil war in Libya as well as Turkish claims to energy deposits in the eastern Mediterranean .
Erdogan is also playing to his domestic audience .
Asli Aydintasbas , a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations , explained that Erdogan ’ s jabs at Macron help rally members of his political base who are sympathetic to religious and nationalist appeals .
In addition , they bolster his credentials as a leader of the wider Sunni Muslim world .
These statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey and the Sunni Muslim world denies the West ’ s right to uphold freedom of speech and to crack down on Islamist terrorism .
In fact , there have been strong calls for a boycott French products throughout much of the Muslim world because of Macron ’ s response to the beheading of the teacher .
So it isn ’ t just a few knife-wielding terrorists who pose a danger to Western freedoms .
It ’ s Erdogan , his base of Turkish supporters , and like-minded Muslims ( likely millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was right when he called “ Islamist separatism ” a danger to France because it holds its own laws above all others and “ often results in the creation of a counter-society.
” I don ’ t agree with Macron on every particular of the secularism he supports , but he ’ s got the big picture right .
The French people think so , too .
John Sexton points to a poll in which a large a majority of the public agreed that they and their values are under attack by radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eyes of the French public .
Too bad it took so many murders and assaults for this to happen .

The Islamist violence in France that John describes in his post below is the bloody tip of the spear of the Islamic world’s reaction to President Macron’s attempt to defeat terrorism. Turkey’s president, the deplorable thug Erdogan, attacked Macron’s response to the beheading of that teacher in a Paris suburb, claiming that Macron “needs treatment on a mental level.”
The Washington Post described Macron’s response as “a crackdown on Muslim organizations it accuses of fomenting terrorist violence” and a defense of the caricatures of Muhammad “as emblematic of the French values of secularism and free expression.” The deadly assaults John describes confirm the need for the crackdown and for the affirmation of freedom of expression.
In a display of chutzpah for the ages, Erdogan accused Macron of “not understand[ing] freedom of belief.” The beheaded teacher was executed for defending freedom of belief and expression — the freedoms Macron has exalted since the execution.
France responded to Erdogan’s verbal attacks by withdrawing its ambassador to Turkey.
As always with Erdogan, there is cynicism in his attack on Macron. France and Turkey are at loggerheads over the civil war in Libya as well as Turkish claims to energy deposits in the eastern Mediterranean.
Erdogan is also playing to his domestic audience. Asli Aydintasbas, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, explained that Erdogan’s jabs at Macron help rally members of his political base who are sympathetic to religious and nationalist appeals. In addition, they bolster his credentials as a leader of the wider Sunni Muslim world.
These statements highlight the problem. Islamist opinion in Turkey and the Sunni Muslim world denies the West’s right to uphold freedom of speech and to crack down on Islamist terrorism. In fact, there have been strong calls for a boycott French products throughout much of the Muslim world because of Macron’s response to the beheading of the teacher.
So it isn’t just a few knife-wielding terrorists who pose a danger to Western freedoms. It’s Erdogan, his base of Turkish supporters, and like-minded Muslims (likely millions of them) throughout the world.
Macron was right when he called “Islamist separatism” a danger to France because it holds its own laws above all others and “often results in the creation of a counter-society.” I don’t agree with Macron on every particular of the secularism he supports, but he’s got the big picture right.
The French people think so, too. John Sexton points to a poll in which a large a majority of the public agreed that they and their values are under attack by radical Islam.
The scales have fallen from the eyes of the French public. Too bad it took so many murders and assaults for this to happen.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--Oregon Makes It Official: It’s a Clown Show

Someone in Oregon ’ s Public Health Authority thought it would be a neat and nifty idea to dress up @ @ @ @ @ the latest COVID statistics in the state .
As Yogi Berra might say , you @ @ @ @ @ not to believe it .
You only need watch the first 20 seconds or so @ @ @ @ @ to grasp the scene : What do you expect of the state that features nightly @ @ @ @ @ tourist attraction .

Someone in Oregon’s Public Health Authority thought it would be a neat and nifty idea to dress up as a clown to announce the latest COVID statistics in the state. As Yogi Berra might say, you have to see it, not to believe it. You only need watch the first 20 seconds or so of this two minute video to grasp the scene:
What do you expect of the state that features nightly riots as its new leading tourist attraction.


France Under Attack

France has sustained a series of attacks by Islamic terrorists , leaving three dead .
The Sun has a good account with lots of photos .
The principal violence occurred at a church in Nice : France is under siege after a woman was beheaded and two others killed in a church by a suspected terrorist and a another gunman was shot dead in a wave of violence .
Two separate suspects are understood to have launched attacks in Nice and Avignon just hours apart amid a furious row over controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in France .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were killed in a bloody ramage as a suspected terrorist stormed the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice , south of France .
And then police confirmed a man shouting “ Allahu Akbar ” while brandishing a knife was shot dead 160 miles away in Avignon .
Meanwhile , there have been at least three other incidents as French president Emmanuel Macron described his country as “ under attack ” .
It was reported a knifeman was caught near a church in Paris after telling his family he wanted to copy the attack in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while he was about to board a tram armed with a 12inch knife .
Also , a security guard at the French Consulate in Jeddah , Saudi Arabia , was stabbed as anti-France sentiment rages across many Muslim nations .

