powerlineblog--2020-11-13--The Geek in Pictures: Post-Election Edition

Okay , who ’ s up for more election-related charts and graphs ?
I know I am .
First , like a timeshare pitch , you have to sit through some narrative before the good stuff .
I was privy today to some extensive survey and voting data analysis by several political scientists , all of them liberals needless to say , but nevertheless offering some very interesting findings free of ideological bias .
These data are proprietary and unpublished ( and not based on exit polls , but on large samples cultivated over several years , plus a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state-by-state level ) , so I can ’ t share specific charts and graphs , but I can pass along a couple of significant general findings .
First , while media attention to Trump ’ s increased share of the Hispanic vote has focused mostly on Florida and Texas , the data show that Trump significantly increased his share of Hispanic vote everywhere—even in Arizona , Colorado , and California .
About Trump ’ s improvement with Black voters the data is more uneven , finding that Trump is only up slightly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are two states where Trump did considerably better with Black voters than he did in 2016 : Pennsylvania and Michigan .
So why did Trump lose those states ?
Aside from vote fraud , the increase in Trump ’ s share of the non-white vote was not enough to make up for his slippage in the white vote .
Increasingly it is clear that it is Trump ’ s lower share of the white vote from 2016 that cost him re-election .
That doesn ’ t really fit the leftist narrative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it spells long term trouble for Democrats : Joe Biden ’ s coalition is whiter , wealthier – and will not stick around Biden ’ s win depended on suburbanites tired of Trump , who voted Republican down ballot and will certainly vote Republican in future elections .
.
.
Democrats may have accomplished their near-term goal , but in the long term the party is in an extraordinarily weak place , built on a rickety coalition united only by a hatred of a president who will soon no longer be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ route to beating Trump , but in the process may have irreparably damaged their ability to build a governing majority and implement progressive policy .
.
.
Most concerningly , Democrats hemorrhaged votes among non-white working-class voters .
.
.
Even in the crucial states Biden was able to flip , Trump reduced Democratic margins in Detroit , Milwaukee and Philadelphia .
These results should be setting off alarm bells among Democrats .
Okay , now for charts .
Ken Mehlman , a former member in good standing of the Bushoisie , produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This first one , showing Biden ’ s negative coattails , is my favorite : So only JFK in 1960 was worse than Biden ?
What does the 1960 election have in common with 2o20 ?
Oh yeah .
.
.
Next , in electoral college terms , this election was just as close as 2016 : The exit polls are crap again .
Time for MEPGA ?
?
Next , remember this chart next time Democrats say “ there ’ s too much money in politics.
” Democrats account for the lion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
This next one comes from the NBC/WSJ survey unit , showing that swing counties that have gone with the winner for the last 40 year no longer do so .

Okay, who’s up for more election-related charts and graphs? I know I am.
First, like a timeshare pitch, you have to sit through some narrative before the good stuff. I was privy today to some extensive survey and voting data analysis by several political scientists, all of them liberals needless to say, but nevertheless offering some very interesting findings free of ideological bias. These data are proprietary and unpublished (and not based on exit polls, but on large samples cultivated over several years, plus a close look at actual election results on a state-by-state level), so I can’t share specific charts and graphs, but I can pass along a couple of significant general findings.
While media attention to Trump’s increased share of the Hispanic vote has focused mostly on Florida and Texas, the data show that Trump significantly increased his share of Hispanic vote everywhere—even in Arizona, Colorado, and California. About Trump’s improvement with Black voters the data is more uneven, finding that Trump is only up slightly with Black voters in most states. But there are two states where Trump did considerably better with Black voters than he did in 2016: Pennsylvania and Michigan.
So why did Trump lose those states? Aside from vote fraud, the increase in Trump’s share of the non-white vote was not enough to make up for his slippage in the white vote. Increasingly it is clear that it is Trump’s lower share of the white vote from 2016 that cost him re-election. That doesn’t really fit the leftist narrative, which even The Guardian has noticed, because it spells long term trouble for Democrats:
Joe Biden’s coalition is whiter, wealthier – and will not stick around Biden’s win depended on suburbanites tired of Trump, who voted Republican down ballot and will certainly vote Republican in future elections. . . Democrats may have accomplished their near-term goal, but in the long term the party is in an extraordinarily weak place, built on a rickety coalition united only by a hatred of a president who will soon no longer be a threat. The Democrats took the shortest route to beating Trump, but in the process may have irreparably damaged their ability to build a governing majority and implement progressive policy. . . Most concerningly, Democrats hemorrhaged votes among non-white working-class voters. . . Even in the crucial states Biden was able to flip, Trump reduced Democratic margins in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. These results should be setting off alarm bells among Democrats.
Okay, now for charts. Lobbyist and former Bush administration member Bruce Mehlman produced several interesting charts on the election (full presentation posted here). This first one, showing Biden’s negative coattails, is my favorite:
So only JFK in 1960 was worse than Biden? What does the 1960 election have in common with 2020? Oh yeah. . .
Next, in electoral college terms, this election was just as close as 2016:
The exit polls are crap again. Time for MEPGA??
(Incidentally, one of the political scientists on today’s Zoom session said that “the TV networks don’t really care if the exit polls are accurate—they just want a story to tell,” which set off an angry dissent from the prominent network-affiliated pollster on the call, who nevertheless admitted that the exit polls and pre-election polls alike are a hopeless mess right now. Heh.)
Next, remember this chart next time Democrats say “there’s too much money in politics.” Democrats account for the lion’s share of this growth from 2016.
This next one comes from the NBC/WSJ survey unit, showing that swing counties that have gone with the winner for the last 40 year no longer do so.


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--The next four years in civil rights

The next four years in civil rights

Bloomberg reports that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is “ headed for a dramatic makeover ” under Joe Biden .
It quotes Linda Chavez , among others .
She says that the Biden administration is certain to “ undo the Trump years ” the same way Trump tried to undo the Obama years — “ but with a vengeance.
” I don ’ t want to underestimate the extent to which a Biden DOJ will accommodate race-hustlers , but neither should we overestimate its ability to transform the civil rights landscape .
Just as Congress will check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts are likely to curb the excesses of his Civil Rights Division when it tries to exalt the parochial interests of favored racial groups over the rights of others .
Biden has talked about installing the Civil Rights Division ( or parts of it ) in the White House .
He can move it into the Oval Office if he wants to .
It won ’ t make courts any more likely to uphold race-based preferences in college admissions and employment , for example .
With all of the judges installed during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court Justices , the left will be lucky if the overall legal landscape on “ civil rights ” issues is as favorable to its vision in four years as it is now .
There ’ s also the matter of public opinion .
The vote on Proposition 16 in California shows that even in one of our most liberal states , the public doesn ’ t want racial preferences .
If the Biden administration pushes aggressively for such preferences — and I ’ m pretty sure it will — it will create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2024 .
And if the Biden administration resumes the Obama policy of interfering in local policing — as I ’ m quite sure it will — the potential for a justifiable backlash is even greater .
Biden won ’ t defund the policy , but his DOJ is likely to handcuff it — not to appease the BLM crowd , but because the folks in his DOJ will agree with BLM about the police .
As policing inevitably deteriorates as a result , crime will continue to rise .
Biden , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run on that record , as Americans yearn for public safety .

Bloomberg reports that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is “headed for a dramatic makeover” under Joe Biden. It quotes Linda Chavez, among others. She says that the Biden administration is certain to “undo the Trump years” the same way Trump tried to undo the Obama years — “but with a vengeance.”
I don’t want to underestimate the extent to which a Biden DOJ will accommodate race-hustlers, but neither should we overestimate its ability to transform the civil rights landscape. Just as Congress will check Biden’s general domestic agenda, courts are likely to curb the excesses of his Civil Rights Division when it tries to exalt the parochial interests of favored racial groups over the rights of others.
Biden has talked about installing the Civil Rights Division (or parts of it) in the White House. He can move it into the Oval Office if he wants to. It won’t make courts any more likely to uphold race-based preferences in college admissions and employment, for example.
With all of the judges installed during the Trump administration, and especially the three Supreme Court Justices, the left will be lucky if the overall legal landscape on “civil rights” issues is as favorable to its vision in four years as it is now.
There’s also the matter of public opinion. The vote on Proposition 16 in California shows that even in one of our most liberal states, the public doesn’t want racial preferences. If the Biden administration pushes aggressively for such preferences — and I’m pretty sure it will — it will create an issue for Republicans justifiably to exploit in 2024.
And if the Biden administration resumes the Obama policy of interfering in local policing — as I’m quite sure it will — the potential for a justifiable backlash is even greater. Biden won’t defund the police, but his DOJ is likely to handcuff it — not to appease the BLM crowd, but because the folks in his DOJ will agree with BLM about the police.
As policing inevitably deteriorates as a result, crime will continue to rise. Biden, or more likely Kamala Harris, will have to run on that record, as Americans yearn for public safety.


