powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Celebrity Athletes for Trump

Celebrity Athletes for Trump

In general , I don ’ t think celebrity endorsements of politicians mean anything .
Who cares what Cardi B thinks ?
No one .
But there are a few celebrities , mostly athletes , who are so respected that their opinions might count for something .
In the last few days , several iconic athletes have come out for Donald Trump ’ s re-election .
First , Jack Nicklaus , the greatest golfer ever .
It is nice to see a figure like Nicklaus braving left-wing hate to say publicly what he thinks .
Then there is Brett Favre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarterback of the 1960s , was a conservative and endorsed Republican candidates .
But Favre is in the moment , and he is a huge hero in an important swing state : Next my favorite , Bobby Orr .
I lived in the Boston area in the early 1970s , when Orr was in his prime .
Bobby Orr was the greatest athlete I have ever followed , bar none .
He is probably the most respected man in Massachusetts , and Boston ’ s biggest sports star ever .
He has come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fame Bruins defenseman Bobby Orr today endorsed President Trump in an ad in the New Hampshire Union Leader .
Orr , the giant of the Garden , and the greatest defenseman hockey has ever seen , said President Trump is “ the kind of teammate I want ” , and praised President Trump for delivering results “ for all the American people , regardless of race , gender or station in life.
” Orr emphasized his great concern for our country that he has grown to love deeply [ Ed : Orr is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for President Trump will keep America moving forward .
Orr ’ s ad was placed in the Union Leader to reach the thousands of people from Massachusetts who are now living in southern New Hampshire towns that have become bedroom suburbs of Boston .
It is a good strategy : if you are from Massachusetts , you remember Bobby Orr fondly .
So maybe President Trump can win New Hampshire .
In general , athletes trend conservative , notwithstanding outliers like Colin Kaepernick , because sports are inherently a meritocracy .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump do some good .

In general, I don’t think celebrity endorsements of politicians mean anything. Who cares what Cardi B thinks? No one. But there are a few celebrities, mostly athletes, who are so respected that their opinions might count for something. In the last few days, several iconic athletes have come out for Donald Trump’s re-election.
First, Jack Nicklaus, the greatest golfer ever.
Get out and vote. I did! pic.twitter.com/IfQb3NeSO3 — Jack Nicklaus (@jacknicklaus) October 29, 2020
It is nice to see a figure like Nicklaus braving left-wing hate to say publicly what he thinks.
Then there is Brett Favre. Bart Starr, the great Packers quarterback of the 1960s, was a conservative and endorsed Republican candidates. But Favre is in the moment, and he is a huge hero in an important swing state:
My Vote is for what makes this country great, freedom of speech & religion, 2nd Amnd, hard working tax paying citizens, police & military. In this election, we have freedom of choice, which all should respect. For me & these principles, my Vote is for @RealDonaldTrump. #Vote ☑🇺🇸 — Brett Favre (@BrettFavre) October 30, 2020
Next my favorite, Bobby Orr. I lived in the Boston area in the early 1970s, when Orr was in his prime. Bobby Orr was the greatest athlete I have ever followed, bar none. He is probably the most respected man in Massachusetts, and Boston’s biggest sports star ever. He has come out for President Trump:
Hall of Fame Bruins defenseman Bobby Orr today endorsed President Trump in an ad in the New Hampshire Union Leader. Orr, the giant of the Garden, and the greatest defenseman hockey has ever seen, said President Trump is “the kind of teammate I want”, and praised President Trump for delivering results “for all the American people, regardless of race, gender or station in life.” Orr emphasized his great concern for our country that he has grown to love deeply [Ed: Orr is from Canada], and that a vote for President Trump will keep America moving forward.
Orr’s ad was placed in the Union Leader to reach the thousands of people from Massachusetts who are now living in southern New Hampshire towns that have become bedroom suburbs of Boston. It is a good strategy: if you are from Massachusetts, you remember Bobby Orr fondly. So maybe President Trump can win New Hampshire.
In general, athletes trend conservative, notwithstanding outliers like Colin Kaepernick, because sports are inherently a meritocracy. Let’s hope that these celebrity endorsements of President Trump do some good.


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Trump vs. The Incompetent Blowhard

Trump vs. The Incompetent Blowhard

If you have been following Scott ’ s Coronavirus In One State series , you know that the Incompetent Blowhard @ @ @ @ @ Governor , Tim Walz .
That characterization is , in my view , generous .
@ @ @ @ @ made a campaign stop in Rochester , Minnesota .
He was only able to speak @ @ @ @ @ because of a mandate from our leftist Attorney General , but thousands of Trump fans @ @ @ @ @ Before the event began , Trump was interviewed on C-Span .
He offered his opinion @ @ @ @ @ Blowhard : Trump is right .
Will he win Minnesota ?
I think he might @ @ @ @ @ standard , he would win in a landslide .

If you have been following Scott’s Coronavirus In One State series, you know that the Incompetent Blowhard is Minnesota’s left-wing Governor, Tim Walz. That characterization is, in my view, generous.
This afternoon, President Trump made a campaign stop in Rochester, Minnesota. He was only able to speak in person to 250 people because of a mandate from our leftist Attorney General, but thousands of Trump fans assembled outside the venue. Before the event began, Trump was interviewed on C-Span. He offered his opinion of Minnesota’s Incompetent Blowhard:
President Trump has some choice words about Gov Tim Walz (D-MN) pic.twitter.com/WV4J8cbbM9 — DeplorableArmyBrat (@yogagenie) October 30, 2020
Trump is right. Will he win Minnesota? I think he might. If enthusiasm were the standard, he would win in a landslide.


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Small business owner challenges Oregon’s race-based  Covid relief program

Earlier this year , in the response to the coronavirus pandemic , the Oregon Legislature established a $ 62 million relief fund that ’ s only available to individuals and business owners who “ self-identify as Black.
” These public funds are not available to Hispanic , Asian-American , Native American , or White business owners or individuals .
This blatant racially discriminatory scheme cried out to be challenged as unconstitutional .
Sure enough , it is now being challenged .
The plaintiff is Great Northern Resources , Inc. , a small family-owned logging business that has suffered financially because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white , and thus the business is ineligible to receive any of the public funds granted by the Oregon Legislature .
In its suit , Great Northern Resources asserts that by distributing government benefits on the basis of race , Oregon has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .
To me , this seems self evident .
Great Northern Resources is being represented by the Project on Fair Representation .
Edward Blum is the president of this organization .
His name will be familiar to some readers because he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Admissions , the organization that sued Harvard over its race-based undergraduate admissions policy and recently moved to intervene in the Justice Department ’ s similar action against Yale .
The Oregon Legislature ’ s grant program for black-only businesses is a shameful violation of the U.S. Constitution .
Relief programs for hard-hit small businesses in Oregon should be available to all owners , regardless of their race or ethnicity .
We have asked the courts to immediately freeze this unlawful program and that no additional state money be distributed until the program is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their skin color or ethnic heritage .
The Complaint filed by Great Northern Resources is available here .

Earlier this year, in the response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Oregon Legislature established a $62 million relief fund that’s only available to individuals and business owners who “self-identify as Black.” These public funds are not available to Hispanic, Asian-American, Native American, or White business owners or individuals.
This blatant racially discriminatory scheme cried out to be challenged as unconstitutional. Sure enough, it is now being challenged.
The plaintiff is Great Northern Resources, Inc., a small family-owned logging business that has suffered financially because of the pandemic. Its owner is white, and thus the business is ineligible to receive any of the public funds granted by the Oregon Legislature.
In its suit, Great Northern Resources asserts that by distributing government benefits on the basis of race, Oregon has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To me, this seems self evident.
Great Northern Resources is being represented by the Project on Fair Representation. Edward Blum is the president of this organization. His name will be familiar to some readers because he’s also president of Students for Fair Admissions, the organization that sued Harvard over its race-based undergraduate admissions policy and recently moved to intervene in the Justice Department’s similar action against Yale.
Regarding the Oregon case, Blum stated:
The Oregon Legislature’s grant program for black-only businesses is a shameful violation of the U.S. Constitution. Relief programs for hard-hit small businesses in Oregon should be available to all owners, regardless of their race or ethnicity. We have asked the courts to immediately freeze this unlawful program and that no additional state money be distributed until the program is expanded to all Oregonians, regardless of their skin color or ethnic heritage.
The Complaint filed by Great Northern Resources is available here.