France has sustained a series of attacks by Islamic terrorists, leaving three dead. The Sun has a good account with lots of photos. The principal violence occurred at a church in Nice:
France is under siege after a woman was beheaded and two others killed in a church by a suspected terrorist and a another gunman was shot dead in a wave of violence.
Two separate suspects are understood to have launched attacks in Nice and Avignon just hours apart amid a furious row over controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in France.
In the most vicious incident, three people were killed in a bloody ramage as a suspected terrorist stormed the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice, south of France.
And then police confirmed a man shouting “Allahu Akbar” while brandishing a knife was shot dead 160 miles away in Avignon.
Meanwhile, there have been at least three other incidents as French president Emmanuel Macron described his country as “under attack”.
It was reported a knifeman was caught near a church in Paris after telling his family he wanted to copy the attack in Nice, while another man was arrested while he was about to board a tram armed with a 12inch knife.
Also, a security guard at the French Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, was stabbed as anti-France sentiment rages across many Muslim nations.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--Princeton president tries to double talk his way out of pickle he created

This summer , Christopher Eisgruber , the president of Princeton University , admitted that the institution he has run for years is plagued by “ systemic racism.
” He also admitted that racist assumptions “ remain embedded in structures of the University itself.
” U.S. law bars colleges and universities that receive federal money from subjecting students to discrimination on the basis of race .
Princeton receives lots of federal money .
Accordingly , the U.S. Department of Education , which is charged with enforcing the federal ban on discrimination by colleges and universities , commenced an investigation of Princeton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had stepped in it .
Is there a way to square Eisgruber ’ s admission of systemic racism at Princeton with the federal ban on race discrimination ?
I discussed some possible ways to attempt that reconciliation here and here .
They don ’ t work .
Nonetheless , Eisgruber is determined to squirm his way out of the problem he created .
The Daily Princetonian reports : Pushing back against the [ Department of Education ’ s ] investigation ’ s premise , President Eisgruber said , “ It is very surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Education thinks that because Princeton has stated that we want to address systemic racism that we are somehow admitting … there is something wrong in our community that requires intervention from the federal government.
” Eisgruber said he is not aware of any civil rights violations that the University had committed .
“ I am not aware of instances where the University has discriminated unlawfully against individuals , and we will explain that to the government , ” Eisgruber said .
But here is what Eisgruber admitted before he realized Princeton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Eisgruber wasn ’ t being honest at the town hall .
Princeton ( Eisgruber ) has said more than that it “ want [ s ] to address systemic racism.
” It has admitted that such racism exists at Princeton and that it damages “ people of color ” at Princeton .
And clearly , this state of affairs means that “ there is something wrong in [ the Princeton ] community.
” Or does Eisgruber want to tell Princeton ’ s black students that there is nothing wrong with systemic racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s equally clear that the state of affairs Eisgruber describes warrants government intervention .
Princeton has repeatedly certified to the government that it doesn ’ t discriminate on the basis of race .
It is the Department of Education ’ s job to ensure that Princeton meets its legal obligation not to so discriminate .
And government intervention is all the more urgent in this case , where Eisgruber has had seven years to address the systemic racism that he says persists at the institution he runs .
Eisgruber ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights violations by Princeton is laughable in view of his admission that persistent racism at Princeton is harming “ people of color.
” Causing harm to people due to their race is a straightforward form of discrimination .
Eisgruber says he isn ’ t “ aware of instances where the University has discriminated unlawfully against individuals.
” It may be that Princeton hasn ’ t made decisions — e.g.
, regarding admissions , hiring , promotion , and housing — that discriminate against Blacks .
( More likely , it has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whites and Asians . )
When Eisgruber said that racism persists at Princeton , he might have been thinking about racist acts by members of the community who aren ’ t part of his administration and of which he isn ’ t specifically aware .
But it is unlawful to maintain a persistently racist discriminatory work/study environment .
And Eisgruber has admitted his awareness that Princeton is such an environment ( in his view ) and that Princeton students “ of color ” are harmed as a result .
In addition , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ embedded ” in the very “ structures ” of the University The only honest way for Eisgruber to escape his pickle is to admit that he was blowing smoke when he copped to persistent systemic racism at Princeton .
But the consequences of such an admission would be waves of protest , loss of credibility , and presumably the end of Eisgruber ’ s time as president .
Thus , Eisgruber will continue with his double talk in the expectation that Joe Biden will be elected president and that Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending the federal investigation of racism at Princeton .

This summer, Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, admitted that the institution he has run for years is plagued by “systemic racism.” He also admitted that racist assumptions “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”
U.S. law bars colleges and universities that receive federal money from subjecting students to discrimination on the basis of race. Princeton receives lots of federal money.
Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Education, which is charged with enforcing the federal ban on discrimination by colleges and universities, commenced an investigation of Princeton. As the saying goes, Eisgruber had stepped in it.
Is there a way to square Eisgruber’s admission of systemic racism at Princeton with the federal ban on race discrimination? I discussed some possible ways to attempt that reconciliation here and here. They don’t work.
Nonetheless, Eisgruber is determined to squirm his way out of the problem he created. The Daily Princetonian reports:
Pushing back against the [Department of Education’s] investigation’s premise, President Eisgruber said, “It is very surprising to me, frankly, that the Department of Education thinks that because Princeton has stated that we want to address systemic racism that we are somehow admitting … there is something wrong in our community that requires intervention from the federal government.” Eisgruber said he is not aware of any civil rights violations that the University had committed. “I am not aware of instances where the University has discriminated unlawfully against individuals, and we will explain that to the government,” Eisgruber said.
But here is what Eisgruber admitted before he realized Princeton might be investigated for discrimination:
Racism and the damage it does to people of color. . .persist at Princeton.
Thus, Eisgruber wasn’t being honest at the town hall. Princeton (Eisgruber) has said more than that it “want[s] to address systemic racism.” It has admitted that such racism exists at Princeton and that it damages “people of color” at Princeton.
And clearly, this state of affairs means that “there is something wrong in [the Princeton] community.” Or does Eisgruber want to tell Princeton’s black students that there is nothing wrong with systemic racism at the University they attend?
It’s equally clear that the state of affairs Eisgruber describes warrants government intervention. Princeton has repeatedly certified to the government that it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race. It is the Department of Education’s job to ensure that Princeton meets its legal obligation not to so discriminate. And government intervention is all the more urgent in this case, where Eisgruber has had seven years to address the systemic racism that he says persists at the institution he runs.
Eisgruber’s claim that he is not aware of any civil rights violations by Princeton is laughable in view of his admission that persistent racism at Princeton is harming “people of color.” Causing harm to people due to their race is a straightforward form of discrimination.
Eisgruber says he isn’t “aware of instances where the University has discriminated unlawfully against individuals.” It may be that Princeton hasn’t made decisions — e.g., regarding admissions, hiring, promotion, and housing — that discriminate against Blacks. (More likely, it has made decisions in these areas that discriminate against Whites and Asians.) When Eisgruber said that racism persists at Princeton, he might have been thinking about racist acts by members of the community who aren’t part of his administration and of which he isn’t specifically aware.
But it is unlawful to maintain a persistently racist discriminatory work/study environment. And Eisgruber has admitted his awareness that Princeton is such an environment (in his view) and that Princeton students “of color” are harmed as a result. In addition, he has said that “racist assumptions” are “embedded” in the very “structures” of the University
The only honest way for Eisgruber to escape his pickle is to admit that he was blowing smoke when he copped to persistent systemic racism at Princeton. But the consequences of such an admission would be waves of protest, loss of credibility, and presumably the end of Eisgruber’s time as president.
Thus, Eisgruber will continue with his double talk in the expectation that Joe Biden will be elected president and that Biden’s administration will bail Eisgruber out by ending the federal investigation of racism at Princeton.


