powerlineblog--2020-10-13--Baseball playoffs or home run derby?

Baseball playoffs or home run derby?

After the Tampa Bay Rays defeated the New York Yankees in the deciding game of the American League divisional playoff , the Rays ’ manager , baseball lifer Kevin Cash , called it the most exciting game he has ever been a part of .
To the neutral , the game was suspenseful and dramatic .
The Rays won it 2-1 on a solo home run by Mike Brosseau in the eighth inning off of Aroldis Chapman , the pitcher who had nearly hit him in the head with a 100 mile per hour fastball during the regular season .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was three hour and 20 minutes of limited action , punctuated by three solo home runs .
Traffic on the base paths was almost nil , as the Rays and Yanks combined for only six hits .
They also combined for 24 strikeouts .
This is typical of the MLB playoffs so far .
Strikeouts , home runs , and not enough of the other stuff that makes baseball exciting .
Through the division series , 51 percent of all runs scored have been the result of home runs .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , between Tampa Bay and Houston , the trend has been even more pronounced .
All but two of the nine runs scored have come via the home run .
( There have been lots of baserunners and some fielding gems , though . )
During the regular season , home runs produced 44 percent of runs scored .
In last season ’ s playoffs , they produced 47 percent of them .
According to Dave Sheinin of the Washington Post , in the four division series this year , the eight teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18.7 at-bats .
That ’ s roughly equivalent to the career rates of Mel Ott , Joe DiMaggio , Roger Maris , and Miguel Cabrera .
Sheinin also notes that in the 58-year history of Dodger Stadium , there had been only one post-season game with six home runs or more .
But in the series between Houston and Oakland last week ( played at Dodger Stadium due to the pandemic ) , there were six or more homers in three of the four games .
Moreover , until this year no team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 home runs in a playoff series of five or fewer games .
Houston and Oakland both hit that many last week in their four game series .
These numbers aren ’ t a coincidence .
In recent years , batters increasingly have embraced an all-or-nothing approach and now they are doubling down on it in the playoffs .
The idea is that , with pitchers routinely throwing fast balls of 95 miles per hour or more in the playoffs , making contact is difficult enough , and stringing three hits together to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hence the desire to go for broke .
As Atlanta Braves manager Brian Snitker says , “ power is [ what ] plays in the post-season.
” But might not a more artful approach to hitting “ play ” for less powerful hitters if they learned it ?
For example , if it ’ s too hard to string three singles together , why not occasionally sacrifice bunt late in games when a single run is likely to be decisive ?
That way , only two hits will be needed to produce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get them ) .
To date , there hasn ’ t been even one sacrifice bunt in this year ’ s playoffs .
However , the winning run in the first Tampa Bay-Houston game scored on the unintentional equivalent of two bunts .
A pair of slowly hit ground balls advanced a runner who had walked to third base , where he was able to score on a single .
One run , one hit , no home runs .
Furthermore , multiple hits in an inning wouldn ’ t be so hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit to the opposite field against those ever present shifts .
Modern defenses leave vast portions of the field unprotected and thus vulnerable to “ hitting ’ em where they ain ’ t. ” But that approach is inconsistent with swinging for the fences , so few bother to learn it .
Is my thinking here hopelessly old fashioned — too antithetical to modern baseball “ analytics ” ?
Maybe not .
Mike Elias is the head of baseball operations for the Baltimore Orioles .
He ’ s the very model of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the architects of Houston ’ s data driven baseball operation .
This year , the Orioles committed the heresy of bunting for a hit .
Not every Oriole , just the ones who have good speed and not much natural power .
Cedric Mullins led the way and in the process may have salvaged his career .
Mullins flopped in 2019 ( batting average .094 ) .
This year , with bunting for a hit part of his arsenal , he batted .271 .
His OPS was so-so at best ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep him playing regularly in center field for a while , considering his glove .
In addition , Hanser Alberto , a journeyman , has batted close to .300 during his two seasons with the Orioles by spraying the ball to all fields .
His OPS isn ’ t great because he doesn ’ t walk nearly enough .
But by hitting to all fields , he has batted well enough to hold down the second base job .
A batting order full of these two players won ’ t get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important pieces of an unheralded lineup on a downtrodden team that finished middle of the pack in runs scored and above league median in OPS ( and middle of the pack in home runs ) .
I imagine that Elias was just trying to made lemonade out of lemons .
As the Orioles progress , he might well try to replace the likes of Mullins and Alberto with swing-for-the-fences guys .
I hope not , though .
And I hope other teams will tilt the other way , at least a little .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ paths and in the field of play .
It needs more runners speeding to home plate just ahead of the ball ( or just behind it ) and fewer trotting home .
The all-or-nothing approach is probably hurting the game .
Viewers and attendees ( once we are allowed back in ) might be willing to watch three and half hours of strikeouts and home runs when the Yankees are playing post-season games .
I ’ m not sure whether we will continue to watch such games during the regular season and in @ @ @ @ @

After the Tampa Bay Rays defeated the New York Yankees in the deciding game of the American League divisional playoff, the Rays’ manager, baseball lifer Kevin Cash, called it the most exciting game he has ever been a part of. To the neutral, the game was suspenseful and dramatic. The Rays won it 2-1 on a solo home run by Mike Brosseau in the eighth inning off of Aroldis Chapman, the pitcher who had nearly hit him in the head with a 100 mile per hour fastball during the regular season.
But this was not a great game. It was three hour and 20 minutes of limited action, punctuated by three solo home runs. Traffic on the base paths was almost nil, as the Rays and Yanks combined for only six hits. They also combined for 24 strikeouts.
This is typical of the MLB playoffs so far. Strikeouts, home runs, and not enough of the other stuff that makes baseball exciting.
Through the division series, 51 percent of all runs scored have been the result of home runs. In the first two games of the ALCS, between Tampa Bay and Houston, the trend has been even more pronounced. All but two of the nine runs scored have come via the home run. (There have been lots of baserunners and some fielding gems, though.)
During the regular season, home runs produced 44 percent of runs scored. In last season’s playoffs, they produced 47 percent of them.
According to Dave Sheinin of the Washington Post, in the four division series this year, the eight teams homered at a rate of one every 18.7 at-bats. That’s roughly equivalent to the career rates of Mel Ott, Joe DiMaggio, Roger Maris, and Miguel Cabrera.
Sheinin also notes that in the 58-year history of Dodger Stadium, there had been only one post-season game with six home runs or more. But in the series between Houston and Oakland last week (played at Dodger Stadium due to the pandemic), there were six or more homers in three of the four games.
Moreover, until this year no team in history had hit as many as 12 home runs in a playoff series of five or fewer games. Houston and Oakland both hit that many last week in their four game series.
These numbers aren’t a coincidence. In recent years, batters increasingly have embraced an all-or-nothing approach and now they are doubling down on it in the playoffs.
The idea is that, with pitchers routinely throwing fast balls of 95 miles per hour or more in the playoffs, making contact is difficult enough, and stringing three hits together to produce a run is extremely hard. Hence the desire to go for broke. As Atlanta Braves manager Brian Snitker says, “power is [what] plays in the post-season.”
But might not a more artful approach to hitting “play” for less powerful hitters if they learned it? For example, if it’s too hard to string three singles together, why not occasionally sacrifice bunt late in games when a single run is likely to be decisive? That way, only two hits will be needed to produce a run (albeit with fewer tries to get them).
To date, there hasn’t been even one sacrifice bunt in this year’s playoffs. However, the winning run in the first Tampa Bay-Houston game scored on the unintentional equivalent of two bunts. A pair of slowly hit ground balls advanced a runner who had walked to third base, where he was able to score on a single. One run, one hit, no home runs.
Furthermore, multiple hits in an inning wouldn’t be so hard to come by if batters learned to hit to the opposite field against those ever present shifts. Modern defenses leave vast portions of the field unprotected and thus vulnerable to “hitting ’em where they ain’t.” But that approach is inconsistent with swinging for the fences, so few bother to learn it.
Is my thinking here hopelessly old fashioned — too antithetical to modern baseball “analytics”? Maybe not. Mike Elias is the head of baseball operations for the Baltimore Orioles. He’s the very model of a modern analytics guy — Yale educated and one of the architects of Houston’s data driven baseball operation.
This year, the Orioles committed the heresy of bunting for a hit. Not every Oriole, just the ones who have good speed and not much natural power. Cedric Mullins led the way and in the process may have salvaged his career. Mullins flopped in 2019 (batting average .094). This year, with bunting for a hit part of his arsenal, he batted .271. His OPS was so-so at best (.723), but maybe good enough to keep him playing regularly in center field for a while, considering his glove.
In addition, Hanser Alberto, a journeyman, has batted close to .300 during his two seasons with the Orioles by spraying the ball to all fields. His OPS isn’t great because he doesn’t walk nearly enough. But by hitting to all fields, he has batted well enough to hold down the second base job.
A batting order full of these two players won’t get a team far. However, they were important pieces of an unheralded lineup on a downtrodden team that finished middle of the pack in runs scored and above league median in OPS (and middle of the pack in home runs).
I imagine that Elias was just trying to made lemonade out of lemons. As the Orioles progress, he might well try to replace the likes of Mullins and Alberto with swing-for-the-fences guys.
I hope not, though. And I hope other teams will tilt the other way, at least a little.
Baseball needs more action on the base paths and in the field of play. It needs more runners speeding to home plate just ahead of the ball (or just behind it) and fewer trotting home.
The all-or-nothing approach is probably hurting the game. Viewers and attendees (once we are allowed back in) might be willing to watch three and half hours of strikeouts and home runs when the Yankees are playing post-season games. I’m not sure whether we will continue to watch such games during the regular season and in less glamorous playoff matchups.


Bingo!