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--We few, we ugly few

We few, we ugly few

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

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


powerlineblog--2020-10-30--Will Minnesota Go Red? [Updated]

Will Minnesota Go Red? [Updated]

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

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


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Biden’s destructive education program

Biden’s destructive education program

There are dozens of reasons why conservatives and moderates should vote for President Trump .
One reason that has received virtually no attention is education , an issue as central as any to America ’ s future .
President Trump has tried to combat the rot in higher education .
As Stanley Kurtz points out , Trump ’ s popular Executive Order on Campus Free Speech was followed by an Executive Order banning the use of Critical Race Theory , not only in federal training sessions but for federal contractors and grant recipients , including colleges and universities .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Education “ guidance , ” to bring fairness to the college disciplinary process , so that male students can ’ t be tossed out of college without proper process on the mere allegation of sex harassment .
A Biden administration would reverse these initiatives .
But that ’ s only the tip of iceberg of mischief his administration would impose .
If Democrats manage to pass the Equality Act , transgender students will win dorm assignments and compete in college sports based on their chosen gender identity rather than their biological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female students will be a thing of the past .
Faith-based institutions will be thrown back on the courts for protection .
That protection will surely fail should Democrats pack the Court .
Then , there ’ s Biden debt college forgiveness program , which Kurtz accurately calls an affront to progressivism : Under Biden , the majority of Americans who are without a college degree end up subsidizing college-educated borrowers .
Yet those who are subsidized will ultimately enjoy higher incomes than the blue-collar folks doing the subsidizing .
When you consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this bit of Robin Hood in reverse makes perfect sense .
Better still , borrowers who go to work for non-profits dedicated to “ community service ” will get tens of thousands of dollars in additional loan forgiveness .
This fulfills the Obama administration ’ s long-held goal of stocking leftist “ community organizations ” with college graduates paying off their loans .
This is yet another way in which the Biden higher education plan serves to lock in the woke revolution .
Team Biden envisages a massive expansion of the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopted Bernie Sanders ’ s socialist plan to massively expand our education system and direct it from the federal center .
By contrast , the Trump administration has recognized that Americans need other , less expensive and time-consuming ways to train for rewarding careers .
Thus , it has promoted apprenticeship programs .
Electing Biden would mean reversing gears , causing ever more Americans to waste years in college , subject , of course , to woke indoctrination .
What about K-12 ?
Here , Kurtz expects a revival of the Obama administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His critique of Common Core is beyond the scope of this post .
It ’ s enough to note that the new Common Core will include instruction in Civics , thus enabling the left to impose still further its woke agenda ( including encouraging students to launch BLM protests outside police stations ) on students .
Biden also proposes universal pre-K .
This would entail massive federal spending on a program that conservative , and some liberal , analysts have shown to be ineffective in improving children ’ s achievement .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer parents a pre-K choice .
The main benefit of universal pre-K would be to increase the membership of teachers ’ unions .
This probably explains why Democrats are so insistent on an ineffective program — that , and the fact , that the program , with all of its accompanying social workers and psychologists , would intrude further on the sphere of the family .
It takes a village , don ’ t you know ?
And , of course , the Biden education plan promises to restore the Obama-era prohibition on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups , even when discipline is imposed in an equal and unbiased manner for the very same offense .
As we have argued , this policy is disastrous .
It deprives students , including Blacks , of the right to learn in a non-chaotic classroom environment .
In addition , the Biden-Sanders Unity Platform contains plans that , according to Kurtz , “ would all but drive charter schools from the educational field.
” Again , the losers would include Black students whose parents hope , through charter schools , to liberate them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s future depends to a considerable degree on its education systems .
For that reason , among others , its future depends to a considerable degree on defeating Joe Biden .

There are dozens of reasons why conservatives and moderates should vote for President Trump. One reason that has received virtually no attention is education, an issue as central as any to America’s future.
President Trump has tried to combat the rot in higher education. As Stanley Kurtz points out, Trump’s popular Executive Order on Campus Free Speech was followed by an Executive Order banning the use of Critical Race Theory, not only in federal training sessions but for federal contractors and grant recipients, including colleges and universities. And the Trump administration has tried, through Department of Education “guidance,” to bring fairness to the college disciplinary process, so that male students can’t be tossed out of college without proper process on the mere allegation of sex harassment.
A Biden administration would reverse these initiatives. But that’s only the tip of iceberg of mischief his administration would impose.
Kurtz identifies the additional consequences of electing Joe Biden:
If Democrats manage to pass the Equality Act, transgender students will win dorm assignments and compete in college sports based on their chosen gender identity rather than their biological sex. Privacy and basic fairness for female students will be a thing of the past. Faith-based institutions will be thrown back on the courts for protection. That protection will surely fail should Democrats pack the Court.
Then, there’s Biden debt college forgiveness program, which Kurtz accurately calls an affront to progressivism:
Under Biden, the majority of Americans who are without a college degree end up subsidizing college-educated borrowers. Yet those who are subsidized will ultimately enjoy higher incomes than the blue-collar folks doing the subsidizing. When you consider that college-educated voters tend to support Democrats, this bit of Robin Hood in reverse makes perfect sense. Better still, borrowers who go to work for non-profits dedicated to “community service” will get tens of thousands of dollars in additional loan forgiveness. This fulfills the Obama administration’s long-held goal of stocking leftist “community organizations” with college graduates paying off their loans. This is yet another way in which the Biden higher education plan serves to lock in the woke revolution.
Team Biden envisages a massive expansion of the public higher education sector. It has largely adopted Bernie Sanders’s socialist plan to massively expand our education system and direct it from the federal center.
By contrast, the Trump administration has recognized that Americans need other, less expensive and time-consuming ways to train for rewarding careers. Thus, it has promoted apprenticeship programs. Electing Biden would mean reversing gears, causing ever more Americans to waste years in college, subject, of course, to woke indoctrination.
What about K-12? Here, Kurtz expects a revival of the Obama administration’s stealth imposition of Common Core. His critique of Common Core is beyond the scope of this post. It’s enough to note that the new Common Core will include instruction in Civics, thus enabling the left to impose still further its woke agenda (including encouraging students to launch BLM protests outside police stations) on students.
Biden also proposes universal pre-K. This would entail massive federal spending on a program that conservative, and some liberal, analysts have shown to be ineffective in improving children’s achievement. It would also drive out private providers who offer parents a pre-K choice.
The main benefit of universal pre-K would be to increase the membership of teachers’ unions. This probably explains why Democrats are so insistent on an ineffective program — that, and the fact, that the program, with all of its accompanying social workers and psychologists, would intrude further on the sphere of the family. It takes a village, don’t you know?
And, of course, the Biden education plan promises to restore the Obama-era prohibition on school discipline that disproportionately affects various racial groups, even when discipline is imposed in an equal and unbiased manner for the very same offense. As we have argued, this policy is disastrous. It deprives students, including Blacks, of the right to learn in a non-chaotic classroom environment.
In addition, the Biden-Sanders Unity Platform contains plans that, according to Kurtz, “would all but drive charter schools from the educational field.” Again, the losers would include Black students whose parents hope, through charter schools, to liberate them from failed public schools.
America’s future depends to a considerable degree on its education systems. For that reason, among others, its future depends to a considerable degree on defeating Joe Biden.


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Another Day, Another Mainstream Media Scandal