The 2020 debates

Klain has developed a specialized role as the Democrats ’ preeminent coach for presidential debates .
He worked on debate preparations for Bill Clinton in 1992 and Gore in 2000 , and he has led the debate prep for every Democratic nominee since — John F. Kerry , Obama , Hillary Clinton and Biden .
Klain ’ s debate rules for candidates , versions of which long ago became public , have been a mainstay of both party ’ s strategies for these presidential matchups .
.
.
“ A stumble , fumble , or gaffe can cost you a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second , ” he wrote in one memo that became public .
“ But while you can lose a debate at any point , you can only win a debate in the first twenty minutes.
” I think there ’ s wisdom in this .
When I write about these debates , I always judge them in their entirety .
But I ’ ve long suspected that , for the electorate as whole , the first half hour or less makes the difference .
( The reason why a debate can be lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end is not so much because of the impression it makes at the time , but because the gaffe will be played up after the debate . )
In two of this year ’ s debates — the second presidential debate and the vice presidential debate — the opening topic was the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic .
In the first presidential debate , Chris Wallace turned the debate to the pandemic at about the 16 minute mark .
( He led off with the Amy Barrett nomination , probably a last minute decision driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it virtually impossible for the Republican nominee to win the debate .
There was no way to make the pandemic a winning issue for the administration in power .
Not with more than 200,000 deaths , and new cases on the rise .
This doesn ’ t mean that Biden and Harris were destined to win the debate over the pandemic , and arguably they didn ’ t win it , at least not in all three debates .
It does mean that only Biden/Harris had the opportunity to win the debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realistic view of how these debates are judged by the public .
I thought Trump blew the first debate by being too Trumpian .
I thought Trump won the second debate and that Pence won his .
However , in both of these debates it seemed to me that the opposition had the better of it in the opening stage , when the coronavirus was the topic .
In bringing up the pandemic so early in the debates , were the moderators trying to stack the deck against Trump/Pence ?
I doubt that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic was not his first topic .
And given the importance of the issue , it was natural that the virus would come up early in the first debate .
I ’ m more suspicious of the decision to make the pandemic Topic A in the next two debates , especially the third .
By then , with nothing new to say , this smacked of beating a dead horse .
By then , the moderators could tell , if was not intuitively obvious all along , that the GOP ticket was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The decision to again bring the virus front and center in the third debate was accompanied by the decision not to make foreign policy an issue at all .
Trump was permitted to wedge the Biden family ’ s dealings with China into the debate .
But never , in any of the debates , was there a discussion of foreign policy .
That ’ s a disgrace .
I conclude that , collectively , the three debate moderators tried ( and probably succeeded ) in tipping the scales for Biden/Harris through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and forth ( mainly in Wallace ’ s case ) and their choice of topics ( mainly in the other two debates ) .

Yesterday’s Washington Post article about top Biden adviser Ron Klain contained this passage:
Klain has developed a specialized role as the Democrats’ preeminent coach for presidential debates. He worked on debate preparations for Bill Clinton in 1992 and Gore in 2000, and he has led the debate prep for every Democratic nominee since — John F. Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden. Klain’s debate rules for candidates, versions of which long ago became public, have been a mainstay of both party’s strategies for these presidential matchups. . .“A stumble, fumble, or gaffe can cost you a debate, right up to the last second,” he wrote in one memo that became public. “But while you can lose a debate at any point, you can only win a debate in the first twenty minutes.”
(Emphasis added)
I think there’s wisdom in this. When I write about these debates, I always judge them in their entirety. But I’ve long suspected that, for the electorate as whole, the first half hour or less makes the difference. (The reason why a debate can be lost through a gaffe right up until the end is not so much because of the impression it makes at the time, but because the gaffe will be played up after the debate.)
In two of this year’s debates — the second presidential debate and the vice presidential debate — the opening topic was the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. In the first presidential debate, Chris Wallace turned the debate to the pandemic at about the 16 minute mark. (He led off with the Amy Barrett nomination, probably a last minute decision driven by the news.)
This made it virtually impossible for the Republican nominee to win the debate. There was no way to make the pandemic a winning issue for the administration in power. Not with more than 200,000 deaths, and new cases on the rise.
This doesn’t mean that Biden and Harris were destined to win the debate over the pandemic, and arguably they didn’t win it, at least not in all three debates. It does mean that only Biden/Harris had the opportunity to win the debate, at least under Klain’s very realistic view of how these debates are judged by the public.
I thought Trump blew the first debate by being too Trumpian. I thought Trump won the second debate and that Pence won his. However, in both of these debates it seemed to me that the opposition had the better of it in the opening stage, when the coronavirus was the topic.
In bringing up the pandemic so early in the debates, were the moderators trying to stack the deck against Trump/Pence? I doubt that Chris Wallace was. As noted, the pandemic was not his first topic. And given the importance of the issue, it was natural that the virus would come up early in the first debate.
I’m more suspicious of the decision to make the pandemic Topic A in the next two debates, especially the third. By then, with nothing new to say, this smacked of beating a dead horse. By then, the moderators could tell, if was not intuitively obvious all along, that the GOP ticket was at its shakiest on this issue.
The decision to again bring the virus front and center in the third debate was accompanied by the decision not to make foreign policy an issue at all. Trump was permitted to wedge the Biden family’s dealings with China into the debate. But never, in any of the debates, was there a discussion of foreign policy. That’s a disgrace.
I conclude that, collectively, the three debate moderators tried (and probably succeeded) in tipping the scales for Biden/Harris through a combination of the way they moderated the back and forth (mainly in Wallace’s case) and their choice of topics (mainly in the other two debates).


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--The Green Grift, or Gangrene Energy?

The Green Grift, or Gangrene Energy?

The renewable energy fanatics like to point out that the cost of solar power has been falling dramatically over the past decade , the result of technological and manufacturing improvements .
This is true , but raises the question : why does the solar industry continue to demand subsidies then ?
The Financial Times ran an unintentionally hilarious and illuminating story on this point yesterday : French solar investors up in arms over threat to renege on contracts A French government plan to save hundreds of millions of euros a year by reneging on early solar power contracts it says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage among investors , who say the move could cripple their businesses , undermine the credibility of the state ’ s promises and threaten future renewable energy projects .
French officials said they had a duty to save public money , not least so they could finance further investment in renewable energy .
They calculated the contract changes would save €400m-€600m a year of the €2bn annual spending on the 235,000 contracts signed in the four years of a photovoltaic investment “ bubble ” .
.
.
The €2bn spent annually produces less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s electricity , but consumes a third of public spending on renewables , the officials said .
It turns out that prior subsidy contracts yielded nearly 20 percent profit margins for solar power producers , which the French government thinks is “ excessive ” since the return on investment for conventional energy investments is closer to 5 percent .
One thing this makes clear is that solar power “ investment ” requires big subsidies to attract capital .
Without the guaranteed subsidies , green energy turns into gangrene energy in a hurry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the contracts on the secondary market are finding out what the real market rate of return for energy investments is , and face a potential wipeout by this proposed change : Darko Adamovic , a lawyer with Linklaters in Paris , said : “ Investors that have purchased on the secondary markets , those plants have not really been benefiting from those tariffs , as would have been the case had they invested in 2006 as opposed to buying the project in 2013 or 2014.
” Lesson : Get in early on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the government starts to run out of other people ’ s money .
Like this : Chief Justice John Marshall wouldn ’ t be amused by a government proposing to break its contracts ( I was just re-reading Fletcher v. Peck last night ) , but this is Europe we ’ re talking about , where the rule of law is optional these days .
Meanwhile , please excuse me while I pop up a big bag of solar-powered popcorn .

The renewable energy fanatics like to point out that the cost of solar power has been falling dramatically over the past decade, the result of technological and manufacturing improvements. This is true, but raises the question: why does the solar industry continue to demand subsidies then?
The Financial Times ran an unintentionally hilarious and illuminating story on this point yesterday:
French solar investors up in arms over threat to renege on contracts A French government plan to save hundreds of millions of euros a year by reneging on early solar power contracts it says generate “excessive” profits has caused outrage among investors, who say the move could cripple their businesses, undermine the credibility of the state’s promises and threaten future renewable energy projects. French officials said they had a duty to save public money, not least so they could finance further investment in renewable energy. They calculated the contract changes would save €400m-€600m a year of the €2bn annual spending on the 235,000 contracts signed in the four years of a photovoltaic investment “bubble”. . . The €2bn spent annually produces less than 1 per cent of France’s electricity, but consumes a third of public spending on renewables, the officials said.
It turns out that prior subsidy contracts yielded nearly 20 percent profit margins for solar power producers, which the French government thinks is “excessive” since the return on investment for conventional energy investments is closer to 5 percent. One thing this makes clear is that solar power “investment” requires big subsidies to attract capital. Without the guaranteed subsidies, green energy turns into gangrene energy in a hurry.
In fact “investors” who bought up the contracts on the secondary market are finding out what the real market rate of return for energy investments is, and face a potential wipeout by this proposed change:
Darko Adamovic, a lawyer with Linklaters in Paris, said: “Investors that have purchased on the secondary markets, those plants have not really been benefiting from those tariffs, as would have been the case had they invested in 2006 as opposed to buying the project in 2013 or 2014.”
Lesson: Get in early on the grift or you’re screwed when the government starts to run out of other people’s money. Like this:
Nicolas Jeuffrain, who heads Tenergie, an Aix-en-Provence-based company with 600MW of capacity that bought most of its installations after 2015, said investors were typically making 4-6 per cent returns, not 20 per cent. “The excess profit? It’s gone!” he declares.
Chief Justice John Marshall wouldn’t be amused by a government proposing to break its contracts (I was just re-reading Fletcher v. Peck last night), but this is Europe we’re talking about, where the rule of law is optional these days.
Meanwhile, please excuse me while I pop up a big bag of solar-powered popcorn.