We are living through the weirdest election season ever .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris appear at a rally in Arizona , and no one shows up : Literally , not one member of his own party will cross the street to see Joe Biden , and yet , he is the odds-on favorite to be elected president .
Strange .
I am not sure whether anyone is still watching television these days .
I ’ m not .
* But for those who are , President Trump has released two excellent new ads .
Here they are : Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know .
They relate to issues , which are so 2016 .
Most Americans have moved on , apparently .
* I turned on a television set for the first time in quite a while last weekend to watch a terrific Russian movie that Scott recommended , The Ascent , set during World War II , on TCM .
I don ’ t see it on Netflix , but if you can track it down , it is well worth watching .
[ UPDATE : I see that at the link , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for the Criterion Channel , which I believe has a lot of good films . ]

We are living through the weirdest election season ever. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris appear at a rally in Arizona, and no one shows up:
Biden and Harris hold a campaign event in Arizona and the local news can’t believe that not one supporter showed up! pic.twitter.com/JKj0fPi6Jj — David Croom – (ツ) (@dailycallout) October 11, 2020
Literally, not one member of his own party will cross the street to see Joe Biden, and yet, he is the odds-on favorite to be elected president. Strange.
I am not sure whether anyone is still watching television these days. I’m not.* But for those who are, President Trump has released two excellent new ads. Here they are:
Will they be effective? I don’t know. They relate to issues, which are so 2016. Most Americans have moved on, apparently.
* I turned on a television set for the first time in quite a while last weekend to watch a terrific Russian movie that Scott recommended, The Ascent, set during World War II, on TCM. I don’t see it on Netflix, but if you can track it down, it is well worth watching. [UPDATE: I see that at the link, you can watch it if you sign up for the Criterion Channel, which I believe has a lot of good films.]


One Bright Spot

In the two posts immediately preceding this one , Paul critiques in detail the performance of Democratic senators in today @ @ @ @ @ shows how they abused the Supreme Court confirmation process and embarrassed themselves , if embarrassment @ @ @ @ @ made the sacrifice of watching the hearing ; I didn ’ t .
But I @ @ @ @ @ from the hearing , in which Senator John Cornyn gave Judge Barrett an opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ It was a nice moment in a dreary day : PAUL ADDS : Contrast Judge @ @ @ @ @ notes with the questioning of her by Sen. Kamala Harris this evening .
The Democratic @ @ @ @ @ all of her remarks from notes , and not very well at that .
As @ @ @ @ @ , she was 100 percent scripted .

In the two posts immediately preceding this one, Paul critiques in detail the performance of Democratic senators in today’s hearing. He shows how they abused the Supreme Court confirmation process and embarrassed themselves, if embarrassment were still possible.
Paul made the sacrifice of watching the hearing; I didn’t. But I did see one short clip from the hearing, in which Senator John Cornyn gave Judge Barrett an opportunity to show off a bit. It was a nice moment in a dreary day:
Cc: any Democrat senator who tries mansplaining to Judge Barrett next time. She doesn't even need notes! pic.twitter.com/MPkZFIx3fI — Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) October 13, 2020
PAUL ADDS: Contrast Judge Barrett’s absence of notes with the questioning of her by Sen. Kamala Harris this evening. The Democratic nominee for vice president read all of her remarks from notes, and not very well at that. As far as I could tell, she was 100 percent scripted.
I guess she’s learning from her running mate.


powerlineblog--2020-10-13--Dick Durbin’s not so beautiful mind

Dick Durbin’s not so beautiful mind

In a post below , I complained about how , instead of questioning Amy Coney Barrett , Senators are using her as a prop while they make speeches .
Not surprisingly , Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , a world class grandstander , was the biggest culprit during three hours or so of the hearing that I watched .
Sen. Dick Durbin did a fair amount of speechifying , too .
Much of it was directed , not at the issue of whether Barrett should be confirmed , but at the matter of whether Obamacare is good policy and , by extension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t favor it .
Durbin did engage Judge Barrett , though .
I ’ ll give him that much .
And the colloquy was instructive .
It reminded us of how slippery and dishonest Durbin is .
Durbin argued that because , as a law professor , Barrett disagreed with the legal methodology through which Obamacare twice survived challenge in the Supreme Court , she is hostile to the Act and therefore will invalidate it when a third challenge is considered next Term .
But Barrett ’ s assessment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no bearing on the entirely different issue before the Court now .
Unless he got his law license from a crackerjack box , Durbin knows this .
As I noted yesterday , the issue before the Court in the upcoming term is severability — that is , whether now that Obamacare ’ s individual mandate has been invalidated , the entirety of Obamacare must be dismantled .
Nothing in Barrett ’ s analysis of prior Obamacare decisions speaks even remotely to the issue of severability .
Therefore , as Barrett gently pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be that Barrett ’ s prior writings were not the result of good faith legal analysis , but rather were driven by a result-oriented hostility to Obamacare as policy .
Indeed , Durbin accused of the judge of such hostility .
Rather than owning his premise , Durbin disavowed it when called out .
Par for the course with him .
Durbin also tried to find a tension between Barrett ’ s personal outrage over the way the police treated George Floyd and her refusal to say that states can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no connection .
It ’ s true that Floyd was a criminal , but I doubt this was the connection Durbin had in mind .
This discussion between Durbin and Barrett occurred in connection with a dissent the judge wrote from a decision upholding the denial of the right to own a firearm to a man convicted of fraud .
The fraud rose to the level of a felony , but there was no violence connected with it .
The question was whether , without a showing that it would be dangerous for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Second Amendment rights can be denied .
Barrett said no .
Eager to make Barrett look bad , Durbin launched an oration about how dangerous felons are , whether violent or not .
He cited recidivism rates for felons as a class .
Through his gestures , he seemed to question the distinction between violent and non-violent felons .
He argued that there is a serious risk that any felon will commit a violent crime in the future .
These , of course , are all arguments against the early release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted of a violent crime .
Yet , Durbin and other leading “ jail break ” supporters constantly assure us that they want only to put non-violent felons back on our streets early , and that doing so won ’ t increase violent crime .
Durbin ’ s denunciation of “ non-violent felons ” as a threat to public safety makes sense if we ’ re talking about drug felons ( which Durbin was not ) .
Everyone understands the violence associated with drug trafficking .
Durbin ’ s claim that non-violent felons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re talking about a guy who committed fraud ( which Durbin was ) .
In any case , as Judge Barrett tried to explain to Durbin , the view she expressed in her dissent would not preclude prosecutors from showing that this particular fraudster did pose that danger .
The point of her dissent , as I understand it , was merely that such a showing should be required before depriving someone who has never committed a violent crime of a constitutional right .
Durbin didn ’ t get his law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a smart guy and good questioner .
Thus , when he fails to understand the obvious differences between the current Obamacare case and its predecessors , or when he posits some sort of connection between a gun rights case and the death of George Floyd , Durbin isn ’ t being ignorant .
He ’ s being dishonest .

In a post below, I complained about how, instead of questioning Amy Coney Barrett, Senators are using her as a prop while they make speeches. Not surprisingly, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a world class grandstander, was the biggest culprit during three hours or so of the hearing that I watched.
Sen. Dick Durbin did a fair amount of speechifying, too. Much of it was directed, not at the issue of whether Barrett should be confirmed, but at the matter of whether Obamacare is good policy and, by extension, whether voters should defeat Republicans who don’t favor it.
Durbin did engage Judge Barrett, though. I’ll give him that much. And the colloquy was instructive. It reminded us of how slippery and dishonest Durbin is.
Durbin argued that because, as a law professor, Barrett disagreed with the legal methodology through which Obamacare twice survived challenge in the Supreme Court, she is hostile to the Act and therefore will invalidate it when a third challenge is considered next Term. But Barrett’s assessment of the legal reasoning in the prior two cases has no bearing on the entirely different issue before the Court now.
Unless he got his law license from a crackerjack box, Durbin knows this.
As I noted yesterday, the issue before the Court in the upcoming term is severability — that is, whether now that Obamacare’s individual mandate has been invalidated, the entirety of Obamacare must be dismantled. Nothing in Barrett’s analysis of prior Obamacare decisions speaks even remotely to the issue of severability.
Therefore, as Barrett gently pointed out, Durbin’s premise has to be that Barrett’s prior writings were not the result of good faith legal analysis, but rather were driven by a result-oriented hostility to Obamacare as policy. Indeed, Durbin accused of the judge of such hostility.
Rather than owning his premise, Durbin disavowed it when called out. Par for the course with him.
Durbin also tried to find a tension between Barrett’s personal outrage over the way the police treated George Floyd and her refusal to say that states can’t bar felons from voting. There is no connection. It’s true that Floyd was a criminal, but I doubt this was the connection Durbin had in mind.
This discussion between Durbin and Barrett occurred in connection with a dissent the judge wrote from a decision upholding the denial of the right to own a firearm to a man convicted of fraud. The fraud rose to the level of a felony, but there was no violence connected with it. The question was whether, without a showing that it would be dangerous for this felon to own a gun, his Second Amendment rights can be denied. Barrett said no.
Eager to make Barrett look bad, Durbin launched an oration about how dangerous felons are, whether violent or not. He cited recidivism rates for felons as a class. Through his gestures, he seemed to question the distinction between violent and non-violent felons. He argued that there is a serious risk that any felon will commit a violent crime in the future.
These, of course, are all arguments against the early release of federal drug felons who weren’t convicted of a violent crime. Yet, Durbin and other leading “jail break” supporters constantly assure us that they want only to put non-violent felons back on our streets early, and that doing so won’t increase violent crime.
Durbin’s denunciation of “non-violent felons” as a threat to public safety makes sense if we’re talking about drug felons (which Durbin was not). Everyone understands the violence associated with drug trafficking.
Durbin’s claim that non-violent felons threaten public safety makes less sense if we’re talking about a guy who committed fraud (which Durbin was).
In any case, as Judge Barrett tried to explain to Durbin, the view she expressed in her dissent would not preclude prosecutors from showing that this particular fraudster did pose that danger. The point of her dissent, as I understand it, was merely that such a showing should be required before depriving someone who has never committed a violent crime of a constitutional right.
Durbin didn’t get his law license from a crackerjack box. He’s a smart guy and good questioner.
Thus, when he fails to understand the obvious differences between the current Obamacare case and its predecessors, or when he posits some sort of connection between a gun rights case and the death of George Floyd, Durbin isn’t being ignorant. He’s being dishonest.
As usual.