“Anonymous” no more

In September 2018 the New York Times published the column by a purported “ senior official in the Trump administration ” who vowed relentlessly to thwart Trump .
The Times identified the author of the column as “ Anonymous.
” Wow .
What a scandal !
More proof that Trump was unfit for office .
Even those who worked directly with him saw it !
Who was that masked man ?
“ Anonymous ” has come out .
He is Miles Taylor , who at the time he wrote the Times column was a policy adviser in the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google .
He has signed on with CNN as a contributor .
Indeed , CNN hired Taylor as a contributor last month after he denied on the air that he was “ Anonymous.
” Perfect !
You can ’ t make this stuff up .
It is beyond satire .
It turns out that there is a sort of scandal here , though not the one that was advertised at the time .
This scandal reveals the Times as a liar serving ulterior purposes , but it has become an old , old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s just a little comic relief in the old story .
Byron York gives the story narrative form in his Washington Examiner Daily Memo “ ‘ Anonymous ’ caper ends in disgrace for writer , New York Times.
” Byron concludes : “ What was it all about ?
Getting Trump , of course .
The past four years have seen many in the press change their reporting standards and take an unprecedented adversarial stance against the president .
It ’ s no surprise to see it continue right up @ @ @ @ @

In September 2018 the New York Times published the column by a purported “senior official in the Trump administration” who vowed relentlessly to thwart Trump. The Times identified the author of the column as “Anonymous.”
Wow. What a scandal! More proof that Trump was unfit for office. Even those who worked directly with him saw it! Who was that masked man?
“Anonymous” has come out. He is Miles Taylor, who at the time he wrote the Times column was a policy adviser in the Department of Homeland Security.
Miles Taylor! Whodat???
Taylor now works for Google. He has signed on with CNN as a contributor. Indeed, CNN hired Taylor as a contributor last month after he denied on the air that he was “Anonymous.” Perfect!
You can’t make this stuff up. It is beyond satire.
It turns out that there is a sort of scandal here, though not the one that was advertised at the time. This scandal reveals the Times as a liar serving ulterior purposes, but it has become an old, old story and therefore no scandal at all. It’s just a little comic relief in the old story.
Byron York gives the story narrative form in his Washington Examiner Daily Memo “‘Anonymous’ caper ends in disgrace for writer, New York Times.” Byron concludes: “What was it all about? Getting Trump, of course. The past four years have seen many in the press change their reporting standards and take an unprecedented adversarial stance against the president. It’s no surprise to see it continue right up until election day.”


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Which way will the Senate go?

Which way will the Senate go?

John says we will be making election predictions on our VIP Live program tomorrow night ( 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time ) , and he runs the show .
Therefore , I figured I should bone up on the Senate races , in case John goes there .
FiveThirtyEight failed to predict Donald Trump ’ s victory in 2016 , but has a decent record of forecasting Senate races .
Its analysis of the polls finds that the election will probably put Democrats in control of 51 to 52 seats .
It finds that the Democrats have a 77 percent chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fifty-two seats would represent a net gain of five .
Since the Democrats are likely to lose the seat they hold in Alabama ( FiveThirtyEight puts this probability at 80 percent ) , it would mean that the Dems picked up six seats they don ’ t hold now .
Which six ?
The most likely , according to FiveThirtyEight , are in Colorado ( 85 percent ) , Arizona ( 80 percent ) , North Carolina ( 64 percent ) , Maine ( 60 percent ) , and Iowa ( 55 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one of the races in which FiveThirtyEight forecasts a GOP win , but gives the Democratic candidate a fairly good chance — perhaps in Georgia where Republicans are defending two seats in races that appear to be close .
Are Senate bulls Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham in trouble ?
McConnell doesn ’ t seem to be .
FiveThirtyEight gives the Majority Leader a 95 percent chance of winning .
Graham ’ s chances also seem good at 77 percent .
Can we reasonably hope for a GOP pickup anywhere other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Michigan represents the best hope .
But FiveThirtyEight gives challenger John James , who is now pretty far behind in most polls , only a 19 percent chance of winning .
It gives Jason Lewis in Minnesota a 7 percent chance .
Of course , all of this goes out the window if the Republicans have a big night .
And I believe the 23 percent chance FiveThirtyEight gives the GOP of holding the Senate is a little better than the chance it gave President Trump four years ago .

