dailysignal--2020-12-16--How Conservatives Must Counter the Media’s Left-Wing Election Advocacy

While there ’ s little doubt that left-leaning bias is rampant throughout much of the political media , is that bias powerful enough to swing a presidential election ?
According to a survey of those who voted for Joe Biden in November , it made a big enough difference to hand six swing states to the former vice president .
Unfortunately , there are no recounts for media bias .
So , how do we prove the effect of that bias , and what can conservatives do to counter it in the future ?
Brent Bozell , president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden voters and found that the media ’ s refusal to cover certain stories may have cost President Donald Trump the election .
The Media Research Center asked voters about eight news stories , including the unfolding scandal involving Hunter Biden ’ s foreign business dealings that may have included Joe Biden himself , a former staffer ’ s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden , and positive stories about Trump ’ s successes , including 33 % economic growth during the pandemic , an upcoming coronavirus vaccine rollout , and Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that 17 % of Biden voters wouldn ’ t have voted for him had they known about one or more of the stories .
Bozell ’ s calculations show that was enough to move six swing states into Trump ’ s column , giving him 311 Electoral College votes—enough to retain the presidency .
For example , 39 % of Biden voters said they didn ’ t know about the record 11 million jobs created from June to October in the snapback from the pandemic .
If they had , 5.4 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they had known about Biden ’ s sexual assault allegations , 8.9 % said they wouldn ’ t have voted for him .
Of course , reporting wasn ’ t always this slanted .
Years ago , Sam Yette , a former Newsweek reporter and a leftist who nonetheless took pride in his straight reporting , once invited me to his journalism class at Howard University .
I was there to test his students to see if they could interview and write a story about a conservative black woman with whom they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The hitch was that I got to grade their papers .
Yette ’ s lesson that day was how to report the facts without editorializing .
Unfortunately , today , editorializing regularly gets passed off as news , and we ’ re seeing its grave effects .
The media ’ s coverage of the presidential election served the left ’ s agenda , not democracy .
So what ’ s the solution to countering the bias ?
The first part of the solution is continuing the great work of the Media Research Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans know they ’ re being lied to .
The second part is growing the reach of conservative news outlets like The Washington Times , Fox News , Newsmax , talk radio , and The Heritage Foundation ’ s own Daily Signal ( where we produce both news and opinion , but we clearly label them as such and work to keep our opinions out of the news ) .
Alternative outlets like these are critical to reporting on the multitude of important stories that the legacy media refuses to cover—or cover truthfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up where the rest of America is tuned in .
Conservatives can ’ t expect that Fox News will steal away every viewer from CNN or CBS , or that The Daily Signal will wrest all the readership from The New York Times .
While it ’ s important for conservatives to inform their base through friendly media outlets , they have to do more than preach to the choir .
They need to show up on left-leaning media outlets , especially whenever they can be live and unedited .
Good things can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this election that the conservative policies that unleashed our economy and left more money in the pockets of American families appealed to people who didn ’ t necessarily consider themselves conservative .
Ditto for issues like immigration reform and election integrity .
Trump ’ s conservative approach to many issues led to significant increases in the number of blacks , Latinos , and Asian Americans who voted for him over 2016 .
When conservatives speak to people other than conservatives , their ideas can win many of them over .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight news are admitting that they don ’ t have enough confidence in their leftist philosophy to trust people with the facts to make up their own minds .
And they ’ re right—the appeal of leftism withers in the sunlight of truth .
Those kinds of journalists aren ’ t the guardians of truth that the Founders envisioned for the media in our democracy .
Instead , they ’ re little better than the propagandists who ’ ve done the bidding of tyrants and dictators throughout history .
Their credibility rests on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more Americans seek the truth .
It ’ s up to conservatives to expose Americans to that truth , making sure the media either changes their ways or that thread snaps once and for all .

While there’s little doubt that left-leaning bias is rampant throughout much of the political media, is that bias powerful enough to swing a presidential election? According to a survey of those who voted for Joe Biden in November, it made a big enough difference to hand six swing states to the former vice president.
Unfortunately, there are no recounts for media bias. So, how do we prove the effect of that bias, and what can conservatives do to counter it in the future?
Brent Bozell, president of the watchdog Media Research Center, surveyed swing-state Biden voters and found that the media’s refusal to cover certain stories may have cost President Donald Trump the election.
The Media Research Center asked voters about eight news stories, including the unfolding scandal involving Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings that may have included Joe Biden himself, a former staffer’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, and positive stories about Trump’s successes, including 33% economic growth during the pandemic, an upcoming coronavirus vaccine rollout, and Middle East peace deals.
The Media Research Center found that 17% of Biden voters wouldn’t have voted for him had they known about one or more of the stories. Bozell’s calculations show that was enough to move six swing states into Trump’s column, giving him 311 Electoral College votes—enough to retain the presidency.
For example, 39% of Biden voters said they didn’t know about the record 11 million jobs created from June to October in the snapback from the pandemic. If they had, 5.4% would have changed their vote. And if they had known about Biden’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% said they wouldn’t have voted for him.
Of course, reporting wasn’t always this slanted. Years ago, Sam Yette, a former Newsweek reporter and a leftist who nonetheless took pride in his straight reporting, once invited me to his journalism class at Howard University.
I was there to test his students to see if they could interview and write a story about a conservative black woman with whom they likely disagreed without injecting their biases. The hitch was that I got to grade their papers. Yette’s lesson that day was how to report the facts without editorializing.
Unfortunately, today, editorializing regularly gets passed off as news, and we’re seeing its grave effects. The media’s coverage of the presidential election served the left’s agenda, not democracy.
So what’s the solution to countering the bias?
The first part of the solution is continuing the great work of the Media Research Center and others to expose bias and let Americans know they’re being lied to.
The second part is growing the reach of conservative news outlets like The Washington Times, Fox News, Newsmax, talk radio, and The Heritage Foundation’s own Daily Signal (where we produce both news and opinion, but we clearly label them as such and work to keep our opinions out of the news).
Alternative outlets like these are critical to reporting on the multitude of important stories that the legacy media refuses to cover—or cover truthfully.
The third part is conservatives showing up where the rest of America is tuned in. Conservatives can’t expect that Fox News will steal away every viewer from CNN or CBS, or that The Daily Signal will wrest all the readership from The New York Times.
While it’s important for conservatives to inform their base through friendly media outlets, they have to do more than preach to the choir. They need to show up on left-leaning media outlets, especially whenever they can be live and unedited.
Good things can happen when they do. Trump proved in this election that the conservative policies that unleashed our economy and left more money in the pockets of American families appealed to people who didn’t necessarily consider themselves conservative. Ditto for issues like immigration reform and election integrity.
Trump’s conservative approach to many issues led to significant increases in the number of blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans who voted for him over 2016.
When conservatives speak to people other than conservatives, their ideas can win many of them over.
In the end, journalists who disguise opinion as straight news are admitting that they don’t have enough confidence in their leftist philosophy to trust people with the facts to make up their own minds. And they’re right—the appeal of leftism withers in the sunlight of truth.
Those kinds of journalists aren’t the guardians of truth that the Founders envisioned for the media in our democracy. Instead, they’re little better than the propagandists who’ve done the bidding of tyrants and dictators throughout history.
Their credibility rests on a thin thread that will eventually break as more Americans seek the truth. It’s up to conservatives to expose Americans to that truth, making sure the media either changes their ways or that thread snaps once and for all.
Originally published in The Washington Times


dailysignal--2020-12-17--7 Takeaways From a Senate Panel’s Hearing on Election Fraud

