powerlineblog--2020-11-10--Civil War on the Left (74): New York Times Edition

We knew things at the New York Times were bad , but hoo-ey boy we had no idea just how bad !
New York magazine is out with a deep dive into the internal Maoist struggle sessions going on inside the Times , and get a big bowl of popcorn ready for this long piece .
The piece could be called “ Annals of the Liberal Self-Obsessed , ” as it contains many nuggets of pure comedy gold .
Like this one , connected to the primal scream in the Times newsroom after the infamous Tom Cotton op-ed was published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than one Times employee described to me as a “ food fight.
” During the mêlée , “ Opinion ” columnist Elizabeth Bruenig uploaded a PDF of John Rawls ’ s treatise on public reason , in an attempt to elevate the discussion .
“ What we ’ re having is really a philosophical conversation , and it concerns the unfinished business of liberalism , ” Bruenig wrote .
“ I think that all human beings are born philosophers , that is , that we all have an innate desire to understand what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one another and how to live good lives.
” Yeah , passing out Rawls is a certain sure-fire winner .
This detail is also comedy gold : In the weeks that followed , one “ Opinion ” staffer told me it felt like no one at the Times got any work done at all .
There were focus groups — 38 of them and counting — and working groups and innumerable conversations about what the paper should be and look like and who it was for .
The masthead started holding “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee put it to me , in which members of the masthead talked one-on-one with employees of color to sort out why they felt the Times was an unwelcoming place .
In # newsroom-feedback , there were many days in which several people were typing .
Also , it appears that the Times efforts at affirmative action hiring might not be going so well : As business boomed in the Trump era , it had gone on a newsroom hiring spree , with a particular focus on trying to diversify its ranks : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 have been people of color .
.
.
A newly instituted performance-review process gives every Times employee one of six ratings ; the lowest is reserved for employees who don ’ t meet expectations , with the other five in ascending order , from “ Partially Meets Expectations ” to “ Substantially Surpasses Expectations.
” A study conducted by members of the Times ’ editorial union found that Black employees received 24 percent of the former rating , despite making up only 10 percent of the staff , while receiving just 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , the ivy league elitism most prized by liberals must remain supreme : The Times Magazine commissioned a diversity study of bylines and subject matter “ to quantify what everyone already knows , ” as one staffer put it .
The Times gave employees the day off on Juneteenth , which marks the emancipation of America ’ s slaves .
The efforts felt sincere , but everyone knew the road to real change would be long .
All employees could do was sigh when one masthead editor explained , in a town-hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diversity study was being led by Ivy Planning Group , a consulting firm named for the fact that its three founders all went to Ivy League schools .
The real problem is that the Times has gone beyond just hiring young liberal journalists ; it has hired a generation of self-professed “ woke ” “ insurrectionists.
” What the paper did have — in increasing numbers in fact — was a growing cohort of people who came to the paper with a different set of values .
.
.
“ The fundamental schism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a reporter who identified with the latter group told me .
( Almost all of the dozens of Times employees I spoke to for this story requested varying degrees of anonymity ; one told me , “ You can refer to me as a ‘ woke millennial reporter ’ or whatever.
” ) Many of the insurrectionists were coming from places the Times didn ’ t traditionally recruit from , like new digital-media companies and outlets that practiced advocacy journalism , and part of the challenge had become integrating those employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s a generation at the Times that ’ s kind of been raised by wolves , by Timesstandards , ” one institutionalist told me .
The new recruits were brought in to help supercharge the company ’ s efforts at modernizing its news operation , but the Times hadn ’ t fully understand what it would mean to have a new breed of journalist inside the building .
And one thing that is clear is that the adults at the Times are terrified and intimidated by the wokerati they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trickiest jounalistic questions have centered on what the Times is or isn ’ t willing to say .
After Bennet ’ s ouster , Sulzberger met with a columnist for the “ Opinion ” section who had expressed consternation about the decision .
Sulzberger promised the columnist that the Times would not shy away from publishing pieces to which the Times ’ core audience might object .
“ We haven ’ t lost our nerve , ” Sulzberger said .
“ Yes , you have , ” the columnist told Sulzberger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most explicit way I ’ ve ever seen anyone lose their nerve .
You can say people are still gon na be able to do controversial work , but I ’ m not gon na be the first to try .
You don ’ t know what you ’ ll be able to do , because you are not in charge of this publication — Twitter is .
As long as Twitter is editing this bitch , you can not promise me anything.
” There ’ s a whole bunch more gossip and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing is clear : college campuses have nuthin ’ on the Times in the ideological derangement department .
At the rate they ’ re going , the Times will end up canceling itself .

We knew things at the New York Times were bad, but hoo-ey boy we had no idea just how bad! New York magazine is out with a deep dive into the internal Maoist struggle sessions going on inside the Times, and get a big bowl of popcorn ready for this long piece.
The piece could be called “Annals of the Liberal Self-Obsessed,” as it contains many nuggets of pure comedy gold. Like this one, connected to the primal scream in the Times newsroom after the infamous Tom Cotton op-ed was published:
The conversation turned into what more than one Times employee described to me as a “food fight.” During the mêlée, “Opinion” columnist Elizabeth Bruenig uploaded a PDF of John Rawls’s treatise on public reason, in an attempt to elevate the discussion. “What we’re having is really a philosophical conversation, and it concerns the unfinished business of liberalism,” Bruenig wrote. “I think that all human beings are born philosophers, that is, that we all have an innate desire to understand what our world means and what we owe to one another and how to live good lives.”
Yeah, passing out Rawls is a certain sure-fire winner.
This detail is also comedy gold:
In the weeks that followed, one “Opinion” staffer told me it felt like no one at the Times got any work done at all. There were focus groups — 38 of them and counting — and working groups and innumerable conversations about what the paper should be and look like and who it was for. The masthead started holding “Black-people meetings,” as one Black employee put it to me, in which members of the masthead talked one-on-one with employees of color to sort out why they felt the Times was an unwelcoming place. In #newsroom-feedback, there were many days in which several people were typing.
Also, it appears that the Times efforts at affirmative action hiring might not be going so well:
As business boomed in the Trump era, it had gone on a newsroom hiring spree, with a particular focus on trying to diversify its ranks: 40 percent of newsroom employees hired since 2016 have been people of color. . . A newly instituted performance-review process gives every Times employee one of six ratings; the lowest is reserved for employees who don’t meet expectations, with the other five in ascending order, from “Partially Meets Expectations” to “Substantially Surpasses Expectations.” A study conducted by members of the Times’ editorial union found that Black employees received 24 percent of the former rating, despite making up only 10 percent of the staff, while receiving just 4 percent of the highest ratings.
Above all, the ivy league elitism most prized by liberals must remain supreme:
The Times Magazine commissioned a diversity study of bylines and subject matter “to quantify what everyone already knows,” as one staffer put it. The Times gave employees the day off on Juneteenth, which marks the emancipation of America’s slaves. The efforts felt sincere, but everyone knew the road to real change would be long. All employees could do was sigh when one masthead editor explained, in a town-hall meeting, that the paper’s diversity study was being led by Ivy Planning Group, a consulting firm named for the fact that its three founders all went to Ivy League schools.
The real problem is that the Times has gone beyond just hiring young liberal journalists; it has hired a generation of self-professed “woke” “insurrectionists.”
What the paper did have — in increasing numbers in fact — was a growing cohort of people who came to the paper with a different set of values. . . “The fundamental schism at the Times is institutionalist versus insurrectionist,” a reporter who identified with the latter group told me. (Almost all of the dozens of Times employees I spoke to for this story requested varying degrees of anonymity; one told me, “You can refer to me as a ‘woke millennial reporter’ or whatever.”) Many of the insurrectionists were coming from places the Times didn’t traditionally recruit from, like new digital-media companies and outlets that practiced advocacy journalism, and part of the challenge had become integrating those employees into the Timesian way of operating. “There’s a generation at the Times that’s kind of been raised by wolves, by Timesstandards,” one institutionalist told me. The new recruits were brought in to help supercharge the company’s efforts at modernizing its news operation, but the Times hadn’t fully understand what it would mean to have a new breed of journalist inside the building.
And one thing that is clear is that the adults at the Times are terrified and intimidated by the wokerati they have brought into their midst:
Some of the trickiest jounalistic questions have centered on what the Times is or isn’t willing to say. After Bennet’s ouster, Sulzberger met with a columnist for the “Opinion” section who had expressed consternation about the decision. Sulzberger promised the columnist that the Times would not shy away from publishing pieces to which the Times’ core audience might object. “We haven’t lost our nerve,” Sulzberger said. “Yes, you have,” the columnist told Sulzberger. “You lost your nerve in the most explicit way I’ve ever seen anyone lose their nerve. You can say people are still gonna be able to do controversial work, but I’m not gonna be the first to try. You don’t know what you’ll be able to do, because you are not in charge of this publication — Twitter is. As long as Twitter is editing this bitch, you cannot promise me anything.”
There’s a whole bunch more gossip and dysfunction in the complete story, but one thing is clear: college campuses have nuthin’ on the Times in the ideological derangement department. At the rate they’re going, the Times will end up canceling itself.