Back in the late 1990s , The New Republic suffered from serial scandals with writers who made things up , most spectacularly Stephen Glass , but also Ruth Shalit , who was fired from TNR in 1999 after she was discovered to have plagiarized and “ reported inaccurately.
” Lately Shalit , now married and using her married name “ Ruth S. Barrett ” as her byline , has been attempting a comeback in journalism .
Her latest feature about meritocracy in Ivy League college sports appears currently in The Atlantic .
Never mind the story itself , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rich , liberal , status-conscious Ivy league parents ?
—it ’ s the editor ’ s online note about “ problems ” with the article that now deserves a read : Editor ’ s Note : After The Atlantic published this article , new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy , and about the credibility of the author , Ruth Shalit Barrett .
We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers what we have learned so far .
The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son .
Before publication , Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic ’ s fact-checking department .
After publication , when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article , our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details .
Through her attorney , Sloane informed us that she does not , in fact , have a son .
We have independently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son , and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son .
In explaining Sloane ’ s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son , Sloane ’ s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable .
Her attorney also said that according to Sloane , Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son , and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity .
When we asked Barrett about these allegations , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had told her she had a son , and that she had believed Sloane .
The next day , when we questioned her again , she admitted that she was “ complicit ” in “ compounding the deception ” and that “ it would not be fair to Sloane ” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic .
Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea , and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic ’ s fact-checkers , but told us that “ on some level I did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I do take responsibility.
” Sloane ’ s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples .
Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors .
Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article .
There ’ s more , including this mea culpa from the editors : We are also updating Barrett ’ s byline .
Originally , we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barrett was identified by her full name , Ruth Shalit Barrett .
( Barrett is her married name . )
In 1999 , when she was known by Ruth Shalit , she left The New Republic , where she was an associate editor , after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work .
We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials , for example , or shorter versions of their given name .
We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s , when the plagiarism incidents occurred .
We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett .
We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines .
We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this assignment , however .
It reflects poor judgment on our part , and we regret our decision .
Lots to be said here , but why do the mainstream media outlets continue to fall for serial fabricators and corner-cutters like Shalit-Barrett ?
Why do writers like Shalit-Barrett think they can continue to make stuff up to advance a preferred story line ?
Here we should roll back the tape to one of the original major media scandals , the “ Jimmy ’ s World ” fiasco at the Washington Post in 1981 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Janet Cooke had filed a story about purported 8-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy , carefully detailed about his needle track marks and the whole bit .
The lede : “ Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict , a precocious little boy with sandy hair , velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms .
.
.
The needle slides into the boy ’ s soft skin like a straw pushed into the center of a freshly baked cake .
.
.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story .
But it soon emerged that Cooke made up the whole thing ( she ’ d also lied about her academic background ) ; the Pulitzer was revoked , and Cooke was fired .
It was the ultimate in literal fake news long before anyone thought of the term .
Who thought it plausible that there would be an 8-year-old heroin addict ?
Credulous liberals , of course .
It fits their narrative of the world .
One of Cooke ’ s young colleagues at the Post recalled years later in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , I had my suspicions about the story from the beginning , but I couldn ’ t bring myself to flat-out ask Janet if Jimmy was real .
I ’ m not sure I wanted to know.
” I ’ m not sure I wanted to know .
Could be the mainstream media ’ s motto .
And the media wonder why no one trusts them any more .

Back in the late 1990s, The New Republic suffered from serial scandals with writers who made things up, most spectacularly Stephen Glass, but also Ruth Shalit, who was fired from TNR in 1999 after she was discovered to have plagiarized and “reported inaccurately.” Lately Shalit, now married and using her married name “Ruth S. Barrett” as her byline, has been attempting a comeback in journalism. Her latest feature about meritocracy in Ivy League college sports appears currently in The Atlantic.
Never mind the story itself, which is a bore—who really cares about the self-obsessions of rich, liberal, status-conscious Ivy league parents?—it’s the editor’s online note about “problems” with the article that now deserves a read:
Editor’s Note: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett. We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far. The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son. In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity. When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.” Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.
There’s more, including this mea culpa from the editors:
We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett. We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.
Lots to be said here, but why do the mainstream media outlets continue to fall for serial fabricators and corner-cutters like Shalit-Barrett? Why do writers like Shalit-Barrett think they can continue to make stuff up to advance a preferred story line?
Here we should roll back the tape to one of the original major media scandals, the “Jimmy’s World” fiasco at the Washington Post in 1981. The Post‘s young reporter Janet Cooke had filed a story about purported 8-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, carefully detailed about his needle track marks and the whole bit. The lede: “Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict, a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. . . The needle slides into the boy’s soft skin like a straw pushed into the center of a freshly baked cake. . .”
Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for the story. But it soon emerged that Cooke made up the whole thing (she’d also lied about her academic background); the Pulitzer was revoked, and Cooke was fired. It was the ultimate in literal fake news long before anyone thought of the term.
Who thought it plausible that there would be an 8-year-old heroin addict? Credulous liberals, of course. It fits their narrative of the world. One of Cooke’s young colleagues at the Post recalled years later in the Columbia Journalism Review, “The truth is, I had my suspicions about the story from the beginning, but I couldn’t bring myself to flat-out ask Janet if Jimmy was real. I’m not sure I wanted to know.”
I’m not sure I wanted to know. Could be the mainstream media’s motto. And the media wonder why no one trusts them any more.


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--RJC: Closing arguments for Trump

RJC: Closing arguments for Trump

I sought out former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman for lunch this week in St. Paul .
Before his service in the Senate ( 2003-2009 ) , Norm was the best mayor St. Paul ever had ( 1993-1998 ) .
I won ’ t revisit the voter fraud behind his painful defeat by Al Franken in 2008 post-election proceedings .
I will only add that Franken himself proved a disposable commodity to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
Thus we now contend with the vacuous incumbent Tina Smith in the coming election .
Norm is chairman of the board of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hogan Lovells law firm .
At lunch Norm mentioned that he would be participating along with Jason Greenblatt in the Republican Jewish Coalition “ closing arguments ” program supporting the reelection of President Trump this past Thursday evening .
Greenblatt is an observant Jew who worked for Trump as the executive vice president and chief legal officer to Trump and The Trump Organization .
He went on to serve Trump as Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations .
Norm told me that a discussion with Greenblatt turned him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 .
I watched the RJC program live online this past Thursday .
RJC has now made it accessible via the video below .
RJC executive director Matt Brooks hosted the program .
The RJC provides this summary : Jason , Norm , and Matt presented a thoughtful set of closing arguments on why President Donald Trump should get our votes in 2020 , including : the President ’ s determination to solve tough problems like the Arab-Israeli conflict ; his commitment to fighting antisemitism ; and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to China , and to the “ common knowledge ” in Washington , DC to fight for the American people and for Israel .
The program begins at about 20:00 .
You can jump the cursor forward to start the video there .
I found the program to be of special interest and thought some Power Line readers might want to check it out .

I sought out former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman for lunch this week in St. Paul. Before his service in the Senate (2003-2009), Norm was the best mayor St. Paul ever had (1993-1998). I won’t revisit the voter fraud behind his painful defeat by Al Franken in 2008 post-election proceedings. I will only add that Franken himself proved a disposable commodity to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Thus we now contend with the vacuous incumbent Tina Smith in the coming election.
Norm is chairman of the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition and of counsel at the Hogan Lovells law firm. At lunch Norm mentioned that he would be participating along with Jason Greenblatt in the Republican Jewish Coalition “closing arguments” program supporting the reelection of President Trump this past Thursday evening.
Greenblatt is an observant Jew who worked for Trump as the executive vice president and chief legal officer to Trump and The Trump Organization. He went on to serve Trump as Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations. Norm told me that a discussion with Greenblatt turned him into a Trump supporter after Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
I watched the RJC program live online this past Thursday. RJC has now made it accessible via the video below. RJC executive director Matt Brooks hosted the program. The RJC provides this summary:
Jason, Norm, and Matt presented a thoughtful set of closing arguments on why President Donald Trump should get our votes in 2020, including: the President’s determination to solve tough problems like the Arab-Israeli conflict; his commitment to fighting antisemitism; and his courage in standing up to Iran, to China, and to the “common knowledge” in Washington, DC to fight for the American people and for Israel.
The program begins at about 20:00. You can jump the cursor forward to start the video there. I found the program to be of special interest and thought some Power Line readers might want to check it out.


Amanda Milius speaks

I wrote about the film The Plot Against the President here on Power Line this past weekend .
Every time I attempt to post my review — most recently , this morning — I receive this notice : I have written twice to Amazon seeking an explanation .
Despite the invitation extended to me in the notice , Amazon has rested on its right to remain silent .
I am mystified .
I can freely post reviews of other products I have purchased , such as the Audible Books version of Professor James Heffernan ’ s Great Courses lecture series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 5-star rating this morning .
( I can ’ t find it at the moment , but I trust it ’ s up there somewhere .
Unlike my review above , it wasn ’ t rejected . )
The Plot Against the President has now received nearly 3,000 reviews on Amazon .
Here is my rejected review : This is a documentary based on one of the best books written about the Russia hoax .
It does a good job telling the story and giving it dramatic shape .
It may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of justice in the biggest scandal in American political history by far .
Unlike just about everything that comes out of Hollywood , including documentaries , the story it tells is true .
Many readers have posted the review on my behalf .
You are Spartacus !
Thank you .
The Hollywood Reporter took up the difficulties the filmmakers experienced getting their documentary posted on Amazon in the October 22 story “ Pro-Trump Doc Gets Cold Shoulder From Amazon , Facebook.
” The story was updated with the note : “ An Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Plot Against the President ’ is now available on the service after being held up for nearly two weeks while it was subjected to a ‘ content review.
’ ” I am reliably informed that the film has been tremendously successful on Amazon .
You should be able to view it here .
Director Amanda Milius appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight last week to talk about the film ( video below ) .
She also appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight yesterday ( clip below ) .