powerlineblog--2020-10-13--Sheldon Whitehouse’s not so beautiful mind

I skipped yesterday ’ s hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
I didn ’ t want to waste a day listening to speeches by Judiciary Committee members .
In theory , today ’ s hearing is devoted to questions for Judge Barrett .
Yet , in the nearly three hours of the hearing I watched , there wasn ’ t much questioning .
Mostly , there was speechifying .
If I ’ m not mistaken , Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse devoted all of his 30 minutes to delivering a speech .
Sen. Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitehouse ’ s performance was something to behold .
Sen. Ben Sasse labeled what Whitehouse laid out as a “ beautiful mind conspiracy.
” I assume he meant that the conspiracy theory Whitehouse posited , complete with a sign that said “ The Scheme , ” bears little relation to reality .
The scheme consisted mainly of conservative organizations like the Bradley Foundation contributing money so that various conservative interest groups can present amicus briefs to courts in important cases .
Judges get to read the views of conservative groups if they choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ element of this vast right wing conspiracy is that the Federalist Society , which also gets money from the Bradley Foundation , has helped the Trump administration select judicial nominees .
A conservative president seeking guidance from a conservative group about whom to select for court vacancies ?
What an outrage !
All the charts in the world , even complete with Whitehouse ’ s flamboyant circling and line drawing , can ’ t make much more than a good comedy sketch out of this .
Whitehouse then said that there are 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in which a 5-4 Supreme Court majority was formed by five conservative Justices ( Whitehouse includes the Chief Justice ) .
Whitehouse didn ’ t attempt to show that a single one of these cases was wrongly decided .
In fact , he didn ’ t discuss the specifics of any of them .
Instead , he claimed , without evidence , that the outcomes in the 80 cases favor the groups who are giving “ dark money ” to organizations like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these cases are bad for America .
Whitehouse ’ s oration reached peak absurdity when he noted that the 80-0 split in Supreme Court cases can ’ t be a fluke .
Instead , he thundered , it ’ s evidence that the “ dark money ” folks are getting what they paid for .
The 80-0 split isn ’ t a fluke .
It ’ s the product of Whitehouse ’ s selection process .
How hard is it to find such a pattern when you confine your search to cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a conservative majority — i.e.
, cases that fit the pattern you want to establish ?
Whitehouse ignored cases in which one or more conservative on the Court — e.g .
the Chief Justice , or Justice Gorsuch , or Justice Kavanaugh — voted with the liberal bloc of Justices .
That ’ s how he got to 80-0 .
Whitehouse marveled at what fine trial lawyers like Lindsey Graham and ( um ) Dick Durbin could do in court with evidence of 80-0 split .
But Graham and Durbin would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their 80-0 split the way Whitehouse did .
I don ’ t mean to suggest that Whitehouse ’ s presentation of his borderline-insane conspiracy allegations was ineffective .
On the contrary , I think it was impactful .
Exercises in demagoguery often are .
Whitehouse ’ s speech won ’ t have an impact on Judge Barrett ’ s confirmation .
However , it might well serve its intended purpose — to make Republicans , especially President Trump and certain Senators up for reelection , pay a price for the confirmation of Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speech immediately following Whitehouse ’ s .
Cruz turned Whitehouse ’ s “ dark money ” thesis against him .
He showed how dark and corporate money overwhelmingly is on the side of the Democrats and is funding attacks on Judge Barrett .
Cruz also hammered the Democrats and their handpicked judges and Justices for their extreme positions on abortion , on religious liberty ( they can ’ t even avoid oppressing The Little Sisters of the Poor ) , on the right to own a firearm , and on freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz did what Whitehouse wouldn ’ t — he talked about the facts of a case .
And not just any case — Citizens United , the Great White Whale of Whitehouse and his fellow Democrats .
He noted that the governmental action at issue in Citizens United was the banning of a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton .
I think most Americans still view such a ban as deeply offensive .
What most Americans will make of these hearings is less clear .
I suspect the Democrats will be able to raise loads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oration and that Republicans will do quite well in this regard off of Cruz ’ s .
The real question , though , is which party will win more votes in November based on these proceedings .
I fear it may be the Democrats by virtue of their sheer persistence and of being able to talk so much , albeit speciously , about Obamacare .
It ’ s strange to see a nominee to the Supreme Court acting as a prop , a bystander , for rank electioneering .
Yet , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest installment of the degradation by Senate Democrats of the judicial nomination process .

I skipped yesterday’s hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I didn’t want to waste a day listening to speeches by Judiciary Committee members.
In theory, today’s hearing is devoted to questions for Judge Barrett. Yet, in the nearly three hours of the hearing I watched, there wasn’t much questioning.
Mostly, there was speechifying. If I’m not mistaken, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse devoted all of his 30 minutes to delivering a speech. Sen. Mike Lee did nearly the same thing.
Whitehouse’s performance was something to behold. Sen. Ben Sasse labeled what Whitehouse laid out as a “beautiful mind conspiracy.” I assume he meant that the conspiracy theory Whitehouse posited, complete with a sign that said “The Scheme,” bears little relation to reality.
The scheme consisted mainly of conservative organizations like the Bradley Foundation contributing money so that various conservative interest groups can present amicus briefs to courts in important cases. Judges get to read the views of conservative groups if they choose to? The horror!
The other element of this vast right wing conspiracy is that the Federalist Society, which also gets money from the Bradley Foundation, has helped the Trump administration select judicial nominees. A conservative president seeking guidance from a conservative group about whom to select for court vacancies? What an outrage!
All the charts in the world, even complete with Whitehouse’s flamboyant circling and line drawing, can’t make much more than a good comedy sketch out of this.
Whitehouse then said that there are 80 cases — count ’em, 80 — in which a 5-4 Supreme Court majority was formed by five conservative Justices (Whitehouse includes the Chief Justice). Whitehouse didn’t attempt to show that a single one of these cases was wrongly decided. In fact, he didn’t discuss the specifics of any of them.
Instead, he claimed, without evidence, that the outcomes in the 80 cases favor the groups who are giving “dark money” to organizations like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network. And, he assured us, the outcomes in these cases are bad for America.
Whitehouse’s oration reached peak absurdity when he noted that the 80-0 split in Supreme Court cases can’t be a fluke. Instead, he thundered, it’s evidence that the “dark money” folks are getting what they paid for.
The 80-0 split isn’t a fluke. It’s the product of Whitehouse’s selection process.
How hard is it to find such a pattern when you confine your search to cases in which there was a 5-4 split and a conservative majority — i.e., cases that fit the pattern you want to establish? Whitehouse ignored cases in which one or more conservative on the Court — e.g. the Chief Justice, or Justice Gorsuch, or Justice Kavanaugh — voted with the liberal bloc of Justices. That’s how he got to 80-0.
Whitehouse marveled at what fine trial lawyers like Lindsey Graham and (um) Dick Durbin could do in court with evidence of 80-0 split. But Graham and Durbin would be laughed out of court if they compiled their 80-0 split the way Whitehouse did.
I don’t mean to suggest that Whitehouse’s presentation of his borderline-insane conspiracy allegations was ineffective. On the contrary, I think it was impactful. Exercises in demagoguery often are.
Whitehouse’s speech won’t have an impact on Judge Barrett’s confirmation. However, it might well serve its intended purpose — to make Republicans, especially President Trump and certain Senators up for reelection, pay a price for the confirmation of Barrett.
Fortunately, Sen. Ted Cruz gave the speech immediately following Whitehouse’s. Cruz turned Whitehouse’s “dark money” thesis against him. He showed how dark and corporate money overwhelmingly is on the side of the Democrats and is funding attacks on Judge Barrett.
Cruz also hammered the Democrats and their handpicked judges and Justices for their extreme positions on abortion, on religious liberty (they can’t even avoid oppressing The Little Sisters of the Poor), on the right to own a firearm, and on freedom of speech. Regarding the latter issue, Cruz did what Whitehouse wouldn’t — he talked about the facts of a case.
And not just any case — Citizens United, the Great White Whale of Whitehouse and his fellow Democrats. He noted that the governmental action at issue in Citizens United was the banning of a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton. I think most Americans still view such a ban as deeply offensive.
What most Americans will make of these hearings is less clear. I suspect the Democrats will be able to raise loads of money off of Whitehouse’s oration and that Republicans will do quite well in this regard off of Cruz’s.
The real question, though, is which party will win more votes in November based on these proceedings. I fear it may be the Democrats by virtue of their sheer persistence and of being able to talk so much, albeit speciously, about Obamacare.
It’s strange to see a nominee to the Supreme Court acting as a prop, a bystander, for rank electioneering. Yet, that’s what I witnessed today, in the latest installment of the degradation by Senate Democrats of the judicial nomination process.