powerlineblog--2020-11-10--Supreme Court set to uphold Obamacare

Supreme Court set to uphold Obamacare

During the hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett , Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pretended that confirming Barrett would jeopardize Obamacare .
To support this claim , they noted that the Supreme Court soon would be hearing a challenge to that law and they pointed to a law review article by Barrett that criticized Chief Justice Roberts ’ reasoning when he upheld Obamacare in 2012 .
The Dems ’ argument was always phony .
Barrett ’ s critique of Roberts had nothing to do with the issue before the Court now — severability , i.e.
, whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional ( now that the mandate can no longer be considered a tax ) .
As we noted at the time , the votes aren ’ t there to invalidate the entire Act , regardless of how Barrett might vote .
Nor was it clear that she would vote to invalidate the Act .
Today , the Supreme Court heard argument in the case in question .
The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh could hardly have been more clear that they don ’ t buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute .
Thus , at a minimum , there are five votes to reject the challenge .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if there are more than five .
It ’ s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall when the same Congress that lowered the [ tax ] penalty to zero didn ’ t even try to repeal the rest of the act .
They wanted the court to do that , but that ’ s not our job .
Under the severability question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed .
And here Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero .
That seems to be compelling evidence on the question I tend to agree [ that ] this is a very straight forward case for severability under our precedents , meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place .
.
.
[ I ] t does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave the rest of the act in place .
Justice Alito was also skeptical of the argument for striking down Obamacare just because the individual mandate has been negated .
“ There was a strong reason to think of the mandate like a part of an airplane that was essential to keep it flying , ” Alito said .
“ But now it has been taken out , and the plane has not crashed .
So how would we explain that the mandate in its present form is essential to the operation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court wasn ’ t going to invalidate Obamacare in the case before it .
Yet , they relied on their bogus talking point in the hope of turning the country against Amy Barrett and winning control of the Senate in this year ’ s election .
They didn ’ t accomplish the first objective .
And , whatever happens in Georgia , they didn ’ t advance the ball on the second .
In fact , Sen. Joni Ernst , a Judiciary Committee member who was behind in the polls at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won reelection fairly handily .
In politics , lying often pays .
However , it didn ’ t pay in this instance .

During the hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pretended that confirming Barrett would jeopardize Obamacare. To support this claim, they noted that the Supreme Court soon would be hearing a challenge to that law and they pointed to a law review article by Barrett that criticized Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning when he upheld Obamacare in 2012.
The Dems’ argument was always phony. Barrett’s critique of Roberts had nothing to do with the issue before the Court now — severability, i.e., whether the whole of Obamacare must be invalidated if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional (now that the mandate can no longer be considered a tax). As we noted at the time, the votes aren’t there to invalidate the entire Act, regardless of how Barrett might vote. Nor was it clear that she would vote to invalidate the Act.
Today, the Supreme Court heard argument in the case in question. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh could hardly have been more clear that they don’t buy the argument in favor of invalidating the statute. Thus, at a minimum, there are five votes to reject the challenge. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more than five.
Roberts stated:
It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall when the same Congress that lowered the [tax] penalty to zero didn’t even try to repeal the rest of the act. They wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job. Under the severability question, we ask ourselves whether Congress would want the rest of the law to survive if an unconstitutional provision were severed. And here Congress left the rest of the law intact when it lowered the penalty to zero. That seems to be compelling evidence on the question
Kavanaugh said:
I tend to agree [that] this is a very straight forward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place. . .[I]t does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place.
Justice Alito was also skeptical of the argument for striking down Obamacare just because the individual mandate has been negated. “There was a strong reason to think of the mandate like a part of an airplane that was essential to keep it flying,” Alito said. “But now it has been taken out, and the plane has not crashed. So how would we explain that the mandate in its present form is essential to the operation of the act?”
Senate Democrats knew the Supreme Court wasn’t going to invalidate Obamacare in the case before it. Yet, they relied on their bogus talking point in the hope of turning the country against Amy Barrett and winning control of the Senate in this year’s election.
They didn’t accomplish the first objective. And, whatever happens in Georgia, they didn’t advance the ball on the second. In fact, Sen. Joni Ernst, a Judiciary Committee member who was behind in the polls at the time of the Barrett hearings, won reelection fairly handily.
In politics, lying often pays. However, it didn’t pay in this instance.


Tucker Carlson versus….

Watching FOX News and even FOX Business over the past few days , I find that FOX has maneuvered itself into a pathetically defensive crouch .
Chris Wallace is sacrosanct .
His name is not to be defiled .
Certain erroneous election night calls are not to be the subject of public criticism .
Even the stalwart Maria Bartiromo shut down and talked over Conrad Black as he began to allude to one such election night call in the course of an interview on Mornings With Maria yesterday .
Wallace and the FOX News news anchors behave in an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Debra Heine notes that FOX News has yet to retract its early call on election night that the Dems would pick up five House seats : “ American Greatness emailed Fox News ’ corporate communications vice president Irena Briganti Monday Morning to ask if the Fox News Decision Desk had rescinded its inaccurate projection , but did not receive a reply.
” As I wrote on Sunday , FOX News is resting on its right to remain silent .
Tucker Carlson isn ’ t naming names or taking up all of these issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quiet either .
As the man with the highest ratings in cable news , he continues to pursue the themes that have made him successful , even if they touch on his colleagues .
He remains his own man .
Taking up one prong of the issues I itemize above , Tucker conveyed a few relevant thoughts last night .
It is necessary to read between the lines , but we can surmise about whom and what he was talking in parts of his 23-minute monologue ( video below ) .
They seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has posted the video of the monologue on YouTube , so there is that .
RedState ’ s Bonchie reads between the lines in “ Civil War : Tucker Carlson Hits His Own Network in Epic Post-Election Monologue.
” I think Bonchie ’ s explication of the text is both interesting and correct .

Watching FOX News and even FOX Business over the past few days, I find that FOX has maneuvered itself into a pathetically defensive crouch. Chris Wallace is sacrosanct. His name is not to be defiled. Certain erroneous election night calls are not to be the subject of public criticism. Even the stalwart Maria Bartiromo shut down and talked over Conrad Black as he began to allude to one such election night call in the course of an interview on Mornings With Maria yesterday. Wallace and the FOX News news anchors behave in an increasingly high-handed fashion. And so on.
Debra Heine notes that FOX News has yet to retract its early call on election night that the Dems would pick up five House seats: “American Greatness emailed Fox News’ corporate communications vice president Irena Briganti Monday Morning to ask if the Fox News Decision Desk had rescinded its inaccurate projection, but did not receive a reply.” As I wrote on Sunday, FOX News is resting on its right to remain silent.
Tucker Carlson isn’t naming names or taking up all of these issues, but he isn’t keeping quiet either. As the man with the highest ratings in cable news, he continues to pursue the themes that have made him successful, even if they touch on his colleagues. He remains his own man.
Taking up one prong of the issues I itemize above, Tucker conveyed a few relevant thoughts last night. It is necessary to read between the lines, but we can surmise about whom and what he was talking in parts of his 23-minute monologue (video below). They seemed to hit home.
FOX News itself has posted the video of the monologue on YouTube, so there is that. RedState’s Bonchie reads between the lines in “Civil War: Tucker Carlson Hits His Own Network in Epic Post-Election Monologue.” I think Bonchie’s explication of the text is both interesting and correct.


powerlineblog--2020-11-10--Jennifer Rubin and the neo-Leninists

Jennifer Rubin and the neo-Leninists

Leninist parties are always left wing , but substantive policy is of only secondary importance to them .
As dictator of the Soviet Union , Lenin himself implemented some free market policies for a time .
The primary concern of Leninists is always with raw , absolute power and with crushing those who stand in the way of their efforts to obtain and hold it .
America ’ s neo-Leninists don ’ t exactly seek to crush people who disagree with them .
Not , at least , in sense of exterminating them or exiling them to Siberia .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ) to “ canceling ” political opponents — hence the “ cancel culture.
” They want to prevent their opponents from having fair access to the public and from making a living .
The latest move of America ’ s neo-Leninists is to blacklist people for supporting Donald Trump , and/or for working in his administration , and/or for complaining about election fraud .
After last week ’ s election , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , perhaps our leading neo-Leninist , asked : Her phrasing is barely literate , but her intentions are clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member in Barack Obama ’ s administration , replied that , indeed , someone is doing the “ archiving.
” Linking to something he called the “ Trump Accountability Project , ” Sinon assured Ocasio-Cortez and others : In the same vein , former Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan stated that “ employers considering [ Trump White House staffers ] should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values.
” Emily Abrams , a Democrat operative , chimed in with this : Then , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions on policies depending on practical exigencies and her nasty disposition make her the perfect neo-Leninist .
She tweeted : I know several people who “ took a paycheck ” to work for the Trump administration .
In every case , the paycheck was for a considerably smaller amount than the one coming from the private sector .
Why did they make the financial sacrifice , coupled in some instances with the sacrifice of being smeared by Democrats while being in limbo for a year or more waiting for the GOP Senate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote one or more of the following policies : a less burdensome , less oppressive regulatory environment ; free speech on college campuses ; fair procedures in campus judiciary proceedings ; admissions and employment policies that don ’ t discriminate on the basis of race ; free religious expression .
It ’ s fine for leftists to object to these agenda items , though I suspect Rubin embraced one or more of them when she was ( or was posing as ) a conservative .
But it ’ s Leninist to punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for the election , Rubin is demanding ( as Jake Tapper did slightly less brazenly ) that people who suspect widespread fraud stay silent , lest they be denied the opportunity to feed their family .
It was fine for Democrats and media outlets like the one where Rubin works to claim that Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election — allegations that Robert Mueller and his large team could not substantiate despite a multi-year investigation .
No one who peddled this bogus claim lost his or her job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or used to be ) reporting facts , not spouting baseless conspiracy theories to advance the political party they favor .
But Rubin has a list with which to blacklist those who complain about fraud in the 2020 election .
Her attempt to disguise the nature of her project by purporting to limit the purged to those making baseless allegations of fraud is itself fraudulent — less than a fig leaf .
Who decides whether the allegations were “ baseless ” ?
The Washington Post ’ s lefty fact checkers ?
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Truth And Reconciliation Commission.
” That ’ s the vehicle through which Reich proposes that we “ erase Trump ’ s lies ” and expose those who “ enabled ” him .
This seems less like neo-Leninism and more like the pure , original thing .
The important question is the extent to which the neo-Leninists hold sway in the Democratic Party .
Even in a best case scenario , they hold some sway .
Ocasio-Cortez and her squad are influential members of the House Democratic caucus .
Sevugan is the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of Bill Clinton ’ s cabinet .
Joe Biden has declared that President Trump ’ s supporters “ are not our enemies , they are Americans.
” Biden might even believe this .
But Biden has no say in the treatment by private entities of Trump administration alumni and other vocal Trump backers .
He ’ ll be lucky if he has meaningful say over much that goes on within his administration .
Many private entities are more likely to take direction from the neo-Leninists ’ prescriptions than from Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s the younger cohort — minted , like AOC , in the past decade or two from our colleges and universities — among whom the neo-Leninists find the bulk of their supporters .
Unless these kids mature dramatically , one of our two major political parties will become overtly neo-Leninist .