I wrote about the film The Plot Against the President here on Power Line this past weekend. Every time I attempt to post my review — most recently, this morning — I receive this notice:
I have written twice to Amazon seeking an explanation. Despite the invitation extended to me in the notice, Amazon has rested on its right to remain silent. I am mystified. I can freely post reviews of other products I have purchased, such as the Audible Books version of Professor James Heffernan’s Great Courses lecture series on Ulysses. I reviewed it with a 5-star rating this morning. (I can’t find it at the moment, but I trust it’s up there somewhere. Unlike my review above, it wasn’t rejected.)
The Plot Against the President has now received nearly 3,000 reviews on Amazon. Here is my rejected review:
This is a documentary based on one of the best books written about the Russia hoax. It does a good job telling the story and giving it dramatic shape. It may be the closest we come to the administration of justice in the biggest scandal in American political history by far. Unlike just about everything that comes out of Hollywood, including documentaries, the story it tells is true.
Many readers have posted the review on my behalf. You are Spartacus! Thank you.
The Hollywood Reporter took up the difficulties the filmmakers experienced getting their documentary posted on Amazon in the October 22 story “Pro-Trump Doc Gets Cold Shoulder From Amazon, Facebook.” The story was updated with the note: “An Amazon spokesperson says Amanda Milius’ election-themed ‘The Plot Against the President’ is now available on the service after being held up for nearly two weeks while it was subjected to a ‘content review.’”
I am reliably informed that the film has been tremendously successful on Amazon. You should be able to view it here.
Director Amanda Milius appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight last week to talk about the film (video below).
She also appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight yesterday (clip below).


powerlineblog--2020-10-31--Coronavirus in one state (120)

Coronavirus in one state (120)

The best epidemic related commentary I read this week was Matt Continetti ’ s Washington Free Beacon column “ The next populist revolt.
” I want to flag it for readers here at the top of my update .
The Minnesota Department of Health threw me a curve ball with its third briefing of the week .
Upsetting the customary schedule , they held it on Thursday rather rather than on Friday .
I have posted the audio below , but I am late getting to it .
Kevin Roche was on top of it with his post “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thoughts.
” On Thursday the data reflected 32 new deaths ( 20 in long-term care facilities ) and on Friday 18 new deaths ( 12 LTC ) .
The median age of decedents remains 83 per the department ’ s COVID-19 Weekly Report ( 10/29 ) .
Commissioner Malcolm and Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann allocate the blame for the current surge in “ new cases ” and LTC deaths to Minnesotans noncompliant with their “ guidance.
” They say they are fine tuning their “ 5-point battle plan ” to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care settings .
In the meantime , however , they want us to know that the LTC deaths are not their fault .
We are responsible by virtue of the prevalence of “ community spread ” of the disease .
Somewhere between the lines of their comments I hear the hammer that will fall after the elections .
The reporters are all but begging for it .
The only protection against Governor Walz ’ s extension of one-man rule for the indefinite future is Republican majorities in both houses of the Minnesota legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slim majority in the state senate .
All legislative seats are on the ballot next week .
If you are registered to vote in Minnesota , please make sure you support the GOP ’ s legislative candidates .
Governor Walz means to give it to us again good and hard after November 3 .
The need to check his power is urgent .

The best epidemic related commentary I read this week was Matt Continetti’s Washington Free Beacon column “The next populist revolt.” I want to flag it for readers here at the top of my update.
The Minnesota Department of Health threw me a curve ball with its third briefing of the week. Upsetting the customary schedule, they held it on Thursday rather rather than on Friday. I have posted the audio below, but I am late getting to it. Kevin Roche was on top of it with his post “A Head Full of Brief(ing) Thoughts.” On Thursday the data reflected 32 new deaths (20 in long-term care facilities) and on Friday 18 new deaths (12 LTC). The median age of decedents remains 83 per the department’s COVID-19 Weekly Report (10/29).
Commissioner Malcolm and Infectious Disease Division Director Kris Ehresmann allocate the blame for the current surge in “new cases” and LTC deaths to Minnesotans noncompliant with their “guidance.” They say they are fine tuning their “5-point battle plan” to prevent the spread of the disease in congregate care settings. In the meantime, however, they want us to know that the LTC deaths are not their fault. We are responsible by virtue of the prevalence of “community spread” of the disease.
Somewhere between the lines of their comments I hear the hammer that will fall after the elections. The reporters are all but begging for it. The only protection against Governor Walz’s extension of one-man rule for the indefinite future is Republican majorities in both houses of the Minnesota legislature, where Republicans now hold only a slim majority in the state senate.
All legislative seats are on the ballot next week. If you are registered to vote in Minnesota, please make sure you support the GOP’s legislative candidates. Governor Walz means to give it to us again good and hard after November 3. The need to check his power is urgent.


My Election Predictions

Late Thursday night , I taped an appearance with host Rowan Dean on Australia ’ s Sky News .
In @ @ @ @ @ the predictions I made last night during our VIP Live broadcast .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ as it appeared on Australian television : I think President Trump will be re-elected , @ @ @ @ @ will hold the Senate , narrowly .
The tide is obviously moving in a Republican @ @ @ @ @ that to continue for the next three days .
Joe Biden ’ s inadequacy is @ @ @ @ @ attention , and I think the press ’ s efforts to protect him have become @ @ @ @ @ .
So I think Tuesday night will be enjoyable for conservatives .
But enough of @ @ @ @ @ soon enough–within the next seven weeks or so , at any rate .
But I @ @ @ @ @ election will be close enough to turn on either voter fraud or lawsuits .

Late Thursday night, I taped an appearance with host Rowan Dean on Australia’s Sky News. In that interview, I previewed the predictions I made last night during our VIP Live broadcast. This is the edited version of my interview as it appeared on Australian television:
I think President Trump will be re-elected, and I think the Republicans will hold the Senate, narrowly. The tide is obviously moving in a Republican direction, and I expect that to continue for the next three days. Joe Biden’s inadequacy is obvious to everyone who pays attention, and I think the press’s efforts to protect him have become not just transparent but laughable. So I think Tuesday night will be enjoyable for conservatives.
But enough of predictions. We will know soon enough–within the next seven weeks or so, at any rate. But I don’t think the election will be close enough to turn on either voter fraud or lawsuits.


powerlineblog--2020-11-01--Podcast: The Three Whisky Happy Hour, with Uhlmann to the Rescue

If Trump wins the electoral college again on Tuesday while losing the popular vote ( perhaps by a bigger margin than he did in 2016 ) , the left will lose its mind .
Well that ’ s a given , but they ’ ll really lose their mind about the electoral college .
After hoisting a couple of toasts to the passing of Sean Connery and a second sour whisky shot for Britain going back on COVID lockdown , “ Lucretia ” and I get down to business reviewing the republican case for the electoral college , and why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our political system better .
Far from being an archaic relic , it is more necessary than ever in a country that the left calls “ diverse ” but which it actually views through perverse homogeneous lenses .
In particular we recall the excellent defense of the electoral college from the late Michael Uhlmann , and end with the story of how , as a young Senate staffer in 1970 , Uhlmann singlehandedly derailed a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college that had lots of momentum to pass ( a story you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Mike ended his famous brief , “ Let us , if need be , repair it ; but let us not abandon it for the sake of a mathematical abstraction , or because we are angry that the world is not perfect.
” Perfect advice for our present moment .
By the way , Mike was a man who enjoyed more than his fair share of whisky , and , as we recall at the very end of today ’ s overlong episode , was resolutely against immanentizing the eschaton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasten .
You know what to do now .
Here , or there , or somewhere else .