Holy Toledo

“ 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


Biden forgets

Brit Hume has bluntly noted Joe Biden ’ s “ senility — which I think is been obvious to careful watchers for some time ” – over the past several months .
Among his journalistic peers , Brit stands out like the little boy who blurted the emperor was naked .
Yesterday Biden declared yet again that he is a proud Democrat running for the Senate .
Joseph Wulfsohn adds that Biden “ also appeared to have forgotten Mitt Romney ’ s name while speaking with reporters about whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s faith should be questioned during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You may remember , I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon , the governor , OK ?
And I took him on , ” Biden said .
“ No one ’ s faith should be questioned.
” Remember the Mormon ?
Much as we would like to forget him , we remember Mitt Romney .
Indeed , we do .
He joined Senate Democrats to vote for the removal of President Trump from office over a congratulatory phone call to the new president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story with Biden ’ s disparagement of the memory of the majority of voters who say they are better off now than they were four years ago .
It ’ s almost funny .

Brit Hume has bluntly noted Joe Biden’s “senility — which I think is been obvious to careful watchers for some time” – over the past several months. Among his journalistic peers, Brit stands out like the little boy who blurted the emperor was naked.
Yesterday Biden declared yet again that he is a proud Democrat running for the Senate. Joseph Wulfsohn adds that Biden “also appeared to have forgotten Mitt Romney’s name while speaking with reporters about whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s faith should be questioned during her SCOTUS confirmation.” Biden observed: “You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, OK? And I took him on,” Biden said. “No one’s faith should be questioned.”
Remember the Mormon? Much as we would like to forget him, we remember Mitt Romney. Indeed, we do. He joined Senate Democrats to vote for the removal of President Trump from office over a congratulatory phone call to the new president of Ukraine.
Wulfsohn highlights his FOX News story with Biden’s disparagement of the memory of the majority of voters who say they are better off now than they were four years ago. It’s almost funny.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--When is it okay to prevent a woman from speaking?

After Kamala Harris ’ debate with Mike Pence , some female pundits couldn ’ t contain their glee that Harris had told Pence , on the few occasions when he interrupted her , “ I ’ m speaking.
” They saw this as the defining moment of the debate ( or claimed to ) .
I wonder how these same female pundits evaluated today ’ s spectacle of a distinguished female nominee for the Supreme Court being treated as a bystander at her confirmation hearing , while men droned on and on for 30 minutes at at time .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
They don ’ t like Judge Barrett or her approach to judging .
In their minds , it ’ s okay to keep women from speaking — to sideline them — if the women would say conservative things .
“ I ’ m speaking ” is a one-way street .
However , less blinkered feminists might view the matter differently .
They might not like it that Amy Barrett wasn ’ t given the opportunity to speak at her own confirmation hearing .
She was used as a prop .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats treated John Roberts and Sam Alito .
Sure , there was a fair amount of speechmaking at their hearings .
But the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also engaged with Roberts and Alito .
These two nominees spoke a lot .
Barrett was rarely afforded that opportunity .
I don ’ t attribute the difference to sexism .
I assume the Democrats behaved the way they did today out of sheer political calculation .
I assume that a decade and a half ago , their political calculation was different .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can imagine some women being turned off by the way certain Democrats — including Kamala Harris , ironically — froze Amy Barrett out of her own confirmation hearing .
It wasn ’ t a good look .
Oh , for the bad old days when bottom-of-his-class Joe Biden tried to mix it up with stars like John Roberts and Sam Alito .

After Kamala Harris’ debate with Mike Pence, some female pundits couldn’t contain their glee that Harris had told Pence, on the few occasions when he interrupted her, “I’m speaking.” They saw this as the defining moment of the debate (or claimed to).
I wonder how these same female pundits evaluated today’s spectacle of a distinguished female nominee for the Supreme Court being treated as a bystander at her confirmation hearing, while men droned on and on for 30 minutes at at time. I imagine these particular women were fine with it. They don’t like Judge Barrett or her approach to judging. In their minds, it’s okay to keep women from speaking — to sideline them — if the women would say conservative things. “I’m speaking” is a one-way street.
However, less blinkered feminists might view the matter differently. They might not like it that Amy Barrett wasn’t given the opportunity to speak at her own confirmation hearing. She was used as a prop. By men.
This isn’t how Democrats treated John Roberts and Sam Alito. Sure, there was a fair amount of speechmaking at their hearings. But the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also engaged with Roberts and Alito. These two nominees spoke a lot. Barrett was rarely afforded that opportunity.
I don’t attribute the difference to sexism. I assume the Democrats behaved the way they did today out of sheer political calculation. I assume that a decade and a half ago, their political calculation was different.
But I’m not a woman. I can imagine some women being turned off by the way certain Democrats — including Kamala Harris, ironically — froze Amy Barrett out of her own confirmation hearing. It wasn’t a good look.
Oh, for the bad old days when bottom-of-his-class Joe Biden tried to mix it up with stars like John Roberts and Sam Alito.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--A Dose of Optimism

A Dose of Optimism

It is an odd election season .
Pretty much everyone thinks the Democrats are on their way to a crushing victory , yet it is hard to see why .
A whopping 56 % of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago , and President Trump draws large , enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes .
Meanwhile , Joe Biden is a pale shell of his formerly buffoonish self .
When Joe is able to get out of bed , his campaign schedules intimate invitation-only events .
Supposedly this is because of COVID , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t want to be embarrassed by his inability to draw a crowd .
Probably no one outside of Biden ’ s immediate family particularly wants him to be president .
So what is going on ?
One possibility is that the conventional wisdom is wrong .
At Townhall , Kevin McCullough , who has a pretty good record as an election forecaster , argues that we should believe our lying eyes : To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is winning by a mile .
President Trump can ’ t help but to continue to draw massive crowds ( even while in the hospital . )
Every weekend , in every state , in hundreds of cities bikers , truckers , boaters , horse and buggy people , and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill .
Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say “ I didn ’ t vote for him then , ” or “ I wasn ’ t really sure about him in 2016 , ” who have converted to “ I ’ ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.
” I was far from sure about Trump in 2016 , but it would take an AK-47 to stop me from voting for him this year .
Is it significant that Candace Owens led a “ Back the Blue ” march through DC and to the White House yesterday consisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is it important that President Trump received them ?
Does it seem to make an impact that President Trump oversaw the fastest job creation for Black Americans with the fastest growth in wages among the poorest Black Americans in the modern era ?
Evidently it does because he ’ s currently enjoying ( what I perceive to be understated ) support anywhere from 18 to 25 percent of Black Americans .
When narrowed down to Black men he ’ s consistently in the low to mid-30s percentage wise .
The modern era high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrat ’ s consistently need 90 to 95 percent support of Black voters to win .
If Trump gets anything above 11 percent he wins big .
I agree that this is potentially a huge factor .
Probably most blacks are on board with the BLM narrative–among other things , there is money in it–but many others are not .
More jobs with better pay are a good platform .
I don ’ t know what the numbers will turn out to be , but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not always inferior in this regard–suggesting that Trump enjoys considerably more Hispanic support than he did in 2016 .
Then , of course , there is the economy , which was pretty much the only issue as recently as 1992 and 2008 .
And on the economy , Trump wins going away .
McCullough concludes on a bullish note : We can dream .
Finally , here is McCullough ’ s predicted electoral map : Not to pour cold water on a much-needed bit of optimism , but McCullough has Minnesota going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported here that the Trump campaign has pulled all of its remaining television ads from Minnesota stations .
Still , we can dream .

It is an odd election season. Pretty much everyone thinks the Democrats are on their way to a crushing victory, yet it is hard to see why. A whopping 56% of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago, and President Trump draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is a pale shell of his formerly buffoonish self. When Joe is able to get out of bed, his campaign schedules intimate invitation-only events. Supposedly this is because of COVID, but everyone knows it is really because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by his inability to draw a crowd. Probably no one outside of Biden’s immediate family particularly wants him to be president.
So what is going on? One possibility is that the conventional wisdom is wrong. At Townhall, Kevin McCullough, who has a pretty good record as an election forecaster, argues that we should believe our lying eyes:
To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls. The candidates already know that the president is winning by a mile. President Trump can’t help but to continue to draw massive crowds (even while in the hospital.) Every weekend, in every state, in hundreds of cities bikers, truckers, boaters, horse and buggy people, and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma. And we all know people who say “I didn’t vote for him then,” or “I wasn’t really sure about him in 2016,” who have converted to “I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.”
I was far from sure about Trump in 2016, but it would take an AK-47 to stop me from voting for him this year.
Is it significant that Candace Owens led a “Back the Blue” march through DC and to the White House yesterday consisting of thousands of African American voters? Is it important that President Trump received them? Does it seem to make an impact that President Trump oversaw the fastest job creation for Black Americans with the fastest growth in wages among the poorest Black Americans in the modern era? Evidently it does because he’s currently enjoying (what I perceive to be understated) support anywhere from 18 to 25 percent of Black Americans. When narrowed down to Black men he’s consistently in the low to mid-30s percentage wise. The modern era high for a GOP president is 11 percent. Democrat’s consistently need 90 to 95 percent support of Black voters to win. If Trump gets anything above 11 percent he wins big.
I agree that this is potentially a huge factor. Probably most blacks are on board with the BLM narrative–among other things, there is money in it–but many others are not. More jobs with better pay are a good platform.
Biden also has challenges with Hispanic voters. The president has seen a broad based support with Latinos that similarly to Blacks defies modern era history. One veteran of elections going back multiple decades told me last week that the president may enjoy support as high as 45 to 50 percent of the Hispanic vote.
I don’t know what the numbers will turn out to be, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence as well as polling data–and anecdotal evidence is not always inferior in this regard–suggesting that Trump enjoys considerably more Hispanic support than he did in 2016.
Then, of course, there is the economy, which was pretty much the only issue as recently as 1992 and 2008. And on the economy, Trump wins going away. McCullough concludes on a bullish note:
On November 3rd, President Trump won’t just win, he will break records, shift turn out patterns, and crush his way to the biggest re-election victory since Ronald Reagan.
We can dream. Finally, here is McCullough’s predicted electoral map:
Not to pour cold water on a much-needed bit of optimism, but McCullough has Minnesota going for Trump. But it has been reported here that the Trump campaign has pulled all of its remaining television ads from Minnesota stations.
Still, we can dream.