Leninist parties are always left wing, but substantive policy is of only secondary importance to them. As dictator of the Soviet Union, Lenin himself implemented some free market policies for a time. The primary concern of Leninists is always with raw, absolute power and with crushing those who stand in the way of their efforts to obtain and hold it.
America’s neo-Leninists don’t exactly seek to crush people who disagree with them. Not, at least, in sense of exterminating them or exiling them to Siberia.
Instead, their ambition is limited (for now) to “canceling” political opponents — hence the “cancel culture.” They want to prevent their opponents from having fair access to the public and from making a living.
The latest move of America’s neo-Leninists is to blacklist people for supporting Donald Trump, and/or for working in his administration, and/or for complaining about election fraud. After last week’s election, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps our leading neo-Leninist, asked:
Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?
Her phrasing is barely literate, but her intentions are clear.
Michael Simon, a former staff member in Barack Obama’s administration, replied that, indeed, someone is doing the “archiving.” Linking to something he called the “Trump Accountability Project,” Sinon assured Ocasio-Cortez and others:
Yes, we are. The Trump Accountability Project (@trumpaccproject) Every Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them — everyone. https://t.co/PHx8v8GxOp.
In the same vein, former Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan stated that “employers considering [Trump White House staffers] should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values.”
Emily Abrams, a Democrat operative, chimed in with this:
We’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did. Join us and help spread the word.https://t.co/wtVxGIlYOK
Then, there is Jennifer Rubin. Her ability to change positions on policies depending on practical exigencies and her nasty disposition make her the perfect neo-Leninist. She tweeted:
Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into “polite” society. We have a list.
I know several people who “took a paycheck” to work for the Trump administration. In every case, the paycheck was for a considerably smaller amount than the one coming from the private sector.
Why did they make the financial sacrifice, coupled in some instances with the sacrifice of being smeared by Democrats while being in limbo for a year or more waiting for the GOP Senate to confirm them?
They made the sacrifice to promote one or more of the following policies: a less burdensome, less oppressive regulatory environment; free speech on college campuses; fair procedures in campus judiciary proceedings; admissions and employment policies that don’t discriminate on the basis of race; free religious expression.
It’s fine for leftists to object to these agenda items, though I suspect Rubin embraced one or more of them when she was (or was posing as) a conservative. But it’s Leninist to punish conservatives for trying to promote them.
As for the election, Rubin is demanding (as Jake Tapper did slightly less brazenly) that people who suspect widespread fraud stay silent, lest they be denied the opportunity to feed their family. It was fine for Democrats and media outlets like the one where Rubin works to claim that Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election — allegations that Robert Mueller and his large team could not substantiate despite a multi-year investigation. No one who peddled this bogus claim lost his or her job. Not even journalists, whose job is (or used to be) reporting facts, not spouting baseless conspiracy theories to advance the political party they favor.
But Rubin has a list with which to blacklist those who complain about fraud in the 2020 election.
Her attempt to disguise the nature of her project by purporting to limit the purged to those making baseless allegations of fraud is itself fraudulent — less than a fig leaf. Who decides whether the allegations were “baseless”? The Washington Post’s lefty fact checkers?
Maybe it will be Robert Reich and his “Truth And Reconciliation Commission.” That’s the vehicle through which Reich proposes that we “erase Trump’s lies” and expose those who “enabled” him. This seems less like neo-Leninism and more like the pure, original thing.
The important question is the extent to which the neo-Leninists hold sway in the Democratic Party. Even in a best case scenario, they hold some sway. Ocasio-Cortez and her squad are influential members of the House Democratic caucus. Sevugan is the former DNC press secretary. Reich was a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet.
Joe Biden has declared that President Trump’s supporters “are not our enemies, they are Americans.” Biden might even believe this.
But Biden has no say in the treatment by private entities of Trump administration alumni and other vocal Trump backers. He’ll be lucky if he has meaningful say over much that goes on within his administration. Many private entities are more likely to take direction from the neo-Leninists’ prescriptions than from Biden’s platitudes.
Among rank and file Democrats, it’s the younger cohort — minted, like AOC, in the past decade or two from our colleges and universities — among whom the neo-Leninists find the bulk of their supporters. Unless these kids mature dramatically, one of our two major political parties will become overtly neo-Leninist.


powerlineblog--2020-11-10--Who Were the “Shy Trump Voters”?

Who Were the “Shy Trump Voters”?

The biggest surprise for the mainstream media and the conventional pollsters was that there were a significant number of “ shy Trump voters.
” Who were these voters ?
One segment was non-white voters , especially Hispanics but also blacks .
Trump received the largest GOP share of the non-white vote in 60 years .
Liberals are spinning furiously to explain this away .
More on this later on .
The other group of shy Trump voters appear to have been .
.
.
suburban college educated women—the group the mainstream media claimed Trump had permanently alienated .
Exit polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edison Poll finds that Trump got half or more of this group .
This shift helps explain why Republicans outperformed especially in House races .
Even the GOP did not pick up on this .
The National Journal ‘ s Josh Kraushaar has a long Twitter thread about this surprise , and also discusses the issue in an article , “ Why Pollsters Missed the Election Result So Badly.
” Excerpt : The House results give credence to an alternative view , outlined in a compelling article by political science professor Eric Kaufmann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left a cadre of white college graduates unwilling to reveal their voting intentions.
” In the piece , he offers evidence that there is a shy Trump vote coming not from white working-class MAGA supporters but rather from affluent Republican-leaning voters in the suburbs afraid to share their views on politics and hot-button cultural issues in public .
“ Political correctness refers to the policing of speech so that it conforms to cultural taboos , especially the ones concerning race , gender and sexuality .
Those who wield taboos gain rhetorical power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concepts such as racism to encompass non-racist actions such as voting for Donald Trump , ” Kaufmann writes .
Beyond this , Kraushaar cites additional polling data showing that a lot of these swingy suburban women voters don ’ t like riots , and don ’ t like political correctness .
“ Democrats who choose to ignore these uncomfortable political realities will do so at their own political peril.
” Nah : I ’ m sure liberals will keep firing dissident liberals like pollster David Shor who tried to warn Democrats about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excerpt from the exit polls interviews :

The biggest surprise for the mainstream media and the conventional pollsters was that there were a significant number of “shy Trump voters.” Who were these voters? One segment was non-white voters, especially Hispanics but also blacks. Trump received the largest GOP share of the non-white vote in 60 years. Liberals are spinning furiously to explain this away. More on this later on.
The other group of shy Trump voters appear to have been . . . suburban college educated women—the group the mainstream media claimed Trump had permanently alienated. Exit polls from both Public Opinion Strategies and the Edison Poll finds that Trump got half or more of this group. This shift helps explain why Republicans outperformed especially in House races. Even the GOP did not pick up on this.
The National Journal‘s Josh Kraushaar has a long Twitter thread about this surprise, and also discusses the issue in an article, “Why Pollsters Missed the Election Result So Badly.” Excerpt:
The House results give credence to an alternative view, outlined in a compelling article by political science professor Eric Kaufmann, arguing that “political correctness has left a cadre of white college graduates unwilling to reveal their voting intentions.” In the piece, he offers evidence that there is a shy Trump vote coming not from white working-class MAGA supporters but rather from affluent Republican-leaning voters in the suburbs afraid to share their views on politics and hot-button cultural issues in public. “Political correctness refers to the policing of speech so that it conforms to cultural taboos, especially the ones concerning race, gender and sexuality. Those who wield taboos gain rhetorical power, encouraging them to stretch the meaning of concepts such as racism to encompass non-racist actions such as voting for Donald Trump,” Kaufmann writes.
Beyond this, Kraushaar cites additional polling data showing that a lot of these swingy suburban women voters don’t like riots, and don’t like political correctness. “Democrats who choose to ignore these uncomfortable political realities will do so at their own political peril.” Nah: I’m sure liberals will keep firing dissident liberals like pollster David Shor who tried to warn Democrats about the perils of progressivism.
Chaser: Some excerpt from the exit polls interviews:


powerlineblog--2020-11-11--A warning on Georgia

A warning on Georgia

In this column , Steve Cortes identified four statistical anomalies associated with last week ’ s presidential vote .
Any one of them , he argued , “ would cast intense doubt upon election results.
” Put all four together , and “ the result is a seemingly impossible statistical perfect storm.
” Considering the importance of the Georgia runoff elections , I was struck by this passage in Cortes ’ article : In the Peach State , President Trump ’ s vote total almost exactly tracked the vote totals for the Republican senate candidates , separated by merely 818 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earned there .
But , Joe Biden saw an astounding surplus of 95,801 votes over the Democratic Senate candidates .
Something , Cortes concluded , was likely amiss .
I ’ m betting that in the Georgia runoffs , most of those 95,801 votes will be “ transferred ” to the Democratic Senate candidates .
Cortes noted that the phenomenon of Biden receiving vastly more votes than the local Senate candidate occurred primarily in swing states like Georgia .
In states like Wyoming , there was no need to gin up excess votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ran in lockstep with the Democratic Senate candidates .
Now , however , the Democrats desperately need to gin up excess votes in Georgia for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock .
If they do so without indulging in fraud , more power to them .
But the existence of so many “ Biden only ” ballots in Georgia suggests the presence of fraud in one form or another , as well as the likelihood of an attempted repeat performance in the runoffs .