John says we will be making election predictions on our VIP Live program tomorrow night (8:00 p.m. Eastern Time), and he runs the show. Therefore, I figured I should bone up on the Senate races, in case John goes there.
FiveThirtyEight failed to predict Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, but has a decent record of forecasting Senate races. Its analysis of the polls finds that the election will probably put Democrats in control of 51 to 52 seats. It finds that the Democrats have a 77 percent chance of controlling the Senate next year.
Fifty-two seats would represent a net gain of five. Since the Democrats are likely to lose the seat they hold in Alabama (FiveThirtyEight puts this probability at 80 percent), it would mean that the Dems picked up six seats they don’t hold now.
Which six? The most likely, according to FiveThirtyEight, are in Colorado (85 percent), Arizona (80 percent), North Carolina (64 percent), Maine (60 percent), and Iowa (55 percent). A sixth seat might come from one of the races in which FiveThirtyEight forecasts a GOP win, but gives the Democratic candidate a fairly good chance — perhaps in Georgia where Republicans are defending two seats in races that appear to be close.
Are Senate bulls Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham in trouble? McConnell doesn’t seem to be. FiveThirtyEight gives the Majority Leader a 95 percent chance of winning. Graham’s chances also seem good at 77 percent.
Can we reasonably hope for a GOP pickup anywhere other than in Alabama? Not according to FiveThirtyEight.
Michigan represents the best hope. But FiveThirtyEight gives challenger John James, who is now pretty far behind in most polls, only a 19 percent chance of winning. It gives Jason Lewis in Minnesota a 7 percent chance.
Of course, all of this goes out the window if the Republicans have a big night. And I believe the 23 percent chance FiveThirtyEight gives the GOP of holding the Senate is a little better than the chance it gave President Trump four years ago.


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--The Ad CNN Wouldn’t Run

The Ad CNN Wouldn’t Run

CNN refused to run a pro-Trump ad submitted by America First Action PAC on the ground that the ad , @ @ @ @ @ if Joe Biden wins , isn ’ t true .
Jim Treacher has the details @ @ @ @ @ be wrong ; Biden has promised to reverse the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act , @ @ @ @ @ as I recall ) something like 82 % of American households .
The middle class @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t think anyone takes CNN seriously as anything other than a @ @ @ @ @ so there is no point in getting exercised about it .
All we can do @ @ @ @ @ Trump isn ’ t really running against Joe Biden , a sad shell of a @ @ @ @ @ against CNN .
Against the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Associated @ @ @ @ @ and Chuck Schumer .
Against the entrenched federal bureaucracy .
Against the Chinese Communist Party @ @ @ @ @ Here is the ad that was too hot for CNN :

CNN refused to run a pro-Trump ad submitted by America First Action PAC on the ground that the ad, which predicts middle-class tax increases if Joe Biden wins, isn’t true. Jim Treacher has the details. CNN seems obviously to be wrong; Biden has promised to reverse the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cut taxes for (as I recall) something like 82% of American households. The middle class must be in there somewhere.
I don’t think anyone takes CNN seriously as anything other than a mouthpiece for the DNC, so there is no point in getting exercised about it. All we can do is beat them. Donald Trump isn’t really running against Joe Biden, a sad shell of a man. He is running against CNN. Against the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Associated Press. Against Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Against the entrenched federal bureaucracy. Against the Chinese Communist Party. Against the Swamp.
Here is the ad that was too hot for CNN:


powerlineblog--2020-10-29--This Week in Identity Politics: “I’ll Find Someone the Right Shade of Brown”

It has happened again : a white woman professor claiming to be a “ person of color ” has been exposed , this time at Furman University .
Inside Higher Education has the story : Another week , another unmasking of a white professor allegedly posing as a person of color : this time it ’ s Kelly Kean Sharp , a scholar of African American history who resigned abruptly Tuesday from her assistant professorship at Furman University .
Like other apparent racial fraudsters before her , Sharp was outed by an anonymous post on Medium .
The writer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having “ distantly ” known Sharp when she was graduate student at the University of California , Davis .
Sharp had never publicly identified as Latinx back then , the writer said , so they were recently puzzled to learn that Sharp had since started referring to herself as Chicana , including on her now-private Twitter profile .
According to screenshots included in the post , Sharp has tweeted about her abuela , or grandmother , from Mexico , and posted elsewhere about her “ abuela who came to the U.S. during WWII @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a teacher.
” .
.
.
In a cautionary twist against trying to dupe historians in particular , the scholars allegedly searched genealogical records and found that the grandmother Sharp said was from Mexico was actually born in Los Angeles “ to white parents and was residing in the U.S. during all the census records of her upbringing.
” A servant was even employed and living at the home , according to census records , the post says .
“ This grandmother eventually married a wealthy , white lawyer from Iowa.
” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unmasking of a handful of white academics who have posed as nonwhite : BethAnn McLaughlin , Jessica Krug , C. V. Vitolo-Haddad and Craig Chapman .
Why does this keep happening ?
Everyone knows why , but won ’ t dare admit it .
Meanwhile , the New York Times asks : You know the old saying : If you have to ask , it ’ s too late .
Especially if it ’ s the NY Times doing the asking .
Read the story if you enjoy the schadenfreudey goodness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But perhaps the best perspective on the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics is found in pop culture .
One of my rare TV show commitments is to a Danish political drama called Borgen , which is available on Netflix in Danish with English subtitles .
It ’ s the Danish version of House of Cards , though much more realistic than Cards , which I gave up on fairly quickly because it just got too ridiculous even with a willing suspension of disbelief .
The central story line of Borgen is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was prophetic in some ways in that the show soon came to real life in the form of Helle Thorning-Schmidt , a striking blonde who became Denmark ’ s first female PM .
Anyway , in the third season of Borgen , the former female prime minister is attempting a political comeback by starting a new center-left party , especially oriented toward rolling back right-wing restrictions on immigration .
( I didn ’ t say the show wasn ’ t liberal . )
In one scene , the core members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes the former PM , her media adviser Katrine , an young and cynical male MP ( Male MP 1 below ) , an old male MP with an African wife ( Male MP2 below ) , and a young female MP , discusses the problem of finding a new spokesman on immigration issues .
The dialogue runs as follows : Katrine : “ How about finding a new candidate ?
Maybe even an immigration spokesman that is an immigrant ?
” Female MP : “ I know this fantastic guy from Greenland.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not exactly a brown candidate if you ’ re Inuit.
” Katrina : “ True .
It should be a Muslim.
” Female MP : “ An old study mate of mine knows an Indonesian guy .
He ’ s lived in Denmark for 20 years and he ’ s really smart.
” Male MP2 : “ It depends on what people think .
People think my wife is a mail-order bride from Uganda.
” Male MP1 : “ No , we don ’ t want an African.
” Male MP2 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim from the Middle East .
Like with a large beard and hair all over.
” Party Leader/former PM : “ Enough of this , before it turns into a discussion about eugenics .
Let ’ s find the best candidate .
Katrine ’ s got the ball , but anyone can suggest candidates.
” Katrine ( with a giggle ) : “ I ’ ll find someone the right shade of brown.
” As I say , leave it to pop culture to get to the heart of things as usual .