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday held its first hearing looking into the issues of vote fraud and other irregularities surrounding the 2020 election .
The committee ’ s chairman , Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis. , defended the hearing against Democratic detractors .
Johnson said the hearing was about ensuring confidence in the electoral system and getting to the facts .
The hearing included testimony from legal and election-security experts , as well as from witnesses from the hotly contested states of Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Nevada .
The hearing came two days after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Electoral College with 306 votes to President Donald Trump ’ s 232 .
A minimum of 270 votes is needed to win .
However , Trump has not conceded the race .
Here are seven takeaways from the hearing .
1 .
Fraud Didn ’ t Alter Result , or Did It ?
On Tuesday , Johnson said , “ I haven ’ t seen anything that would convince me that the results , the overall national result , would be overturned.
” But on Wednesday , he emphasized that legitimate concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Today , we will hear testimony on how election laws in some cases were not enforced and how fraudulent voting did occur , as it always does , ” the chairman said , adding : The media and Democrats heralded a statement that called the 2020 election “ the most secure ever.
” However , Christopher Krebs , the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) , stated several times that his agency was not directly addressing fraud , which would be a criminal matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Homeland Security , focuses on foreign election meddling , hacking , disinformation campaigns , and other matters .
“ Despite some claims , this statement does not address voter fraud , which is not within this group ’ s ambit , ” Krebs told the committee .
“ Instead , the statement focuses on manipulation or hacking of the machines supporting elections.
” On Nov. 12 , the executive committees of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council issued a joint statement that said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system deleted or lost votes , changed votes , or was in any way compromised.
” Krebs said it wasn ’ t his agency that issued the statement .
“ To ensure the facts are clear , this was not a CISA statement , but rather a joint statement from the election security community , reflecting the consensus of that community , that CISA published , ” he said .
He was later asked about whether he identified election irregularities .
Krebs said he stood by his view that it was the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have yet to see anything from a security perspective—a security perspective—that would change my opinion on that , ” he said .
“ Fraud is a different matter .
It ’ s a criminal matter.
” Krebs also also complained about “ wild and baseless domestic claims of hackers and malicious algorithms flipping the vote.
” “ We are past the point where we need to be having conversations about the outcome of this election , ” he said .
“ I think that continued assaults on democracy in the outcome of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process.
” Sen. Gary Peters , D-Mich. , the committee ’ s ranking member , complained immediately that the hearing was “ a platform for conspiracy theories and lies.
” That subsequently prompted Johnson to respond to lies that he said Peters and other senior Democrats told about him and Sen. Charles Grassley , R-Iowa , chairman of the Senate Finance Committee .
Peters had claimed Johnson and Grassley were working with Russians to promote disinformation about Hunter Biden , son of the former vice president .
“ Senior Democrat leaders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of creating a false intelligence product , that was supposedly classified .
They leaked it to the media , that accused Sen. Grassley , the president pro tem of the Senate , and myself of accepting and disseminating Russian disinformation from Andrii Derkach , ” Johnson said .
“ I never heard of the person until they brought it up .
Sen. Peters introduced that false information , Russian disinformation , into our investigation record.
” Earlier this year , U.S. intelligence officials identified Andrii Derkach as an agent of Russia trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Mr .
Chairman , I ’ ve got to respond to that , ” Peters said .
“ You ’ re saying I ’ m putting out misinformation .
I had nothing to do with this report.
” Johnson snapped back : “ You lied repeatedly .
You lied repeatedly in the press , that I was spreading Russian disinformation .
That was an outright lie , and I told you to stop lying , and you continued to do it.
” Peters again shouted at the chairman .
“ Mr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airing your grievances , ” the Michigan Democrat said .
“ I don ’ t know what rabbit hole you ’ re running down.
” Johnson said , “ It is what you have done to this committee , falsely accusing the chairman of spreading disinformation .
Nothing could have been further from the truth.
” James Troupis , a lawyer for the Trump team in Wisconsin , described what he said were several problems .
One was that in Madison , Wisconsin , 17,271 ballots were received through improper and illegal means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were commingled with legitimate ballots .
“ Three million people properly voted in Wisconsin , ” Troupis told the committee .
“ More than 200,000—identified in this recount—did not .
But those votes got counted .
Our statutes say they should not have been .
That , in our view , is a taint on our election in Wisconsin.
” As if to put that number in context , Johnson noted , “ Joe Biden won our state by about 20,000 votes.
” Some mail-in voters also identified themselves as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to leave their homes to go to the polls .
However , that included poll workers and an elector for Biden in the Electoral College , Troupis said .
“ We had people who went to protests , people who had vacations , people who had weddings .
All claimed this status , ‘ I can ’ t get to the polls , ’ ” Troupis continued .
“ So , they were allowed to vote without identification .
There were 28,395 people we explicitly identified .
Finally , there are other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other ballots were submitted without any application.
” Jesse Binnall , a Nevada lawyer for the Trump campaign , said changes to voting made by the Nevada legislature in August caused the number of mail-in ballots to increase nearly tenfold from 70,000 in 2016 to more than 690,000 in 2020 .
That opened the door to more fraud , he said .
“ While the media and the Democrats accused us of making it all up , our team began chasing down every lead , ” Binnall told the senators .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from brave whistleblowers.
” Binnall said in Nevada more than 42,000 people voted more than once , which the legal team determined by reviewing the list of actual voters and comparing them to other voters with the same name , address , and date of birth .
The lawyers also determined people used different first names , such as William and Bill , to vote more than once .
Nor was it just live people , he said .
“ At least 1,500 dead people are recorded as voting , as shown by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Social Security death records , ” Binnall said .
He said more than 19,000 people voted in Nevada despite not living in the state , noting that that number didn ’ t include student or military voters .
The numbers were identified by comparing the lists of voters with the U.S .
Postal Service ’ s national change-of-address database , among other sources .
About 8,000 people voted from nonexistent addresses , while more than 15,000 votes were cast from commercial or vacant addresses , he said .
Further , about 4,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined by comparing official Department of Motor Vehicles records of noncitizens to the list of voters in the 2020 election .
Pennsylvania state Rep. Frank Ryan , a Republican , outlined a number of objections he had with the tabulation in his state from the Pennsylvania Department of State .
“ The mail-in ballot system for the general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was so fraught with inconsistencies and irregularities that the reliability of the mail-in votes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to rely upon , ” Ryan said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : On Nov. 4 , at 11:30 a.m. , the [ Department of State ] posted updated mail-in vote counts for Philadelphia County , ” he later added .
Ryan said , “ Even if this was simply a data-entry error , the lack of internal controls over such reporting necessitates a review of the numbers , the process , and system access.
” Suspicion over mail-in voting is hardly new , said former federal judge and former U.S .
Solicitor General Ken Starr , who testified at the hearing to provide a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle .
But Starr said it reached an “ unprecedented ” level in 2020 and has “ given rise to a number of questions that deserve to be answered.
” “ I want to close just by a reminder in history .
There was in fact a campaign—an illicit campaign—to deprive Abraham Lincoln of the presidency .
That was through the use of mail-in ballots , ” he said .
It wasn ’ t successful , however .
Democrats pushed mail-in voting in hopes of beating the Republican presidential incumbent in the 1864 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report from the Carter-Baker Commission warning about the dangers of fraud posed by absentee ballots .
“ In the spirit of the Carter-Baker Commission , it is wise of us , in the warning that they had with respect to mail-in ballots , to pause and reflect how we can better ensure that bedrock factor and feature of integrity in the election process , ” he said .

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday held its first hearing looking into the issues of vote fraud and other irregularities surrounding the 2020 election.
The committee’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., defended the hearing against Democratic detractors.
Johnson said the hearing was about ensuring confidence in the electoral system and getting to the facts. The hearing included testimony from legal and election security experts, as well as from witnesses from the hotly contested states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
The hearing came two days after former Vice President Joe Biden won in the Electoral College with 306 votes to President Donald Trump’s 232. A minimum of 270 votes is needed to win. However, Trump has not conceded the race.
Here are seven takeaways from the hearing.
1. Fraud Didn’t Alter Result, or Did It?
On Tuesday, Johnson said, “I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that the results, the overall national result, would be overturned.”
But on Wednesday, he emphasized that legitimate concerns about voter fraud should have an airing.
“Today, we will hear testimony on how election laws in some cases were not enforced and how fraudulent voting did occur, as it always does,” the chairman said, adding:
The question that follows us is whether the level of fraud would alter the outcome of the election. This year, in dozens of court cases, through the certification process in each state and by the Electoral College vote, the conclusion has collectively been reached that it would not. However, lax enforcement, denying bipartisan observation of the complete election process, and failure to be fully transparent or conduct reasonable audits has led to heightened suspicion.
2. Distinctions Between Hacking, Fraud
The media and Democrats heralded a statement that called the 2020 election “the most secure ever.”
However, Christopher Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, stated several times that his agency was not directly addressing fraud, which would be a criminal matter.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, focuses on foreign election meddling, hacking, disinformation campaigns, and other matters.
“Despite some claims, this statement does not address voter fraud, which is not within this group’s ambit,” Krebs told the committee. “Instead, the statement focuses on manipulation or hacking of the machines supporting elections.”
On Nov. 12, the executive committees of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council issued a joint statement that said: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”
Krebs said it wasn’t his agency that issued the statement.
“To ensure the facts are clear, this was not a CISA statement, but rather a joint statement from the election security community, reflecting the consensus of that community, that CISA published,” he said.
He was later asked about whether he identified election irregularities. Krebs said he stood by his view that it was the most secure election in American history.
“I have yet to see anything from a security perspective—a security perspective—that would change my opinion on that,” he said. “Fraud is a different matter. It’s a criminal matter.”
Krebs also also complained about “wild and baseless domestic claims of hackers and malicious algorithms flipping the vote.”
“We are past the point where we need to be having conversations about the outcome of this election,” he said. “I think that continued assaults on democracy in the outcome of this election only serve to undermine confidence in the process.”
3. Fireworks Between Senators
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the committee’s ranking member, complained immediately that the hearing was “a platform for conspiracy theories and lies.”
That subsequently prompted Johnson to respond to lies that he said Peters and other senior Democrats told about him and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Peters had claimed Johnson and Grassley were working with Russians to promote disinformation about Hunter Biden, son of the former vice president.
“Senior Democrat leaders, including Peters, were involved in a process of creating a false intelligence product that was supposedly classified. They leaked it to the media, that accused Sen. Grassley, the president pro tem of the Senate, and myself of accepting and disseminating Russian disinformation from Andrii Derkach,” Johnson said. “I never heard of the person until they brought it up. Sen. Peters introduced that false information, Russian disinformation, into our investigation record.”
Earlier this year, U.S. intelligence officials identified Andrii Derkach as an agent of Russia trying to harm Biden’s presidential campaign.
Peters responded angrily.
“Mr. Chairman, I’ve got to respond to that,” Peters said. “You’re saying I’m putting out misinformation. I had nothing to do with this report.”
Johnson snapped back: “You lied repeatedly. You lied repeatedly in the press that I was spreading Russian disinformation. That was an outright lie, and I told you to stop lying, and you continued to do it.”
Peters again shouted at the chairman.
“Mr. Chairman, this is not about airing your grievances,” the Michigan Democrat said. “I don’t know what rabbit hole you’re running down.”
Johnson said, “It is what you have done to this committee, falsely accusing the chairman of spreading disinformation. Nothing could have been further from the truth.”
4. Improper Mail-Ins in Wisconsin
James Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump team in Wisconsin, described what he said were several problems. One was that in Madison, Wisconsin, 17,271 ballots were received through improper and illegal means, unsupervised, in violation of statute. They were commingled with legitimate ballots.
“Three million people properly voted in Wisconsin,” Troupis told the committee. “More than 200,000—identified in this recount—did not. But those votes got counted. Our statutes say they should not have been. That, in our view, is a taint on our election in Wisconsin.”
As if to put that number in context, Johnson noted, “Joe Biden won our state by about 20,000 votes.”
Some mail-in voters also identified themselves as “permanently confined,” meaning they were unable to leave their homes to go to the polls. However, that included poll workers and an elector for Biden in the Electoral College, Troupis said.
“We had people who went to protests, people who had vacations, people who had weddings. All claimed this status, ‘I can’t get to the polls,’” Troupis continued. “So, they were allowed to vote without identification. There were 28,395 people we explicitly identified. Finally, there are other categories in which as much as 170,000 other ballots were submitted without any application.”
5. Out-of-Staters, Dead Voting in Nevada
Jesse Binnall, a Nevada lawyer for the Trump campaign, said changes to voting made by the Nevada Legislature in August caused the number of mail-in ballots to increase nearly tenfold from 70,000 in 2016 to more than 690,000 in 2020. That opened the door to more fraud, he said.
“While the media and the Democrats accused us of making it all up, our team began chasing down every lead,” Binnall told the senators. “Our evidence came both from data scientists and from brave whistleblowers.”
Binnall said in Nevada more than 42,000 people voted more than once, which the legal team determined by reviewing the list of actual voters and comparing them to other voters with the same name, address, and date of birth. The lawyers also determined people used different first names, such as William and Bill, to vote more than once.
Nor was it just live people, he said.
“At least 1,500 dead people are recorded as voting, as shown by comparing the list of mail voters with the Social Security death records,” Binnall said.
He said more than 19,000 people voted in Nevada despite not living in the state, noting that that number didn’t include student or military voters. The numbers were identified by comparing the lists of voters with the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address database, among other sources.
About 8,000 people voted from nonexistent addresses, while more than 15,000 votes were cast from commercial or vacant addresses, he said. Further, about 4,000 noncitizens also voted, according to information determined by comparing official Department of Motor Vehicles records of noncitizens to the list of voters in the 2020 election.
6. Pennsylvania Election Rule Changes
Pennsylvania state Rep. Frank Ryan, a Republican, outlined a number of objections he had with the tabulation in his state from the Pennsylvania Department of State.
“The mail-in ballot system for the general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was so fraught with inconsistencies and irregularities that the reliability of the mail-in votes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to rely upon,” Ryan said.
“For instance, over-vote in Philadelphia County: On Nov. 4, at 11:30 a.m., the [Department of State] posted updated mail-in vote counts for Philadelphia County,” he later added.
The number of ballots reported to have been counted was an impossible 508,112 ballots, despite the fact that only 432,873 ballots had been issued to voters in that county. Later that day, the ballots-counted number was reduced, but this begs the question: Who had the authority to add and subtract votes on the ballot counts reported to the Department of State?
Ryan said, “Even if this was simply a data entry error, the lack of internal controls over such reporting necessitates a review of the numbers, the process, and system access.”
7. Attempt to Cheat Lincoln
Suspicion over mail-in voting is hardly new, said former federal Judge and former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr, who testified at the hearing to provide a legal and constitutional assessment of the postelection struggle.
But Starr said it reached an “unprecedented” level in 2020 and has “given rise to a number of questions that deserve to be answered.”
“I want to close just by a reminder in history. There was in fact a campaign—an illicit campaign—to deprive Abraham Lincoln of the presidency. That was through the use of mail-in ballots,” he said.
It wasn’t successful, however. Democrats pushed mail-in voting in hopes of beating the Republican presidential incumbent in the 1864 election.
Starr also referenced the 2005 report from the Carter-Baker Commission warning about the dangers of fraud posed by absentee ballots.
“In the spirit of the Carter-Baker Commission, it is wise of us, in the warning that they had with respect to mail-in ballots, to pause and reflect how we can better ensure that bedrock factor and feature of integrity in the election process,” he said.


dailysignal--2020-12-16--Eliminating Filibuster Would Allow Left to Accomplish Extreme Agenda

Most of what you ’ ve heard about the left ’ s extremist agenda is true .
They haven ’ t been exactly quiet about it .
The radical left , which is now setting the agenda for the incoming White House and at least one chamber of Congress , is intent on imposing a government takeover of the health care system , implementing the job-killing Green New Deal , and packing the Supreme Court .
And that ’ s just for starters .
There is , however , one thing preventing the left from getting its way and fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The filibuster is a central part of Senate tradition that ’ s been around for centuries .
It ’ s a rule that ultimately requires 60 votes in order to pass legislation , and was designed to encourage moderation and counter the House of Representative ’ s majoritarian impulses .
Now , however , many on the left are openly calling to eliminate the filibuster so they can ram their partisan quasi-socialist agenda through Congress .
This agenda is extreme enough in itself , but what ’ s just as jarring about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hypocrisy of so many who once viewed the filibuster as sacred now calling to eliminate it—or refusing to rule out doing so .
In 2005 on the Senate floor , Biden railed against the possible death of the filibuster for judicial nominees , calling any effort to eliminate it “ an example of the arrogance of power , ” and a “ fundamental power grab.
” While it ’ s true both parties have undone the filibuster for judicial and other executive appointments , starting with Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as untouchable by both parties .
There ’ s an important reason for this .
The Senate exists to check the rash and radical impulses of the majority , regardless of party , to prevent the “ tyranny of the majority ” our founders rightly feared .
Eliminating the filibuster is far more than just changing some arcane procedural rule—it turns the Senate into another version of the House , where raw majorities rule , compromises are unnecessary , and the passions and prejudices of the moment often overcome reason and sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing short of an assault on the rights of the millions of Americans represented by the Senate minority—an assault that will have devastating consequences for our republic and our system of constitutional norms , including our most fundamental rights .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently said of eliminating the filibuster , “ Once we win the majority , God willing , everything is on the table.
” That ’ s a scary proposition for any American not on board with the left ’ s definition of “ everything.
” Extreme new gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a new national government-run health care program ( euphemistically termed a “ public option ” ) are all on the table—and all would be possible if the filibuster is eliminated .
Instead of promising to blow up centuries of tradition , the left should focus on building consensus and crafting legislation that appeals to the broad spectrum of Americans .
That they ’ re more focused on the former should tell us everything we need to know about their plans to reshape the country .

Most of what you’ve heard about the left’s extremist agenda is true. It hasn’t been exactly quiet about it.
The radical left, which is now setting the agenda for the incoming White House and at least one chamber of Congress, is intent on imposing a government takeover of the health care system, implementing the job-killing Green New Deal, and packing the Supreme Court. And that’s just for starters.
There is, however, one thing preventing the left from getting its way and fundamentally reshaping America: the Senate filibuster.
The filibuster is a central part of Senate tradition that’s been around for centuries. It’s a rule that ultimately requires 60 votes in order to pass legislation, and was designed to encourage moderation and counter the House of Representative’s majoritarian impulses.
Now, however, many on the left are openly calling to eliminate the filibuster so they can ram their partisan quasi-socialist agenda through Congress.
This agenda is extreme enough in itself, but what’s just as jarring about this push to change centuries of tradition is the hypocrisy of so many who once viewed the filibuster as sacred now calling to eliminate it—or refusing to rule out doing so.
That includes former Vice President Joe Biden.
In 2005 on the Senate floor, Biden railed against the possible death of the filibuster for judicial nominees, calling any effort to eliminate it “an example of the arrogance of power,” and a “fundamental power grab.”
While it’s true both parties have undone the filibuster for judicial and other executive appointments, starting with Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in 2013, the legislative filibuster has long been viewed as untouchable by both parties.
There’s an important reason for this. The Senate exists to check the rash and radical impulses of the majority, regardless of party, to prevent the “tyranny of the majority” our Founders rightly feared.
Eliminating the filibuster is far more than just changing some arcane procedural rule—it turns the Senate into another version of the House, where raw majorities rule, compromises are unnecessary, and the passions and prejudices of the moment often overcome reason and sound judgment.
In practice, it is nothing short of an assault on the rights of the millions of Americans represented by the Senate minority—an assault that will have devastating consequences for our republic and our system of constitutional norms, including our most fundamental rights.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently said of eliminating the filibuster, “Once we win the majority, God willing, everything is on the table.” That’s a scary proposition for any American not on board with the left’s definition of “everything.”
Extreme new gun control measures, massive tax hikes, and a new national government-run health care program (euphemistically termed a “public option”) are all on the table—and all would be possible if the filibuster is eliminated.
Instead of promising to blow up centuries of tradition, the left should focus on building consensus and crafting legislation that appeals to the broad spectrum of Americans.
That it’s more focused on the former should tell us everything we need to know about its plans to reshape the country.
Originally distributed by the Tribune Content Agency


dailysignal--2020-12-16--FDA Authorizes First Over-the-Counter Home Coronavirus Test

The Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter , at-home coronavirus test Tuesday .
The test , developed by the Australian company Ellume Limited , is a rapid antigen test that can deliver results in approximately 20 minutes , and works on any patient older than 2 years of age , the FDA said in its announcement .
“ Today ’ s authorization is a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19 , ” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said Tuesday .
“ By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use , the FDA allows it to be sold in places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy it , swab their nose , run the test , and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes.
” > > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
The announcement follows the FDA ’ s approval of an at-home prescription coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now authorized over 225 coronavirus tests since the pandemic began , according to its release .
The FDA on Tuesday also released data reaffirming the safety and effectiveness of Moderna ’ s coronavirus vaccine , clearing the way for its emergency approval later this week .
A vaccine advisory panel will meet Thursday to scour Moderna ’ s data before voting on whether to recommend it for emergency use .
The process follows the FDA ’ s actions last week on Pfizer ’ s vaccine .
The FDA released Pfizer ’ s data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommend its authorization Thursday , and it was officially granted emergency approval late Friday .
Pfizer ’ s vaccine began to be distributed over the weekend and its administration started Monday in states across the country .
Officials have said that Moderna is prepared to distribute 6 million vaccine doses , over twice the amount initially distributed from Pfizer , meaning that its coming emergency authorization could help alleviate the extraordinary demand for safe and effective vaccines as virus cases , hospitalizations , and deaths spike across the country .
The U.S. surpassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Johns Hopkins University .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

The Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter, at-home coronavirus test Tuesday.
The test, developed by the Australian company Ellume Limited, is a rapid antigen test that can deliver results in approximately 20 minutes, and works on any patient older than 2 years of age, the FDA said in its announcement.
“Today’s authorization is a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said Tuesday. “By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drugstores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes.”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The announcement follows the FDA’s approval of an at-home prescription coronavirus test in November. The agency has now authorized over 225 coronavirus tests since the pandemic began, according to its release.
The FDA on Tuesday also released data reaffirming the safety and effectiveness of Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine, clearing the way for its emergency approval later this week. A vaccine advisory panel will meet Thursday to scour Moderna’s data before voting on whether to recommend it for emergency use.
The process follows the FDA’s actions last week on Pfizer’s vaccine. The FDA released Pfizer’s data Dec. 8, the panel voted to recommend its authorization Thursday, and it was officially granted emergency approval late Friday.
Pfizer’s vaccine began to be distributed over the weekend and its administration started Monday in states across the country.
Officials have said that Moderna is prepared to distribute 6 million vaccine doses, over twice the amount initially distributed from Pfizer, meaning that its coming emergency authorization could help alleviate the extraordinary demand for safe and effective vaccines as virus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths spike across the country.
The U.S. surpassed 300,000 total coronavirus-related deaths Monday, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-17--CNN Silent on Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Andrew Cuomo

CNN has not covered former adviser Lindsey Boylan ’ s Sunday allegation that Democratic New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed her “ for years.
” “ Yes , @ NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years , ” Boylan tweeted Sunday morning .
“ Many saw it , and watched .
I could never anticipate what to expect : would I be grilled on my work ( which was very good ) or harassed about my looks .
Or would it be both in the same conversation ?
” “ Not knowing what to expect what ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one would do a damn thing even when they saw it , ” Boylan tweeted .
“ No one .
And I *know* I am not the only woman.
” A review of CNN ’ s reporting by The Daily Caller News Foundation found that the publication has not covered Boylan ’ s allegations , which Cuomo has repeatedly denied .
CNN has not responded to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation .
Fox News also reported this week that CNN ’ s most-watched anchor , the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has stayed silent on the allegations against the New York governor .
Cuomo denied the allegations in a Monday statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ There is simply no truth to these claims , ” press secretary Caitlin Girouard told The Daily Caller News Foundation Monday morning .
Cuomo also denied the allegations multiple times at a press conference Monday .
Boylan has not provided additional details about the alleged sexual harassment and has not returned multiple requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation .
She also accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ toxic ” work environment in December .
The former adviser worked for the Cuomo administration from March 2015 until October 2018 , according to the New York Post .
She is running for Manhattan borough president .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

CNN has not covered former adviser Lindsey Boylan’s Sunday allegation that Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed her “for years.”
“Yes, @NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years,” Boylan tweeted Sunday morning. “Many saw it, and watched. I could never anticipate what to expect: would I be grilled on my work (which was very good) or harassed about my looks. Or would it be both in the same conversation?”
“Not knowing what to expect what’s the most upsetting part aside from knowing that no one would do a damn thing even when they saw it,” Boylan tweeted. “No one. And I *know* I am not the only woman.”
A review of CNN’s reporting by The Daily Caller News Foundation found that the publication has not covered Boylan’s allegations, which Cuomo has repeatedly denied. CNN has not responded to requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Fox News also reported this week that CNN’s most-watched anchor, the New York Democrat’s brother Chris Cuomo, has stayed silent on the allegations against the New York governor.
Cuomo denied the allegations in a Monday statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
New York Gov. Cuomo is asked about his former aide accusing him of sexual harassment over the weekend:
“It’s not true… I fought for and I believe a woman has the right to come forward and express her opinion and express issues and concerns that she has but it’s just not true.” pic.twitter.com/TnsdrC6Cvi — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 14, 2020
“There is simply no truth to these claims,” press secretary Caitlin Girouard told The Daily Caller News Foundation Monday morning. Cuomo also denied the allegations multiple times at a press conference Monday.
Boylan has not provided additional details about the alleged sexual harassment and has not returned multiple requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation. She also accused Cuomo’s office of having a “toxic” work environment in December.
The former adviser worked for the Cuomo administration from March 2015 until October 2018, according to the New York Post. She is running for Manhattan borough president.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-17--2 Paths for Biden: Adopt Trump Tactics or Tailspin

There is as yet no known , easily accessible cure for COVID-19 .
Over the past year , lots of old and new drugs and supplements—Ivermectin , azithromycin , Remdesivir , hydroxychloroquine , vitamin D , vitamin C , zinc , aspirin , Pepcid , and others—have shown at least some anecdotal value in ameliorating the effects of early-stage COVID-19 .
Clinical physicians treating patients in hospitals often disagree with the research scientists conducting trials on the efficacy of all these treatments .
Yet only hydroxychloroquine has prompted furious partisan debate over its possible usefulness .
Why ?
Probably because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
Almost immediately , the media , the university and government medical community , and the progressive political opposition declared hydroxychloroquine useless and dangerous .
A recent media study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that positive news stories about the research and development of COVID-19 vaccines barely outnumbered negative stories about Trump and hydroxychloroquine .
Trump ’ s presidential endorsement was apparent proof of rank quackery .
Yet a few recent second-look studies , especially abroad , suggest that hydroxychloroquine , a dirt-cheap , time-tested anti-malarial drug , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of COVID-19 .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
This Hydroxy Effect—hysterical disavowal of anything Trump has endorsed—is dangerous to the country at large .
Trump was reviled for his early condemnation of China ’ s role in the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus ” —a traditional eponymous branding of a virus by its place of origin , and in this case one used by other media before Trump ’ s adoption of the sobriquet .
Trump alleged that Chinese officials knew for months about SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 , before letting on about the dangers the disease posed to the world at large .
No matter .
Anything Trump said had to be resisted .
The Trump travel ban , the Trump accusations of China ’ s corruption of the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China were all ridiculed as proof of his racism or intellectual puerility .
Now , after the 2020 election and the apparent victory of former Vice President Joe Biden , we learn from the media that in fact the virus had spread much earlier than China had admitted .
The utility of travel bans is now a part of scientific consensus .
And the leadership of the WHO remains under criticism .
Before 2016 , the consensus on China was that it was destined to take over the world .
This was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profiting-making by outsourcing to China .
The conventional wisdom ignored Chinese violations of commercial trade norms and theft of technology and intellectual property .
It largely dismissed the complaints of human rights activists who were appalled by China ’ s reeducation camps , its suppression of political and religious freedom , and its extermination of Islamic and Tibetan culture .
Now , pushback against Chinese imperialism , authoritarianism , and global bullying is a bipartisan consensus—as long as Trump is not cited as the voice-in-the-wilderness stimulus for such a reset .
This Pavlovian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Logic dictates that Biden would not scrap the framework of an effective containment policy of expansionist China .
Pacific nations such as Australia , Japan , South Korea , and Taiwan appreciated Trump ’ s efforts to corral China .
America ’ s empty “ Asian Pivot ” of the past has become real in leading resistance to Chinese bullying .
Logic suggests that Biden would appreciate inheriting a more stable Middle East , with Arab states and Israel increasingly united against the theocracy in Iran .
The emerging alliances seem tailor-made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still more Arab nations recognizing Israel—with both parties investing in the West Bank to offer Palestinians economic parity with surrounding states .
Logic dictates that Biden would recapture the lost Democratic working class by mouthing Trump economic agendas without mentioning Trump ’ s creation of them .
Fair ( rather than just free ) trade , border security , deregulation , tax incentives , and unprecedented gas and oil production all created near-record middle-class wage growth—a formerly Democratic staple issue .
So Biden has two choices .
One , he can appropriate many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebrand them as his own and quibble over particulars .
Do that , and Biden would likely see a huge post-COVID-19 economic recovery , a stable Middle East , a world united against China ’ s commercial abuses and human rights travesties , beefed-up U.S. defenses , and a refreshed NATO .
Or two , Biden can suffer the Hydroxy Effect .
Anything Trump was for , Biden and the left will be automatically against .
That would mean a decision to allow unchecked immigration .
Freeze construction of , or even tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tariffs on China .
Let NATO members pay as little as they like .
Ban or cut back on fracking .
Rejoin the Iran nuclear deal .
Rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement .
Polarize Israel and its new Arab allies .
Fast-track the Green New Deal .
Raise taxes sky-high .
Let the Rust Belt rust .
Allow Big Tech to do as it pleases .
Adopting the Hydroxy Effect and junking anything with a Trump fingerprint on it will please the hard-left Biden base .
Rejecting it will benefit the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ d bet on Biden giving in to the Hydroxy Effect .
( C ) 2020 Tribune Content Agency , LLC .

There is as yet no known, easily accessible cure for COVID-19.
Over the past year, lots of old and new drugs and supplements—Ivermectin, azithromycin, Remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, aspirin, Pepcid, and others—have shown at least some anecdotal value in ameliorating the effects of early-stage COVID-19. Clinical physicians treating patients in hospitals often disagree with the research scientists conducting trials on the efficacy of all these treatments.
Yet only hydroxychloroquine has prompted furious partisan debate over its possible usefulness. Why?
Probably because President Donald Trump endorsed its usage months ago. Almost immediately, the media, the university and government medical community, and the progressive political opposition declared hydroxychloroquine useless and dangerous.
A recent media study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that positive news stories about the research and development of COVID-19 vaccines barely outnumbered negative stories about Trump and hydroxychloroquine.
Trump’s presidential endorsement was apparent proof of rank quackery. Yet a few recent second-look studies, especially abroad, suggest that hydroxychloroquine, a dirt-cheap, time-tested anti-malarial drug, can in fact offer help in treating some cases of COVID-19.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
This Hydroxy Effect—hysterical disavowal of anything Trump has endorsed—is dangerous to the country at large.
Trump was reviled for his early condemnation of China’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic. He railed against the “China virus”—a traditional eponymous branding of a virus by its place of origin, and in this case one used by other media before Trump’s adoption of the sobriquet.
Trump alleged that Chinese officials knew for months about SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, before letting on about the dangers the disease posed to the world at large.
No matter. Anything Trump said had to be resisted. The Trump travel ban, the Trump accusations of China’s corruption of the World Health Organization, and other Trump criticisms of China were all ridiculed as proof of his racism or intellectual puerility.
Now, after the 2020 election and the apparent victory of former Vice President Joe Biden, we learn from the media that in fact the virus had spread much earlier than China had admitted. The utility of travel bans is now a part of scientific consensus. And the leadership of the WHO remains under criticism.
Before 2016, the consensus on China was that it was destined to take over the world. This was the establishment’s de facto defense of profiting-making by outsourcing to China.
The conventional wisdom ignored Chinese violations of commercial trade norms and theft of technology and intellectual property. It largely dismissed the complaints of human rights activists who were appalled by China’s reeducation camps, its suppression of political and religious freedom, and its extermination of Islamic and Tibetan culture.
Now, pushback against Chinese imperialism, authoritarianism, and global bullying is a bipartisan consensus—as long as Trump is not cited as the voice-in-the-wilderness stimulus for such a reset.
This Pavlovian Hydroxy Effect poses a challenge to Biden.
Logic dictates that Biden would not scrap the framework of an effective containment policy of expansionist China. Pacific nations such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan appreciated Trump’s efforts to corral China. America’s empty “Asian Pivot” of the past has become real in leading resistance to Chinese bullying.
Logic suggests that Biden would appreciate inheriting a more stable Middle East, with Arab states and Israel increasingly united against the theocracy in Iran. The emerging alliances seem tailor-made to allow Biden to take credit for still more Arab nations recognizing Israel—with both parties investing in the West Bank to offer Palestinians economic parity with surrounding states.
Logic dictates that Biden would recapture the lost Democratic working class by mouthing Trump economic agendas without mentioning Trump’s creation of them. Fair (rather than just free) trade, border security, deregulation, tax incentives, and unprecedented gas and oil production all created near-record middle-class wage growth—a formerly Democratic staple issue.
So Biden has two choices.
One, he can appropriate many of the Trump successes. He can rebrand them as his own and quibble over particulars.
Do that, and Biden would likely see a huge post-COVID-19 economic recovery, a stable Middle East, a world united against China’s commercial abuses and human rights travesties, beefed-up U.S. defenses, and a refreshed NATO.
Or two, Biden can suffer the Hydroxy Effect. Anything Trump was for, Biden and the left will be automatically against.
That would mean a decision to allow unchecked immigration. Freeze construction of, or even tear down, the border wall. Lift tariffs on China. Let NATO members pay as little as they like. Ban or cut back on fracking. Rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. Rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. Polarize Israel and its new Arab allies. Fast-track the Green New Deal. Raise taxes sky-high. Let the Rust Belt rust. Allow Big Tech to do as it pleases.
Adopting the Hydroxy Effect and junking anything with a Trump fingerprint on it will please the hard-left Biden base. Rejecting it will benefit the country.
Of the two choices, I’d bet on Biden giving in to the Hydroxy Effect.
(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-12-17--GOP Wins Big in State Capitals. What It Means for the Next Decade.

Carrie Delrosso , a Republican , won her campaign in Pennsylvania ’ s 33rd House District by defeating House Minority Leader Frank Dermody , a Democrat , to capture the seat .
In Ohio ’ s 75th House District , Gail Pavliga won her election , flipping the seat to the GOP after running a campaign on solving the opioid crisis in the district .
Delrosso and Pavliga were among the many victories the GOP is citing as part of Republicans ’ general down-ballot success Nov. 3 , when the party held onto majorities in all 59 legislative state chambers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while winning state House and Senate majorities in New Hampshire and flipping the Alaska House of Representatives .
While those races were lower profile than the battles for control of the White House and Congress , they could be most consequential for the next 10 years , not only in drawing redistricting maps , but also in setting agendas in state capitals .
“ We had one of the most diverse slates of Republican candidates that has ever been elected , ” Dave Abrams , deputy executive director of the Republican State Leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s really remarkable that , to my no surprise , the [ media have ] not really written much about [ it ] .
Had it been the inverse for Democrats , it would have been on the cover of Time already.
” In what was projected to be a good year for Democrats from the top of the ballot on down , the GOP defied conventional wisdom in part by running local races for local offices , while even Democrats running for state legislatures sought to make their races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abrams said .
“ We know that , at the state level , Democrats ran nationalized campaigns , with socialist agendas .
It didn ’ t work , ” he said .
Democrats walked into a trap of “ local candidates running national campaigns , ” while Republicans were “ local candidates running local campaigns.
” “ When they were talking about issues like defunding the police , supporting the Green New Deal , and basically running opposition campaigns to President Trump , who was at the top of the ticket , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies Republicans were focused on—getting economies moving again and recovering from the impact of the coronavirus , ” Abrams said .
“ We are for expanding police funding to keep America safe .
Those are local issues , all the way down to traffic , broken street lights , and potholes .
Our strategy in keeping things local paid off enormously everywhere.
” Abrams declined , however , to characterize his party ’ s strong Nov. 3 performance as a state-level red wave .
“ It certainly was a historically successful year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what state Republicans were up against from the other side , in terms of money and the political environment and dynamics that shifted because of the coronavirus , ” Abrams said , adding : New Hampshire , a battleground state , will now have a Republican trifecta , with GOP Gov .
Chris Sununu and control of both houses of the Legislature .
It was an unusual result , since former Vice President Joe Biden , a Democrat , won New Hampshire ’ s four electoral votes for president .
The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , drawing the congressional and state legislative redistricting maps following the 2020 census .
However , Democrats are in a better spot going into 2021 than they were in 2011 , controlling more legislative chambers or governorships than 10 years ago , thus forcing compromise on redistricting .
Also in 2011 , the GOP had full control over redrawing the maps in New Mexico , Nevada , Maine , and Oregon .
That ’ s no longer the case .
Further , Democrats were able to announce supermajorities in the legislatures of three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big wins there from election night .
But those are all legislatures where the party already held majorities .
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee acknowledged receipt of an email inquiry from The Daily Signal , but did not immediately respond to phone and email inquiries for this article .
In a USA Today op-ed , Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee President Jessica Post sought to put a positive spin on the outcome , while conceding , “ There ’ s no doubt that down-ballot Democrats generally fared poorly in 2020.
” She noted success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of legislatures in four states .
Over that same time , the party also took back governorships in Kansas , Wisconsin , Kentucky , Pennsylvania , Louisiana , and Michigan .
“ Democrats will have profoundly greater influence over redistricting heading into this decade than we did the last , and voters in many states will be drawn into fair , non-gerrymandered districts for the first time in a generation , ” Post wrote in the op-ed .
Progressive groups , such as All on the Line , run by former Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , spent heavily on states in 2020 in an attempt to cement Democratic majorities at the state and congressional levels .
Republicans were outgunned financially , as liberal groups poured some $ 200 million into flipping state legislatures to Democrats , Abrams said .
“ In redistricting years , this being one of them , our main priority is to win the legislative seats and legislative majorities where the legislature plays a large—if not the sole—role in the redistricting process for the benefit of preventing opportunities for liberals to gerrymander themselves into near-permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional level , ” he said .
The progressive groups were targeting the states of Arizona , Colorado , Florida , Georgia , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Texas , and Wisconsin , but to no avail .
“ When you look at states like Texas and North Carolina , where large populations will gain congressional seats through reapportionment in the year to follow , obviously , quite a bit was at stake , ” Abrams said .
“ So , obviously , that ’ s a key focus of ours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats from rigging a lot of these maps .
”

Carrie Delrosso, a Republican, won her campaign in Pennsylvania’s 33rd House District by defeating House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, a Democrat, to capture the seat.
In Ohio’s 75th House District, Gail Pavliga won her election, flipping the seat to the GOP after running a campaign on solving the opioid crisis in the district.
Delrosso and Pavliga were among the many victories the GOP is citing as part of Republicans’ general down-ballot success Nov. 3, when the party held onto majorities in all 59 legislative state chambers it controlled going into the election, while winning state House and Senate majorities in New Hampshire and flipping the Alaska House of Representatives.
While those races were lower profile than the battles for control of the White House and Congress, they could be most consequential for the next 10 years, not only in drawing redistricting maps, but also in setting agendas in state capitals.
“We had one of the most diverse slates of Republican candidates that has ever been elected,” Dave Abrams, deputy executive director of the Republican State Leadership Committee, told The Daily Signal. “It’s really remarkable that, to my no surprise, the [media have] not really written much about [it]. Had it been the inverse for Democrats, it would have been on the cover of Time already.”
In what was projected to be a good year for Democrats from the top of the ballot on down, the GOP defied conventional wisdom in part by running local races for local offices, while even Democrats running for state legislatures sought to make their races a referendum on President Donald Trump, Abrams said.
“We know that, at the state level, Democrats ran nationalized campaigns, with socialist agendas. It didn’t work,” he said.
Democrats walked into a trap of “local candidates running national campaigns,” while Republicans were “local candidates running local campaigns.”
“When they were talking about issues like defunding the police, supporting the Green New Deal, and basically running opposition campaigns to President Trump, who was at the top of the ticket, I think it made it more clear the policies Republicans were focused on—getting economies moving again and recovering from the impact of the coronavirus,” Abrams said.
“We are for expanding police funding to keep America safe. Those are local issues, all the way down to traffic, broken street lights, and potholes. Our strategy in keeping things local paid off enormously everywhere.”
Abrams declined, however, to characterize his party’s strong Nov. 3 performance as a state-level red wave.
“It certainly was a historically successful year, especially when you put it into context of what state Republicans were up against from the other side, in terms of money and the political environment and dynamics that shifted because of the coronavirus,” Abrams said, adding:
When you add all that in, conventional wisdom was that we were going to lose everywhere, and we ended up losing zero chambers of the legislatures. I’ll call it a historically successful year and an embarrassing colossal failure for the Democrats.
New Hampshire, a battleground state, will now have a Republican trifecta, with GOP Gov. Chris Sununu and control of both houses of the Legislature. It was an unusual result, since former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, won New Hampshire’s four electoral votes for president.
The New Hampshire Legislature will control the decennial redistricting, drawing the congressional and state legislative redistricting maps following the 2020 census.
However, Democrats are in a better spot going into 2021 than they were in 2011, controlling more legislative chambers or governorships than 10 years ago, thus forcing compromise on redistricting. Also in 2011, the GOP had full control over redrawing the maps in New Mexico, Nevada, Maine, and Oregon. That’s no longer the case.
Further, Democrats were able to announce supermajorities in the legislatures of three states—New York, Delaware, and Connecticut—after big wins there from election night. But those are all legislatures where the party already held majorities.
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee acknowledged receipt of an email inquiry from The Daily Signal, but did not immediately respond to phone and email inquiries for this article.
In a USA Today op-ed, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee President Jessica Post sought to put a positive spin on the outcome, while conceding, “There’s no doubt that down-ballot Democrats generally fared poorly in 2020.”
She noted success in the past decade with Democrats winning control of legislatures in four states. Over that same time, the party also took back governorships in Kansas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan.
“Democrats will have profoundly greater influence over redistricting heading into this decade than we did the last, and voters in many states will be drawn into fair, non-gerrymandered districts for the first time in a generation,” Post wrote in the op-ed.
Progressive groups, such as All on the Line, run by former Attorney General Eric Holder, and Forward Majority, spent heavily on states in 2020 in an attempt to cement Democratic majorities at the state and congressional levels. Republicans were outgunned financially, as liberal groups poured some $200 million into flipping state legislatures to Democrats, Abrams said.
“In redistricting years, this being one of them, our main priority is to win the legislative seats and legislative majorities where the legislature plays a large—if not the sole—role in the redistricting process for the benefit of preventing opportunities for liberals to gerrymander themselves into near-permanent majorities, both at the state and congressional level,” he said.
The progressive groups were targeting the states of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, but to no avail.
“When you look at states like Texas and North Carolina, where large populations will gain congressional seats through reapportionment in the year to follow, obviously, quite a bit was at stake,” Abrams said. “So, obviously, that’s a key focus of ours, and we were successful in preventing Democrats from rigging a lot of these maps.”


dailysignal--2020-12-17--How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup

Many on the left were indignant when the Trump campaign legal team tried to convince legislatures in several battleground states to appoint a new slate of electors after asserting election irregularities .
However , four years ago , many Democrats , liberal activists , and Hollywood stars tried to pressure electors to reverse the results of the November election .
Here ’ s an excerpt from my book “ Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , ” explaining Democrats ’ effort to thwart President Donald Trump ’ s election .
Strangely enough , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be president despite losing the national popular vote were suddenly willing to give the presidency to someone who wasn ’ t on the ballot and had zero votes for president .
Rep. Jim Himes , D-Conn. , framed altering the Electoral College vote as a way to prevent a soft Russian takeover of the United States .
“ This man is not only unqualified to be president , he ’ s a danger to the republic , ” Himes said .
“ I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That will lead to a fascinating legal issue , but I would rather have a legal issue , a complicated legal problem , than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin ’ s chief ally.
” Christine Pelosi , a California elector and daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi , took up the mantle for a potential Electoral College coup .
The younger Pelosi led a letter signed by 53 other electors—including one rogue Republican from Texas—addressed to the director of national intelligence , James Clapper , requesting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference for the full Electoral College before it convened in 50 state capitols .
“ We do not understand our sole function [ to be ] to convene in mid-December , several weeks after Election Day , and summarily cast our votes , ” said the letter .
“ To the contrary , the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government—ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.
” As the chairwoman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caucus , Christine Pelosi had been “ thoroughly convinced that this would be my opportunity to cast a vote for the first woman president of the United States.
” To that end , she petitioned to be an elector .
Despite the letter extolling the deliberative role of the Electoral College , she said in an interview with the left-wing Democracy Now !
broadcast that she would prefer to scrap it .
“ I ’ m a member of the Electoral College who would like to see the end of the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ But as long as you charge me to do a job as an elector , I ’ m going to do it with agency and with attention .
And right now , I ’ d like to pay attention to the evidence.
” Then , there was a group calling themselves the Hamilton Electors , named for Alexander Hamilton , who said that the Electoral College existed to ensure “ the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an elector from Washington state , and Michael Baca , an elector from Colorado , started the effort .
“ We ’ re trying to be that ‘ break in case of emergency ’ fire hose that ’ s gotten dusty over the last 200 years , ” Chiafalo told The Atlantic .
They first sought the near-unattainable goal of uniting 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican : John Kasich or maybe Mitt Romney .
A slightly more realistic alternative was to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed 270 electoral votes .
That would send the election to the House of Representatives .
In addition , Clinton electors in California , Colorado , and Washington filed lawsuits to overturn state restrictions on electors from voting however they wish .
This was supposed to set a legal precedent to allow Trump electors to break .
Hollywood even got in on the act .
In an ad sponsored by United For America , Martin Sheen , star of NBC ’ s “ West Wing , ” was joined by other Hollywood stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Bob Odenkirk , for a political ad .
The audience was the Republican electors .
Each actor stated , “ I ’ m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
” They then requested that Republicans in the Electoral College be an “ American hero ” by keeping Trump out of the White House through their “ service and patriotism to the American people .
On Dec. 19 , a total of seven electors bolted from the candidate who had won their state .
But despite the left ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a revolt came from Clinton electors .
Four from Washington state abandoned Clinton , with three voting for Colin Powell and another voting for Faith Spotted Eagle , a Native American activist from South Dakota .
A Hawaii Democratic elector voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders .
On the Republican side , Ohio Gov .
John Kasich and former Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul each got one vote from rebel Texas Republican electors .
The final tally was Trump 304 , Clinton 227 .

Many on the left were indignant when the Trump campaign legal team tried to convince legislatures in several battleground states to appoint a new slate of electors after asserting election irregularities.
However, four years ago, many Democrats, liberal activists, and Hollywood stars tried to pressure electors to reverse the results of the November election.
Here’s an excerpt from my book “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” explaining Democrats’ effort to thwart President Donald Trump’s election.
Strangely enough, many of the same people who complained Trump would be president despite losing the national popular vote were suddenly willing to give the presidency to someone who wasn’t on the ballot and had zero votes for president.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., framed altering the Electoral College vote as a way to prevent a soft Russian takeover of the United States.
“This man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Christine Pelosi, a California elector and daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, took up the mantle for a potential Electoral College coup.
The younger Pelosi led a letter signed by 53 other electors—including one rogue Republican from Texas—addressed to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, requesting the intelligence community provide a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before it convened in 50 state capitols.
“We do not understand our sole function [to be] to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes,” said the letter. “To the contrary, the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government—ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
As the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, Christine Pelosi had been “thoroughly convinced that this would be my opportunity to cast a vote for the first woman president of the United States.”
To that end, she petitioned to be an elector. Despite the letter extolling the deliberative role of the Electoral College, she said in an interview with the left-wing Democracy Now! broadcast that she would prefer to scrap it.
“I’m a member of the Electoral College who would like to see the end of the Electoral College,” she said. She added, “But as long as you charge me to do a job as an elector, I’m going to do it with agency and with attention. And right now, I’d like to pay attention to the evidence.”
Then, there was a group calling themselves the Hamilton Electors, named for Alexander Hamilton, who said that the Electoral College existed to ensure “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Bret Chiafalo, an elector from Washington state, and Michael Baca, an elector from Colorado, started the effort. “We’re trying to be that ‘break in case of emergency’ fire hose that’s gotten dusty over the last 200 years,” Chiafalo told The Atlantic.
They first sought the near-unattainable goal of uniting 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican: John Kasich or maybe Mitt Romney. A slightly more realistic alternative was to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump, bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes. That would send the election to the House of Representatives.
In addition, Clinton electors in California, Colorado, and Washington filed lawsuits to overturn state restrictions on electors from voting however they wish. This was supposed to set a legal precedent to allow Trump electors to break.
Hollywood even got in on the act. In an ad sponsored by United For America, Martin Sheen, star of NBC’s “West Wing,” was joined by other Hollywood stars, including Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, and Bob Odenkirk, for a political ad.
The audience was the Republican electors. Each actor stated, “I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.” They then requested that Republicans in the Electoral College be an “American hero” by keeping Trump out of the White House through their “service and patriotism to the American people.
On Dec. 19, a total of seven electors bolted from the candidate who had won their state. But despite the left’s efforts, the closest thing we saw to a revolt came from Clinton electors.
Four from Washington state abandoned Clinton, with three voting for Colin Powell and another voting for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist from South Dakota. A Hawaii Democratic elector voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the Republican side, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul each got one vote from rebel Texas Republican electors. The final tally was Trump 304, Clinton 227.


dailysignal--2020-12-18--At 10 Years Old, the Affordable Care Act Is Aging Badly

Another open season has come and gone in which eligible Americans could choose from a narrow array of federally subsidized health care plans under the Affordable Care Act .
Despite the ACA ’ s manifest gaps and failures , a recent poll from the left-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation found that a solid majority—55 % —of respondents have a favorable perception of the law .
That result may be due in part to a feature of the law most have heard about and support : its ban on private insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions .
The ACA is much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost any measure , the law has fallen short of its objectives .
It included features that proved unpopular or unsustainable , led to a decade-long court battle with—of all groups—an order of Catholic nuns devoted to the poor , and it subsidized elective abortion without subscribers ’ knowledge in violation of what the law plainly requires .
The ACA was modeled in part on a Massachusetts health plan that created a statewide exchange , or marketplace , offering a menu of plans individuals and families could choose from , with gradations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mandate , since nullified by Congress , that each individual and family have a plan in force year-round .
But a withering report earlier this year from The Heritage Foundation underscores just how far short the law has fallen .
The promise of the ACA was better coverage at lower cost .
Everyone remembers President Barack Obama ’ s sober pledge that American families would enjoy $ 2,500 in annual savings on their premiums and be able to keep their doctors .
The Heritage report shows , instead , that in just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the average monthly premium paid by an individual rose from $ 244 to $ 550 a month , a more than 125 % increase .
At the same time , the mid-tier quality plan on the federal exchange saw its annual deductible rise by more than $ 1,000 .
Provider networks , in turn , typically shrank .
Putative innovations under the ACA fared no better .
The year 2020 saw the end of multi-state plans .
These were private plans sold on the marketplace by insurance companies under contract with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more subscribers while lowering costs .
In addition , the federal Multi-State Plan Program was required to guarantee individuals and families both a pro-life option and an elective abortion option in the states where they existed .
But multi-state plans proved unpopular with insurance companies , as became embarrassingly apparent when the number of multi-state plans was reduced from 203 to two between 2017 and 2019 , and finally non-existent this year .
Co-op plans seem headed for the same fate .
Today , most U.S. counties have only one or two exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which federal premium tax credits are available .
The tax credits mean that abortion coverage is being subsidized with tax dollars in many instances .
Just how often this occurs has been a regular focus of Charlotte Lozier Institute and Family Research Council – this year joined by The Heritage Foundation .
What we found for the 2021 plan year continues to be disturbing .
There are 24 states , plus the District of Columbia , that allow elective abortion coverage .
In total , these states offer 1,296 plans , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
Eight states fail to offer a single pro-life alternative insurance plan on the ACA marketplace , several of them due to state legislative mandates .
Fortunately , 26 states have exercised their option under the ACA to bar from their exchanges any plans that cover abortion beyond the limited exceptions under the Hyde Amendment—that is , in cases where the life of the mother is at risk , rape , or incest .
Now 10 years old , the Affordable Care Act needs to be revisited .
It covers fewer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors estimated would be helped .
Rather than chase the Little Sisters of the Poor with mandates to provide no-cost coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients for their employees , Congress should apply the Hyde Amendment permanently and pursue support for patient-centered , life-affirming plans .
These plans should meet the needs of subscribers at all stages of life .
Congress should also ensure that every health care plan has full transparency , so purchasers are aware of any controversial practices the plan covers .
The ACA ’ s requirement that abortion premiums be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enforced .
Conscience is a key element of a free and robust society in every sector , but especially health care .
A decade on from enactment of the Affordable Care Act , the need for patient- and family-centered alternatives in health care is more acute than ever .

Another open season has come and gone in which eligible Americans could choose from a narrow array of federally subsidized health care plans under the Affordable Care Act.
Despite the ACA’s manifest gaps and failures, a recent poll from the left-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation found that a solid majority—55%—of respondents have a favorable perception of the law. That result may be due in part to a feature of the law most have heard about and support: its ban on private insurers denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
The ACA is much more than that provision, however. By almost any measure, the law has fallen short of its objectives. It included features that proved unpopular or unsustainable, led to a decade-long court battle with—of all groups—an order of Catholic nuns devoted to the poor, and it subsidized elective abortion without subscribers’ knowledge in violation of what the law plainly requires.
The ACA was modeled in part on a Massachusetts health plan that created a statewide exchange, or marketplace, offering a menu of plans individuals and families could choose from, with gradations of coverage and cost. The ACA contained a mandate, since nullified by Congress, that each individual and family have a plan in force year-round.
But a withering report earlier this year from The Heritage Foundation underscores just how far short the law has fallen.
The promise of the ACA was better coverage at lower cost. Everyone remembers President Barack Obama’s sober pledge that American families would enjoy $2,500 in annual savings on their premiums and be able to keep their doctors. The Heritage report shows, instead, that in just five years, from 2013 to 2018, the average monthly premium paid by an individual rose from $244 to $550 a month, a more than 125% increase.
At the same time, the mid-tier quality plan on the federal exchange saw its annual deductible rise by more than $1,000. Provider networks, in turn, typically shrank.
Putative innovations under the ACA fared no better. The year 2020 saw the end of multi-state plans. These were private plans sold on the marketplace by insurance companies under contract with the federal government that were supposed to attract more subscribers while lowering costs.
In addition, the federal Multi-State Plan Program was required to guarantee individuals and families both a pro-life option and an elective abortion option in the states where they existed.
But multi-state plans proved unpopular with insurance companies, as became embarrassingly apparent when the number of multi-state plans was reduced from 203 to two between 2017 and 2019, and finally nonexistent this year. Co-op plans seem headed for the same fate.
Today, most U.S. counties have only one or two exchange plans. These are the plans for which federal premium tax credits are available.
The tax credits mean that abortion coverage is being subsidized with tax dollars in many instances. Just how often this occurs has been a regular focus of Charlotte Lozier Institute and Family Research Council—this year joined by The Heritage Foundation.
What we found for the 2021 plan year continues to be disturbing.
There are 24 states, plus the District of Columbia, that allow elective abortion coverage. In total, these states offer 1,296 plans, and a full 69% of them—892 plans—cover elective abortion. Eight states fail to offer a single pro-life alternative insurance plan on the ACA marketplace, several of them due to state legislative mandates.
Fortunately, 26 states have exercised their option under the ACA to bar from their exchanges any plans that cover abortion beyond the limited exceptions under the Hyde Amendment—that is, in cases where the life of the mother is at risk, rape, or incest.
Now 10 years old, the Affordable Care Act needs to be revisited. It covers fewer than half the estimated 24 million people its authors estimated would be helped.
Rather than chase the Little Sisters of the Poor with mandates to provide no-cost coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients for their employees, Congress should apply the Hyde Amendment permanently and pursue support for patient-centered, life-affirming plans. These plans should meet the needs of subscribers at all stages of life.
Congress should also ensure that every health care plan has full transparency, so purchasers are aware of any controversial practices the plan covers. The ACA’s requirement that abortion premiums be paid separately—now enjoined by a federal court—should be enforced.
Conscience is a key element of a free and robust society in every sector, but especially health care. A decade on from enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the need for patient- and family-centered alternatives in health care is more acute than ever.