In this column, Steve Cortes identified four statistical anomalies associated with last week’s presidential vote. Any one of them, he argued, “would cast intense doubt upon election results.” Put all four together, and “the result is a seemingly impossible statistical perfect storm.”
Considering the importance of the Georgia runoff elections, I was struck by this passage in Cortes’ article:
In the Peach State, President Trump’s vote total almost exactly tracked the vote totals for the Republican senate candidates, separated by merely 818 votes out of 2.43 million votes Trump earned there. But, Joe Biden saw an astounding surplus of 95,801 votes over the Democratic Senate candidates.
Something, Cortes concluded, was likely amiss.
I’m betting that in the Georgia runoffs, most of those 95,801 votes will be “transferred” to the Democratic Senate candidates.
Cortes noted that the phenomenon of Biden receiving vastly more votes than the local Senate candidate occurred primarily in swing states like Georgia. In states like Wyoming, there was no need to gin up excess votes for Biden, so the former vice president ran in lockstep with the Democratic Senate candidates.
Now, however, the Democrats desperately need to gin up excess votes in Georgia for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. If they do so without indulging in fraud, more power to them. But the existence of so many “Biden only” ballots in Georgia suggests the presence of fraud in one form or another, as well as the likelihood of an attempted repeat performance in the runoffs.
UPDATE: As I discuss here, it appears that Cortes did not do his math correctly, and that there were NOT 95,000 “Biden only” ballots cast in Georgia.


powerlineblog--2020-11-11--Pennsylvania Voter Fraud: The Lawsuit

Pennsylvania Voter Fraud: The Lawsuit

Yesterday the Trump campaign and two Pennsylvania residents sued Pennsylvania ’ s scofflaw Secretary of the Commonwealth and seven county election boards in federal court .
The lawsuit is premised primarily on equal protection ; it alleges that some Pennsylvania counties , which were uniformly favorable to Joe Biden , systematically violated Pennsylvania ’ s election laws , at times with the encouragement of the Secretary of the Commonwealth , while Republican-leaning counties followed the law .
The result was systemic voter fraud that diluted the votes of Pennsylvanians in the law-abiding counties , and also the votes of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail .
You can read the complaint here .
It is 85 pages long and is , in my opinion , quite impressive .
It alleges that several Democrat-dominated counties violated Pennsylvania law by preventing Republican “ watchers , ” as they are called in that state , from observing the ballot counting process .
As far as I know , this is indisputably true .
4 .
Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties alone received and processed 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots without review by the political parties and candidates…in direct contravention of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia County , poll watchers and canvass representatives were denied access altogether in some instances .
143 .
In Delaware County , observers were denied access to a back room counting area .
After a court-ordered injunction , the poll watchers and canvass representatives were finally allowed in the back room counting area on November 5 , 2020 , to observe , but for only five minutes every two hours .
… *** 145 .
With particular regard to the Philadelphia County Board of Elections , the Board would not permit the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 feet of “ all aspects ” of the pre-canvassing process in direct contravention of Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon ’ s November 5 , 2020 Order “ requiring that all candidates , watchers , or candidate representatives be permitted to be present for the canvassing process pursuant to 25 P.S .
§ 2650 and/or 25 P.S .
§ 3146.8 and be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet.
” 146 .
The Order required the Philadelphia Board of Elections to comply and allow watchers to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but at 10:35 a.m. the workers were denied entry .
Instead , the Board sent all of the workers on a break ( previously workers received breaks on a rolling basis ) , and the Commissioners met offsite .
Two hours later the workers returned , and the watchers were allowed to be within 6 feet , but within 6 feet of the first row of counters only .
Within a short period of time , the workers began working at other rows that were well-beyond 6-feet , rendering it impossible for watchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 25-feet beyond the area where watchers were allowed .
Moreover , during the course of the entire period , the workers repeatedly removed ballots , sometimes over 100 feet away , to do something with them , which the Trump Campaign ’ s watchers were unable to observe .
Another issue described in the Complaint is that in several large , Democrat-controlled counties , mail-in ballots were examined in advance of Election Day , which violates Pennsylvania law .
Election officials then contacted voters ( overwhelmingly if not exclusively Biden voters ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots that would correct the error , again in plain violation of Pennsylvania law .
Republican-dominated counties followed the law , did not examine mail-in ballots in advance , and disqualified them if required to do so by statute .
A third issue relates to when mail-in ballots were received .
By law , they had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day .
But in some Democratic counties , the law allegedly was not followed : 149 .
A shocking number of mail-in ballots have inexplicably appeared in counties since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , in Delaware County , the county ’ s Wednesday , November 4 report indicated that Delaware County reported it has received about 113,000 mail-in ballots and counted approximately 93,000 voted ballots .
On the next day , November 5 , the Secretary of the Commonwealth ’ s 4:30 report reflected that Delaware County had received about 114,000 ballots .
Several hours later , the Delaware County solicitor reported to an observer that the County had received about 126,000 mail-in ballots and counted about 122,000 .
As of Sunday , November 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s website reflects that the County has counted about 127,000 mail-in ballots .
Plaintiffs have received no explanation for where the additional 14,000 voted ballots came from , when they arrived , or why they are included in the current count .
*** 151 .
In Delaware County , an observer in the county office where mail-in ballots were counted was told by the Delaware County Solicitor that ballots received on November 4 , 2020 , were not separated from ballots received on Election Day , and the County refused to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes several micro-instances of voter fraud , for example : That systemic voter fraud occurred in Pennsylvania , with the connivance of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and several Democrat-dominated counties , is , I think , obvious .
The question is what can be done about it .
The Trump campaign ’ s Complaint asks the court for an order prohibiting the defendant county election boards and the Secretary of the Commonwealth from certifying the results of the 2020 election “ on a Commonwealth-wide basis.
” In the alternative , it asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes the more than 680,000 ballots that Republican poll watchers were prevented from observing , or including those defective ballots that the Democrats illegally allowed to be “ cured.
” Press coverage of the Pennsylvania lawsuit has been abysmal .
The Hill ’ s story , by Morgan Chalfant , is typical .
Chalfant quotes at length an alleged expert who pooh-poohs the lawsuit , and then writes : Mr. Chalfant either didn ’ t bother to read the Complaint , or he is deliberately misleading the Hill ’ s readers .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the Democratic Party line and the press will stick to it , no matter how many hundreds of affidavits supporting the existence of voter fraud the Trump campaign assembles .
The problem , of course , is that election fraud is easy to perpetrate and difficult , if not impossible , to remedy .
The Democrats deliberately set up lax mail-in vote protocols that they knew would enable large numbers of fraudulent votes–residents who vote twice , out of state residents who vote , non-citizens who vote , dead people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also cheated in a variety of other ways , like contacting Biden voters to correct illegal ballots .
But once those ballots have been tabulated , there is generally no way to identify the fraudulent ones .
So it is likely that the 2020 presidential election has been stolen successfully .