powerlineblog--2020-10-13--One Bright Spot [with comment by Paul]

One Bright Spot [with comment by Paul]


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--Another Shot of Optimism

Another Shot of Optimism

Depressed about the upcoming election ?
Maybe you shouldn ’ t be .
Mollie Hemingway , one of the best of the younger generation of journalist/pundits , has a piece at The Federalist comparing current polls in battleground states with those in 2016 : What is left out of the media ’ s discussions of whether this or the 2016 race is winnable for Trump is the Electoral College .
And for that discussion , it ’ s worth a look at the states whose electoral votes will decide the election .
In 2016 , Trump won by winning battleground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right now , he ’ s polling slightly and relatively better in those states than he did four years ago .
One hundred days out from election day , Biden was up nearly 6 points in battleground states , at a time Clinton was only up 2.3 points .
Now he ’ s up 4.9 points at a time Clinton was up 5.1 points .
*** Biden is averaging a 7-point lead in Pennsylvania , but Clinton was averaging a nearly identical lead there four years ago — before Trump won it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s Florida lead is very similar to Clinton ’ s lead four years ago .
Trump won Florida .
Biden is not performing as well in Wisconsin as Clinton was four years ago .
Trump won that state .
Biden is doing less well in Michigan , according to the polls , than Clinton did four years ago .
Trump won Michigan .
Biden ’ s doing a bit better in North Carolina than Clinton did but Trump won that state by a 4-point margin .
So maybe it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional thoughts : in a lot of states , including Minnesota where I live , polls are recording a lot of undecided voters .
To cite just one example , polls in Minnesota are showing the faceless Democratic Senate incumbent Tina Smith with a substantial lead over conservative Jason Lewis , who is running , in effect , on the Trump ticket .
A recent Survey USA poll had it Smith 44 % , Lewis 37 % , undecided 16 % .
Are there really that many undecided voters at this late date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Staff Mick Mulvaney that question earlier today .
His answer : No .
Most are lying , and the vast majority of them are Trump/Republican voters .
Finally , polls are a moving target that stops moving some time before Election Day .
There is always a shift , one way or the other , in the last few days .
Sometimes that movement is hardly perceptible .
Sometimes , as in 2000 ( after the Democrats leaked a record of George W. Bush having gotten a DWI many years earlier on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is more substantial .
There is no way to foresee which way the last handful of voters will break in the final days .
But one way or another , this year ’ s presidential election will probably be very close , as will the contests that decide control over the Senate .

Depressed about the upcoming election? Maybe you shouldn’t be. Mollie Hemingway, one of the best of the younger generation of journalist/pundits, has a piece at The Federalist comparing current polls in battleground states with those in 2016:
What is left out of the media’s discussions of whether this or the 2016 race is winnable for Trump is the Electoral College. And for that discussion, it’s worth a look at the states whose electoral votes will decide the election. In 2016, Trump won by winning battleground states that few expected him to win. Right now, he’s polling slightly and relatively better in those states than he did four years ago.
One hundred days out from election day, Biden was up nearly 6 points in battleground states, at a time Clinton was only up 2.3 points. Now he’s up 4.9 points at a time Clinton was up 5.1 points.
***
Biden is averaging a 7-point lead in Pennsylvania, but Clinton was averaging a nearly identical lead there four years ago — before Trump won it narrowly on election day. Likewise, Biden’s Florida lead is very similar to Clinton’s lead four years ago. Trump won Florida. Biden is not performing as well in Wisconsin as Clinton was four years ago. Trump won that state. Biden is doing less well in Michigan, according to the polls, than Clinton did four years ago. Trump won Michigan. Biden’s doing a bit better in North Carolina than Clinton did but Trump won that state by a 4-point margin.
So maybe it’s not over yet. A couple of additional thoughts: in a lot of states, including Minnesota where I live, polls are recording a lot of undecided voters. To cite just one example, polls in Minnesota are showing the faceless Democratic Senate incumbent Tina Smith with a substantial lead over conservative Jason Lewis, who is running, in effect, on the Trump ticket. A recent Survey USA poll had it Smith 44%, Lewis 37%, undecided 16%. Are there really that many undecided voters at this late date? I asked former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney that question earlier today. His answer: No. Most are lying, and the vast majority of them are Trump/Republican voters.
Finally, polls are a moving target that stops moving some time before Election Day. There is always a shift, one way or the other, in the last few days. Sometimes that movement is hardly perceptible. Sometimes, as in 2000 (after the Democrats leaked a record of George W. Bush having gotten a DWI many years earlier on the final weekend of the campaign) it is more substantial. There is no way to foresee which way the last handful of voters will break in the final days. But one way or another, this year’s presidential election will probably be very close, as will the contests that decide control over the Senate.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--NBA to revisit “social justice” messaging

In response to President Trump saying he wasn ’ t watching NBA games , Lebron James said , “ I could care less.
” James meant he couldn ’ t care less .
But Trump wasn ’ t alone in eschewing pro basketball .
Millions of Americans did .
That ’ s clear from the abysmal television ratings for the NBA playoffs .
James might not care about that , either .
He still gets paid .
However , NBA commissioner Adam Silver “ could care ” about the TV ratings .
In fact , he does .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid to care about .
Accordingly , Silver says the NBA will revisit the “ social justice ” messaging the league and its players imposed on the ( vanishing ) viewing public this season .
Silver stated : I would say , in terms of the messages you see on the court and our jerseys , this was an extraordinary moment in time when we began these discussions with the players and what we all lived through this summer .
My sense is there ’ ll be somewhat a return to normalcy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be delivered off the floor .
And I understand those people who are saying , “ I ’ m on your side , but I want to watch a basketball game.
” That ’ s mighty big of Silver .
As long as you ’ re on his side , he will tolerate , and maybe even accommodate you to a degree .
Not as much as he will accommodate China , though .
I ’ m not on Silver ’ s side — not regarding BLM and not regarding China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any NBA games next season .
After 60 years of fandom , I think I ’ m done .

In response to President Trump saying he wasn’t watching NBA games, Lebron James said, “I could care less.” James meant he couldn’t care less.
But Trump wasn’t alone in eschewing pro basketball. Millions of Americans did. That’s clear from the abysmal television ratings for the NBA playoffs.
James might not care about that, either. He still gets paid.
However, NBA commissioner Adam Silver “could care” about the TV ratings. In fact, he does. It’s part of what he’s paid to care about.
Accordingly, Silver says the NBA will revisit the “social justice” messaging the league and its players imposed on the (vanishing) viewing public this season. Silver stated:
I would say, in terms of the messages you see on the court and our jerseys, this was an extraordinary moment in time when we began these discussions with the players and what we all lived through this summer. My sense is there’ll be somewhat a return to normalcy, that those messages will largely be left to be delivered off the floor. And I understand those people who are saying, “I’m on your side, but I want to watch a basketball game.”
That’s mighty big of Silver. As long as you’re on his side, he will tolerate, and maybe even accommodate you to a degree. Not as much as he will accommodate China, though.
I’m not on Silver’s side — not regarding BLM and not regarding China. So I doubt I’ll watch any NBA games next season. After 60 years of fandom, I think I’m done.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--Beneath the Top Line Poll Numbers

Beneath the Top Line Poll Numbers

The first thing to understand about the Democratic Party today is that its shift to the left has occurred chiefly among white Democrats .
This may be the hidden weakness that delivers the election to Trump .
Let ’ s start with a new chart from Zach Goldberg , who notes survey data from the spring about Democratic voters in Arizona , California , Colorado , and Texas .
What it shows is revealing : white Democrats are the most hostile group to increased security along the U.S.—Mexico border , while black Democrats favor increased security more than white Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats favor stronger border security than white Democrats do .
No wonder polls show Trump running better than Republican nominees usually do with hispanics .
From here , turn your gaze to a long piece in today ’ s New York Times in which Thomas B. Edsall makes the case for Democrats to be very nervous : One thing continues to stand out , even in the polls these pieces describe , which is that white Democrats , who remain the majority in their party , have been moving leftward for nearly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , and that shift has pushed the party further away from the nation ’ s median voter .
This gap has damaged Democratic prospects in the past , but the ultimate outcome of Trump ’ s determined efforts to capitalize on it has not yet been revealed .
Here are some of the things causing anxiety among Democratic partisans , particularly political professionals .
One way to measure voter enthusiasm is to compare voter registration trends for each party .
A Democratic strategist who closely follows the data on a day-to-day basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Since last week , the share of white non-college over 30 registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016 , and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points .
And there are serious signs of political engagement by white non-college voters who had not cast ballots in previous elections.
” Comment : This has been a deliberate strategy of the Trump campaign for the last three years .
You don ’ t think those huge rallies in places like Minnesota are just for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the six states Trump won by fewer than five points in 2016 allow voters to register by party : Arizona , Florida , North Carolina and Pennsylvania .
In recent months , there have been substantially more Republicans added to the rolls than Democrats in each of them except for Arizona .
Florida , since the state ’ s March primary , added 195,652 Republicans and 98,362 Democrats .
Pennsylvania , since June , Republicans plus 135,619 , Democrats up 57,985 .
North Carolina , since March , Republicans up 83,785 to Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Democrats out-registered Republicans 31,139 to 29,667 ” in recent months .
Think any of those new Republican voters are being fully captured in polls run by CNN and NBC ?