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--DOJ finds poor judgment but no corruption in Acosta’s handling of Epstein case

Jeffrey Epstein was the serial abuser of underage girls who got a sweetheart plea deal from then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta in 2008 .
More than a decade later , after the Miami Herald blew the whistle on the deal , the Department of Justice conducted an investigation .
The findings of the investigation were released yesterday .
The DOJ concluded that Acosta exercised “ poor judgment ” but not “ professional misconduct.
” It found no evidence that Acosta signed off on the deal “ based on corruption or other impermissible considerations such as Epstein ’ s wealth , status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ corruption/impermissible considerations ” aren ’ t the only possible ways to categorize Acosta ’ s handling of the Epstein case .
Adam Horowitz an attorney who represents some of Epstein ’ s victims , calls Acosta ’ s conduct “ reckless.
” Sen. Ben Sasse calls it “ a disgusting failure.
” But what accounts for the failure ?
Why did Acosta agree to such an epically bad deal ?
We might have a better idea of Acosta ’ s thinking had not his emails from the relevant period — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to a “ technical glitch.
” We might have a better idea of the degree , if any , to which Epstein ’ s attorneys exerted undue influence had DOJ investigators interviewed members of Epstein ’ s defense team .
But according to former U.S. district judge Paul Cassell , who represents some of Epstein ’ s victims , the DOJ did not conduct such interviews .
Citing this failure , Cassell , himself a former high-ranking Justice Department official , calls the DOJ ’ s report a “ coverup.
” We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Acosta ’ s thinking .
I believe Acosta was overawed by Epstein ’ s defense team .
He was overawed by the prospect of having to litigate against its lawyers .
In addition , I believe he was overawed by their prestige and connections to the D.C. Republican legal establishment he hoped to rejoin ( and did rejoin ) after he completed his time as U.S. Attorney in Florida .
I ’ m not surprised that the DOJ found no evidence of corruption in the strong sense .
I ’ m pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t have revealed payments to Acosta or promises of future benefits or employment .
Acosta ’ s emails , had they not been “ lost , ” might or might not have been consistent with my view of his thinking .
I doubt we ’ ll ever know for sure why Acosta agreed to the sweetheart deal .
The best we can do is to go with Ben Sasse ’ s description .
Acosta ’ s handling of the Epstein ’ s case , and that of the DOJ as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Jeffrey Epstein was the serial abuser of underage girls who got a sweetheart plea deal from then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta in 2008. More than a decade later, after the Miami Herald blew the whistle on the deal, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation. The findings of the investigation were released yesterday.
The DOJ concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” but not “professional misconduct.” It found no evidence that Acosta signed off on the deal “based on corruption or other impermissible considerations such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations.”
“Poor judgment” and “corruption/impermissible considerations” aren’t the only possible ways to categorize Acosta’s handling of the Epstein case. Adam Horowitz an attorney who represents some of Epstein’s victims, calls Acosta’s conduct “reckless.” Sen. Ben Sasse calls it “a disgusting failure.”
But what accounts for the failure? Why did Acosta agree to such an epically bad deal?
We might have a better idea of Acosta’s thinking had not his emails from the relevant period — May 2007-May 2008 — been irretrievably lost due to a “technical glitch.” We might have a better idea of the degree, if any, to which Epstein’s attorneys exerted undue influence had DOJ investigators interviewed members of Epstein’s defense team. But according to former U.S. district judge Paul Cassell, who represents some of Epstein’s victims, the DOJ did not conduct such interviews.
Citing this failure, Cassell, himself a former high-ranking Justice Department official, calls the DOJ’s report a “coverup.”
We are left, then, to speculate about Acosta’s thinking. I believe Acosta was overawed by Epstein’s defense team. He was overawed by the prospect of having to litigate against its lawyers. In addition, I believe he was overawed by their prestige and connections to the D.C. Republican legal establishment he hoped to rejoin (and did rejoin) after he completed his time as U.S. Attorney in Florida.
I’m not surprised that the DOJ found no evidence of corruption in the strong sense. I’m pretty sure that even a more thorough investigation wouldn’t have revealed payments to Acosta or promises of future benefits or employment. Acosta’s emails, had they not been “lost,” might or might not have been consistent with my view of his thinking.
I doubt we’ll ever know for sure why Acosta agreed to the sweetheart deal. The best we can do is to go with Ben Sasse’s description. Acosta’s handling of the Epstein’s case, and that of the DOJ as a whole, was a disgusting failure.


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--Wasteful Spending: An Issue From the Past?

Josef Stalin famously said that one death is a tragedy , while a million deaths are a statistic .
The same holds true for spending : most people ’ s eyes glaze over at the thought of a billion dollars , but we get outraged over the idea of a $ 400 hammer .
The $ 400 hammer won one of Senator William Proxmire ’ s Golden Fleece awards , decades ago .
Proxmire did a more effective job than just about anyone at highlighting wasteful federal spending , and his Golden Fleece awards got enormous publicity .
Proxmire was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when politicians of both parties–some of them , anyway–didn ’ t like to waste money .
Is that still true ?
Senator Everett Dirksen famously said , “ A billion here , a billion there , and pretty soon you ’ re talking real money.
” Nowadays we often talk in trillions , but voters still don ’ t want to see their money wasted , and they still understand relatively small instances of stupidity better than mind-numbing billion-dollar bureaucratese .
Hence the Golden Turkey award .
My organization , Center of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Golden Turkey award , which highlights wasteful spending in our state , Minnesota .
The point is to expose foolish government spending , in order to motivate voters to demand spending cuts rather than tax increases to close our state ’ s COVID shutdown-related budget deficit .
We have a long list of foolish spending projects , from which we have selected four finalists for the inaugural Golden Turkey prize .
They include : * $ 6.9 million for a refrigerated morgue to hold the bodies of tens of thousands of COVID victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Never used .
* $ 57,000 paid to celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern to tweet on behalf of Minnesota tourism , twice a month .
Nice work if you can get it !
* In the same vein , $ 900,000 to pay Minnesotans not to cut their lawns , but rather to let them grow wild .
Because bees .
Never mind the neighbors !
* Here the dollars are small , but the intent is incredibly stupid : $ 1,000 for “ a woman to host a hands-on climate mapping workshop where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrain of climate change.
” Hey , you would care if it was your $ 1,000 !
Which is the whole point .
If you go here , you can get more information about the nominees and vote for your favorite .
The inaugural Golden Turkey will be awarded at a press conference on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving .
We are promoting the Golden Turkey award with a digital advertising and organic Facebook campaign .
We would do Facebook ads , except that Facebook continues its ban on “ political ” ads , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to policy .
Also , we are doing electronic billboards to promote the campaign .
This is what they look like : We intend for Golden Turkey prizes to be awarded into the future , indefinitely .
Government waste is a huge issue .
It is most acute at the state level because most states are required to balance their budgets .
Waste at the federal level may seem cost-free to the extent that it is covered , temporarily , by deficit spending .
But all bills must eventually be paid–with interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is much talk these days about where conservatism should go in a post-Trump era .
That is a big topic , but one point seems crystal clear : if we want lower taxes , we need to constrain spending .
Because there is no such thing as a free lunch .
Meanwhile , please do go here and vote for your favorite turkey .

Josef Stalin famously said that one death is a tragedy, while a million deaths are a statistic. The same holds true for spending: most people’s eyes glaze over at the thought of a billion dollars, but we get outraged over the idea of a $400 hammer.
The $400 hammer won one of Senator William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece awards, decades ago. Proxmire did a more effective job than just about anyone at highlighting wasteful federal spending, and his Golden Fleece awards got enormous publicity. Proxmire was a Democrat, but there was a time when politicians of both parties–some of them, anyway–didn’t like to waste money.
Is that still true? Senator Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” Nowadays we often talk in trillions, but voters still don’t want to see their money wasted, and they still understand relatively small instances of stupidity better than mind-numbing billion-dollar bureaucratese.
Hence the Golden Turkey award. My organization, Center of the American Experiment, is inaugurating the Golden Turkey award, which highlights wasteful spending in our state, Minnesota. The point is to expose foolish government spending, in order to motivate voters to demand spending cuts rather than tax increases to close our state’s COVID shutdown-related budget deficit.
We have a long list of foolish spending projects, from which we have selected four finalists for the inaugural Golden Turkey prize. They include:
* $6.9 million for a refrigerated morgue to hold the bodies of tens of thousands of COVID victims, who didn’t materialize. Never used.
* $57,000 paid to celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern to tweet on behalf of Minnesota tourism, twice a month. Nice work if you can get it!
* In the same vein, $900,000 to pay Minnesotans not to cut their lawns, but rather to let them grow wild. Because bees. Never mind the neighbors!
* Here the dollars are small, but the intent is incredibly stupid: $1,000 for “a woman to host a hands-on climate mapping workshop where participants create maps of their personal emotional terrain of climate change.”
Hey, you would care if it was your $1,000! Which is the whole point.
If you go here, you can get more information about the nominees and vote for your favorite. The inaugural Golden Turkey will be awarded at a press conference on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving.
We are promoting the Golden Turkey award with a digital advertising and organic Facebook campaign. We would do Facebook ads, except that Facebook continues its ban on “political” ads, which it defines broadly to include anything related to policy. Also, we are doing electronic billboards to promote the campaign. This is what they look like:
We intend for Golden Turkey prizes to be awarded into the future, indefinitely. Government waste is a huge issue. It is most acute at the state level because most states are required to balance their budgets. Waste at the federal level may seem cost-free to the extent that it is covered, temporarily, by deficit spending. But all bills must eventually be paid–with interest, in the federal case.
There is much talk these days about where conservatism should go in a post-Trump era. That is a big topic, but one point seems crystal clear: if we want lower taxes, we need to constrain spending. Because there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Meanwhile, please do go here and vote for your favorite turkey.


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--FOX News: What occurred?

FOX News: What occurred?