It has happened again: a white woman professor claiming to be a “person of color” has been exposed, this time at Furman University. Inside Higher Education has the story:
Another week, another unmasking of a white professor allegedly posing as a person of color: this time it’s Kelly Kean Sharp, a scholar of African American history who resigned abruptly Tuesday from her assistant professorship at Furman University. Like other apparent racial fraudsters before her, Sharp was outed by an anonymous post on Medium. The writer of the post identifies him or herself as having “distantly” known Sharp when she was graduate student at the University of California, Davis. Sharp had never publicly identified as Latinx back then, the writer said, so they were recently puzzled to learn that Sharp had since started referring to herself as Chicana, including on her now-private Twitter profile. According to screenshots included in the post, Sharp has tweeted about her abuela, or grandmother, from Mexico, and posted elsewhere about her “abuela who came to the U.S. during WWII who worked hard so I could become a teacher.” . . . In a cautionary twist against trying to dupe historians in particular, the scholars allegedly searched genealogical records and found that the grandmother Sharp said was from Mexico was actually born in Los Angeles “to white parents and was residing in the U.S. during all the census records of her upbringing.” A servant was even employed and living at the home, according to census records, the post says. “This grandmother eventually married a wealthy, white lawyer from Iowa.” . . . This year alone has seen the unmasking of a handful of white academics who have posed as nonwhite: BethAnn McLaughlin, Jessica Krug, C. V. Vitolo-Haddad and Craig Chapman.
Why does this keep happening? Everyone knows why, but won’t dare admit it.
Meanwhile, the New York Times asks:
You know the old saying: If you have to ask, it’s too late. Especially if it’s the NY Times doing the asking. Read the story if you enjoy the schadenfreudey goodness of these kind of Manhattan media struggle sessions.
But perhaps the best perspective on the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics is found in pop culture. One of my rare TV show commitments is to a Danish political drama called Borgen, which is available on Netflix in Danish with English subtitles. It’s the Danish version of House of Cards, though much more realistic than Cards, which I gave up on fairly quickly because it just got too ridiculous even with a willing suspension of disbelief. The central story line of Borgen is about the first female prime minister, which was prophetic in some ways in that the show soon came to real life in the form of Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a striking blonde who became Denmark’s first female PM.
Anyway, in the third season of Borgen, the former female prime minister is attempting a political comeback by starting a new center-left party, especially oriented toward rolling back right-wing restrictions on immigration. (I didn’t say the show wasn’t liberal.) In one scene, the core members of the new party, a small group that includes the former PM, her media adviser Katrine, an young and cynical male MP (Male MP 1 below), an old male MP with an African wife (Male MP2 below), and a young female MP, discusses the problem of finding a new spokesman on immigration issues. The dialogue runs as follows:
Katrine: “How about finding a new candidate? Maybe even an immigration spokesman that is an immigrant?” Male MP1: “That would fit our profile.” Party Leader/former PM: “That’s a great idea, Katrina.” Female MP: “I know this fantastic guy from Greenland.” Male MP1: “You’re not exactly a brown candidate if you’re Inuit.” Katrine: “True. It should be a Muslim.” Female MP: “An old study mate of mine knows an Indonesian guy. He’s lived in Denmark for 20 years and he’s really smart.” Male MP1: “People will think Japanese, Chinese, big business.” Female MP: “Seriously? Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim country.” Male MP2: “It depends on what people think. People think my wife is a mail-order bride from Uganda.” Male MP1: “No, we don’t want an African.” Male MP2: “Let’s find a fully-fledged Muslim from the Middle East. Like with a large beard and hair all over.” Party Leader/former PM: “Enough of this, before it turns into a discussion about eugenics. Let’s find the best candidate. Katrine’s got the ball, but anyone can suggest candidates.” Katrine (with a giggle): “I’ll find someone the right shade of brown.”
As I say, leave it to pop culture to get to the heart of things as usual.


Weekend at Biden’s


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Will Minnesota Go Red?

Will Minnesota Go Red?

In Minnesota , polls show a tight race between President Trump and Joe Biden .
This has Democrats worried ; in 2016 , the last October poll showed Hillary Clinton with an 11-point lead , and she carried the state by a point and a half .
That was remarkable , in view of the fact that in 2016 , the Trump campaign allotted $ 50,000 to Minnesota , according to Mick Mulvaney .
This year , the campaign is spending millions , most significantly on voter turnout efforts .
The most tangible evidence that Minnesota is in play is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stop in St. Paul to his schedule for Friday .
He didn ’ t to that because his campaign is happy with their own polling here .
Breitbart reports : “ Democrats increasingly worried Minnesota could flip for President Trump.
” Democrats are increasingly concerned that Minnesota , which has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 48 years , could flip for President Trump next week , given the GOP ’ s “ significant operation ” in the state and the Democrats ’ stunning lack of canvassing in recent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nicholas reports that Democrats estimate there to be “ as many as 250,000 white residents who didn ’ t go to college—the heart of Trump ’ s base ” who were not registered to vote during the last presidential election .
Now , Republicans are “ taking pains to find them.
” Like Biden , President Trump will visit Minnesota on Friday , stopping for a rally in Rochester .
Minnesota ’ s far-left Attorney General Keith Ellison is doing what he can to suppress enthusiasm for the president : Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guests due to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison putting pressure on the campaign and business owners , needling them for a “ COVID Preparedness Plan , ” as Breitbart News reported : The rally was initially planned at the Rochester airport , but Ellison ’ s office demanded a “ COVID preparedness plan ” from officials from the City of Rochester , Olmsted County , and the Rochester airport , as well as the Republican National Committee to ensure the event was safe .
The event was then moved to Dodge Center , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign and the owner of the building McNeilus Steel for their “ COVID Preparedness Plan.
” That prompted the Trump campaign to move the event again , back to the airport .
“ Thanks to the free speech-stifling dictates of Gov .
Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison , only the first 250 people will be admitted , ” the campaign said in a statement on Thursday .
“ Without question , Minnesota Democrats had hoped that the President would simply cancel the event , but he will not allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment rights to gather peacefully to hear directly from the President of the United States , ” the campaign continued .
This is exactly the same tactic Ellison ’ s office used to try to block a forum on voter fraud that my organization sponsored earlier this month .
I have heard other reports of the AG ’ s office demanding “ covid preparedness plans ” from conservative organizations , but no reports of similar demands on liberal groups .
Of course , it could be a moot point .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 in any event .
Tuesday ’ s election will have many interesting angles and undoubtedly will result in some surprises .
I hope Minnesota will be one of them .
UPDATE : Undaunted by Ellison ’ s interference , Minnesota Republicans are turning out to cheer on the president : Meanwhile , it looks like Trump supporters may have vastly outnumbered Biden ’ s people at Biden ’ s event at the state fairgrounds : Biden , as so often happens , got flustered and angry at the “ ugly ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty much the 2020 campaign in microcosm .