Yesterday the Trump campaign and two Pennsylvania residents sued Pennsylvania’s scofflaw Secretary of the Commonwealth and seven county election boards in federal court. The lawsuit is premised primarily on equal protection; it alleges that some Pennsylvania counties, which were uniformly favorable to Joe Biden, systematically violated Pennsylvania’s election laws, at times with the encouragement of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, while Republican-leaning counties followed the law. The result was systemic voter fraud that diluted the votes of Pennsylvanians in the law-abiding counties, and also the votes of those who voted in person rather than by mail.
You can read the complaint here. It is 85 pages long and is, in my opinion, quite impressive. It alleges that several Democrat-dominated counties violated Pennsylvania law by preventing Republican “watchers,” as they are called in that state, from observing the ballot counting process. As far as I know, this is indisputably true.
4. Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties alone received and processed 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots without review by the political parties and candidates…in direct contravention of the Election Code.
***
142. In Philadelphia County, poll watchers and canvass representatives were denied access altogether in some instances. 143. In Delaware County, observers were denied access to a back room counting area. After a court-ordered injunction, the poll watchers and canvass representatives were finally allowed in the back room counting area on November 5, 2020, to observe, but for only five minutes every two hours. …
***
145. With particular regard to the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, the Board would not permit the Trump Campaign’s watchers to be within 6 feet of “all aspects” of the pre-canvassing process in direct contravention of Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon’s November 5, 2020 Order “requiring that all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives be permitted to be present for the canvassing process pursuant to 25 P.S. § 2650 and/or 25 P.S. § 3146.8 and be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet.” 146. The Order required the Philadelphia Board of Elections to comply and allow watchers to be within 6 feet by 10:30 a.m., but at 10:35 a.m. the workers were denied entry. Instead, the Board sent all of the workers on a break (previously workers received breaks on a rolling basis), and the Commissioners met offsite. Two hours later the workers returned, and the watchers were allowed to be within 6 feet, but within 6 feet of the first row of counters only. Within a short period of time, the workers began working at other rows that were well-beyond 6-feet, rendering it impossible for watchers to observe the rows that were more than 25-feet beyond the area where watchers were allowed. Moreover, during the course of the entire period, the workers repeatedly removed ballots, sometimes over 100 feet away, to do something with them, which the Trump Campaign’s watchers were unable to observe.
Another issue described in the Complaint is that in several large, Democrat-controlled counties, mail-in ballots were examined in advance of Election Day, which violates Pennsylvania law. Election officials then contacted voters (overwhelmingly if not exclusively Biden voters) and helped them to fill out new ballots that would correct the error, again in plain violation of Pennsylvania law. Republican-dominated counties followed the law, did not examine mail-in ballots in advance, and disqualified them if required to do so by statute.
A third issue relates to when mail-in ballots were received. By law, they had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. But in some Democratic counties, the law allegedly was not followed:
149. A shocking number of mail-in ballots have inexplicably appeared in counties since the November 4 ballot reports. For instance, in Delaware County, the county’s Wednesday, November 4 report indicated that Delaware County reported it has received about 113,000 mail-in ballots and counted approximately 93,000 voted ballots. On the next day, November 5, the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s 4:30 report reflected that Delaware County had received about 114,000 ballots. Several hours later, the Delaware County solicitor reported to an observer that the County had received about 126,000 mail-in ballots and counted about 122,000. As of Sunday, November 8, 2020, the Department of State’s website reflects that the County has counted about 127,000 mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs have received no explanation for where the additional 14,000 voted ballots came from, when they arrived, or why they are included in the current count.
***
151. In Delaware County, an observer in the county office where mail-in ballots were counted was told by the Delaware County Solicitor that ballots received on November 4, 2020, were not separated from ballots received on Election Day, and the County refused to answer any additional questions.
The Complaint also includes several micro-instances of voter fraud, for example:
123. In Chester County, an observer witnessed a flawed resolution process for over-voted and under-voted ballots. The observer witnessed one election worker responsible for resolving over-voted and under-voted ballots by subjectively determining who the elector intended to choose on the empty votes. The observer reports that in numerous instances the election worker altered the over-voted ballot by changing votes that had been marked for Donald J. Trump to another candidate.
Two more:
117. In Montgomery County, a poll watcher observed a Judge of Elections pull aside voters who were not listed in the poll books as registered to vote. The poll watcher reports hearing the Judge of Elections tell those voters that they needed to return later and report their name as another name that was in the poll book.
***
121. In Centre County, a poll worker reported that persons appearing at the polls and admitting that they were New Jersey voters, rather than Pennsylvania voters, were nonetheless provided provisional ballots on which to vote.
That systemic voter fraud occurred in Pennsylvania, with the connivance of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and several Democrat-dominated counties, is, I think, obvious. The question is what can be done about it. The Trump campaign’s Complaint asks the court for an order prohibiting the defendant county election boards and the Secretary of the Commonwealth from certifying the results of the 2020 election “on a Commonwealth-wide basis.” In the alternative, it asks for an order barring any certification that includes the more than 680,000 ballots that Republican poll watchers were prevented from observing, or including those defective ballots that the Democrats illegally allowed to be “cured.”
Press coverage of the Pennsylvania lawsuit has been abysmal. The Hill’s story, by Morgan Chalfant, is typical. Chalfant quotes at length an alleged expert who pooh-poohs the lawsuit, and then writes:
It does not cite specific evidence of electoral fraud.
***
McEnany also claimed that Democrats were “welcoming” fraud and illegal voting, but did not offer specific evidence of votes known to be fraudulent in the election.
***
Trump has leveled unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the election, claiming it was stolen from him.
Mr. Chalfant either didn’t bother to read the Complaint, or he is deliberately misleading the Hill’s readers. It isn’t surprising, however: this is the Democratic Party line and the press will stick to it, no matter how many hundreds of affidavits supporting the existence of voter fraud the Trump campaign assembles.
The problem, of course, is that election fraud is easy to perpetrate and difficult, if not impossible, to remedy. The Democrats deliberately set up lax mail-in vote protocols that they knew would enable large numbers of fraudulent votes–residents who vote twice, out of state residents who vote, non-citizens who vote, dead people who vote, and so on. They also cheated in a variety of other ways, like contacting Biden voters to correct illegal ballots. But once those ballots have been tabulated, there is generally no way to identify the fraudulent ones. So it is likely that the 2020 presidential election has been stolen successfully.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--The left’s unconvincing alibi for the defeat of Prop 16

My favorite result from last week ’ s election was the defeat of Proposition 16 by the voters of California .
Prop 16 was the left ’ s attempt to repeal California ’ s ban on racial and other forms of discrimination by the State .
It lost decisively , 56.5 to 43.5 .
Prop 16 ’ s sponsors attribute the defeat to voter confusion .
But Prop 16 didn ’ t lose because voters were confused .
It lost because most people don ’ t favor the government making decisions based on race .
Prop 16 ’ s sponsors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wonders of diversity that they can ’ t get their minds around the fact that most Americans want the government to judge people by their character and their credentials , not by the color of their skin .
But polls show that Americans still hold this view old-fashioned view .
According to our friend Gail Heriot , of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission : The polls have been consistent for decades .
Whenever the issue is stated fairly and clearly , opposition to race and sex preferences is overwhelming .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and 2016 , the Gallup has asked the following question of poll respondents : “ Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into college or university—applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit , even if that results in few minority students being admitted ( or ) an applicant ’ s racial or ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses , even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted.
” The responses were consistent : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on merit ” is always at least twice as great as the number choosing “ help promote diversity.
” In 2016 , it was 70 % for “ solely on merit ” vs. 26 % for considering racial or ethnic background .
Note that the question was posed so as to take account of the arguments on both sides .
Respondents were alerted to the possibility that without considering race or ethnic background “ few minority students ” may be admitted .
Note also that , if anything , the question is unfair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , since most “ NO ” voters are willing to take into consideration things other than academic achievement ( such as low income ) ; they simply oppose using race or ethnicity as the measure of disadvantage .
Gallup isn ’ t the only polling organization whose surveys show a marked preference by Americans for merit-based decisionmaking : In 2019 , Pew Research conducted a similar poll that focused on employment instead of college admissions .
Like the Gallup poll , the Pew poll gave respondents two choices : “ When it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , companies and organizations should— … Only take qualifications into account , even if it results in less diversity .
… Also take race and ethnicity into account in order to increase diversity.
” The results were consistent with the Gallup poll : 74 % chose “ only take qualifications into account , ” while 24 % chose “ also take race and ethnicity into account.
” This was not because respondents didn ’ t see any value in racial and ethnic diversity in the workplace .
When asked how important it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace , ” 75 % said it is either “ very important ” or “ somewhat important.
” Only 24 % said it was “ not too important ” or “ not at all important.
” They did not , however , believe race or ethnicity should be taken into consideration in hiring or promotions .
The results were the same when , also in 2019 , Pew surveyed the issue of race-based college admissions .
Among adults , 73 percent said race and ethnicity should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majorities of all races and ethnicities agreed .
Only 26 percent of adults said race and ethnicity should be either a major ( 7 percent ) or a minor ( 19 percent ) factor .
In leading the opposition to Prop 16 , Gail found that many that many left-of-center Californians agreed with her position : As for the language of Prop 16 , it was produced by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra ( a liberal Democrat ) .
Moreover , according to Gail : [ T ] here was not a hint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear that Proposition 16 was destined to lose .
In July , it was the NO on 16 campaign that objected to the ballot language .
While the NO side brought a lawsuit to correct what it viewed as misleading ballot language , as far as anyone could tell the YES side was happy with the language .
Instead , YES side brought a lawsuit against the NO side , arguing that its ballot pamphlet argument was misleading .
Both lawsuits were unsuccessful .
There ’ s nothing confusing about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot .
It stated : Prop 16 ’ s backers have a low regard for the intelligence of California voters if they genuinely believe this language confused them .