The dismal performance of FOX News on election night put an exclamation point on the descent of the network into the trough of antipathy and distrust conservatives relegate its competitors .
One can infer that FOX News is disturbed by the reaction of conservative media outside the network ’ s circle to the network ’ s election night pratfalls ( to put it charitably ) .
Consider the number of respectable conservative pundits who are tongue-tied by virtue of their contractual relationship with FOX News as contributors .
Their public silence is inherent in their relationship , but is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the payroll who hasn ’ t spoken up to observe the miasma at the network ?
Eight days after the election , a week or so after it became obvious it had blown its call of a net pickup of at least five Dem seats in the House , Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum both recited an embarrassingly pallid confession that their so-called Decision Desk got it wrong .
They put it this way : “ That did not occur.
” And this call , let us remember , was rendered while polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP picked up one or more seats for the first time in many years .
( Christopher Gage looked back in the November 7 American Greatness column “ Why Hasn ’ t Fox News Retracted Its Wrong Call on the House ?
” ) The FOX concession amounts to weasel words .
The concession is somewhat less explanatory than “ mistakes were made.
” The executives in charge at FOX must think that their remaining viewers are dolts and fools .
Shelby Talcott posts the videos of Baier and MacCallum in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baier ’ s version of the acknowledgement : “ Democrats have clinched a majority in the House by reaching 218 seats .
There are still a handful of races undecided , ” Baier said .
“ On election night , the FOX News Decision Desk correctly predicted soon after 9:00 Eastern that Democrats would retain control of the House.
” “ But they also estimated Democrats would add about five seats to their majority .
That did not occur .
Republicans have gained six seats with multiple races yet to be decided , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bret Baier.
” John Nolte comments at Breitbart in the disgusted column “ Disgraced Fox News Retracts False House Race Projection — 8 Days Later !
” Nolte concludes with the harsh judgment : “ Only suckers watch Fox News.
” And Nicholas Waddy takes up FOX ’ s Arizona call about which I have been writing in the American Greatness column “ The death of Fox News.
” As of this morning , by the way , RealClearPolitics counts a net GOP gain of 8 House seats with 7 races yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain should creep higher , but 8 is a resonant number in this context .
Query why it took FOX News 8 days to acknowledge reality — and then to do so in the weasel words quoted above .
With its weasel words FOX News has aggravated its pitiful election-night performance .
The network owes its remaining viewers some candid and serious reckoning beyond a simple acknowledgement of reality .
We already knew they blew it .
Short of such an accounting , the trust the network had worked to earn in years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I write for the site Power Line ( powerlineblog.com ) , a widely read site with a conservative orientation .
I have been calling for an explanation of the Decision Desk ’ s call of Arizona for Biden with 800,000 votes outstanding on the assurance that the remaining votes would widen Biden ’ s lead , and on the Decisions Desk ’ s call that Democrats would pick up five seats in the House ( while polls were still open in California ) .
Both of these calls appear to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to me to call for an explanation .
In the first case , so far as I am aware , FOX News has said nothing other than providing Arnon Mishkin ’ s assurance that he stands by his call .
In the second case , Bret Baier acknowledged the error [ Wednesday ] night without any explanation .
Can you give me any comment on the question whether FOX News believes it owes its viewers an explanation and whether one will be provided ?
Thank you for your courtesies and consideration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t expect a response and haven ’ t received one .
Nevertheless , I stand by my call !

The dismal performance of FOX News on election night put an exclamation point on the descent of the network into the trough of antipathy and distrust conservatives relegate its competitors. One can infer that FOX News is disturbed by the reaction of conservative media outside the network’s circle to the network’s election night pratfalls (to put it charitably).
Consider the number of respectable conservative pundits who are tongue-tied by virtue of their contractual relationship with FOX News as contributors. Their public silence is inherent in their relationship, but is there any conservative outlet or pundit not on the payroll who hasn’t spoken up to observe the miasma at the network?
Eight days after the election, a week or so after it became obvious it had blown its call of a net pickup of at least five Dem seats in the House, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum both recited an embarrassingly pallid confession that their so-called Decision Desk got it wrong. They put it this way: “That did not occur.” And this call, let us remember, was rendered while polls were still open in California, where the GOP picked up one or more seats for the first time in many years. (Christopher Gage looked back in the November 7 American Greatness column “Why Hasn’t Fox News Retracted Its Wrong Call on the House?”)
The FOX concession amounts to weasel words. The concession is somewhat less explanatory than “mistakes were made.” The executives in charge at FOX must think that their remaining viewers are dolts and fools.
Shelby Talcott posts the videos of Baier and MacCallum in the Daily Caller report here. Talcott quotes Baier’s version of the acknowledgement:
“Democrats have clinched a majority in the House by reaching 218 seats. There are still a handful of races undecided,” Baier said. “On election night, the FOX News Decision Desk correctly predicted soon after 9:00 Eastern that Democrats would retain control of the House.” “But they also estimated Democrats would add about five seats to their majority. That did not occur. Republicans have gained six seats with multiple races yet to be decided,” he continued on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
John Nolte comments at Breitbart in the disgusted column “Disgraced Fox News Retracts False House Race Projection — 8 Days Later!” Nolte concludes with the harsh judgment: “Only suckers watch Fox News.” And Nicholas Waddy takes up FOX’s Arizona call about which I have been writing in the American Greatness column “The death of Fox News.”
As of this morning, by the way, RealClearPolitics counts a net GOP gain of 8 House seats with 7 races yet to be called. The net GOP gain should creep higher, but 8 is a resonant number in this context. Query why it took FOX News 8 days to acknowledge reality — and then to do so in the weasel words quoted above.
With its weasel words FOX News has aggravated its pitiful election-night performance. The network owes its remaining viewers some candid and serious reckoning beyond a simple acknowledgement of reality. We already knew they blew it. Short of such an accounting, the trust the network had worked to earn in years past is gone.
Early yesterday I wrote FOX News senior corporate communications executive Irena Briganti:
Dear Ms. Briganti: I write for the site Power Line (powerlineblog.com), a widely read site with a conservative orientation. I have been calling for an explanation of the Decision Desk’s call of Arizona for Biden with 800,000 votes outstanding on the assurance that the remaining votes would widen Biden’s lead, and on the Decisions Desk’s call that Democrats would pick up five seats in the House (while polls were still open in California). Both of these calls appear to have been predicated on wildly erroneous analysis. They seem to me to call for an explanation. In the first case, so far as I am aware, FOX News has said nothing other than providing Arnon Mishkin’s assurance that he stands by his call. In the second case, Bret Baier acknowledged the error [Wednesday] night without any explanation. Can you give me any comment on the question whether FOX News believes it owes its viewers an explanation and whether one will be provided? Thank you for your courtesies and consideration.
Scott Johnson
St. Paul, Minnesota
I didn’t expect a response and haven’t received one. Nevertheless, I stand by my call!


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Coronavirus in one state (125)

Coronavirus in one state (125)

I would like faithful readers of this series to know that I have reached an agreement to settle my lawsuit against Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and MDH Communications Director Michael Schommer .
I am awaiting only their execution of the agreement .
Although it has attracted roughly no attention beyond my own coverage on Power Line , the lawsuit vindicates the First Amendment in the context of the MDH press briefings around which I have organized this series .
I will have more to say when they sign on the dotted line as agreed .
Not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can let on that I will declare victory and post the agreement in a final installment of my Media Access in One State series when I have their executed copy of the agreement in hand .
They have succeeded only in slow rolling the resolution .
Governor Walz ’ s E.O .
20-96 ( “ Restricting Social Gatherings , Celebrations , and the Hours and Operations of Bars , Restaurants , and Venues to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19 ” ) went into effect last night at 10:00 p.m .
This order has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laying down the law in San Marcos about it .
Silence !
However , Walz is not alone .
With this incredible order Walz joins the likes of Andrew Cuomo , Gavin Newsom , and other governors who are deep into the incomparable joy of one-man rule .
As with his purchase of a refrigerated warehouse facility for use as an emergency morgue this past spring , Walz is compensating for Minnesota ’ s inferiority complex .
Executive Order 20-96 conveys the same pretense of control over the epidemic that we have suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one-man rule this past March .
John Hinderaker made a related point here last night .
Once upon a time the execrable Dr. Michael Osterholm made the same point .
Indeed , I cited Osterholm to this effect in “ False alarm , ” the article I wrote this past May with Kevin Roche for the Summer issue of Thinking Minnesota .
Earlier this week Kevin addressed what he would do .
As we cope with the current wave of the epidemic in the upper Midwest , Kevin also wanted Power Line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a screenshot of North Dakota ’ s hospitalization reporting .
Note the sub-category of people who went into a hospital for a reason other than COVID-19 and tested positive in the hospital .
This would include some subset of those who actually acquired the infection in the hospital .
Now note that if you do the math , it is 36 percent of all hospitalizations .
This is consistent with other research .
Gives you a different perspective .
Minnesota has this information , why isn ’ t it reported ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it be reported everywhere .
And this ties into the PCR testing issues , because financial incentives lead hospitals to use very low positivity thresholds .
Those thresholds should be disclosed as well .
So much for the Incompetent Blowhard ’ s constant boasting about the transparency of Minnesota ’ s data .
One other thing to consider is that for these people who were tested in the hospital , most were likely asymptomatic .
Over the past week the Minnesota authorities have attributed a record number of cases , hospitalizations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s data they attributed 46 new deaths to the virus .
Governor Walz held court along with Osterholm and Malcolm Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann at yesterday ’ s press briefing ( audio below ) .
I won ’ t invite you to feel my pain , but it does illuminate the current line .
Thirty-four of the 46 deaths in yesterday ’ s data occurred among residents of long-term care facilities ( 33 ) or other congregate care ( one ) .
Not a single question at yesterday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walz ’ s “ 5-point battle plan ” to control the spread of the epidemic in the nursing home setting , but that ’ s okay .
We know what he would say if asked .
KEVIN ADDS : By email this morning , Kevin writes me to add : “ [ I ] t is incredible to me that the media just roll over and ignore the obvious , like we are right back to big numbers of deaths in LTC .
I really marvel at how people are willing to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t know if you saw it but the most hilarious event of the week was the Nevada Governor chastising residents for noncompliance , then testing positive and saying I took every precaution and I still got it , I guess maybe you can ’ t stop this .
That is the real problem , can ’ t admit that maybe there isn ’ t much we can do .
”