In Minnesota, polls show a tight race between President Trump and Joe Biden. This has Democrats worried; in 2016, the last October poll showed Hillary Clinton with an 11-point lead, and she carried the state by a point and a half. That was remarkable, in view of the fact that in 2016, the Trump campaign allotted $50,000 to Minnesota, according to Mick Mulvaney. This year, the campaign is spending millions, most significantly on voter turnout efforts.
The most tangible evidence that Minnesota is in play is the fact that Joe Biden has added a stop in St. Paul to his schedule for Friday. He didn’t to that because his campaign is happy with their own polling here. Breitbart reports: “Democrats increasingly worried Minnesota could flip for President Trump.”
Democrats are increasingly concerned that Minnesota, which has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 48 years, could flip for President Trump next week, given the GOP’s “significant operation” in the state and the Democrats’ stunning lack of canvassing in recent months.
***
The Atlantic’s Peter Nicholas reports that Democrats estimate there to be “as many as 250,000 white residents who didn’t go to college—the heart of Trump’s base” who were not registered to vote during the last presidential election. Now, Republicans are “taking pains to find them.”
Like Biden, President Trump will visit Minnesota on Friday, stopping for a rally in Rochester. Minnesota’s far-left Attorney General Keith Ellison is doing what he can to suppress enthusiasm for the president:
Trump’s Minnesota rally will be limited to 250 guests due to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison putting pressure on the campaign and business owners, needling them for a “COVID Preparedness Plan,” as Breitbart News reported: The rally was initially planned at the Rochester airport, but Ellison’s office demanded a “COVID preparedness plan” from officials from the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, and the Rochester airport, as well as the Republican National Committee to ensure the event was safe. The event was then moved to Dodge Center, prompting Ellison’s office to ask the Trump campaign and the owner of the building McNeilus Steel for their “COVID Preparedness Plan.” That prompted the Trump campaign to move the event again, back to the airport. “Thanks to the free speech-stifling dictates of Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, only the first 250 people will be admitted,” the campaign said in a statement on Thursday. “Without question, Minnesota Democrats had hoped that the President would simply cancel the event, but he will not allow partisan politicians to deprive people of their First Amendment rights to gather peacefully to hear directly from the President of the United States,” the campaign continued.
This is exactly the same tactic Ellison’s office used to try to block a forum on voter fraud that my organization sponsored earlier this month. I have heard other reports of the AG’s office demanding “covid preparedness plans” from conservative organizations, but no reports of similar demands on liberal groups. Of course, it could be a moot point. Joe Biden couldn’t draw a crowd of 250 in any event.
Tuesday’s election will have many interesting angles and undoubtedly will result in some surprises. I hope Minnesota will be one of them.
UPDATE: Undaunted by Ellison’s interference, Minnesota Republicans are turning out to cheer on the president:
DEVELOPING: Trump supporters not taking “no” for an answer at Rochester Airport rally. Hundreds with Trump flags gathering outside the airport and the roads surrounding the airport are jammed. State limited size of rally inside to 250. Big screen set up outside for overflow. pic.twitter.com/RFU6abEiqk — Tom Hauser (@thauserkstp) October 30, 2020
Meanwhile, it looks like Trump supporters may have vastly outnumbered Biden’s people at Biden’s event at the state fairgrounds:
Joe Biden being drowned out by Minnesota Trump supporters right now. pic.twitter.com/gN4Y5Xcohq — Rebecca Brannon (@RebsBrannon) October 30, 2020
Trump supporters waving Biden supporters away in St. Paul, Minnesota pic.twitter.com/xLZhcRmFrZ — Rebecca Brannon (@RebsBrannon) October 30, 2020
Biden, as so often happens, got flustered and angry at the “ugly” Trump supporters:
WATCH: Joe Biden gets angry, calls Minnesota Trump supporters "ugly." pic.twitter.com/rLojZQupU5 — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) October 30, 2020
Today’s events are pretty much the 2020 campaign in microcosm.


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Trump Wins In a Landslide!

Trump Wins In a Landslide!