My favorite result from last week’s election was the defeat of Proposition 16 by the voters of California. Prop 16 was the left’s attempt to repeal California’s ban on racial and other forms of discrimination by the State. It lost decisively, 56.5 to 43.5.
Prop 16’s sponsors attribute the defeat to voter confusion. But Prop 16 didn’t lose because voters were confused. It lost because most people don’t favor the government making decisions based on race.
Prop 16’s sponsors are so sold on their BS about the wonders of diversity that they can’t get their minds around the fact that most Americans want the government to judge people by their character and their credentials, not by the color of their skin. But polls show that Americans still hold this old-fashioned view.
According to our friend Gail Heriot, of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission:
The polls have been consistent for decades. Whenever the issue is stated fairly and clearly, opposition to race and sex preferences is overwhelming. For example, in 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2016, the Gallup has asked the following question of poll respondents: “Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into college or university—applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant’s racial or ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted.” The responses were consistent: The number of respondents choosing “solely on merit” is always at least twice as great as the number choosing “help promote diversity.” In 2016, it was 70% for “solely on merit” vs. 26% for considering racial or ethnic background. Note that the question was posed so as to take account of the arguments on both sides. Respondents were alerted to the possibility that without considering race or ethnic background “few minority students” may be admitted. Note also that, if anything, the question is unfair to the “NO on 16” campaign, since most “NO” voters are willing to take into consideration things other than academic achievement (such as low income); they simply oppose using race or ethnicity as the measure of disadvantage.
(Emphasis added)
Gallup isn’t the only polling organization whose surveys show a marked preference by Americans for merit-based decisionmaking:
In 2019, Pew Research conducted a similar poll that focused on employment instead of college admissions. Like the Gallup poll, the Pew poll gave respondents two choices: “When it comes to decisions about hiring and promotions, companies and organizations should— … Only take qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. Or … … Also take race and ethnicity into account in order to increase diversity.” The results were consistent with the Gallup poll: 74% chose “only take qualifications into account,” while 24% chose “also take race and ethnicity into account.” This was not because respondents didn’t see any value in racial and ethnic diversity in the workplace. When asked how important it is “for companies and organizations to promote racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace,” 75% said it is either “very important” or “somewhat important.” Only 24% said it was “not too important” or “not at all important.” They did not, however, believe race or ethnicity should be taken into consideration in hiring or promotions.
(Emphasis added)
The results were the same when, also in 2019, Pew surveyed the issue of race-based college admissions. Among adults, 73 percent said race and ethnicity should not be a factor in these decisions. Majorities of all races and ethnicities agreed. Only 26 percent of adults said race and ethnicity should be either a major (7 percent) or a minor (19 percent) factor.
In leading the opposition to Prop 16, Gail found that many that many left-of-center Californians agreed with her position:
Some helped out the campaign in large or small ways. I suspect that anyone who goes through our list of donors will find quite a few registered Democrats among them. They weren’t confused about Prop 16. They understood it all too well.
As for the language of Prop 16, it was produced by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (a liberal Democrat). Moreover, according to Gail:
[T]here was not a hint of any dissatisfaction with that language until it became clear that Proposition 16 was destined to lose. In July, it was the NO on 16 campaign that objected to the ballot language. While the NO side brought a lawsuit to correct what it viewed as misleading ballot language, as far as anyone could tell the YES side was happy with the language. Instead, YES side brought a lawsuit against the NO side, arguing that its ballot pamphlet argument was misleading. Both lawsuits were unsuccessful.
(Emphasis added)
There’s nothing confusing about the language regarding Prop 16 that appeared on the ballot. It stated:
ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. SUMMARY Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities. The effects of the measure depend on the future choices of state and local government entities and are highly uncertain.
Prop 16’s backers have a low regard for the intelligence of California voters if they genuinely believe this language confused them.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--“Right-Wing Misinformation”? It’s True!

“Right-Wing Misinformation”? It’s True!

In a revealing moment , New York Times columnist Kevin Roose denounced four instances of “ right-wing misinformation ” making the rounds on Facebook .
Here is his tweet ; see if you can spot the common denominator in the four instances of “ misinformation.
” Yes , that ’ s right : every one of these Facebook posts links to a news story that is indisputably true .
A Republican in Michigan did go from loser to winner after a “ technical glitch ” was fixed .
Attorney General William Barr did authorize the Department of Justice to investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did hold an emergency session .
And Senators Perdue and Loeffler did call on Georgia ’ s Secretary of State to resign .
So what ’ s the problem ?
How can linking to news stories like these be “ right-wing disinformation ” ?
After many Twitter users objected , Roose responded : At the New York Times , indisputable truth is “ misinformation , ” and must be denounced as such , if it doesn ’ t advance that newspaper ’ s political agenda .
Truthful information , in Timesspeak , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Misinformation ” is what could harm the Democratic Party .
As , very often , the facts tend to do .
I have been saying for a while that the principal job of journalists these days is to block Americans from receiving information that they are better off ( in the opinion of the Left ) not knowing .
Journalists don ’ t so much report the news as cover it up .
This is an excellent example of that sick phenomenon .

In a revealing moment, New York Times columnist Kevin Roose denounced four instances of “right-wing misinformation” making the rounds on Facebook. Here is his tweet; see if you can spot the common denominator in the four instances of “misinformation.”
Facebook is absolutely teeming with right-wing misinformation right now. These are all among the 10 most-engaged URLs on the platform over the last 24 hours (per @NewsWhip data) pic.twitter.com/WlTR10fRBE — Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) November 10, 2020
Yes, that’s right: every one of these Facebook posts links to a news story that is indisputably true. A Republican in Michigan did go from loser to winner after a “technical glitch” was fixed. Attorney General William Barr did authorize the Department of Justice to investigate voting irregularities. Michigan’s legislature did hold an emergency session. And Senators Perdue and Loeffler did call on Georgia’s Secretary of State to resign.
So what’s the problem? How can linking to news stories like these be “right-wing disinformation”? After many Twitter users objected, Roose responded:
For the conservatives who are mad about this: yes, it is possible for a story to be factually accurate *and* for it to be part of a misinformation campaign aimed at undermining confidence in an election. https://t.co/Ag4brfJzO4 — Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) November 10, 2020
At the New York Times, indisputable truth is “misinformation,” and must be denounced as such, if it doesn’t advance that newspaper’s political agenda. Truthful information, in Timesspeak, is what helps the Democratic Party. “Misinformation” is what could harm the Democratic Party. As, very often, the facts tend to do.
I have been saying for a while that the principal job of journalists these days is to block Americans from receiving information that they are better off (in the opinion of the Left) not knowing. Journalists don’t so much report the news as cover it up. This is an excellent example of that sick phenomenon.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--Catch Me On the Dan Proft Show

Catch Me On the Dan Proft Show

Dan Proft is a top-notch radio personality .
He does the morning show on Chicago ’ s AM 560 The @ @ @ @ @ Jacobson .
Beginning last December , he also hosts the Dan Proft Show on the @ @ @ @ @ pm to midnight , Eastern .
I have been a guest on the Answer ’ @ @ @ @ @ , and have guest hosted the Dan Proft Show on Salem a number of times @ @ @ @ @ is a lot of fun ; we pre-record , so there are no callers–for better @ @ @ @ @ guest hosting the Dan Proft Show tonight , tomorrow night and Friday .
We taped @ @ @ @ @ morning , I think–post-election commentary , mostly , with some good guests .
Tomorrow , @ @ @ @ @ looking forward to a conversation with Francis Menton , the Manhattan Contrarian .
Please do @ @ @ @ @ Radio Network tonight , tomorrow and Friday , if you can .

Dan Proft is a top-notch radio personality. He does the morning show on Chicago’s AM 560 The Answer, together with Amy Jacobson. Beginning last December, he also hosts the Dan Proft Show on the Salem Radio Network from 9 pm to midnight, Eastern. I have been a guest on the Answer’s morning show many times, and have guest hosted the Dan Proft Show on Salem a number of times, as well. It is a lot of fun; we pre-record, so there are no callers–for better or worse. I am guest hosting the Dan Proft Show tonight, tomorrow night and Friday.
We taped a very good show this morning, I think–post-election commentary, mostly, with some good guests. Tomorrow, among others, I am looking forward to a conversation with Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian.
Please do tune in on the Salem Radio Network tonight, tomorrow and Friday, if you can.


powerlineblog--2020-11-11--The audacity of Cleta Mitchell

The audacity of Cleta Mitchell

My friend Cleta Mitchell is a partner in Foley & Lardner ’ s political law practice group .
She is prominent , pugnacious , and smart as hell .
I have drawn on Cleta ’ s work in many posts including , for example , “ Cleta Mitchell : Glenn Simpson is a liar.
” FOX News invited Cleta to appear as a guest on a special edition of one of its news shows over the weekend .
Off-camera , FNC ’ s Sandra Smith grimaced and disparaged Cleta for daring to depart from FNC ’ s call of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s credit , however , co-host Trace Gallagher ignored Smith and acknowledged that Cleta had a good point , but seeing Smith with her mask off ( video below ) is additive to the channel ’ s ongoing humiliation .
John Nolte comments in the Breitbart column “ Fox ’ s contempt for Trump supporters exposed in off-air video.
” Cleta herself comments via Twitter , “ Sandra Smith thinks FoxNews calling the election means Biden is President .
Forget that pesky Constitution…happy to be considered a nut job because I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @

My friend Cleta Mitchell is a partner in Foley & Lardner’s political law practice group. She is prominent, pugnacious, and smart as hell. I have drawn on Cleta’s work in many posts including, for example, “Cleta Mitchell: Glenn Simpson is a liar.”
FOX News invited Cleta to appear as a guest on a special edition of one of its news shows over the weekend. Off-camera, FNC’s Sandra Smith grimaced and disparaged Cleta for daring to depart from FNC’s call of the election for Joe Biden. To FNC’s credit, however, co-host Trace Gallagher ignored Smith and acknowledged that Cleta had a good point, but seeing Smith with her mask off (video below) is additive to the channel’s ongoing humiliation.
John Nolte comments in the Breitbart column “Fox’s contempt for Trump supporters exposed in off-air video.” Cleta herself comments via Twitter, “Sandra Smith thinks FoxNews calling the election means Biden is President. Forget that pesky Constitution…happy to be considered a nut job because I believe in the rule of law.”