I would like faithful readers of this series to know that I have reached an agreement to settle my lawsuit against Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and MDH Communications Director Michael Schommer. I am awaiting only their execution of the agreement. Although it has attracted roughly no attention beyond my own coverage on Power Line, the lawsuit vindicates the First Amendment in the context of the MDH press briefings around which I have organized this series.
I will have more to say when they sign on the dotted line as agreed. Not to give away too much here, I can let on that I will declare victory and post the agreement in a final installment of my Media Access in One State series when I have their executed copy of the agreement in hand. They have succeeded only in slow rolling the resolution.
Governor Walz’s E.O. 20-96 (“Restricting Social Gatherings, Celebrations, and the Hours and Operations of Bars, Restaurants, and Venues to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19”) went into effect last night at 10:00 p.m. This order has more than a whiff of Presidente Esposito laying down the law in San Marcos about it. Silence!
However, Walz is not alone. With this incredible order Walz joins the likes of Andrew Cuomo, Gavin Newsom, and other governors who are deep into the incomparable joy of one-man rule. As with his purchase of a refrigerated warehouse facility for use as an emergency morgue this past spring, Walz is compensating for Minnesota’s inferiority complex.
Executive Order 20-96 conveys the same pretense of control over the epidemic that we have suffered since E.O. 20-01 declaring the era of one-man rule this past March. John Hinderaker made a related point here last night. Once upon a time the execrable Dr. Michael Osterholm made the same point. Indeed, I cited Osterholm to this effect in “False alarm,” the article I wrote this past May with Kevin Roche for the Summer issue of Thinking Minnesota.
Earlier this week Kevin addressed what he would do. As we cope with the current wave of the epidemic in the upper Midwest, Kevin also wanted Power Line readers to have this information:
Below is a screenshot of North Dakota’s hospitalization reporting. Note the sub-category of people who went into a hospital for a reason other than COVID-19 and tested positive in the hospital. This would include some subset of those who actually acquired the infection in the hospital. Now note that if you do the math, it is 36 percent of all hospitalizations. This is consistent with other research. Gives you a different perspective. Minnesota has this information, why isn’t it reported? In fact why don’t we insist that it be reported everywhere. And this ties into the PCR testing issues, because financial incentives lead hospitals to use very low positivity thresholds. Those thresholds should be disclosed as well. So much for the Incompetent Blowhard’s constant boasting about the transparency of Minnesota’s data. One other thing to consider is that for these people who were tested in the hospital, most were likely asymptomatic.
Over the past week the Minnesota authorities have attributed a record number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to COVID-19. In yesterday’s data they attributed 46 new deaths to the virus. Governor Walz held court along with Osterholm and Malcolm Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann at yesterday’s press briefing (audio below). I won’t invite you to feel my pain, but it does illuminate the current line.
Thirty-four of the 46 deaths in yesterday’s data occurred among residents of long-term care facilities (33) or other congregate care (one). Not a single question at yesterday’s briefing focused on this apparent failure of Walz’s “5-point battle plan” to control the spread of the epidemic in the nursing home setting, but that’s okay. We know what he would say if asked.
UPDATE: By email this morning Kevin adds: “[I]t is incredible to me that the media just roll over and ignore the obvious, like we are right back to big numbers of deaths in LTC. I really marvel at how people are willing to give Walz a free pass on this stuff. I don’t know if you saw it but the most hilarious event of the week was the Nevada Governor chastising residents for noncompliance, then testing positive and saying I took every precaution and I still got it, I guess maybe you can’t stop this. That is the real problem, can’t admit that maybe there isn’t much we can do.”


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--The Week in Pictures: Recount Edition

The Week in Pictures: Recount Edition

“ 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--2020-11-14--Podcast: The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Milk the Trump Dividend!

This week Steve and “ Lucretia ” survey the dismal scene of uphill recount prospects ( and why game theory says Trump should fight on even past January 20 ) , the impending COVID tyranny ( “ Lockdown II : This Time It ’ s Personal !
” ) , and the latest social science nonsense , and decide the only sensible thing to do is pour another whisky and contemplate whether the long-term “ Trump dividend ” will offer a better return than the 30-year Treasury , or the “ soft power dividend ” that looks to be coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among other highlights is Steve ’ s prediction of how and why Trump will haunt the waking dreams of liberals for at least the next 50 years , and Lucretia ’ s skepticism that Republicans have learned the right lessons from the Trump Show .
And yes , the prospective change of scene means the Power Line Show may need to adopt a new tag line .
Listen to the end to hear why , and what we ’ ll change to .
You know what do to next .
Do I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If so , here .

This week Steve and “Lucretia” survey the dismal scene of uphill recount prospects (and why game theory says Trump should fight on even past January 20), the impending COVID tyranny (“Lockdown II: This Time It’s Personal!”), and the latest social science nonsense, and decide the only sensible thing to do is pour another whisky and contemplate whether the long-term “Trump dividend” will offer a better return than the 30-year Treasury, or the “soft power dividend” that looks to be coming back under a prospective Biden Administration.
Among other highlights is Steve’s prediction of how and why Trump will haunt the waking dreams of liberals for at least the next 50 years, and Lucretia’s skepticism that Republicans have learned the right lessons from the Trump Show. And yes, the prospective change of scene means the Power Line Show may need to adopt a new tag line. Listen to the end to hear why, and what we’ll change to.
You know what do to next. Do I really need to remind you at this point? If so, here.


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Fauci: Do As You’re Told!

Fauci: Do As You’re Told!

On paper , COVID-19 is not a great gateway to totalitarianism .
If you are not in a nursing home–an environment in which life expectancy is measured in months–your chances of surviving the bug are on the order of 99.9 % .
But if you thought a seasonal flu bug couldn ’ t usher in an authoritarian era , you were wrong .
As testing multiplies and we move into the flu season , the number of COVID “ cases , ” most of which are not even noticed by those who contract the disease , inevitably rises .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders even more harsh than those in effect last Spring and Summer , and the would-be Biden administration reportedly is exploring its options for a nationwide shutdown and mask mandate .
That was the backdrop to yesterday ’ s program at the National Cathedral that featured the execrable Anthony Fauci .
Fauci , speaking on Thursday at Washington National Cathedral with other top health experts on the pandemic , noted that it is a bit unfair to compare the United States ’ coronavirus response with other countries .
The United States isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can easily be shut down , he notes .
So suppressing and controlling the virus is a lot more of a challenge .
“ I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now , because each of our countries have that independent spirit , ” he said on stage .
“ I can understand that , but now is the time to do what you ’ re told.
” Liberals in government generally consider an “ independent spirit ” to be inconvenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time is a good time for the rest of us to do what we are told .
But there is little evidence that either mask mandates or shutdowns even slow the spread of the coronavirus .
Which leaves the more fundamental question : is it desirable to slow the spread of COVID ?
I think the answer is No .
This virus , like other similar illnesses , is working its way through the population .
Having started in urban areas , where transmission is faster for obvious reasons , it is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was totally predictable .
I doubt that anything government could have done in the past , or could do in the future , will have any substantial effect on the toll the disease ultimately takes–a toll that , fortunately , is limited by the fact that COVID is dangerous to those who are elderly , frail and sick , but far less dangerous than many other risks to everyone else .
At this point , in my opinion , COVID is mostly a political phenomenon , an excuse for expansion of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , have been yearning .
“ Do what you ’ re told ” is the classic fascist/socialist/authoritarian command .
Sadly , there are a great many Americans who are happy to obey .

On paper, COVID-19 is not a great gateway to totalitarianism. If you are not in a nursing home–an environment in which life expectancy is measured in months–your chances of surviving the bug are on the order of 99.9%. But if you thought a seasonal flu bug couldn’t usher in an authoritarian era, you were wrong. As testing multiplies and we move into the flu season, the number of COVID “cases,” most of which are not even noticed by those who contract the disease, inevitably rises. In response, several states are promulgating shutdown orders even more harsh than those in effect last Spring and Summer, and the would-be Biden administration reportedly is exploring its options for a nationwide shutdown and mask mandate.
That was the backdrop to yesterday’s program at the National Cathedral that featured the execrable Anthony Fauci.
Fauci, speaking on Thursday at Washington National Cathedral with other top health experts on the pandemic, noted that it is a bit unfair to compare the United States’ coronavirus response with other countries. The United States isn’t an island with five million people that can easily be shut down, he notes. So suppressing and controlling the virus is a lot more of a challenge. “I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit,” he said on stage. “I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”
Liberals in government generally consider an “independent spirit” to be inconvenient, and in their view, any time is a good time for the rest of us to do what we are told. But there is little evidence that either mask mandates or shutdowns even slow the spread of the coronavirus.
Which leaves the more fundamental question: is it desirable to slow the spread of COVID? I think the answer is No. This virus, like other similar illnesses, is working its way through the population. Having started in urban areas, where transmission is faster for obvious reasons, it is now hitting rural and small town areas. This was totally predictable. I doubt that anything government could have done in the past, or could do in the future, will have any substantial effect on the toll the disease ultimately takes–a toll that, fortunately, is limited by the fact that COVID is dangerous to those who are elderly, frail and sick, but far less dangerous than many other risks to everyone else.
At this point, in my opinion, COVID is mostly a political phenomenon, an excuse for expansion of government power for which liberals, for many years, have been yearning. “Do what you’re told” is the classic fascist/socialist/authoritarian command. Sadly, there are a great many Americans who are happy to obey.


powerlineblog--2020-11-13--AOC, a Modern Cassandra?