Well , he should win in a landslide .
To find out whether he will or not , tune in to tonight ’ s VIP Live show .
President Trump ’ s tremendous record on the economy is one of the main reasons why he deserves re-election .
Today the Council of Economic Advisers published an excellent analysis of that record .
In the first 3 years of the Trump Administration , the United States economy experienced a reversal of several trends previously underway during the prior expansion .
In the 7.5 years through 2016 , the United States economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising inequality , and increased , though slowly falling , poverty .
In contrast , in the 3 years before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic , Americans experienced unprecedented gains in personal income and wealth , as pro-growth policies raised living standards while ameliorating the gap in wealth inequality for the first time since 1992 .
*** The pro-growth policies of the Trump Administration bolstered demand for labor , bringing workers off the sidelines , leading to strong wage and income gains for American workers throughout the economy .
These gains disproportionately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaker growth in the 2009-16 expansion period .
This is marked by the fact that in the first 3 years of the Trump Administration , the typical family ’ s real income surged by over $ 6,000—to the highest level on record—and real wages of the lowest earners ( 10th percentile ) grew twice as fast as those of the highest earners ( 90th percentile ) .
In this chart , the blue bars are the Obama years , and the brown bars are the period from 2017 through 2019 : More at @ @ @

Well, he should win in a landslide. To find out whether he will or not, tune in to tonight’s VIP Live show.
President Trump’s tremendous record on the economy is one of the main reasons why he deserves re-election. Today the Council of Economic Advisers published an excellent analysis of that record.
In the first 3 years of the Trump Administration, the United States economy experienced a reversal of several trends previously underway during the prior expansion. In the 7.5 years through 2016, the United States economy experienced a historically weak economic recovery, rising inequality, and increased, though slowly falling, poverty. In contrast, in the 3 years before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans experienced unprecedented gains in personal income and wealth, as pro-growth policies raised living standards while ameliorating the gap in wealth inequality for the first time since 1992.
***
The pro-growth policies of the Trump Administration bolstered demand for labor, bringing workers off the sidelines, leading to strong wage and income gains for American workers throughout the economy. These gains disproportionately benefited historically disadvantaged groups that experienced relatively weaker growth in the 2009-16 expansion period. This is marked by the fact that in the first 3 years of the Trump Administration, the typical family’s real income surged by over $6,000—to the highest level on record—and real wages of the lowest earners (10th percentile) grew twice as fast as those of the highest earners (90th percentile).
In this chart, the blue bars are the Obama years, and the brown bars are the period from 2017 through 2019:
More at the link.


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--The races in Georgia

The races in Georgia

Last night , in discussing the state of the race to control the Senate , I cited an analysis by FiveThirtyEight .
That analysis gives the GOP the edge in picking up a seat in Alabama , but the edge to Democrats in capturing seats in Colorado , Arizona , North Carolina , Maine , and Iowa .
These results would give the Dems a 51-49 margin in the Senate .
I also noted that the Democrats could get to 52 seats by picking up one of the two contested seats in Georgia .
Winning both would get them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races pits Sen. David Perdue against Jon Ossoff .
The other involves Sen. Kelly Loeffler , Rep. Doug Collins ( both Republicans ) , and Democrat Raphael Warnock .
In response to my post , a reader with whom I have corresponded over the years — a seasoned observer of , and participant in , Georgia politics — wrote : The Loeffler/Collins/Warnock race ( a “ jungle primary ” to replace Johnny Isakson until 2022 ) will go to a January runoff for sure .
The Perdue/Ossoff race may go to a runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.5-2 % .
By January , the Democrats might have a working majority locked up ( we might even know who the winner of the presidential race is ) .
But if they don ’ t , Georgia will become the center of the political universe — all the more so if both Georgia Senate seats are up for grabs .
I asked my correspondent how he assesses the Perdue-Ossoff race and the presidential race in Georgia .
He responded that both races are “ razor tight.
” He noted the following : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has outpaced the Democrats in registering voters this year .
Taking everything into account , he thinks Perdue will win , but Trump will lose Georgia .
He has observed a goodly number of reliable Republican voters who say they are disinclined to vote for the president because ( irrationally , in my correspondent ’ s view ) they are unhappy with his handling of the coronavirus .
Our reader concludes : “ At this point , it ’ s a turnout game , but advantage Biden.
” Most polls of Georgia give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a 58 percent chance of carrying Georgia .
No Democratic presidential candidate has won in Georgia since 1992 , when Bill Clinton edged out George H.W .
Bush , 43.5 to 42.9 .
No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority in Georgia since native son Jimmy Carter did it in 1980 .

Last night, in discussing the state of the race to control the Senate, I cited an analysis by FiveThirtyEight. That analysis gives the GOP the edge in picking up a seat in Alabama, but the edge to Democrats in capturing seats in Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, and Iowa.
These results would give the Dems a 51-49 margin in the Senate.
I also noted that the Democrats could get to 52 seats by picking up one of the two contested seats in Georgia. Winning both would get them to 53.
One of the two Georgia races pits Sen. David Perdue against Jon Ossoff. The other involves Sen. Kelly Loeffler, Rep. Doug Collins (both Republicans), and Democrat Raphael Warnock.
In response to my post, a reader with whom I have corresponded over the years — a seasoned observer of, and participant in, Georgia politics — wrote:
The Loeffler/Collins/Warnock race (a “jungle primary” to replace Johnny Isakson until 2022) will go to a January runoff for sure. The Perdue/Ossoff race may go to a runoff as there is a libertarian pulling about 1.5-2%.
By January, the Democrats might have a working majority locked up (we might even know who the winner of the presidential race is). But if they don’t, Georgia will become the center of the political universe — all the more so if both Georgia Senate seats are up for grabs.
I asked my correspondent how he assesses the Perdue-Ossoff race and the presidential race in Georgia. He responded that both races are “razor tight.” He noted the following:
Trump won [Georgia] by 5 points in 2016 [by] 200k votes. In 2018 Kemp won by 50k votes, getting 100k less than Trump while Abrams got 50k more than Hillary.
He also pointed out that the GOP has outpaced the Democrats in registering voters this year.
Taking everything into account, he thinks Perdue will win, but Trump will lose Georgia. He has observed a goodly number of reliable Republican voters who say they are disinclined to vote for the president because (irrationally, in my correspondent’s view) they are unhappy with his handling of the coronavirus.
Our reader concludes: “At this point, it’s a turnout game, but advantage Biden.”
Most polls of Georgia give Biden the lead. FiveThirtyEight says Biden has a 58 percent chance of carrying Georgia.
No Democratic presidential candidate has won in Georgia since 1992, when Bill Clinton edged out George H.W. Bush, 43.5 to 42.9. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority in Georgia since native son Jimmy Carter did it in 1980.