The first thing to understand about the Democratic Party today is that its shift to the left has occurred chiefly among white Democrats. This may be the hidden weakness that delivers the election to Trump. Let’s start with a new chart from Zach Goldberg, who notes survey data from the spring about Democratic voters in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas. What it shows is revealing: white Democrats are the most hostile group to increased security along the U.S.—Mexico border, while black Democrats favor increased security more than white Democrats by a two-to-one margin. Even hispanic Democrats favor stronger border security than white Democrats do. No wonder polls show Trump running better than Republican nominees usually do with hispanics.
From here, turn your gaze to a long piece in today’s New York Times in which Thomas B. Edsall makes the case for Democrats to be very nervous:
One thing continues to stand out, even in the polls these pieces describe, which is that white Democrats, who remain the majority in their party, have been moving leftward for nearly a decade, particularly on racial and moral issues, and that shift has pushed the party further away from the nation’s median voter. This gap has damaged Democratic prospects in the past, but the ultimate outcome of Trump’s determined efforts to capitalize on it has not yet been revealed. Here are some of the things causing anxiety among Democratic partisans, particularly political professionals. One way to measure voter enthusiasm is to compare voter registration trends for each party. A Democratic strategist who closely follows the data on a day-to-day basis wrote in a privately circulated newsletter:
“Since last week, the share of white non-college over 30 registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016, and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points. And there are serious signs of political engagement by white non-college voters who had not cast ballots in previous elections.”
David Wasserman, House editor for The Cook Political Report, wrote on Oct. 1 that voter registration patterns over a longer period in key battleground states show that “Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016.”
Comment: This has been a deliberate strategy of the Trump campaign for the last three years. You don’t think those huge rallies in places like Minnesota are just for fun, do you?
More:
Four of the six states Trump won by fewer than five points in 2016 allow voters to register by party: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In recent months, there have been substantially more Republicans added to the rolls than Democrats in each of them except for Arizona. Wasserman’s data: Florida, since the state’s March primary, added 195,652 Republicans and 98,362 Democrats. Pennsylvania, since June, Republicans plus 135,619, Democrats up 57,985. North Carolina, since March, Republicans up 83,785 to Democrats 38,137. In Arizona, the exception, “Democrats out-registered Republicans 31,139 to 29,667” in recent months.
Think any of those new Republican voters are being fully captured in polls run by CNN and NBC?


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--Speech police alert:  Judge Barrett said “sexual preference.”  But so did Biden and Ginsburg [UPDATE

Speech police alert:  Judge Barrett said “sexual preference.”  But so did Biden and Ginsburg [UPDATED]

Yesterday , Sen. Mazie Hirono ( Moron-Hawaii ) chastised Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using the term “ sexual preference.
” Judge Barrett uttered these words while discussing Justice Scalia ’ s dissent in the case that legalized same-sex marriage .
Not once , but twice you used the term “ sexual preference ” to describe those in the LGBTQ community .
And let me make clear , “ sexual preference ” is an offensive and outdated term .
It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice .
It is not .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community .
So if I did , I greatly apologize for that .
I assume Barrett ’ s apology was sincere .
And it was good politics .
But it turns out that Joe Biden used the term “ sexual preference ” as recently as last May .
Not only that , the sainted Justice Ginsburg , whom Hirono described as “ our champion , ” used it in 2017 .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act of political incorrectness , or whether anyone has asked him to .
It ’ s too late for Ginsburg to apologize ( if she didn ’ t ) .
Maybe Ginsburg will make it to heaven anyway .
There ’ s no limit to the foolishness of the leftist speech police .
Nor to its hypocrisy .
As recently as last month , Webster ’ s Dictionary included a definition of “ preference ” as “ orientation ” or “ sexual preference.
” TODAY they changed it and added the word “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Wayback Machine and it ’ s real .
I guess Webster ’ s Dictionary now takes its cues from dim Mazie Hirono .
The rest of us should not .

Yesterday, Sen. Mazie Hirono (Moron-Hawaii) chastised Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using the term “sexual preference.” Judge Barrett uttered these words while discussing Justice Scalia’s dissent in the case that legalized same-sex marriage.
Hirono intoned:
Not once, but twice you used the term “sexual preference” to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, “sexual preference” is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not.
Barrett apologized:
I certainly didn’t mean and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.
I assume Barrett’s apology was sincere. And it was good politics.
But it turns out that Joe Biden used the term “sexual preference” as recently as last May. Not only that, the sainted Justice Ginsburg, whom Hirono described as “our champion,” used it in 2017.
I don’t know whether Biden has apologized for his act of political incorrectness, or whether anyone has asked him to. It’s too late for Ginsburg to apologize (if she didn’t).
Maybe Ginsburg will make it to heaven anyway.
There’s no limit to the foolishness of the leftist speech police. Nor to its hypocrisy.
UPDATE: Steve Krakauer tweets:
As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive.” Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.
I guess Webster’s Dictionary now takes its cues from dim Mazie Hirono. The rest of us should not.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--The case for Trump 2020

The case for Trump 2020

The great Victor Davis Hanson sat down earlier this week with Peter Robinson for a podcast on the choice before us in the election on November 3 .
I have embedded the podcast below via Stitcher .
It is also posted at Ricochet under the title “ House of Deplorables : Victor Davis Hanson makes his final case for Trump.
” The title alludes to Victor ’ s book The Case For Trump ( 2019 ) , out in paperback this year along with The Second World Wars .
The Ricochet summary previews the podcast : In this one on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through all the reasons to cast a vote for Donald Trump and challenges Victor with a few reasons not to pull the lever for him .
It ’ s an enlightening and informative hour and should be required listening ( if we do say so ourselves ) for all voters , especially those who are still undecided .
Have at it .
The podcast picks up where Peter left off with Victor in the May 2019 episode of Peter ’ s Uncommon Knowledge series .
YouTube has logged an astounding 4.8 million views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video of which are posted here on the site of the Hoover Institution while the video is posted here on Hoover ’ s YouTube channel .
After taking in the update below , please pass it on .

The great Victor Davis Hanson sat down earlier this week with Peter Robinson for a podcast on the choice before us in the election on November 3. I have embedded the podcast below via Stitcher. It is also posted at Ricochet under the title “House of Deplorables: Victor Davis Hanson makes his final case for Trump.” The title alludes to Victor’s book The Case For Trump (2019), out in paperback this year along with The Second World Wars. The Ricochet summary previews the podcast:
In this one on one conversation, Peter Robinson takes Victor through all the reasons to cast a vote for Donald Trump and challenges Victor with a few reasons not to pull the lever for him. It’s an enlightening and informative hour and should be required listening (if we do say so ourselves) for all voters, especially those who are still undecided. Have at it.
The podcast picks up where Peter left off with Victor in the May 2019 episode of Peter’s Uncommon Knowledge series. YouTube has logged an astounding 4.8 million views of that episode, the audio and video of which are posted here on the site of the Hoover Institution while the video is posted here on Hoover’s YouTube channel. After taking in the update below, please pass it on.


Fighters Against Socialism

A lot of people think that President Trump has a stealth Hispanic vote that will carry him to victory in @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know whether that will turn out to be true , but there @ @ @ @ @ is popular with many Hispanic voters who may be under the radar of media polling @ @ @ @ @ .
Jorge is a Cuban immigrant who got his start as a kid , fighting @ @ @ @ @ bouts on YouTube .
He has come a long way since then , earning fame @ @ @ @ @ the top MMA fighters on the planet .
He recently participated in a “ Fighters @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , Jr .
This video sums it up : Someday , historians will @ @ @ @ @ many college professors held crazy , unsupportable leftist views , while supposedly uneducated types–professional fighters @ @ @ @ @ much firmer grasp on reality .
Meanwhile , we can only hope that unorthodox commentators @ @ @ @ @ an outsized impact on this year ’ s election .

A lot of people think that President Trump has a stealth Hispanic vote that will carry him to victory in several swing states. I don’t know whether that will turn out to be true, but there is no doubt that Trump is popular with many Hispanic voters who may be under the radar of media polling outfits.
Like Jorge Masvidal. Jorge is a Cuban immigrant who got his start as a kid, fighting in alleys and broadcasting his bouts on YouTube. He has come a long way since then, earning fame and riches as one of the top MMA fighters on the planet. He recently participated in a “Fighters Against Socialism” tour with Donald Trump, Jr. This video sums it up:
Had to come back to share this one 🙌🏻👏🙌🏻👏🙌🏻👏 pic.twitter.com/M45YillmXT — QualityAnalyst (@QAnalyst45) October 13, 2020
UPDATE: The video was too hot for Twitter to handle, apparently. It is still up on YouTube with someone else’s preface:
Someday, historians will try to explain why so many college professors held crazy, unsupportable leftist views, while supposedly uneducated types–professional fighters are a great example–had a much firmer grasp on reality. Meanwhile, we can only hope that unorthodox commentators like Jorge Masvidal will have an outsized impact on this year’s election.