AOC, a Modern Cassandra?

Watch this clip in which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is asked to comment on the Democrats ’ House losses–losses that many blame @ @ @ @ @ squad.
” Ms. O-C is under the misapprehension that the Democrats lost their House majority @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t lose the majority , of course , although they are coming perilously @ @ @ @ @ resolved and more seats flip to the GOP .
But maybe AOC was slipping into @ @ @ @ @ most likely will happen in 2022 .
If so , her prophecy could be one @ @ @ @ @ has ever been right about .

Watch this clip in which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is asked to comment on the Democrats’ House losses–losses that many blame on her and her “squad.” Ms. O-C is under the misapprehension that the Democrats lost their House majority last week:
Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to think Democrats have lost the majority in the House. "of course, the loss of the House majority is just extraordinarily upsetting to all of us." pic.twitter.com/O3z8bCyxYJ — Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) November 13, 2020
The Democrats didn’t lose the majority, of course, although they are coming perilously close as more races are resolved and more seats flip to the GOP. But maybe AOC was slipping into prophet mode, foreseeing what most likely will happen in 2022. If so, her prophecy could be one of the few things she has ever been right about.


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Presidents tend to get the transition they deserve

Presidential historian Tevi Troy has an article in the Washington Post about presidential transitions .
His piece is in “ @ @ @ @ @ the Post likes to use in its Sunday Outlook section .
Team Biden is likely @ @ @ @ @ encounters in transition on President Trump and his team .
However , Tevi concludes : @ @ @ @ @ internal exercise , and the results are up to the incoming president and the surrounding @ @ @ @ @ works well , it ’ s a tribute to them , but if it falters @ @ @ @ @ to blame but themselves .
I would add that , to the extent cooperation from @ @ @ @ @ Biden forfeited his right to expect much of it when , during the first presidential @ @ @ @ @ a “ clown ” and told him to “ shut up.
” Even a less @ @ @ @ @ one wouldn ’ t be likely to cooperate much with a successor like that .

Presidential historian Tevi Troy has an article in the Washington Post about presidential transitions. His piece is in “five myths about” format the Post likes to use in its Sunday Outlook section.
The myths are :
(1) A transition requires an official GSA sign-off to begin. (2) Same-party transitions are smoother. (3) Transitions start after the election. (4) Transitions show how an administration will operate. (5) Biden faces a very difficult transition.
Team Biden is likely to blame whatever difficulties it encounters in transition on President Trump and his team. However, Tevi concludes:
A transition is largely an internal exercise, and the results are up to the incoming president and the surrounding aides. If the transition works well, it’s a tribute to them, but if it falters, there is no one to blame but themselves.
I would add that, to the extent cooperation from an outgoing administration matters, Biden forfeited his right to expect much of it when, during the first presidential debate, he called Trump a “clown” and told him to “shut up.” Even a less egomaniacal president than the current one wouldn’t be likely to cooperate much with a successor like that.


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Law Firm’s Withdrawal Reflects Chilling Reality

This is one of the saddest news stories of recent times : Porter Wright firm withdraws from representation of President Trump .
A law firm representing the Trump campaign in its challenges to the Pennsylvania election results gave notice that it ’ s withdrawing from one of the cases .
Lawyers with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP submitted a filing late Thursday stating they were withdrawing as counsel in a federal suit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its vote .
No reason was given .
In a statement issued Friday , the firm confirmed the filing but did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
I assume they have withdrawn , or will withdraw , from the state court case as well .
The Trump campaign commented : “ Leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers representing the President ’ s campaign and they buckled , ” said Tim Murtaugh , communications director for the campaign .
“ If the target were anyone but Donald Trump , the media would be screaming about injustice and the fundamental right to legal representation .
The President ’ s team is undeterred and will move forward with rock-solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all Americans.
” Porter Wright is a mid-sized law firm with offices in eight cities across the country .
But apparently it lacked the courage to stand up against the Twitter mob .
The “ Lincoln Project ” doxxed the two Porter Wright lawyers who signed the Pennsylvania complaint , tweeting their pictures , addresses and telephone numbers , and encouraging leftists to harass them .
Reportedly there also were employees at the law firm who objected to representing President Trump .
Porter Wright ’ s abandonment of its client is shameful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive little but praise .
Not many years ago , every terrorist in Guantanamo Bay was represented by one of a group of America ’ s top law firms .
For free .
No one batted an eye .
Now , the President of the United States is having trouble getting lawyers to represent him in asserting perfectly legitimate claims .
Some dictator .
This is the latest instance of the most troubling trend in American culture , leftist bullying .
Rare is the company ( or , as in this case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stand up against it .
It is a serious threat to the liberty of all Americans .
UPDATE : A reader who says he has knowledge of what happened at Porter Wright writes : John , I was very disturbed to read LAW FIRM ’ S WITHDRAWAL .
I know a Porter Wright partner…who has been very involved in the whole matter you address .
He ’ s a great guy , and a big Trump supporter .
He also was one getting 10 emails/hr for the last few days from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quit one of the 5 lawsuits they were working on .
They are still working the other 4 .
2 ) The one they quit was by mutual consent with Trump .
They didn ’ t leave him high and dry .
That one was one they were ill-suited to handle , when a decision was made by the client , Trump , to take it in a different direction then they had been going .
By mutual consent it was agreed that it would be better handled by a Texas firm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in face of this bad press , out of duty to client .
4 ) With the withdrawal of Jones Day , Porter Wright is the largest firm repping Trump .
I spent 2 yrs in federal prison , the same sort Conrad Black did his “ time ” in .
I know what it ’ s like to have false witness borne upon you .
I write in defense of my friend and his firm , because I hate it when it happens to others .
Very Truly Yours , long-time reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I would add that Jones Day , a much bigger and better-known firm than Porter Wright , says that it has not withdrawn .
It also distances itself from the Trump campaign : We can imagine a future , someday , when law firms will be able to represent Republicans without having to explain or apologize for it .
Just like the law firms that represent Islamic terrorists .

This is one of the saddest news stories of recent times: Porter Wright firm withdraws from representation of President Trump.
A law firm representing the Trump campaign in its challenges to the Pennsylvania election results gave notice that it’s withdrawing from one of the cases. Lawyers with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP submitted a filing late Thursday stating they were withdrawing as counsel in a federal suit seeking to block Pennsylvania from certifying its vote. No reason was given. In a statement issued Friday, the firm confirmed the filing but did not say why it was exiting the case.
I assume they have withdrawn, or will withdraw, from the state court case as well. The Trump campaign commented:
“Leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers representing the President’s campaign and they buckled,” said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for the campaign. “If the target were anyone but Donald Trump, the media would be screaming about injustice and the fundamental right to legal representation. The President’s team is undeterred and will move forward with rock-solid attorneys to ensure free and fair elections for all Americans.”
Porter Wright is a mid-sized law firm with offices in eight cities across the country. But apparently it lacked the courage to stand up against the Twitter mob. The “Lincoln Project” doxxed the two Porter Wright lawyers who signed the Pennsylvania complaint, tweeting their pictures, addresses and telephone numbers, and encouraging leftists to harass them. Reportedly there also were employees at the law firm who objected to representing President Trump. Porter Wright’s abandonment of its client is shameful conduct for which I suspect it will receive little but praise.
Not many years ago, every terrorist in Guantanamo Bay was represented by one of a group of America’s top law firms. For free. No one batted an eye. Now, the President of the United States is having trouble getting lawyers to represent him in asserting perfectly legitimate claims. Some dictator.
This is the latest instance of the most troubling trend in American culture, leftist bullying. Rare is the company (or, as in this case, the law firm) with the courage to stand up against it. It is a serious threat to the liberty of all Americans.
UPDATE: A reader who says he has knowledge of what happened at Porter Wright writes:
John, I was very disturbed to read LAW FIRM’S WITHDRAWAL. I know a Porter Wright partner…who has been very involved in the whole matter you address. He’s a great guy, and a big Trump supporter. He also was one getting 10 emails/hr for the last few days from the despicable left. 1) They only quit one of the 5 lawsuits they were working on. They are still working the other 4. 2) The one they quit was by mutual consent with Trump. They didn’t leave him high and dry. That one was one they were ill-suited to handle, when a decision was made by the client, Trump, to take it in a different direction then they had been going. By mutual consent it was agreed that it would be better handled by a Texas firm. 3) PW has not defended themselves in face of this bad press, out of duty to client. 4) With the withdrawal of Jones Day, Porter Wright is the largest firm repping Trump. I spent 2 yrs in federal prison, the same sort Conrad Black did his “time” in. I know what it’s like to have false witness borne upon you. I write in defense of my friend and his firm, because I hate it when it happens to others. Very Truly Yours,
long-time reader of Powerline
I hope that is right. I would add that Jones Day, a much bigger and better-known firm than Porter Wright, says that it has not withdrawn. It also distances itself from the Trump campaign:
Jones Day is not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud. Jones Day also is not representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the results of the 2020 general election. Media reports to the contrary are false.
We can imagine a future, someday, when law firms will be able to represent Republicans without having to explain or apologize for it. Just like the law firms that represent Islamic terrorists.