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Maine Senate race tightens

Maine Senate race tightens

A new poll by SurveyUSA finds the Maine Senate race between Sen. Susan Collins and Sarah Giddeon to be a dead heat .
Gideon , who once held a clear lead , is ahead by a statistically insignificant one point margin , 46-45 .
The poll was conducted from October 23-27 .
Maine uses a ranked-choice voting system .
Votes for third party candidates , of which there are two this year , will be distributed to the Democrat or Republican ranked highest on these ballots .
Under this system , SurveyUSA finds Gideon ahead 51-49 .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin of error .
The same survey has Joe Biden leading President Trump in Maine ’ s Second District by three points ( also inside the margin of error ) .
Trump derided Collins after she voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett .
Given Trump ’ s lack of popularity in Maine — he is down statewide by 53-40 — it ’ s not certain that his derision will hurt Collins ’ chances .
Still , Trump would have been better advised to hold his tongue .
If he wins the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A Collins victory might make the difference in giving him one .
Moreover , Collins votes with Trump two-thirds of the time , about the same as Sen. Rand Paul .
Gideon is a liberal Democrat .
It ’ s almost certain that , like nearly every other Senate Dem , she will vote with Trump less than one-third of the time .
Let ’ s also remember that Collins stood with Trump in the bruising battle to confirm Brett Kavanaugh .
And she did not oppose Barrett on ideological grounds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for Barrett after the election if Trump won .
Her opposition was based on the principle that Supreme Court Justices shouldn ’ t be confirmed in a presidential election year until the voters have picked a president .
This was the position of Senate Republicans in 2016 .
If Trump loses and Democrats take control of the Senate , a Collins victory might be all the more important .
Her victory would deprive the Democrats of a vote for their radical agenda .
Collins and Joe Manchin might be able to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t vote to pack the Supreme Court ( Gideon indicated that she might ) .
She won ’ t vote to end the filibuster , a move that would enable Biden and Chuck Schumer to hammer through all sorts of left-wing legislation .
Collins opposed Obamacare and would very likely oppose expanding it in ways that would effectively end private health insurance .
Gideon would be a “ yes ” on that expansion .
Thus , I ’ m heartened by the news that Collins has pulled even with Gideon in @ @ @ @ @

A new poll by SurveyUSA finds the Maine Senate race between Sen. Susan Collins and Sarah Giddeon to be a dead heat. Gideon, who once held a clear lead, is ahead by a statistically insignificant one point margin, 46-45. The poll was conducted from October 23-27.
Maine uses a ranked-choice voting system. Votes for third party candidates, of which there are two this year, will be distributed to the Democrat or Republican ranked highest on these ballots.
Under this system, SurveyUSA finds Gideon ahead 51-49. That’s still well within the poll’s margin of error.
The same survey has Joe Biden leading President Trump in Maine’s Second District by three points (also inside the margin of error).
Trump derided Collins after she voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. Given Trump’s lack of popularity in Maine — he is down statewide by 53-40 — it’s not certain that his derision will hurt Collins’ chances.
Still, Trump would have been better advised to hold his tongue. If he wins the election, Trump will need a Senate GOP majority. A Collins victory might make the difference in giving him one.
Moreover, Collins votes with Trump two-thirds of the time, about the same as Sen. Rand Paul. Gideon is a liberal Democrat. It’s almost certain that, like nearly every other Senate Dem, she will vote with Trump less than one-third of the time.
Let’s also remember that Collins stood with Trump in the bruising battle to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. And she did not oppose Barrett on ideological grounds.
In fact, Collins said she would vote for Barrett after the election if Trump won. Her opposition was based on the principle that Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be confirmed in a presidential election year until the voters have picked a president. This was the position of Senate Republicans in 2016.
If Trump loses and Democrats take control of the Senate, a Collins victory might be all the more important. Her victory would deprive the Democrats of a vote for their radical agenda. Collins and Joe Manchin might be able to hold the line against that agenda.
Collins won’t vote to pack the Supreme Court (Gideon indicated that she might). She won’t vote to end the filibuster, a move that would enable Biden and Chuck Schumer to hammer through all sorts of left-wing legislation. Collins opposed Obamacare and would very likely oppose expanding it in ways that would effectively end private health insurance. Gideon would be a “yes” on that expansion.
Thus, I’m heartened by the news that Collins has pulled even with Gideon in this important Senate race.


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Democrats Prefer Cuba to Israel

Democrats Prefer Cuba to Israel

YouGov conducted an interesting survey , asking Americans their opinions of various countries .
Among other things , the survey @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in their views of nations , including the United States .
This chart shows @ @ @ @ @ and least partisan divides with respect to the percentage having a positive view : Two @ @ @ @ @ observer .
The first is the parties ’ radically different opinions of Israel .
Sixty-nine @ @ @ @ @ only 36 % of Democrats , have a positive view of Israel .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ which scores 39 % positive with them ( but only 16 % with Republicans ) @ @ @ @ @ is that Democrats are more likely to have a positive opinion of France ( 71 @ @ @ @ @ States ( 68 % ) .
Frankly , I am surprised that so many Democrats @ @ @ @ @ they like their own country .
Perhaps that is due to the survey being anonymous @

YouGov conducted an interesting survey, asking Americans their opinions of various countries. Among other things, the survey identifies differences between Republicans and Democrats in their views of nations, including the United States. This chart shows the countries with the greatest and least partisan divides with respect to the percentage having a positive view:
Two things jump out at an observer. The first is the parties’ radically different opinions of Israel. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans, but only 36% of Democrats, have a positive view of Israel. In fact, Democrats prefer Cuba, which scores 39% positive with them (but only 16% with Republicans).
The second notable fact is that Democrats are more likely to have a positive opinion of France (71%) than the United States (68%). Frankly, I am surprised that so many Democrats are willing to admit that they like their own country. Perhaps that is due to the survey being anonymous.