If Trump wins the electoral college again on Tuesday while losing the popular vote (perhaps by a bigger margin than he did in 2016), the left will lose its mind. Well that’s a given, but they’ll really lose their mind about the electoral college. After hoisting a couple of toasts to the passing of Sean Connery and a second sour whisky shot for Britain going back on COVID lockdown, “Lucretia” and I get down to business reviewing the republican case for the electoral college, and why it is a great institution that makes our political system better. Far from being an archaic relic, it is more necessary than ever in a country that the left calls “diverse” but which it actually views through perverse homogeneous lenses.
In particular we recall the excellent defense of the electoral college from the late Michael Uhlmann, and end with the story of how, as a young Senate staffer in 1970, Uhlmann singlehandedly derailed a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college that had lots of momentum to pass (a story you can read about in detail here). As Mike ended his famous brief, “Let us, if need be, repair it; but let us not abandon it for the sake of a mathematical abstraction, or because we are angry that the world is not perfect.”
Perfect advice for our present moment. By the way, Mike was a man who enjoyed more than his fair share of whisky, and, as we recall at the very end of today’s overlong episode, was resolutely against immanentizing the eschaton, which abolishing the electoral college would surely hasten.
You know what to do now. Here, or there, or somewhere else.


powerlineblog--2020-11-01--Trump Derangement In Overdrive

Trump Derangement In Overdrive

The great thing about the Trump phenomenon is that even if he loses on Tuesday , he ’ s going to haunt the waking dreams of the left for decades .
More on this later , depending on the outcome .
In the meantime , here are a couple of award-winning Tweets that show advanced TDS in action : And here ’ s one from a professor of philosophy at Cornell : Yeah , because I remember all of the violent rioting when Romney lost in 2012 , when 90 percent of Republicans also thought he was going to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The media covered it up I suppose .
In fact , there ’ s been a meme on this point for several years now : But speaking of riots , the left has organized massive protests around the country for next Wednesday “ if Trump takes action to undermine the results.
” You can read all about it at ProtectTheResults .
I ’ m sure these protests , if they come off , will be “ mostly peaceful.
” No need to board up your storefronts or anything .
It appears , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about every left-wing group is part of the coalition—you might even call it a “ vast left-wing conspiracy.
” It looks like the largest attempt at a left mobilization since the Vietnam War .

The great thing about the Trump phenomenon is that even if he loses on Tuesday, he’s going to haunt the waking dreams of the left for decades. More on this later, depending on the outcome. In the meantime, here are a couple of award-winning Tweets that show advanced TDS in action:
And here’s one from a professor of philosophy at Cornell:
Yeah, because I remember all of the violent rioting when Romney lost in 2012, when 90 percent of Republicans also thought he was going to win. What—you don’t remember that? The media covered it up I suppose. In fact, there’s been a meme on this point for several years now:
But speaking of riots, the left has organized massive protests around the country for next Wednesday “if Trump takes action to undermine the results.” You can read all about it at ProtectTheResults. I’m sure these protests, if they come off, will be “mostly peaceful.” No need to board up your storefronts or anything. It appears, from their partners page, that just about every left-wing group is part of the coalition—you might even call it a “vast left-wing conspiracy.” It looks like the largest attempt at a left mobilization since the Vietnam War.


powerlineblog--2020-11-01--Dueling poll numbers and grounds for optimism

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that Joe Biden leads President Trump nationally by 10 points , 52-42 .
The poll also finds that the race is somewhat tighter in 12 states the pollsters identify as “ swing states.
” Even so , if these poll numbers reflect the true state of the race , Trump has almost no chance of winning .
On the other hand , a new poll by Democracy Institute/Sunday Express has the popular vote split evenly , with Trump nominally ahead by 48-47 .
In the “ swing states ” including Florida , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wisconsin , Trump leads 49-45 according to this survey .
The Democracy Institute poll is an outlier , for sure .
However , it correctly forecast Brexit and Trump ’ s 2016 upset victory .
Patrick Basham , the Institute ’ s director , had this to say ( among other things ) about why his poll yields radically different results than polls by mainstream outlets : With most of the mainstream polls – New York Times , CNN , the university polls – a fundamental assumption is that the electorate – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much larger than 2016 .
10-30 million more , that ’ s 25-30 % larger .
That makes it essential that polls capture many , many more Democrat voters .
.
.
.
The Democracy Institute – along with Zogby and Trafalgar Group – those of us who find a very competitive race see turnout very similar to 2016 .
Speaking of turnout , I noticed this tweet from Larry Schweikart regarding the key state of North Carolina : Finally , I take heart from the Des Moines Register ’ s latest poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seven point lead over Biden , 48-41 .
In September , the same outfit had the two candidates even at 47 percent .
I ’ m no expert on the upper Midwest , but if Trump has a seven point lead in Iowa , there ’ s a decent chance he ’ s ahead now in Wisconsin and Minnesota .
On the other hand , if he and Biden were tied in September , there ’ s a good chance Biden was ahead in Wisconsin and Minnesota back then , when votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump needs a big turnout on Tuesday .
If he gets it , and assuming there isn ’ t a massive amount of fraud , John ’ s prediction during our show Friday night of a Trump victory ( with which Steve concurred , but Scott and I did not ) may come true .

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that Joe Biden leads President Trump nationally by 10 points, 52-42. The poll also finds that the race is somewhat tighter in 12 states the pollsters identify as “swing states.” Even so, if these poll numbers reflect the true state of the race, Trump has almost no chance of winning.
On the other hand, a new poll by Democracy Institute/Sunday Express has the popular vote split evenly, with Trump nominally ahead by 48-47. In the “swing states” including Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Trump leads 49-45 according to this survey.
The Democracy Institute poll is an outlier, for sure. However, it correctly forecast Brexit and Trump’s 2016 upset victory.
Patrick Basham, the Institute’s director, had this to say (among other things) about why his poll yields radically different results than polls by mainstream outlets:
With most of the mainstream polls – New York Times, CNN, the university polls – a fundamental assumption is that the electorate – aka turnout – will be much, much larger than 2016. 10-30 million more, that’s 25-30% larger. That makes it essential that polls capture many, many more Democrat voters. . . . The Democracy Institute – along with Zogby and Trafalgar Group – those of us who find a very competitive race see turnout very similar to 2016.
Speaking of turnout, I noticed this tweet from Larry Schweikart regarding the key state of North Carolina:
D lead down now to +265,000 (led in 2016 by 310,000, lost by 3.2 points). Black share down to 19.4% down from 22 in 2016.
Finally, I take heart from the Des Moines Register’s latest poll of Iowa voters. It gives Trump a seven point lead over Biden, 48-41. In September, the same outfit had the two candidates even at 47 percent.
I’m no expert on the upper Midwest, but if Trump has a seven point lead in Iowa, there’s a decent chance he’s ahead now in Wisconsin and Minnesota. On the other hand, if he and Biden were tied in September, there’s a good chance Biden was ahead in Wisconsin and Minnesota back then, when votes were already being cast.
I think Trump needs a big turnout on Tuesday. If he gets it, and assuming there isn’t a massive amount of fraud, John’s prediction during our show Friday night of a Trump victory (with which Steve concurred, but Scott and I did not) may come true.


powerlineblog--2020-11-01--Public Schools Poison Children’s Minds Against Police

This is shocking , and it is happening in my own school district , the one that all of my children attended .
The district ’ s fourth grade curriculum includes this insane attack on law enforcement : Something bad happened in our town .
The news was on the TV , the radio , and the internet .
The grown-ups didn ’ t think the kids knew about it .
But the kids in Ms. Garcia ’ s class heard some older kids talking about it , and they had questions .
After school , Emma asked her mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that man ?
” “ It was a mistake , ” said her mother .
“ I feel sad for the man and his family.
” “ Yes , the police thought he had a gun , ” said her father .
“ It wasn ’ t a mistake , ” said her sister , Liz .
“ The cops shot him because he was Black.
” Emma was confused .
“ He is brown , not black , ” she said .
“ Some Black people have dark brown skin , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emma ’ s father explained .
“ ‘ Black ’ usually means African American .
Most of their ancestors were brought here from Africa as slaves.
” In another house , Josh asked his mother : “ Can police go to jail ?
” “ Yes , ” said his mother .
“ Why do you ask ?
” “ That White policeman who shot the Black man , ” said Josh .
“ Will he go to jail ?
” “ What he did was wrong , ” said his mother .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jail , ” said his father .
“ Why not ?
” asked Josh .
“ Cops stick up for each other , ” said Josh ’ s brother , Malcolm .
“ And they don ’ t like Black men.
” How does such scurrilous nonsense make its way into a once-respectable school district ?
It is recommended , apparently , by Minnesota ’ s Department of Education , under the direction of far-left Governor Tim Walz .
The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association has written a letter of protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter : Sadly , this probably isn ’ t an aberration .
The Democratic Party seeks to incite racial hatred because it thinks that racial division works to its political advantage .
I am afraid that a majority of Joe Biden voters , perhaps a large majority , would approve of using the elementary schools to falsely demonize and dehumanize police officers .
Our country is hanging on by its fingernails , and its future may well depend on what happens on Tuesday .