Remembering Joe Morgan

Pete Rose liked to boast that winning teams seemed to “ follow him around.
” But Bill James ( I believe ) countered that winning teams were even more attracted to Joe Morgan .
It ’ s true .
The Cincinnati Reds did a fair amount of winning before Morgan arrived from Houston in 1972 .
But only after that did they become a great , championship team .
Morgan returned to Houston in 1980 .
That year , the Astros won their first NL West crown and came within a whisker of making it to the World Series .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ second baseman , the San Francisco Giants came within two games of winning the NL West .
It was their best run since 1971 when they won the division .
The next season , Morgan was in Philadelphia .
The Phillies won the pennant .
But the true test of a player isn ’ t how many games his team wins , it ’ s how many wins the player causes his team to win .
The Cincinnati Reds of 1975-76 are among the greatest teams ever to grace the sport of baseball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Famers ( Morgan , Johnny Bench , and Tony Perez ) plus Pete Rose who would have made the Hall easily had he not bet on baseball .
Morgan ’ s WAR ( the number of wins he is estimated to have contributed compared to a hypothetical replacement player ) for the two seasons combined was 20.6 .
That ’ s almost equal to the combined WAR in those two years of Bench ( 11.2 ) and Rose ( 11.1 ) , who were second and third to Morgan .
Morgan was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winner at second base in both seasons .
There ’ s irony in my reliance on WAR .
Joe Posnanski of The Athletic says that Morgan hated that stat .
Morgan was old school and complained that WAR failed to take intangibles into account .
He was right .
But WAR takes into account important tangibles that were overlooked throughout most of his career — walks , especially , but also doubles and triples , power in relation to the defensive position one plays , stolen bases in relation to attempts to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range .
It was only when these numbers gained prominence that Morgan ’ s true greatness came sharply into focus .
Consider that in 1967 , playing for the Astros , Morgan batted .275 .
He hit just six home runs .
He stole 29 bases .
A decent season , but no one ’ s idea of an all star year at the time .
But Morgan also had 81 walks .
And his 29 steals came in just 34 attempts .
Throw all of his extra base hits that weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Morgan ’ s WAR is 5.0. Who made the all-star team at second base that year ?
Not Morgan .
For the National League it was Tommy Helms ( for whom , along with Lee May , Morgan would be traded to the Reds four years later ) and Bill Mazeroski .
Helms had about the same batting average as Morgan .
However , his WAR was 0.3 .
Mazeroski batted .261 , but hit more home runs than Morgan ( nine ) .
His WAR was 2.8 , more than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The American League all-star second baseman was a rookie named Rod Carew .
He batted .291 with eight home runs .
His WAR was 2.8 , the same as Mazeroski ’ s .
Morgan didn ’ t make an all-star team until 1970 .
But he was an all-star caliber player years earlier .
Throughout his career , Carew ( a great hitter ) would be rated ahead of Morgan .
In the early 1990s , both went into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot .
By then , baseball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively advanced metrics .
Even so , Carew received 91 percent of ballots , compared to 82 percent for Morgan .
Morgan was not an especially productive player in the post-season .
Yet , he delivered what is probably the most important hit ever by a Cincinnati Red .
Fans remember the 1975 World Series for Game 6 , with its dramatic home runs by Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk .
( Less remembered is the great catch by Dwight Evans that deprived Morgan of a likely game winning , Series ending homer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Game 7 was the decider and Morgan ’ s hit won it .
He singled off of Boston reliever Jim Burton ( in a lefty-lefty matchup ) in the ninth inning to drive home the winning run .
Morgan had ended Game 3 with an RBI single in the tenth inning off of another lefty , Rogelio Moret .
What was Morgan like in the clubhouse ?
When Houston traded him , the Astros manager , Harry Walker , claimed that Morgan was selfish , moody , and a troublemaker .
But Walker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by racial prejudice .
In Cincinnati , Morgan quickly became a favorite of Sparky Anderson .
He also had good relations with Pete Rose .
But in the Reds ’ clubhouse , it was said that being Rose ’ s friend meant not being close to Johnny Bench ( and vice versa ) .
Yet , on learning of Morgan ’ s death this week , Bench said , “ Joe wasn ’ t just the best second baseman in baseball history , he was the best player I ever saw and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever known.
” At first , Morgan had chilly relations with his double play partner Dave Concepcion because he considered the Venezuelan lackadaisical .
Later , Morgan came to respect Concepcion greatly .
However , according to his SABR biography , Morgan never granted him the star status he craved .
The same biography says opposing players considered Morgan arrogant .
Sparky once fretted that Morgan was antagonizing opponents to the point that “ he ’ ll be dead in another month.
” Morgan didn ’ t deny being arrogant .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 ’ 7 and weigh 160 pounds .
After baseball , Morgan went into business and also broadcasting .
For 21 years , he was the color commentator on ESPN ’ s Sunday Night Baseball .
Morgan wasn ’ t everyone ’ s cup of tea in that role , but I found his commentary about hitting insightful .
He took viewers inside the head of batters ( sort of the way Tim McCarver pioneered doing for pitchers and catchers ) to explain their approach to an at-bat .
Morgan was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitters “ sitting on a pitch ” ( waiting for a particular pitch during an at-bat ) .
He once criticized a batter for sitting on a type of pitch he couldn ’ t handle well .
If you ’ re going to sit on a pitch , he advised , it should be one you can smash when it comes .
That ’ s logical , but I had never thought of it .
When ESPN sacked Morgan in 2010 , I believe it was mainly because Morgan was too old school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ analytics ” that were coming to dominate the game and that had so justifiably enhanced his reputation .

Pete Rose liked to boast that winning teams seemed to “follow him around.” But Bill James (I believe) countered that winning teams were even more attracted to Joe Morgan.
It’s true. The Cincinnati Reds did a fair amount of winning before Morgan arrived from Houston in 1972. But only after that did they become a great, championship team.
Morgan returned to Houston in 1980. That year, the Astros won their first NL West crown and came within a whisker of making it to the World Series.
In 1982, with Morgan as their second baseman, the San Francisco Giants came within two games of winning the NL West. It was their best run since 1971 when they won the division.
The next season, Morgan was in Philadelphia. The Phillies won the pennant.
But the true test of a player isn’t how many games his team wins, it’s how many wins the player causes his team to win. The Cincinnati Reds of 1975-76 are among the greatest teams ever to grace the sport of baseball. Their lineup contained three future Hall of Famers (Morgan, Johnny Bench, and Tony Perez) plus Pete Rose who would have made the Hall easily had he not bet on baseball.
Morgan’s WAR (the number of wins he is estimated to have contributed compared to a hypothetical replacement player) for the two seasons combined was 20.6. That’s almost equal to the combined WAR in those two years of Bench (11.2) and Rose (11.1), who were second and third to Morgan.
Morgan was the National League MVP and Gold Glove winner at second base in both seasons.
There’s irony in my reliance on WAR. Joe Posnanski of The Athletic says that Morgan hated that stat. Morgan was old school and complained that WAR failed to take intangibles into account.
He was right. But WAR takes into account important tangibles that were overlooked throughout most of his career — walks, especially, but also doubles and triples, power in relation to the defensive position one plays, stolen bases in relation to attempts to steal, and fielding with a focus on range.
It was only when these numbers gained prominence that Morgan’s true greatness came sharply into focus.
Consider that in 1967, playing for the Astros, Morgan batted .275. He hit just six home runs. He stole 29 bases. A decent season, but no one’s idea of an all star year at the time.
But Morgan also had 81 walks. And his 29 steals came in just 34 attempts. Throw all of his extra base hits that weren’t homers plus his defensive numbers, and Morgan’s WAR is 5.0.
Who made the all-star team at second base that year? Not Morgan. For the National League it was Tommy Helms (for whom, along with Lee May, Morgan would be traded to the Reds four years later) and Bill Mazeroski.
Helms had about the same batting average as Morgan. However, his WAR was 0.3. Mazeroski batted .261, but hit more home runs than Morgan (nine). His WAR was 2.8, more than two fewer wins above replacement than Morgan produced.
The American League all-star second baseman was a rookie named Rod Carew. He batted .291 with eight home runs. His WAR was 2.8, the same as Mazeroski’s.
Morgan didn’t make an all-star team until 1970. But he was an all-star caliber player years earlier.
Throughout his career, Carew (a great hitter) would be rated ahead of Morgan. In the early 1990s, both went into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. By then, baseball writers had started to evaluate talent using relatively advanced metrics. Even so, Carew received 91 percent of ballots, compared to 82 percent for Morgan.
Morgan’s career WAR is 100.5. Carew’s is 81.3.
Morgan was not an especially productive player in the post-season. Yet, he delivered what is probably the most important hit ever by a Cincinnati Red.
Fans remember the 1975 World Series for Game 6, with its dramatic home runs by Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk. (Less remembered is the great catch by Dwight Evans that deprived Morgan of a likely game winning, Series ending homer in the 11th inning.) But Game 7 was the decider and Morgan’s hit won it. He singled off of Boston reliever Jim Burton (in a lefty-lefty matchup) in the ninth inning to drive home the winning run. Morgan had ended Game 3 with an RBI single in the tenth inning off of another lefty, Rogelio Moret.
What was Morgan like in the clubhouse? When Houston traded him, the Astros manager, Harry Walker, claimed that Morgan was selfish, moody, and a troublemaker. But Walker’s view might have been colored by racial prejudice.
In Cincinnati, Morgan quickly became a favorite of Sparky Anderson. He also had good relations with Pete Rose. But in the Reds’ clubhouse, it was said that being Rose’s friend meant not being close to Johnny Bench (and vice versa).
Yet, on learning of Morgan’s death this week, Bench said, “Joe wasn’t just the best second baseman in baseball history, he was the best player I ever saw and one of the best people I’ve ever known.”
At first, Morgan had chilly relations with his double play partner Dave Concepcion because he considered the Venezuelan lackadaisical. Later, Morgan came to respect Concepcion greatly. However, according to his SABR biography, Morgan never granted him the star status he craved.
The same biography says opposing players considered Morgan arrogant. Sparky once fretted that Morgan was antagonizing opponents to the point that “he’ll be dead in another month.”
Morgan didn’t deny being arrogant. He said:
To be a star, to stay a star, I think you’ve got to have a certain air of arrogance about you, a cockiness, a swagger on the field that says, ‘I can do this, and you can’t stop me,’
Especially if you’re only 5’7 and weigh 160 pounds.
After baseball, Morgan went into business and also broadcasting. For 21 years, he was the color commentator on ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball.
Morgan wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea in that role, but I found his commentary about hitting insightful. He took viewers inside the head of batters (sort of the way Tim McCarver pioneered doing for pitchers and catchers) to explain their approach to an at-bat.
Morgan was the first commentator I recall talking a lot about hitters “sitting on a pitch” (waiting for a particular pitch during an at-bat). He once criticized a batter for sitting on a type of pitch he couldn’t handle well. If you’re going to sit on a pitch, he advised, it should be one you can smash when it comes.
That’s logical, but I had never thought of it.
When ESPN sacked Morgan in 2010, I believe it was mainly because Morgan was too old school. He had little use for the “analytics” that were coming to dominate the game and that had so justifiably enhanced his reputation.
RIP.