powerlineblog--2020-11-15--Justice Alito tells it like it is

Justice Alito tells it like it is

I ’ m a huge fan of Justice Samuel Alito .
His speech to the Federalist Society this week , delivered virtually , is a good example of why .
Alito ’ s message was that key American rights are in jeopardy .
He noted , for example , that the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic has resulted in previously “ unimaginable ” restrictions on individual liberty .
“ We have never before seen restrictions as severe , extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020 , ” he stated .
Alito was careful to emphasize that he wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus ’ threat to public health ” or even taking a position on whether the restrictions are good public policy .
However , he argued that the restrictions on public gatherings and worship services highlighted “ trends that were already present before the virus struck , ” including a “ dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat ” rather than by legislators and the relegation of certain rights to second class status .
Religious rights , for example .
Alito homed in on the decision of Nevada to limit church attendance to 50 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent capacity .
“ It pains me to say to it , but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right , ” he concluded .
Take a quick look at the Constitution , ” Alito urged .
“ You will see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment , which protects religious liberty .
You will not find a craps clause , or a blackjack clause , or a slot machine clause.
” When it comes to same sex marriage , both religious and free speech rights are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito delivered a well-deserved shot at the execrable Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse .
He pointed to a recent brief filed by the Senator and four colleagues in a case regarding a New York City firearms transportation ordinance .
Whitehouse and his colleagues said that a pro-gun ruling would further incite the growing movement to “ restructure ” the Court .
Alito accurately described the brief as “ extraordinary , ” and added “ I could say something about standards of professional conduct , but the brief involved something even more important — it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law.
” As the Washington Post acknowledges , the Whitehouse brief was criticized even by some Democrats as too threatening .
And the late Justice Ginsburg denounced the idea of court packing — the threat through which Whitehouse was trying to intimidate the Court .
Alito ’ s address has drawn howls from the left , as the Justice anticipated it would .
For example , Slate ’ s Mark Joseph Stern condemned the speech as “ bitter [ ly ] partisan ” and as “ [ f ] louting [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the speech raises no problems of judicial ethics .
As Ed Whelan painstakingly shows , on all the matters that Stern finds controversial , the speech broadly reiterates what Alito has already spelled out in his written opinions .
By contrast , Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s speeches , the ones that used to draw gushing praise from the left , addressed open issues on which the justice hadn ’ t yet ruled — e.g.
, same sex marriage and President Trump ’ s tax returns .
This is an admission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not violate existing ethical rules for Supreme Court Justices .
Hence , the mindless , empty name-calling .
Along with Justice Thomas , Justice Alito has fought valiantly on behalf of our constitutional rights .
And starting this term , I expect that they will be ably aided in the struggle by Justice Barrett .

I’m a huge fan of Justice Samuel Alito. His speech to the Federalist Society this week, delivered virtually, is a good example of why.
Alito’s message was that key American rights are in jeopardy. He noted, for example, that the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic has resulted in previously “unimaginable” restrictions on individual liberty. “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020,” he stated.
Alito was careful to emphasize that he wasn’t diminishing the “severity of the virus’ threat to public health” or even taking a position on whether the restrictions are good public policy. However, he argued that the restrictions on public gatherings and worship services highlighted “trends that were already present before the virus struck,” including a “dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat” rather than by legislators and the relegation of certain rights to second class status.
Religious rights, for example. Alito homed in on the decision of Nevada to limit church attendance to 50 people, while reopening large casinos to 50 percent capacity. “It pains me to say to it, but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right,” he concluded.
Take a quick look at the Constitution,” Alito urged. “You will see the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty. You will not find a craps clause, or a blackjack clause, or a slot machine clause.”
When it comes to same sex marriage, both religious and free speech rights are in jeopardy. As Alito noted:
[These days] you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman without fear of reprisal from schools, government and employers. Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.
Alito delivered a well-deserved shot at the execrable Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. He pointed to a recent brief filed by the Senator and four colleagues in a case regarding a New York City firearms transportation ordinance. Whitehouse and his colleagues said that a pro-gun ruling would further incite the growing movement to “restructure” the Court. Alito accurately described the brief as “extraordinary,” and added “I could say something about standards of professional conduct, but the brief involved something even more important — it was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
As the Washington Post acknowledges, the Whitehouse brief was criticized even by some Democrats as too threatening. And the late Justice Ginsburg denounced the idea of court packing — the threat through which Whitehouse was trying to intimidate the Court.
Alito’s address has drawn howls from the left, as the Justice anticipated it would. For example, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern condemned the speech as “bitter[ly] partisan” and as “[f]louting [Alito’s] ethical obligations.” However, the speech raises no problems of judicial ethics.
As Ed Whelan painstakingly shows, on all the matters that Stern finds controversial, the speech broadly reiterates what Alito has already spelled out in his written opinions. By contrast, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s speeches, the ones that used to draw gushing praise from the left, addressed open issues on which the justice hadn’t yet ruled — e.g., same sex marriage and President Trump’s tax returns.
Elizabeth Warren also slammed Justice Alito’s speech. She tweeted:
Supreme Court Justices aren’t supposed to be political hacks. This right-wing speech is nakedly partisan. My bill to #EndCorruptionNow restores some integrity to our Court by forcing Justices to follow the ethics rules other federal judges follow.
This is an admission by Warren that Alito’s speech did not violate existing ethical rules for Supreme Court Justices. Hence, the mindless, empty name-calling.
Along with Justice Thomas, Justice Alito has fought valiantly on behalf of our constitutional rights. And starting this term, I expect that they will be ably aided in the struggle by Justice Barrett.


powerlineblog--2020-11-15--#Antifa and #Black Lives Matter Are Evil

Today the Million MAGA March took place in Washington , D.C. to support President Trump as he fights for honest @ @ @ @ @ activists/communists/criminals from Antifa and BLM–the groups no longer seem to be distinct–turned out to make @ @ @ @ @ Trump supporters ; you can see a number of videos at ZeroHedge : “ BLM/Antifa @ @ @ @ @ Including Children , After D.C. ‘ Million MAGA March . '
” Here , you @ @ @ @ @ Trump-supporting family .
They knock a little girl to the pavement : These leftists are @ @ @ @ @ is easy to understand why they want to defund the police : if we had @ @ @ @ @ ’ s cities , they would be in jail where they belong .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ and BLM .
They will have enormous influence in his administration .
We must # @ @ @ @ @ means .

Today the Million MAGA March took place in Washington, D.C. to support President Trump as he fights for honest election returns. Predictably, activists/communists/criminals from Antifa and BLM–the groups no longer seem to be distinct–turned out to make trouble. They attacked the Trump supporters; you can see a number of videos at ZeroHedge: “BLM/Antifa Thugs Attack Trump Supporters, Including Children, After D.C. ‘Million MAGA March.'” Here, you see Antifa/BLM thugs attacking a Trump-supporting family. They knock a little girl to the pavement:
Black Lives Matter activists attack a family of Trump supporters. pic.twitter.com/SvRSy8pBda — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 14, 2020
These leftists are simply evil people. It is easy to understand why they want to defund the police: if we had adequate law enforcement in America’s cities, they would be in jail where they belong.
Joe Biden is the candidate of Antifa and BLM. They will have enormous influence in his administration. We must #Resist them by all legal means.


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Mask Mandate? Not In South Dakota

Mask Mandate? Not In South Dakota

Joe Biden has mused about imposing a national mask mandate if and when he takes office .
There is no possible constitutional basis on which he could make such an order , yet his intention is taken seriously by many , and most , perhaps cowed , have not pushed back .
There is at least one state , however , where unconstitutional orders emanating from a Biden White House will not be obeyed : South Dakota .
President-elect Joe Biden has floated a nationwide lockdown and mask mandate in response to surging coronavirus cases across the country .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Americans to stay at home and cover their faces when in public , don ’ t expect to see those mandates enforced in South Dakota .
The office of Gov .
Kristi Noem said in a statement to the Argus Leader Friday that the first-term governor , who ’ s risen to stardom in the Republican party for her hands-off approach to managing the pandemic , has no intention of using state resources to enforce any federal COVID-19 orders .
“ It ’ s a good day for freedom .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the authority to institute a mask mandate , ” said Ian Fury , communications specialist for Noem .
“ For that matter , neither does Governor Noem , which is why she has provided her citizens with the full scope of the science and trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved-ones.
” *** Noem reiterated her position on lockdowns Thursday on social media when she said they don ’ t effectively stop the spread of COVID-19 but have negative effects on businesses and the overall economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t stop the spread of the virus .
However , they destroy small businesses and jobs , and they make it difficult for families to put food on the table , ” she wrote .
It is nice to see that someone still recognizes constitutional limits on government power .
The more recent of the above “ tweets ” is on Parler , the free speech alternative to Twitter .
Governor Noem has been on Parler for five days and currently has 139,000 followers there .
She is on MeWe too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve joined Parler , at JHinderaker , but haven ’ t yet invested the time to figure out some technical issues .
But , given the way Twitter and Facebook joined the Biden campaign , I think the time has come to move on .