This is shocking, and it is happening in my own school district, the one that all of my children attended. The district’s fourth grade curriculum includes this insane attack on law enforcement:
Something bad happened in our town. The news was on the TV, the radio, and the internet. The grown-ups didn’t think the kids knew about it. But the kids in Ms. Garcia’s class heard some older kids talking about it, and they had questions. After school, Emma asked her mother: “Why did the police shoot that man?” “It was a mistake,” said her mother. “I feel sad for the man and his family.” “Yes, the police thought he had a gun,” said her father. “It wasn’t a mistake,” said her sister, Liz. “The cops shot him because he was Black.”
Emma was confused. “He is brown, not black,” she said. “Some Black people have dark brown skin, and some have light brown skin,” Emma’s father explained. “‘Black’ usually means African American. Most of their ancestors were brought here from Africa as slaves.” In another house, Josh asked his mother: “Can police go to jail?” “Yes,” said his mother. “Why do you ask?”
“That White policeman who shot the Black man,” said Josh. “Will he go to jail?” “What he did was wrong,” said his mother. “But he won’t go to jail,” said his father. “Why not?” asked Josh. “Cops stick up for each other,” said Josh’s brother, Malcolm. “And they don’t like Black men.”
How does such scurrilous nonsense make its way into a once-respectable school district? It is recommended, apparently, by Minnesota’s Department of Education, under the direction of far-left Governor Tim Walz. The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association has written a letter of protest to Governor Walz:
The MPPOA was made aware that this book depicting cops as killers is being taught in District 196 and approved by the Walz admin. https://t.co/cAz8pLGUXR
This letter was sent to the Governor this morning. This is offensive and outrageous to all public safety officials pic.twitter.com/ciDAvSMC0Y — Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (@MNPoliceAssn) October 30, 2020
This is the letter:


powerlineblog--2020-11-01--Sunday morning coming down

Sunday morning coming down

On October 23 Time Life released the new Don McLean recording Still Playin ’ Favorites ( read about it here . )
My eyes lit up .
Don ’ s Playin ’ Favorites ( 1973 ) is one of my favorite albums .
When a message from Don ’ s publicist turned up in our in box that morning , I asked if I could interview Don .
The publicist arranged a 30-minute telephone interview for me with Don this past Thursday .
It turns out that Time Life entered into an agreement with Don earlier this year to load @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s post-United Artists recordings onto streaming platforms including YouTube , where Time Life has set up a Don McLean channel .
Still Playin ’ Favorites follows on that agreement .
I wrote about Don at length late last year in a previous installment of this series .
Taking a break from politics , I only want to add these notes and videos to what I wrote last year .
I ’ ve seen Don perform live twice .
Both concerts were highlights .
Except in a song or two , such as Josh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You Baby , ” he kept politics entirely out of his shows .
He came to entertain .
Although he worked with Pete Seeger , Don has avoided the trap of left-wing politics and the accompanying show business shibboleths .
He appreciates the virtues of ownership .
He emphasized the limited nature of his agreement with Time Life .
As I understand what he told me , he retains the ownership of all the rights , publishing and otherwise , in his work .
Capitol is the successor in interest to United Artists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six albums , but he told me “ they can ’ t do a thing ” with the recordings without his permission .
“ I completely control those records , ” he said .
Don told me he used to razz Seeger about the song “ Little Boxes ” that was a staple of Seeger ’ s live performances .
The Malvina Reynolds song mocks the sameness of suburbia .
I asked Don if he would expand on what I had read elsewhere about that .
Seeger was an elitist without realizing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ You think the song makes fun of the middle class .
You ’ ve been living in such a rarified air — my grandfather would have loved a little box.
” The song “ revealed the prejudice in Marxist philosophy without Seeger realizing it.
” Don added that he didn ’ t like that , but Seeger was tone deaf , although Seeger didn ’ t mind Don ’ s razzing him about it .
Seeger was a Communist , but “ he wouldn ’ t have lasted a day out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ The same goes for China and Vietnam .
Only in America do you get to criticize everything and not go to jail.
” Don hasn ’ t had to work a day since a certain 8-minute song he wrote became a ginormous hit upon its release in 1971 , but he is not retiring .
He just turned 75 last month and is still hard at work 50 years later .
It ’ s what he enjoys .
“ I love my work , ” he said .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attractions including an 11-CD box set and a Broadway show .
That certain song went unmentioned by me and by him .
I told him I didn ’ t want to ask him the same old questions he ’ d been asked a million times before .
He thanked me for that .
The theme of ownership came up in another context as well , but this time as a metaphor .
Thinking of Playin ’ Favorites and Still Playin ’ Favorites and many other songs in his catalog , I asked him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered .
“ I cover a song because I think I can own it , ” he said .
He continued , “ You ’ re not gon na forget my version .
I feel I can own it , really understand it , really love it.
” He likened it to cleaning up the diamond in a diamond ring .
I asked Don what artists he enjoyed .
This really set him off .
“ I like a lot of old stuff — early Bob Dylan , ’ 60 ’ s Stones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Then he lit up and listed favorites : “ I go back to the Everly Brothers , Little Richard — basic meat and potatoes — gospel , the Swan Silvertones , good Western music , the Sons of the Pioneers , the Weavers.
” He commented : “ No one will ever top them.
” And don ’ t forget Josh White .
He raved about Josh White .
“ He was brought down by [ his association with ] the Communists , but he fought racial discrimination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although his career was hampered by the blacklist , “ he was one of the great American heroes.
” Citing White ’ s “ Uncle Sam Says , ” Don exclaimed , “ he sang it to FDR in 1941 !
” Then he mentioned Chain Gang Songs , recorded by White and his Carolinians — citing “ Red Sun ” and “ Trouble , ” he commented , “ don ’ t know where they came from , just amazing.
” Toward the end of the interview Don expressed gratitude for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he has a great girl friend , a good home life , and a lot of interests and pursuits .
“ When I get into it , I get into it all the way , ” he said .
“ I love finance , economics , politics.
” What doesn ’ t he like ?
“ I don ’ t like the careless use of words .
I love the English language.
” Will somebody say amen ?
In the course of the interview I asked Don if he would pick out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ albums that Time Life has uploaded to the streaming platforms .
I have only the thinnest knowledge of these recordings , so I wanted his help in directing the attention of readers .
He was extremely patient in helping me out .
Skipping over a few albums , I am serving up these highlights courtesy of the artist himself ( with exceptions noted ) .
Chain Lightning was produced by Larry Butler and recorded in Nashville in 1978 .
“ Crying ” returned Don to the charts after a long absence .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roy Orbison hit .
See his comments about ownership above .
Don also picked “ Wonderful Night.
” His Nashville albums regularly include the Jordanaires on backing vocals .
He said he thought this was “ a beautiful recording.
” Don mentioned “ Lotta Lovin , ' ” the Gene Vincent number on the album .
I would like to pick out Don ’ s cover of the Buddy Holly number “ It Doesn ’ t Matter Anymore , ” written by Paul Anka .
Believers ( 1981 ) was also produced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Jordanaires .
Don mentioned “ I Tune the World Out.
” “ Love Letters ” is an old Edward Heyman/Victor Young composition .
Jumping ahead to the new millennium we arrive at Don McLean Sings Marty Robbins ( 2001 ) .
Don mentioned “ El Paso.
” Again , he aims high .
See his comments about ownership above .
He also picked “ Kaw-Liga , ” the allegorical Hank Williams number written by Williams with Fred Rose .
Don ’ s Western Album ( 2003 ) digs deep into the songbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every side of the Western experience in the album .
The cover draws on one-half of a collage created by Don .
The first song Don picked on this album was “ I ’ ve Got Spurs ( That Jingle Jangle ) , ” again with the Jordanaires .
Don also picked the Sons of the Pioneers number “ Timber Trail , ” written by Tommy Wells .
The YouTube notes attribute the writing credit on the “ The Trail to Mexico ” to Don , but I believe this is a song @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Rearview Mirror ( 2005 ) was produced by Joel Dorn , who produced Roberta Flack ’ s first three albums .
It includes Gordon Lightfoot ’ s “ If You Could Read My Mind , ” in which Don again seeks to claim the interpretive ownership .
He also picked out his own “ Wonderful Baby ” ( “ as sharp a performance as I ever gave — one take ” ) .
My choice from the album would be his rendition of Jimmie Rodgers ’ s “ TB Blues.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Time Life on October 22 .
Don reminded me that the recording derived from a 2001 episode of Austin City Limits on PBS .
The show and the recording , I believe , were both produced by Don ’ s friend Terry Lickona .
I don ’ t think Don helped me pick out anything on this recording .
I would suggest “ You ’ re My Little Darlin , ' ” written for his daughter .
Let ’ s also check out the title track from this live recording .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the proximate cause of my interview with Don .
He mentioned Johnny Cash ’ s “ So Doggone Lonesome.
” He also mentioned the Ray Charles number “ Hide Nor Hair , ” written by Morton Kraft/Percy Mayfield .
Don also covers “ Backwater Blues ” by Bessie Smith on the recording .
I appreciate the breadth and depth of his commitment to the preservation of American popular song .
As I note above , Don mentioned his love of gospel music .
I want to sign off with “ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sing About ” by the great gospel composer Thomas Dorsey , performed most famously by Mahalia Jackson — a genuine Sunday morning song .