Cocaine Mitch slays

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

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


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--A warning on Georgia revisited

A warning on Georgia revisited

Last night , I cited an analysis by Steve Cortes that concluded there were 95,000 “ Biden only ” ballots in Georgia and virtually no “ Trump only ballots ” in the state .
Cortes cited these numbers as suggesting voter fraud .
I cited them as a warning that in the crucial Senate runoff races , the “ Biden only ” ballots might become new votes for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock .
But Dan McLaughlin disputes Cortes ’ claim that there were 95,000 “ Biden only ” ballots .
He writes : If you actually watch Cortes explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something completely different : the difference between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump votes and the votes for Georgia Senate campaigns .
But he completely ignores the possibility that some voters submitted split-ticket ballots , i.e.
, they voted for Biden but also cast ballots for David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler for the Senate .
If you compare the total number of votes cast in the Georgia Senate race between Perdue and Jon Ossoff , you see that the 95,000 number is mathematically impossible .
As of the current count , there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election , and 4,945,454 votes cast in the Perdue-Ossoff race .
That ’ s a difference of 46,299 votes , meaning that it is not possible that there were 95,000 ballots with only a presidential vote marked .
( There have been 4,907,912 votes counted so far in the Georgia Special Senate election , which means that at least an additional 37,542 people voted in the Senate race that had a clear Republican and Democratic candidate , but stayed out of the one where there were multiple candidates from each party ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuasive .
I ’ m relieved that there aren ’ t nearly 100,000 Biden voters in Georgia ready to become Perdue and Warnock voters in January .

Last night, I cited an analysis by Steve Cortes that concluded there were 95,000 “Biden only” ballots in Georgia and virtually no “Trump only ballots” in the state. Cortes cited these numbers as suggesting voter fraud. I cited them as a warning that in the crucial Senate runoff races, the “Biden only” ballots might become new votes for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock.
But Dan McLaughlin disputes Cortes’ claim that there were 95,000 “Biden only” ballots. He writes:
If you actually watch Cortes explain this, however, he is computing something completely different: the difference between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump votes and the votes for Georgia Senate campaigns. But he completely ignores the possibility that some voters submitted split-ticket ballots, i.e., they voted for Biden but also cast ballots for David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler for the Senate. If you compare the total number of votes cast in the Georgia Senate race between Perdue and Jon Ossoff, you see that the 95,000 number is mathematically impossible. As of the current count, there were 4,991,753 votes cast in Georgia in the presidential election, and 4,945,454 votes cast in the Perdue-Ossoff race. That’s a difference of 46,299 votes, meaning that it is not possible that there were 95,000 ballots with only a presidential vote marked. (There have been 4,907,912 votes counted so far in the Georgia Special Senate election, which means that at least an additional 37,542 people voted in the Senate race that had a clear Republican and Democratic candidate, but stayed out of the one where there were multiple candidates from each party).
I find McLaughlin’s analysis persuasive. I’m relieved that there aren’t nearly 100,000 Biden voters in Georgia ready to become Ossoff and Warnock voters in January.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--Why did Trump lose Pennsylvania?

Why did Trump lose Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania played a key role in Donald Trump ’ s surprise victory in 2016 .
This year , I thought that , although Trump would lose the election , he would again carry Pennsylvania .
It seemed to me that the riots in Philadelphia and Biden ’ s contradictory statements about fracking would see the president through in the Keystone State .
It didn ’ t work out that way .
Why not ?
One possible explanation is voter fraud .
On this view , Trump didn ’ t really lose Pennsylvania , it was stolen from him .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump by more than 50,000 votes .
Was there enough fraud to account for that gap ?
Maybe , but I haven ’ t seen evidence of it yet .
In the absence of such evidence , a better explanation for the Pennsylvania result comes from Henry Enten .
He tweeted : If Trump ran this poorly in Pennsylvania compared to GOP House candidates , then it ’ s likely that Trump lost Pennsylvania because , as Enten says , many GOP voters were turned off by his antics — the over-the-top tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it gratuitous ) , and so forth .
Either Trump was incapable of acting presidential or he simply didn ’ t want to .
Voters noticed and some potential supporters appear to have balked .
There is another possible explanation for GOP House candidates outperforming Trump in Pennsylvania .
House candidates , whether incumbents or not , could not be blamed for the U.S. response to the Wuhan coronavirus .
Trump could be and , I think , was to some degree — whether fairly or not .
My guess is that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s persona and the virus — explain why GOP House members outperformed Trump in Pennsylvania , and why Trump lost the state this time .

Pennsylvania played a key role in Donald Trump’s surprise victory in 2016. This year, I thought that, although Trump would lose the election, he would again carry Pennsylvania. It seemed to me that the riots in Philadelphia and Biden’s contradictory statements about fracking would see the president through in the Keystone State.
It didn’t work out that way. Why not?
One possible explanation is voter fraud. On this view, Trump didn’t really lose Pennsylvania, it was stolen from him.
But the vote count puts Biden ahead of Trump by more than 50,000 votes. Was there enough fraud to account for that gap? Maybe, but I haven’t seen evidence of it yet.
In the absence of such evidence, a better explanation for the Pennsylvania result comes from Henry Enten. He tweeted:
In the U.S. House races, the GOP candidates are getting 117k more votes than the Dem candidates. Fact is the prez race was just different. Lots of potential GOP voters just couldn’t stomach Trump.
If Trump ran this poorly in Pennsylvania compared to GOP House candidates, then it’s likely that Trump lost Pennsylvania because, as Enten says, many GOP voters were turned off by his antics — the over-the-top tweets, the persistent nastiness (some of it gratuitous), and so forth. Either Trump was incapable of acting presidential or he simply didn’t want to. Voters noticed and some potential supporters appear to have balked.
There is another possible explanation for GOP House candidates outperforming Trump in Pennsylvania. House candidates, whether incumbents or not, could not be blamed for the U.S. response to the Wuhan coronavirus. Trump could be and, I think, was to some degree — whether fairly or not.
My guess is that some combination of these two factors — Trump’s persona and the virus — explains why GOP House members outperformed Trump in Pennsylvania, and why Trump lost the state this time.


Citizen Klain

Joe Biden , the next president , has selected Ron Klain to be his chief-of-staff .
Klain is an old Washington hand with deep ties to Biden .
He is the natural choice for chief-of-staff .
I met with Klain in the late 1980s when I was still a Democrat .
We discussed the possibility of me working on the Hill .
I found Klain to be intelligent , likeable , and unpretentious .
At that time , he had friendly relations with some D.C. conservatives from his time as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Byron White , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in today ’ s issue of the Washington Post .
Scherer paints a glowing portrait .
Among other things , he quotes Valerie Jarrett who gives Klain credit for preventing an Ebola outbreak in the U.S .
Missing from Scherer ’ s piece is any mention of the SARS outbreak .
Joe Biden was the point man in dealing with SARS , and Klain was Biden ’ s go-to guy .
Klain has been honest enough to acknowledge that , but for the fact that this virus wasn ’ t very lethal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a horrific scale .
He said : It is purely a fortuity that this isn ’ t one of the great mass casualty events in American history .
It had nothing to do with us doing anything right .
It just had to do with luck .
If anyone thinks that this can ’ t happen again , they don ’ t have to go back to 1918 , they just have to go back to 2009 , 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality , and you can just do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t blame Biden and Klain for not having done anything to prevent a deadly pandemic , any more than I blame Donald Trump for not preventing the coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s worth noting , however , that , as Klain admitted , “ luck ” was what distinguished the two outcomes .
In any event , it seems like journalistic malpractice for the Washington Post to tout Klain as the man who prevented an Ebola epidemic without mentioning his own less flattering assessment of the response to the SARS outbreak @

Joe Biden, the next president, has selected Ron Klain to be his chief-of-staff. Klain is an old Washington hand with deep ties to Biden. He is the natural choice for chief-of-staff.
I met with Klain in the late 1980s when I was still a Democrat. We discussed the possibility of me working on the Hill.
I found Klain to be intelligent, likeable, and unpretentious. At that time, he had friendly relations with some D.C. conservatives from his time as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Byron White, if not before.
Michael Scherer profiled Klain in today’s issue of the Washington Post. Scherer paints a glowing portrait. Among other things, he quotes Valerie Jarrett who gives Klain credit for preventing an Ebola outbreak in the U.S.
Missing from Scherer’s piece is any mention of the SARS outbreak. Joe Biden was the point man in dealing with SARS, and Klain was Biden’s go-to guy.
Klain has been honest enough to acknowledge that, but for the fact that this virus wasn’t very lethal, the U.S. would have experienced deaths on a horrific scale. He said:
It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history. It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.
I don’t blame Biden and Klain for not having done anything to prevent a deadly pandemic, any more than I blame Donald Trump for not preventing the coronavirus pandemic. It’s worth noting, however, that, as Klain admitted, “luck” was what distinguished the two outcomes.
In any event, it seems like journalistic malpractice for the Washington Post to tout Klain as the man who prevented an Ebola epidemic without mentioning his own less flattering assessment of the response to the SARS outbreak.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--First Circuit affirms decision that Harvard doesn’t discriminate against Asian-American applicants

As expected , a panel of the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling that Harvard ’ s race-conscious admissions program is lawful .
You can read the opinion , all 100 pages of it , here .
Having read the opinion , I don ’ t recommend it except to those with a particular interest in the issue .
For me , the most interesting portion begins at page 90 , when the court tries to justify its conclusion that the “ personal ratings ” of applicants — the portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a class to lose out — are not influenced by race .
All I will say about this section for now is that I can not imagine a court writing such an analysis if Black applicants were losing out based on highly subjective “ personal ratings ” on the same facts as presented in this case .
The First Circuit was always going to uphold the district court ’ s ruling in favor of Harvard .
The real question has always been what the Supreme Court will do with this case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem very likely to disagree with the First Circuit ’ s ruling .
A third — the Chief Justice — has in the past viewed cases like this one similarly to the way Thomas and Alito do .
Will the current incarnation of Roberts change his view ?
I don ’ t know .
Three Justices have been added to the Court since the last time it visited the matter of race-based admissions policies .
All three are right of center , but their view of this particular issue is unclear , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Kavanaugh , for example , being wobbly on the matter .
In sum , there are six potential votes against Harvard in this case , with five needed for the Asian-American students to prevail .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised to see three sets of opinions , with some sort of middle ground opinion on the broad question of race-based admissions carrying the day .
This , of course , is what happened when the Supreme Court first visited the issue in the Bakke case , all those years ago .