powerlineblog--2020-10-14--Ted Cruz Wants to Know

Ted Cruz Wants to Know

Today the New York Post published an explosive expose on Joe Biden .
Here are some of the highlights : Hunter Biden introduced his father , then-Vice President Joe Biden , to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company , according to emails obtained by The Post .
The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi , an adviser to the board of Burisma , allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $ 50,000 a month .
“ Dear Hunter , thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [ sic ] some time together .
It ’ s realty [ sic ] an honor and pleasure , ” the email reads .
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi , reportedly Burisma ’ s No .
3 exec , asking Hunter for “ advice on how you could use your influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This correspondence contradicts Joe Biden ’ s claim that he never discussed Hunter ’ s overseas adventures with his son .
The drive also contains , among other things , “ a raunchy , 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter … smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman , as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.
” The hard drive reportedly has been in the FBI ’ s possession since last December .
Twitter and Facebook are trying to censor the story , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has made a career out of influence peddling is something that Twitter and Facebook think you are better off not knowing .
( As I have said before , no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden , a worthless neer-do-well . )
Twitter ’ s explanation is laugh-out-loud funny : Which explains why no one was ever allowed to tweet about the Russia collusion hoax .
Senator Josh Hawley has asked the FEC to investigate Twitter and Facebook for potential violations of federal election laws .
And Ted Cruz , writing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Judiciary Committee , wrote today to Jack Dorsey , Twitter ’ s CEO : Twitter ’ s censorship of this story is quite hypocritical , given its willingness to allow users to share less-well-sourced reporting critical of other candidates for public office .
Accordingly , this can only be seen as an obvious and transparent attempt by Twitter to influence the upcoming Presidential election .
So Senator Cruz has some questions for Mr. Dorsey : 1. Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story ?
On what basis did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter ’ s decision and what process was afforded to it to contest the censorship ?
3 .
Has Twitter prevented the New York Times , Washington Post , or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting ?
If so , when ?
4 .
If Twitter did not prevent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times reporting on President Trump ’ s tax returns , please explain a politically neutral principle for why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald J. Trump during his four years as President of the United States ?
6 .
Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of its representatives regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein ?
I ’ m sure Cruz isn ’ t holding his breath , expecting answers .
But this episode will add still more impetus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giants accountable , whatever form that effort ultimately takes .

Today the New York Post published an explosive expose on Joe Biden. Here are some of the highlights:
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post. The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
This correspondence contradicts Joe Biden’s claim that he never discussed Hunter’s overseas adventures with his son. The drive also contains, among other things, “a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter … smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.”
The hard drive reportedly has been in the FBI’s possession since last December.
Twitter and Facebook are trying to censor the story, as the Post reports. The fact that Joe Biden has made a career out of influence peddling is something that Twitter and Facebook think you are better off not knowing. (As I have said before, no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden, a worthless neer-do-well.) Twitter’s explanation is laugh-out-loud funny:
The company said it took the step because of the lack of authoritative reporting on where the materials included in The Post’s story originated.
Which explains why no one was ever allowed to tweet about the Russia collusion hoax.
Senator Josh Hawley has asked the FEC to investigate Twitter and Facebook for potential violations of federal election laws. And Ted Cruz, writing as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote today to Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO:
Twitter’s censorship of this story is quite hypocritical, given its willingness to allow users to share less-well-sourced reporting critical of other candidates for public office. Accordingly, this can only be seen as an obvious and transparent attempt by Twitter to influence the upcoming Presidential election.
So Senator Cruz has some questions for Mr. Dorsey:
1. Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story? On what basis did they make that decision? 2. When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter’s decision and what process was afforded to it to contest the censorship? 3. Has Twitter prevented the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting? If so, when? 4. If Twitter did not prevent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times reporting on President Trump’s tax returns, please explain a politically neutral principle for why the reporting is treated differently? 5. Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald J. Trump during his four years as President of the United States? 6. Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of its representatives regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein?
I’m sure Cruz isn’t holding his breath, expecting answers. But this episode will add still more impetus to the effort to hold the social media giants accountable, whatever form that effort ultimately takes.


powerlineblog--2020-10-15--The Scully case cracked

The Scully case cracked

C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully absurdly claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked to conceal his consultation with Anthony Scaramucci over President Trump ’ s criticism of him in connection with the canceled presidential debate that was to have taken place today .
C-SPAN promptly disseminated Scully ’ s hacking claim .
The FBI was supposedly called in to investigate .
As I noted in “ Sad saga of Steve Scully , ” Chris Wallace vouched for Scully .
Case closed !
Whoever was assigned to the case , it should have taken about five minutes to crack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of place among the sapient responses to Scully ’ s hacking claim .
A week later , Scully has confessed .
As we guessed at the time , it ’ s an Anthony Weiner situation .
C-SPAN announced today that it has suspended Scully indefinitely after he admitted he lied .
“ Out of frustration , I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci , ” Scully said in a statement .
“ The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a new controversy , I falsely claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t cry for Steve , Argentina .
He ’ ll be back soon and in any event greener pastures await over at CNN .

C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully absurdly claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked to conceal his consultation with Anthony Scaramucci over President Trump’s criticism of him in connection with the canceled presidential debate that was to have taken place today. C-SPAN promptly disseminated Scully’s hacking claim. The FBI was supposedly called in to investigate.
As I noted in “Sad saga of Steve Scully,” Chris Wallace vouched for Scully. Case closed!
Whoever was assigned to the case, it should have taken about five minutes to crack. I awarded Donald Trump, Jr. pride of place among the sapient responses to Scully’s hacking claim.
Hey C-SPAN, were the hackers screaming “This is MAGA country!” while they were hacking his account??? https://t.co/smc3bGs4Fl — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 9, 2020
A week later, Scully has confessed. As we guessed at the time, it’s an Anthony Weiner situation. C-SPAN announced today that it has suspended Scully indefinitely after he admitted he lied. “Out of frustration, I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci,” Scully said in a statement. “The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a new controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked.”
Don’t cry for Steve, Argentina. He’ll be back soon and in any event greener pastures await over at CNN.
Via Tobias Hoonhout/NR.


powerlineblog--2020-10-15--Chuck Schumer:  Dems will deny GOP a quorum to advance Barrett

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says that Democrats will not supply a quorum with which to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
Schumer defended this move , saying that Barrett ’ s nomination is “ illegitimate , dangerous and unpopular.
” There ’ s no point debating Schumer on these partisan claims .
The question is whether the Democrats can block Barrett ’ s nomination through this ploy .
I don ’ t think they can .
A quorum in the full Senate is 51 members .
In the Judiciary Committee it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party .
A quorum in the full Senate won ’ t be a problem for the GOP and Barrett unless a few Republican Senators get sick and can ’ t make it for the vote .
However , Democrats have the ability to prevent a quorum in the Judiciary Committee .
A boycott would deny one there .
However , Republicans could work around this pretty easily .
Fox News explains : [ T ] he Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Mitch McConnell to call the nomination for a full vote .
The committee itself could also change its rules to get rid of the requirement that two Democrats be present .
Schumer may hope that these moves would be unpopular and thus that forcing McConnell to make one of them would help the Democrats politically .
My guess is that boycotting the Judiciary Committee hearing would be more unpopular than working around the Democrats ’ obstruction .
Schumer may also be laying the groundwork for enlarging the Supreme Court , if Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate .
His argument would be that the extraordinary measure of court packing is justified because of the extraordinary means Republicans used to get Barrett confirmed .
I doubt that this argument would move the needle on court packing , but that doesn ’ t mean it isn ’ t part of Schumer ’ s calculations .
What ’ s clear is that , as they have in the past , the Democrats are breaking new ground in the judicial wars .
To my knowledge , neither party has tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice by a boycott .
Doing so presents a sorry spectacle .

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says that Democrats will not supply a quorum with which to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Schumer defended this move, saying that Barrett’s nomination is “illegitimate, dangerous and unpopular.”
There’s no point debating Schumer on these partisan claims. The question is whether the Democrats can block Barrett’s nomination through this ploy.
I don’t think they can. A quorum in the full Senate is 51 members. In the Judiciary Committee it’s nine members including two from the minority party.
A quorum in the full Senate won’t be a problem for the GOP and Barrett unless a few Republican Senators get sick and can’t make it for the vote. However, Democrats have the ability to prevent a quorum in the Judiciary Committee. A boycott would deny one there.
However, Republicans could work around this pretty easily. Fox News explains:
[T]he Senate can vote on a discharge resolution that would remove the responsibility of considering the Barrett nomination from the committee, allowing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call the nomination for a full vote. The committee itself could also change its rules to get rid of the requirement that two Democrats be present.
Schumer may hope that these moves would be unpopular and thus that forcing McConnell to make one of them would help the Democrats politically. My guess is that boycotting the Judiciary Committee hearing would be more unpopular than working around the Democrats’ obstruction.
Schumer may also be laying the groundwork for enlarging the Supreme Court, if Joe Biden wins and the Dems gain control of the Senate. His argument would be that the extraordinary measure of court packing is justified because of the extraordinary means Republicans used to get Barrett confirmed.
I doubt that this argument would move the needle on court packing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t part of Schumer’s calculations.
What’s clear is that, as they have in the past, the Democrats are breaking new ground in the judicial wars. To my knowledge, neither party has tried to block the confirmation of a judge or Justice by a boycott. Doing so presents a sorry spectacle.