When Time-Life Music released the new Don McLean recording Still Playin’ Favorites (read about it here) on October 23, my eyes lit up. Don’s Playin’ Favorites (1973) is one of my favorite albums. When a message from Don’s publicist turned up in our in box that morning, I asked if I could interview Don. The publicist arranged a 30-minute telephone interview for me with Don this past Thursday.
It turns out that Time-Life entered into an agreement with Don earlier this year to load 173 tracks from 11 of Don’s post-United Artists recordings onto streaming platforms including YouTube, where Time-Life has set up a Don McLean channel. Still Playin’ Favorites follows on that agreement.
I wrote about Don at length late last year in a previous installment of this series. Taking a break from politics, I only want to add these notes and videos to what I wrote then.
I’ve seen Don perform live twice. Both concerts were highlights. Except in a song or two, such as Josh White’s mischievous “Where Were You Baby,” he kept politics entirely out of his shows. He came to entertain (as he did with that song).
Although he worked with Pete Seeger, Don has avoided the trap of left-wing politics and the accompanying show-business shibboleths. He appreciates the virtues of ownership. He emphasized the limited nature of his agreement with Time-Life. As I understand what he told me, he retains the ownership of all the rights, publishing and otherwise, in his work. Capitol is the successor in interest to United Artists, which released Don’s first six albums, but he told me “they can’t do a thing” with the recordings without his permission. “I completely control those records,” he said.
Don told me he used to razz Seeger about the song “Little Boxes” that was a staple of Seeger’s live performances. The Malvina Reynolds song mocks the sameness of suburbia. I asked Don if he would expand on what I had read elsewhere about that.
Seeger was an elitist without realizing it, he said. He told Seeger, “You think the song makes fun of the middle class. You’ve been living in such a rarefied air — my grandfather would have loved a little box.” The song “revealed the prejudice in Marxist philosophy without Seeger realizing it.” Don added that he didn’t like that, but Seeger was tone deaf, although Seeger didn’t mind Don’s razzing him about it.
Seeger was a Communist, but “he wouldn’t have lasted a day out of jail in Russia,” Don said. “The same goes for China and Vietnam. Only in America do you get to criticize everything and not go to jail.”
Don hasn’t had to work a day since a certain 8-minute song he wrote became a ginormous hit upon its release in 1971, but he is not retiring. He just turned 75 last month and is still hard at work 50 years later. It’s what he enjoys. “I love my work,” he said. In the course of our conversation he previewed coming attractions including an 11-CD box set and a Broadway show.
That certain song went unmentioned by me and by him. I told him I didn’t want to ask him the same old questions he’d been asked a million times before. He thanked me for that.
The theme of ownership came up in another context as well, but this time as a metaphor. Thinking of Playin’ Favorites and Still Playin’ Favorites and many other songs in his catalog, I asked him what drew him to the songs he covered. “I cover a song because I think I can own it,” he said. He continued, “You’re not gonna forget my version. I feel I can own it, really understand it, really love it.” He likened it to cleaning up the diamond in a diamond ring.
I asked Don what artists he enjoyed. This really set him off. “I like a lot of old stuff — early Bob Dylan, ’60’s Stones, Beatles, early James Taylor,” he said. Then he lit up and listed favorites: “I go back to the Everly Brothers, Little Richard — basic meat and potatoes — gospel, the Swan Silvertones, good Western music, the Sons of the Pioneers, the Weavers.” He commented: “No one will ever top them.”
And don’t forget Josh White. He raved about Josh White. “He was brought down by [his association with] the Communists, but he fought racial discrimination. He was a cafe society star.” Although his career was hampered by the blacklist, “he was one of the great American heroes.” Citing White’s “Uncle Sam Says,” Don exclaimed, “he sang it to FDR in 1941!” Then he mentioned Chain Gang Songs, recorded by White and his Carolinians — citing “Red Sun” and “Trouble,” he commented, “don’t know where they came from, just amazing.”
Toward the end of the interview Don expressed gratitude for the life he’s living. He said he has a great girl friend, a good home life, and a lot of interests and pursuits. “When I get into it, I get into it all the way,” he said. “I love finance, economics, politics.” What doesn’t he like? “I don’t like the careless use of words. I love the English language.” Will somebody say amen?
In the course of the interview I asked Don if he would pick out favorite tracks from a few of the albums that Time-Life has uploaded to the streaming platforms. I have only the thinnest knowledge of these recordings, so I wanted his help in directing the attention of readers. He was extremely patient in helping me out. Skipping over a few albums, I am serving up these highlights courtesy of the artist himself (with exceptions noted).
Chain Lightning was produced by Larry Butler and recorded in Nashville in 1978. “Crying” returned Don to the charts after a long absence. This is Don’s cover of the Roy Orbison hit. See his comments about ownership above.
Don also picked “Wonderful Night.” His Nashville albums regularly include the Jordanaires on backing vocals. He said he thought this was “a beautiful recording.”
Don mentioned “Lotta Lovin,'” the Gene Vincent number on the album. I would like to pick out Don’s cover of the Buddy Holly number “It Doesn’t Matter Anymore,” written by Paul Anka.
Believers (1981) was also produced by Larry Butler and recorded in Nashville with the Jordanaires. Don mentioned “I Tune the World Out.”
“Love Letters” is an old Edward Heyman/Victor Young composition.
Jumping ahead to the new millennium we arrive at Don McLean Sings Marty Robbins (2001). Don mentioned “El Paso.” Again, he aims high. See his comments about ownership above.
He also picked “Kaw-Liga,” the allegorical Hank Williams number written by Williams with Fred Rose.
Don’s Western Album (2003) digs deep into the songbook. He said he wanted to show every side of the Western experience in the album. The cover draws on one-half of a collage created by Don. The first song Don picked on this album was “I’ve Got Spurs (That Jingle Jangle),” again with the Jordanaires.
Don also picked the Sons of the Pioneers number “Timber Trail,” written by Tommy Wells.
The YouTube notes attribute the writing credit on the “The Trail to Mexico” to Don, but I believe this is a song whose authorship is famously obscure
Don noted that Rearview Mirror (2005) was produced by Joel Dorn, who produced Roberta Flack’s first three albums. It includes Gordon Lightfoot’s “If You Could Read My Mind,” in which Don again seeks to claim the interpretive ownership.
He also picked out his own “Wonderful Baby” (“as sharp a performance as I ever gave — one take”).
My choice from the album would be his rendition of Jimmie Rodgers’s “TB Blues.”
The Starry Starry Night album was just posted by Time-Life on October 22. Don reminded me that the recording derived from a 2001 episode of Austin City Limits on PBS. The show and the recording, I believe, were both produced by Don’s friend Terry Lickona. I don’t think Don helped me pick out anything on this recording. I would suggest “You’re My Little Darlin,'” written for his daughter.
Let’s also check out the title track from this live recording.
We come now to Still Playin’ Favorites, the proximate cause of my interview with Don. He mentioned Johnny Cash’s “So Doggone Lonesome.”
He also mentioned the Ray Charles number “Hide Nor Hair,” written by Morton Kraft/Percy Mayfield.
Don also covers “Backwater Blues” by Bessie Smith on the recording. I appreciate the breadth and depth of his commitment to the preservation of American popular song.
As I note above, Don mentioned his love of gospel music. I want to sign off with “I’m Going to Live the Life I Sing About” by the great gospel composer Thomas Dorsey, performed most famously by Mahalia Jackson — a genuine Sunday morning song.