Joe Biden has mused about imposing a national mask mandate if and when he takes office. There is no possible constitutional basis on which he could make such an order, yet his intention is taken seriously by many, and most, perhaps cowed, have not pushed back. There is at least one state, however, where unconstitutional orders emanating from a Biden White House will not be obeyed: South Dakota.
President-elect Joe Biden has floated a nationwide lockdown and mask mandate in response to surging coronavirus cases across the country. But even if he follows through and orders all Americans to stay at home and cover their faces when in public, don’t expect to see those mandates enforced in South Dakota. The office of Gov. Kristi Noem said in a statement to the Argus Leader Friday that the first-term governor, who’s risen to stardom in the Republican party for her hands-off approach to managing the pandemic, has no intention of using state resources to enforce any federal COVID-19 orders. “It’s a good day for freedom. Joe Biden realizes that the president doesn’t have the authority to institute a mask mandate,” said Ian Fury, communications specialist for Noem. “For that matter, neither does Governor Noem, which is why she has provided her citizens with the full scope of the science and trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved-ones.”
***
Noem reiterated her position on lockdowns Thursday on social media when she said they don’t effectively stop the spread of COVID-19 but have negative effects on businesses and the overall economy. “We already know that lockdowns don’t stop the spread of the virus. However, they destroy small businesses and jobs, and they make it difficult for families to put food on the table,” she wrote.
It is nice to see that someone still recognizes constitutional limits on government power.
Meanwhile, South Dakota is prospering:
GREAT NEWS! South Dakota's Sales & Use tax receipts are 8% higher than a year ago. Our economy is in a strong position. https://t.co/sr5dG4WDdp — Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) November 11, 2020
The more recent of the above “tweets” is on Parler, the free speech alternative to Twitter. Governor Noem has been on Parler for five days and currently has 139,000 followers there. She is on MeWe too, the free speech alternative to Facebook.
I’ve joined Parler, at JHinderaker, but haven’t yet invested the time to figure out some technical issues. But, given the way Twitter and Facebook joined the Biden campaign, I think the time has come to move on.


powerlineblog--2020-11-14--Law Firm’s Withdrawal Reflects Chilling Reality [Updated]


powerlineblog--2020-11-16--How much influence will Kamala Harris have?

There are two kinds of vice presidents , those who enter the office with chops and those who don ’ t .
For purposes of the vice presidency , chops can be earned by high level service , by having mounted a credible presidential campaign , or by being the leader of a wing of the president ’ s party .
Lyndon Johnson , Hubert Humphrey , and Dick Cheney are probably the best examples in my lifetime of vice presidents who took office with chops .
Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle are good examples of ones who didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the president will listen much to his VP .
Johnson had very little influence with President Kennedy .
Humphrey didn ’ t have much with President Johnson .
But if a vice president lacks chops , it ’ s very likely that he ( or she ) won ’ t be taken seriously .
Kamala Harris lacks chops .
Her presidential campaign was a fiasco , remembered only for the cheap shot she took at the man who will be her boss .
Harris never distinguished herself in office .
She wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never served a president , and never ran a state .
Nor does Harris lead a wing of her party .
Biden leads one wing , Bernie Sanders leads the other .
Harris made the ticket only because of her race and gender .
Race and gender are not chops .
This doesn ’ t mean that Harris will be treated like the cipher she deserves to be .
Because Biden is so old and so far past his prime ( such as it was ) , members of his administration will know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s first term is over .
Harris might also become the presumptive nominee in 2024 .
Thus , she will have to be treated with some respect by everyone below the president .
Biden can treat her any way he wants .
The Washington Post reports that Harris ’ “ allies ” are concerned that she will have little influence with Biden .
The allies in question consist of left-wing Black activists .
According to Post writers Chelsea Janes and Sean Sullivan , the concern about Harris ’ role is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional races , which has dramatically limited Biden ’ s maneuvering room.
” It should be sharpened by the reality that Black activists helped caused the performance to be disappointing .
Actually , Biden/Harris underperformed among Black voters .
It was Biden ’ s ability to attract White centrist voters that carried the day .
With less “ activism ” from BLM , Democrats likely would have been more satisfied with the outcome of the elections .
Black voters did win Biden the Democratic nomination .
But that ’ s because they preferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical agendas of Bernie Sanders and Harris herself .
In the end , however , I think the BLM crowd will win its share of victories under Biden , though not because of Harris .
I expect influential positions below the cabinet level to go to hard left Democrats .
These are the folks with the ambition , the will , to gain power .
More moderate professional Democrats , a vanishing breed , will be more prone to stay on the sidelines and make lots of money .
Most of the hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be White , but their ideology fits well with that of the BLM movement — more so than do the views of James Clyburn and other Black critics of portions of the BLM agenda .
And , of course , the bureaucracy is dominated by hard leftists .
Biden himself seems enthralled by aspects of BLM and wokeism .
In any case , there ’ s little reason to believe he ’ s capable of standing up to them effectively .
Finally , I want to draw attention to this passage from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time I ’ ve seen the mainstream media refer to Harris as youthful , but it ’ s fake news .
Harris is 56 .
That ’ s not young .
It ’ s middle age for a politician and late middle age for the rest of us .
I know .
I ’ ve been there .

There are two kinds of vice presidents, those who enter the office with chops and those who don’t. For purposes of the vice presidency, chops can be earned by high level service, by having mounted a credible presidential campaign, or by being the leader of a wing of the president’s party.
Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Dick Cheney are probably the best examples in my lifetime of vice presidents who took office with chops. Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle are good examples of ones who didn’t.
Chops don’t guarantee that the president will listen much to his VP. Johnson had very little influence with President Kennedy. Humphrey didn’t have much with President Johnson.
But if a vice president lacks chops, it’s very likely that he (or she) won’t be taken seriously.
Kamala Harris lacks chops. Her presidential campaign was a fiasco, remembered only for the cheap shot she took at the man who will be her boss. Harris never distinguished herself in office. She wasn’t a leader in Congress, never served a president, and never ran a state. Nor does Harris lead a wing of her party. Biden leads one wing, Bernie Sanders leads the other.
Harris made the ticket only because of her race and gender. Race and gender are not chops.
This doesn’t mean that Harris will be treated like the cipher she deserves to be. Because Biden is so old and so far past his prime (such as it was), members of his administration will know that Harris might well become president before Biden’s first term is over. Harris might also become the presumptive nominee in 2024. Thus, she will have to be treated with some respect by everyone below the president. Biden can treat her any way he wants.
The Washington Post reports that Harris’ “allies” are concerned that she will have little influence with Biden. The allies in question consist of left-wing Black activists.
According to Post writers Chelsea Janes and Sean Sullivan, the concern about Harris’ role is “sharpened by Democrats’ disappointing performance in congressional races, which has dramatically limited Biden’s maneuvering room.” It should be sharpened by the reality that Black activists helped caused the performance to be disappointing.
One Black Harris ally insists:
Black people won this election. Alongside Black-led organizations around the nation, Black Lives Matter invested heavily in this election. . . . We want something for our vote. We want to be heard and our agenda to be prioritized.
Actually, Biden/Harris underperformed among Black voters. It was Biden’s ability to attract White centrist voters that carried the day. With less “activism” from BLM, Democrats likely would have been more satisfied with the outcome of the elections.
Black voters did win Biden the Democratic nomination. But that’s because they preferred Biden’s approach to the more radical agendas of Bernie Sanders and Harris herself.
In the end, however, I think the BLM crowd will win its share of victories under Biden, though not because of Harris. I expect influential positions below the cabinet level to go to hard left Democrats. These are the folks with the ambition, the will, to gain power. More moderate professional Democrats, a vanishing breed, will be more prone to stay on the sidelines and make lots of money.
Most of the hard leftists who populate the Biden administration will be White, but their ideology fits well with that of the BLM movement — more so than do the views of James Clyburn and other Black critics of portions of the BLM agenda. And, of course, the bureaucracy is dominated by hard leftists.
Biden himself seems enthralled by aspects of BLM and wokeism. In any case, there’s little reason to believe he’s capable of standing up to them effectively.
Finally, I want to draw attention to this passage from the Janes/Sullivan collaboration:
As a youthful woman of color and daughter of immigrants, she represents an increasingly diverse, liberal Democratic Party — while serving a president who reflects an older, whiter, more centrist America.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the mainstream media refer to Harris as youthful, but it’s fake news. Harris is 56. That’s not young. It’s middle age for a politician and late middle age for the rest of us.
I know. I’ve been there.


powerlineblog--2020-11-16--The Power Line Show, Ep 225: Can We Transition? Charles Lipson Says Yes, We Can!

Can American democracy walk and chew bubble gum at the same time ?
Charles Lipson thinks so , arguing in the Wall Street Journal today that normal transition activities can and should take place even as President Trump pursues his legal challenges to the election results .
Lipson , professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago , is no shrinking violet when it comes to thrashing the left ; he ’ s been arguing for months that the FBI ’ s attempted coup against President Trump is the biggest scandal in American history , but nonetheless thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will “ show that amid deep political division , we can rely on constitutional norms , procedures and institutions.
” From there we ponder the truly mind-boggling aspects of this election ( such as the fact that Trump got 10,000 more votes in San Francisco than he did in 2016 !
! )
, and what are the prospects for “ Biden-Harris ” Administration , as it now being strangely called .
Hmmm , what could that nomenclature be about ?
You know what to do now .
Here , or there .

Can American democracy walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? Charles Lipson thinks so, arguing in the Wall Street Journal today that normal transition activities can and should take place even as President Trump pursues his legal challenges to the election results.
Lipson, professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago, is no shrinking violet when it comes to thrashing the left; he’s been arguing for months that the FBI’s attempted coup against President Trump is the biggest scandal in American history, but nonetheless thinks that proceeding with a normal transition process will “show that amid deep political division, we can rely on constitutional norms, procedures and institutions.”
From there we ponder the truly mind-boggling aspects of this election (such as the fact that Trump got 10,000 more votes in San Francisco than he did in 2016!!), and what are the prospects for “Biden-Harris” Administration, as it now being strangely called. Hmmm, what could that nomenclature be about?
You know what to do now. Here, or there.