As expected, a panel of the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program is lawful. You can read the opinion, all 100 pages of it, here.
Having read the opinion, I don’t recommend it except to those with a particular interest in the issue. For me, the most interesting portion begins at page 90, when the court tries to justify its conclusion that the “personal ratings” of applicants — the portion of the admissions process that causes Asian-American applicants as a class to lose out — are not influenced by race. All I will say about this section for now is that I cannot imagine a court writing such an analysis if Black applicants were losing out based on highly subjective “personal ratings” on the same facts as presented in this case.
The First Circuit was always going to uphold the district court’s ruling in favor of Harvard. The real question has always been what the Supreme Court will do with this case.
Two Justices — Thomas and Alito — seem very likely to disagree with the First Circuit’s ruling. A third — the Chief Justice — has in the past viewed cases like this one similarly to the way Thomas and Alito do. Will the current incarnation of Roberts change his view? I don’t know.
Three Justices have been added to the Court since the last time it visited the matter of race-based admissions policies. All three are right of center, but their view of this particular issue is unclear, at least to me. I can see Justice Kavanaugh, for example, being wobbly on the matter.
In sum, there are six potential votes against Harvard in this case, with five needed for the Asian-American students to prevail. I wouldn’t be surprised to see three sets of opinions, with some sort of middle ground opinion on the broad question of race-based admissions carrying the day. This, of course, is what happened when the Supreme Court first visited the issue in the Bakke case, all those years ago.


Tucker Carlson persists

The news side of the FOX News channel appears to be following an edict to discount Trump campaign claims of fraud in last week ’ s election .
Neil Cavuto ’ s cutting away from a Kayleigh McEnany press conference addressing fraudulent voting presents a dramatic case in point .
Kind sir , protect me from hearing unverified claims now and forever more .
I am incapable of applying my own judgment .
As I have noted a few times over the past week , FOX News has yet to account for the wildly misleading performance of its news side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
I have written the FOX News senior executive in charge of media relations to ask if the network intends to offer an explanation .
Assuming she ’ s too busy to attend to my inquiry , I will nevertheless post any response received verbatim .
Reading between the lines of his monologues , I infer that Tucker Carlson refuses to follow such an edict , if it exists , or to remain silent .
On his show last night , for example , he offered cases studies of the “ dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video below , text here ) .
The only answer to such examples is that these are merely garden variety instances insufficiently numerous to affect the outcome .
In any event , however , they contradict the claim that they have seen no evidence of fraud .

The news side of the FOX News channel appears to be following an edict to discount Trump campaign claims of fraud in last week’s election. Neil Cavuto’s cutting away from a Kayleigh McEnany press conference addressing fraudulent voting presents a dramatic case in point. Kind sir, protect me from hearing unverified claims now and forever more. I am incapable of applying my own judgment.
As I have noted a few times over the past week, FOX News has yet to account for the wildly misleading performance of its news side with respect to key issues on election night. I have written the FOX News senior executive in charge of media relations to ask if the network intends to offer an explanation. Assuming she’s too busy to attend to my inquiry, I will nevertheless post any response received verbatim.
Reading between the lines of his monologues, I infer that Tucker Carlson refuses to follow such an edict, if it exists, or to remain silent. On his show last night, for example, he offered cases studies of the “dead voters awake” variety (FOX News video below, text here). The only answer to such examples is that these are merely garden variety instances insufficiently numerous to affect the outcome. In any event, however, they contradict the claim that they have seen no evidence of fraud.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--Warnock an inartful dodger

Warnock an inartful dodger

The George Senate runoff elections are critical to our future .
Jeremiah Wright style leftist Raphael Warnock is running against @ @ @ @ @ Jon Ossoff is running against David Perdue .
Only Loeffler and Perdue stand in the @ @ @ @ @ .
Chuck Schumer has already explained , “ First we take Georgia , then we @ @ @ @ @ Ossoff are the keys .
As the terrorist in Leonard Cohen ’ s song puts @ @ @ @ @ Manhattan , then they take Berlin .
I checked in on 2018 Warnock ’ s @ @ @ @ @ yesterday .
In the video clip below , Warnock dodges the question whether he supports @ @ @ @ @ Court or the statehood of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia .
He is @ @ @ @ @ We support the reelection of Senators Perdue and Loeffler .
We support the continued rule @ @ @ @ @ McConnell .
Readers can contribute to both Perdue and Loeffler here .
Or donate to @ @ @ @ @ and Perdue ’ s campaign here .

The George Senate runoff elections are critical to our future. Jeremiah Wright style leftist Raphael Warnock is running against Kelly Loeffler. Pajama Boy Jon Ossoff is running against David Perdue. Only Loeffler and Perdue stand in the gap against permanent one-party rule. Chuck Schumer has already explained, “First we take Georgia, then we change America.” Warnock and Ossoff are the keys. As the terrorist in Leonard Cohen’s song puts it, first they take Manhattan, then they take Berlin.
I checked in on 2018 Warnock’s anti-Semitic rant against Israel here yesterday. In the video clip below, Warnock dodges the question whether he supports the packing of the Supreme Court or the statehood of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. He is not an artful dodger.
We support the reelection of Senators Perdue and Loeffler. We support the continued rule of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Readers can contribute to both Perdue and Loeffler here. Or donate to Loeffler’s campaign here and Perdue’s campaign here.
Via Elizabeth Matamoros/Washington Free Beacon.


powerlineblog--2020-11-12--A pretense of accountability

A pretense of accountability

Among the egregious errors of fact committed by FOX News on election night , the early projection that Democrats would pick up five seats in the House .
As of this morning , Republicans have picked up at least 9 House seats .
The tweets below document the call and ask what happened .
As I have noted a few times , when FOX News called Arizona for Biden , more than 800,000 votes had yet to be counted .
Arnon Mishkin , the smiling head of the channel ’ s so-called Decision Desk , appeared on-camera to assure viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the uncounted votes .
As of this morning , Biden ’ s Arizona lead has narrowed from 7 points to .34 percent ( fewer than 12,00 votes ) .
We are left to wonder and surmise what happened .
What accounts for Mishkin ’ s miss ?
FOX News has so far rested on its right to remain silent .
FOX News owes its remaining viewers an explanation .
Eight days after the election , Bret Baier acknowledged on Special Report last night that FOX News got the House call wrong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( again ) we are left to wonder and surmise what happened .
Baier ’ s acknowledgement of error amounts to a pretense of accountability .
( Again ) FOX News owes its remaining viewers an explanation .
What happened ?
Either they don ’ t get it or they don ’ t want to get it .
This doesn ’ t cut it .
Indeed , this is an embarrassment .

Among the egregious errors of fact committed by FOX News on election night, the early projection that Democrats would pick up five seats in the House. As of this morning, Republicans have picked up at least 9 House seats. The tweets below document the call and ask what happened.
I've still seen no explanation regarding how the Fox News Decision Desk got this projection so wrong on Election night. Polls were still open in a lot of places when this call was made. There should be some explanation. Instead, it seems like they're trying to memory hole it. https://t.co/FwFLaOIa3O — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) November 11, 2020
Here’s the video of Fox News making this call on election night. It was the first call of the night:pic.twitter.com/MLp6q8Ql5c — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) November 11, 2020
As I have noted a few times, when FOX News called Arizona for Biden, more than 800,000 votes had yet to be counted. Arnon Mishkin, the smiling head of the channel’s so-called Decision Desk, appeared on-camera to assure viewers that Biden would widen his lead substantially in the uncounted votes. As of this morning, Biden’s Arizona lead has narrowed from 7 points to .34 percent (fewer than 12,00 votes).
We are left to wonder and surmise what happened. What accounts for Mishkin’s miss? FOX News has so far rested on its right to remain silent. FOX News owes its remaining viewers an explanation.
Eight days after the election, Bret Baier acknowledged on Special Report last night that FOX News got the House call wrong. That was big of him, but (again) we are left to wonder and surmise what happened. Baier’s acknowledgement of error amounts to a pretense of accountability. (Again) FOX News owes its remaining viewers an explanation.
What happened? Either they don’t get it or they don’t want to get it. This doesn’t cut it. Indeed, this is an embarrassment.
.@BretBaier comments on the Fox News Decision Desk's Election Night projection for the House, reiterating that they "correctly predicted…that Democrats would retain control" while their insistence Dems "would add about five seats to their majority…did not occur." pic.twitter.com/Ny5NJ5ncsl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 12, 2020
Via Robert Stacy McCain/The Other McCain.