Election-Eve Positivity

Here are three disparate observations , the common denominator being optimism .
First : The polls are shifting in the last days before the election , just as they did in 2016 .
From Townhall , “ If New Batch of Polls are Correct , Trump Will Soar Past 300 Electoral Votes.
” Check out the polls cited there .
They include Michigan ( Trump 48/46 ) , Pennsylvania ( Trump 49/47 ) , Wisconsin ( Trump 50/49 ) , Florida ( Trump 49/45 ) , and so on .
We are at the point where polls are pretty much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it is coincidental that 2020 is just about a carbon copy of 2016 .
Most “ mainstream ” pollsters gave Biden a big lead early , I think for the purpose of aiding Democratic fundraising and discouraging Republicans , and then , in the last days before the election , they show the race tightening to within the margin of error–I suspect because they have changed their weighting of responses–so that no matter what happens , they can ’ t be “ wrong.
” Second : I was on a call this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
They appear to be confident of victory .
They went through the early voting in each swing state , comparing Biden ’ s pre-election day lead with Hillary ’ s early voting lead .
They also compared Biden ’ s early-vote lead with the margin they expect President Trump to rack up tomorrow .
If their model is right , Trump will win .
Of course , we all know not to trust models ; but still , the Democrats ’ anxiety suggests that they may be looking at similar calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials talked about the Democrats “ Red Mirage ” plan that I wrote about earlier today .
They claim to know that the Democrats are already , among other things , preparing television ads to address the likelihood that as of tomorrow night , Trump appears to have been re-elected .
Third : I have always been a fan of Marco Rubio .
Last night in Miami , he warmed up the crowd for President Trump .
It is fun to watch , as Marco sounds some of his favorite ( and my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute and a half , he takes on socialism :

Here are three disparate observations, the common denominator being optimism.
First: The polls are shifting in the last days before the election, just as they did in 2016. From Townhall, “If New Batch of Polls are Correct, Trump Will Soar Past 300 Electoral Votes.” Check out the polls cited there. They include Michigan (Trump 48/46), Pennsylvania (Trump 49/47), Wisconsin (Trump 50/49), Florida (Trump 49/45), and so on. We are at the point where polls are pretty much meaningless, but I don’t think it is coincidental that 2020 is just about a carbon copy of 2016. Most “mainstream” pollsters gave Biden a big lead early, I think for the purpose of aiding Democratic fundraising and discouraging Republicans, and then, in the last days before the election, they show the race tightening to within the margin of error–I suspect because they have changed their weighting of responses–so that no matter what happens, they can’t be “wrong.”
Second: I was on a call this afternoon with senior representatives of the Trump campaign. They appear to be confident of victory. They went through the early voting in each swing state, comparing Biden’s pre-election day lead with Hillary’s early voting lead. They also compared Biden’s early-vote lead with the margin they expect President Trump to rack up tomorrow. If their model is right, Trump will win.
Of course, we all know not to trust models; but still, the Democrats’ anxiety suggests that they may be looking at similar calculations. On the call, the campaign officials talked about the Democrats “Red Mirage” plan that I wrote about earlier today. They claim to know that the Democrats are already, among other things, preparing television ads to address the likelihood that as of tomorrow night, Trump appears to have been re-elected.
Third: I have always been a fan of Marco Rubio. Last night in Miami, he warmed up the crowd for President Trump. It is fun to watch, as Marco sounds some of his favorite (and my favorite) themes. In the last minute and a half, he takes on socialism:


powerlineblog--2020-11-02--Is Kamala Harris a Marxist or just incoherent?

I don ’ t know .
The main thing I know about Harris is that she ’ s an opportunist .
If you don ’ t think so , check with some of the people she prosecuted in California .
The following statements by Harris have been cited as evidence that she ’ s a Marxist : Equality suggests , oh , everyone should get the same amount .
The problem with that , not everybody ’ s starting out from the same place .
So if we ’ re all getting the same amount , but you started out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , we could get the same amount , but you ’ re still going to be that far back behind me .
In other words , it wouldn ’ t be enough for every American to receive the same yearly income because some Americans would still have less money .
Harris contrasts “ equality ” with “ equity , ” about which she says : These statements , individually and collectively , do seem Marxist .
They also seem incoherent .
On the one hand , Harris seems to want everyone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can compete on an equal footing , which is how she views equity .
At the same time , she defines equitable treatment as everyone ending up at the same place .
But if there is competition , then everyone will not end up at the same place .
There will be winners and losers .
Will another massive transfer of resources be required ?
Just what is Harris ’ vision of an equitable society ?
Is it one in which there is a massive redistribution not just of wealth but of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out equally , followed by competition ?
Or is it one in which everyone ends up at the same place ?
Both visions are harrowing , of course .
Both entail totalitarianism .
Harris ’ definitions also seem confused .
Equality is a state in which everyone is equal .
This seems to be what Harris is talking about when she discusses “ equity.
” But Harris claims there is a “ big difference ” between equality and equity .
Equity means fairness and impartiality .
Equitable treatment means that everyone is treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean that “ we all end up at the same place , ” which seems to be Harris ’ test for equitable treatment .
With Harris , one always has to wonder about her sincerity .
Thus , it ’ s not clear that she actually wants the kind of massive redistribution of wealth and other resources she describes .
What is clear to me , and has been all along , is that Harris isn ’ t very bright .
But then , neither is her running mate .
A Biden-Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pairing of my lifetime , and quite possibly the dumbest in American history .

I don’t know. The main thing I know about Harris is that she’s an opportunist. If you don’t think so, check with some of the people she prosecuted in California.
The following statements by Harris have been cited as evidence that she’s a Marxist:
Equality suggests, oh, everyone should get the same amount. The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me.
In other words, it wouldn’t be enough for every American to receive the same yearly income because some Americans would still have less money.
Harris contrasts “equality” with “equity,” about which she says:
It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.
These statements, individually and collectively, do seem Marxist. They also seem incoherent.
On the one hand, Harris seems to want everyone to have equal resources and support so they can compete on an equal footing, which is how she views equity. At the same time, she defines equitable treatment as everyone ending up at the same place. But if there is competition, then everyone will not end up at the same place. There will be winners and losers. Will another massive transfer of resources be required?
Just what is Harris’ vision of an equitable society? Is it one in which there is a massive redistribution not just of wealth but of “support,” so that everyone starts out equally, followed by competition? Or is it one in which everyone ends up at the same place?
Both visions are harrowing, of course. Both entail totalitarianism.
Harris’ definitions also seem confused. Equality is a state in which everyone is equal. This seems to be what Harris is talking about when she discusses “equity.” But Harris claims there is a “big difference” between equality and equity.
Equity means fairness and impartiality. Equitable treatment means that everyone is treated fairly and impartially. It doesn’t mean that “we all end up at the same place,” which seems to be Harris’ test for equitable treatment.
With Harris, one always has to wonder about her sincerity. Thus, it’s not clear that she actually wants the kind of massive redistribution of wealth and other resources she describes.
What is clear to me, and has been all along, is that Harris isn’t very bright. But then, neither is her running mate.
A Biden-Harris team would be the dumbest president-vice president pairing of my lifetime, and quite possibly the dumbest in American history.


Things to Watch

• Do I detect a disturbance in The [ Liberal ] Force ?
You can almost sense the panic on the left today .
Among other items , it seems the oracular Nate Silver ( who ought be known as Nate Bronze after 2016 ) is starting to hedge a bit in his confident call about a Biden victory : If the election does come down to Pennsylvania and Trump wins it , will Democrats ponder whether pandering to environmental extremism on fracking cost them the White House ?
• Keep your eye on California ’ s Proposition 16 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s prohibition on race-based college admissions , public hiring , and public contracting .
Several polls show the proposition is losing , even among Hispanic voters .
If Prop .
16 goes down while Biden wins California by 25 points , it ought to be a sign even to California ’ s left that majority opinion in this liberal state is not in sympathy with the diversicrat identity politics oaths .
Prop .
16 ’ s proponents say we need race-based favoritism to promote “ diversity , ” but it is increasingly clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple racial spoils system .
I ’ d like to hear some time some benchmarks for achieving diversity , because in many ways we ’ re already there .
Consider this recent data our pal Mark Perry has teased out of U.S. Department of Education data—the proportion of black and hispanic women enrolled in college is now higher than white males :

• Do I detect a disturbance in The [Liberal] Force? You can almost sense the panic on the left today. Among other items, it seems the oracular Nate Silver (who ought be known as Nate Bronze after 2016) is starting to hedge a bit in his confident call about a Biden victory:
If the election does come down to Pennsylvania and Trump wins it, will Democrats ponder whether pandering to environmental extremism on fracking cost them the White House?
• Keep your eye on California’s Proposition 16, which would roll back Proposition 209’s prohibition on race-based college admissions, public hiring, and public contracting. Several polls show the proposition is losing, even among Hispanic voters. If Prop. 16 goes down while Biden wins California by 25 points, it ought to be a sign even to California’s left that majority opinion in this liberal state is not in sympathy with the diversicrat identity politics oaths.
Prop. 16’s proponents say we need race-based favoritism to promote “diversity,” but it is increasingly clear that what is really desired is a simple racial spoils system. I’d like to hear some time some benchmarks for achieving diversity, because in many ways we’re already there. Consider this recent data our pal Mark Perry has teased out of U.S. Department of Education data—the proportion of black and hispanic women enrolled in college is now higher than white males: