dailysignal--2020-11-04--Arizona Voters Approve Proposition 207 to Legalize Recreational Marijuana Products

Arizona voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana products Tuesday , allowing individuals over 21 to legally possess up to 28 grams of cannabis and smaller quantities of concentrates , The Associated Press reported .
Proposition 207 followed four years after a proposal to legalize recreational marijuana use was defeated , the AP reported .
Republican lawmakers previously rejected changes to the state ’ s strict marijuana laws .
“ This shows they ’ ve been out of step on this issue in two ways in terms of people ’ s opinions about the product itself and the personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just the need for criminal justice reform in Arizona , ” Proposition 207 Committee Chairman Chad Campbell said , the AP reported .
Nearly 60 % of individuals voted in favor of Proposition 207 , with just over 40 % of people voting against the measure , according to the Arizona secretary of state ’ s unofficial tally of results with 99 % of precincts reporting .
The measure will be instituted after the election results are certified , which takes around a month , the AP reported .
The proposition legalizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to grow plants .
A 16 % excise tax on marijuana under the Smart and Safe Arizona Act could add a predicted $ 255 million in new revenue when combined with sales tax annually , the AP reported .
The funds will go to police and fire agencies , public health and criminal justice systems , and transportation projects .
Supporters of the proposition said legalization would reduce smuggling and illegal sales while advocating quality control through state testing , the AP reported .
Opponents argued that legalization would increase teen use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s going to be very important , especially for parents and employers , to really read carefully , understand that this is higher potency marijuana that is going to be available , and their options are going to be limited now that it has been legalized , ” Arizonans for Health and Public Safety spokeswoman Lisa James said , the AP reported .
New Jersey and South Dakota voters also approved the recreational use of marijuana in the general election Tuesday , the AP reported .
Medicinal marijuana propositions passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of this original content , email [ email protected ]

Arizona voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana products Tuesday, allowing individuals over 21 to legally possess up to 28 grams of cannabis and smaller quantities of concentrates, The Associated Press reported.
Proposition 207 followed four years after a proposal to legalize recreational marijuana use was defeated, the AP reported. Republican lawmakers previously rejected changes to the state’s strict marijuana laws.
“This shows they’ve been out of step on this issue in two ways in terms of people’s opinions about the product itself and the personal use of this product and, secondly, just the need for criminal justice reform in Arizona,” Proposition 207 Committee Chairman Chad Campbell said, the AP reported.
Legal marijuana is becoming the American norm as ballot measures passed Tuesday in Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota https://t.co/HZxuAhNtiN — Bloomberg (@business) November 4, 2020
Nearly 60% of individuals voted in favor of Proposition 207, with just over 40% of people voting against the measure, according to the Arizona secretary of state’s unofficial tally of results with 99% of precincts reporting.
The measure will be instituted after the election results are certified, which takes around a month, the AP reported. The proposition legalizes retail sales of marijuana and allows people to grow plants.
A 16% excise tax on marijuana under the Smart and Safe Arizona Act could add a predicted $255 million in new revenue when combined with sales tax annually, the AP reported. The funds will go to police and fire agencies, public health and criminal justice systems, and transportation projects.
Supporters of the proposition said legalization would reduce smuggling and illegal sales while advocating quality control through state testing, the AP reported. Opponents argued that legalization would increase teen use and make roads and workplaces less safe.
“It’s going to be very important, especially for parents and employers, to really read carefully, understand that this is higher potency marijuana that is going to be available, and their options are going to be limited now that it has been legalized,” Arizonans for Health and Public Safety spokeswoman Lisa James said, the AP reported.
New Jersey and South Dakota voters also approved the recreational use of marijuana in the general election Tuesday, the AP reported. Medicinal marijuana propositions passed in South Dakota and Mississippi.
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 of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-11-03--The Science Is Not Settled on COVID-19 Guidelines

Dr. David Nabarro , a special envoy of the World Health Organization on the coronavirus pandemic , recently warned that lockdowns should “ not be used [ as ] a primary means of control of [ COVID-19 ] .
The only time [ they are ] justified is to buy you time to reorganize , regroup , and rebalance your resources.
” State officials , such as those in California and New York , continue to impose oppressive lockdowns and seem to show little concern for the many consequences of these government restrictions .
Instead of imposing draconian restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach that would protect public health and ensure the lives and livelihoods of all citizens .
Data is accumulating on the consequences of extended lockdowns .
Unnecessary suffering and death is occurring from drug overdoses , suicides , and untreated medical conditions .
Despair , poverty , and mental health issues are also a tragedy , and they are aggravated by poor pandemic policies .
The burden is on the state to justify the need for the measures .
Severe restrictions should only be imposed as a last resort when lesser restrictive measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
With an estimated lower infection fatality ratio than expected in all age groups , and a median infection fatality ration of 0.05 % in people under 70 years old , it is reasonable to consider new strategies with fewer restrictive guidelines .
Three well-known and renowned scientists from Oxford , Harvard , and Stanford universities , with combined expertise in epidemiology , virology , vaccine development , and infectious disease modeling , recently authored one such approach .
The Great Barrington Declaration outlines a strategy referred to as “ focused protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate negative effects of severe lockdowns on young people , the working class , and poor communities .
The declaration has been signed by more than 11,000 medical and public health scientists , over 33,000 medical practitioners , and more than 600,000 persons within the public .
This focused approach is getting pushback from other scientists who claim that such a policy position is based on “ a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.
” For example , the John Snow Memorandum has thus far been signed by more than 6,400 scientists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health officials should follow the science .
However , the science is not settled on COVID-19 policies or public health measures .
Debate continues globally as scientists and medical professionals reevaluate what are and are not practical and reasonable public health measures .
Likewise , policymakers are trying to grapple with what is and is not sound public policy and are trying to calibrate their policies in consideration of the impact of the pandemic on society as a whole .
To address these concerns , health authorities and public officials should reconsider current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond with sense of proportionality .
There is room for a safe adjustment to many of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines—some of which are more restrictive than those outlined by the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control .
Many countries across the world have implemented less restrictive measures than the U.S .
Relaxing select guidelines could improve compliance with public health measures , and the use of lockdowns as a primary measure should end .
If the CDC adjusted the social distancing guidelines to match the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 3.3 feet ) for social distancing , U.S. businesses and schools could increase capacity and minimize unnecessary quarantine and isolation of employees and students .
Many countries around the world are adhering to this distance and research suggests it is acceptable for prevention .
A distance of 1 meter would result in fewer unnecessary quarantines in the U.S. and improve resource availability for contact tracing .
Public health officials have informed the public that masks are a necessary measure to stop the spread of the virus .
Yet , quarantine guidelines for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those wearing masks .
Public health officials should consider mask adherence when requiring quarantine .
Since the average onset of COVID-19 symptoms is five to six days , and because the public was not complying with the 14-day quarantine guidance , France and Belgium recently took a pragmatic approach and reduced quarantine to seven days .
A change to quarantine requirements in the U.S. would address the punitive nature of quarantine and prevent avoidance of the health care system and testing .
Too many public health officials , especially at the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people at the start of the pandemic .
This mistrust stems from the refusal or inability of public health officials to share pertinent data , inconsistency in data reporting , and the use of misleading metrics .
A new approach to managing the pandemic—using reasonable , practical guidelines and appropriate metrics—is necessary to reduce the onerous burdens on the public , protect the rights of Americans , and reestablish trust in the public health system .

Dr. David Nabarro, a special envoy of the World Health Organization on the coronavirus pandemic, recently warned that lockdowns should “not be used [as] a primary means of control of [COVID-19]. The only time [they are] justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, and rebalance your resources.”
State officials, such as those in California and New York, continue to impose oppressive lockdowns and seem to show little concern for the many consequences of these government restrictions.
>>> 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.
Instead of imposing draconian restrictions, state officials should pursue a balanced approach—an approach that would protect public health and ensure the lives and livelihoods of all citizens.
Data is accumulating on the consequences of extended lockdowns. Unnecessary suffering and death is occurring from drug overdoses, suicides, and untreated medical conditions. Despair, poverty, and mental health issues are also a tragedy, and they are aggravated by poor pandemic policies.
The burden is on the state to justify the need for the measures. Severe restrictions should only be imposed as a last resort when lesser restrictive measures have failed and medical resources are at risk.
With an estimated lower infection fatality ratio than expected in all age groups, and a median infection fatality ration of 0.05% in people under 70 years old, it is reasonable to consider new strategies with fewer restrictive guidelines.
Three well-known and renowned scientists from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford universities, with combined expertise in epidemiology, virology, vaccine development, and infectious disease modeling, recently authored one such approach.
The Great Barrington Declaration outlines a strategy referred to as “focused protection,” which aims to address the legitimate negative effects of severe lockdowns on young people, the working class, and poor communities.
The declaration has been signed by more than 11,000 medical and public health scientists, over 33,000 medical practitioners, and more than 600,000 persons within the public.
This focused approach is getting pushback from other scientists who claim that such a policy position is based on “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.” For example, the John Snow Memorandum has thus far been signed by more than 6,400 scientists and health professionals.
Of course, public health officials should follow the science. However, the science is not settled on COVID-19 policies or public health measures. Debate continues globally as scientists and medical professionals reevaluate what are and are not practical and reasonable public health measures.
Likewise, policymakers are trying to grapple with what is and is not sound public policy and are trying to calibrate their policies in consideration of the impact of the pandemic on society as a whole.
To address these concerns, health authorities and public officials should reconsider current restrictions and guidelines to limit intrusion and respond with sense of proportionality.
There is room for a safe adjustment to many of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines—some of which are more restrictive than those outlined by the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
Many countries across the world have implemented less restrictive measures than the U.S. Relaxing select guidelines could improve compliance with public health measures, and the use of lockdowns as a primary measure should end.
If the CDC adjusted the social distancing guidelines to match the WHO recommendation of 1 meter (or about 3.3 feet) for social distancing, U.S. businesses and schools could increase capacity and minimize unnecessary quarantine and isolation of employees and students.
Many countries around the world are adhering to this distance and research suggests it is acceptable for prevention. A distance of 1 meter would result in fewer unnecessary quarantines in the U.S. and improve resource availability for contact tracing.
Public health officials have informed the public that masks are a necessary measure to stop the spread of the virus. Yet, quarantine guidelines for individuals not wearing masks are the same for those wearing masks. Public health officials should consider mask adherence when requiring quarantine.
Since the average onset of COVID-19 symptoms is five to six days, and because the public was not complying with the 14-day quarantine guidance, France and Belgium recently took a pragmatic approach and reduced quarantine to seven days.
A change to quarantine requirements in the U.S. would address the punitive nature of quarantine and prevent avoidance of the health care system and testing.
Too many public health officials, especially at the state level, damaged the trust of the American people at the start of the pandemic. This mistrust stems from the refusal or inability of public health officials to share pertinent data, inconsistency in data reporting, and the use of misleading metrics.
A new approach to managing the pandemic—using reasonable, practical guidelines and appropriate metrics—is necessary to reduce the onerous burdens on the public, protect the rights of Americans, and reestablish trust in the public health system.


dailysignal--2020-11-05--GOP Lawmakers Call on Pennsylvania Secretary of State to Resign Over Election Guidance

Two Pennsylvania state Republican lawmakers have asked Kathy Boockvar , Pennsylvania ’ s secretary of state , to step down over her handling of the 2020 election .
On Tuesday , state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman called for the secretary to resign .
“ Twice in the last two days , the Secretary of State has fundamentally altered the manner in which Pennsylvania ’ s election is being conducted , ” Scarnati and Corman said in a statement .
The senators detail two specific changes Scarnati made to Pennsylvania ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Scarnati and Corman , Boockvar told the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of October that any ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day would be “ segregated ” from other ballots .
But on Nov. 1 , she altered her instructions to the counties , telling them to count the late ballots “ as soon as possible upon receipt.
” “ In at least some counties , because of their machines , it ’ s not possible to both segregate and canvass ballots as directed , and this late-issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes will be commingled with votes received after 8 p.m. on Election Day , ” Scarnati and Corman wrote .
“ These later-returned votes remain the subject of litigation before the United States Supreme Court ” and thus must remain separate , they added .
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in October that ballots could be received and counted up to three days after the election .
The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but a 4-4 decision reverted the case back to the lower court ’ s ruling .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boockvar emailed to the counties the night before the election , asking them to provide information to candidate and political party representatives to contact individuals whose mail-in or absentee ballot had been set aside due to an error or irregularity .
The last minute nature of these instructions meant that they were not carried out consistently throughout the counties , the state senators argue .
But the greater concern regarding Boockvar ’ s directive is that “ the court ruled that is an issue for the legislature to decide , not for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corman said during a Wednesday press conference .
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer , a Democrat , wrote in the majority opinion for Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar Sept. 8 that to the “ extent that a voter is at risk for having his or her ballot rejected due to minor errors … we agree that the decision to provide a ‘ notice and opportunity to cure ’ procedure to alleviate that risk is one best suited for the Legislature.
” Boockvar responded to calls for her resignation by saying Scarnati and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hindering a timely ballot count .
“ They don ’ t like the late counting of ballots because they don ’ t like anything that allows more eligible voters to be enfranchised , so let ’ s be clear about that , ” Boockvar said , according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .
“ Frankly , I think they ’ re the ones that should resign for not having allowed Pennsylvania and this nation to start pre-canvassing ballots early as 46 other states across the country have done , ” Boockvar said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot sooner if they had.
” Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly , a Republican , and five other plaintiffs have also filed a lawsuit against Boockvar for changing the voting guidelines so close to Election Day .

Two Pennsylvania state Republican lawmakers have asked Kathy Boockvar, Pennsylvania’s secretary of state, to step down over her handling of the 2020 election.
On Tuesday, state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman called for the secretary to resign.
“Twice in the last two days, the Secretary of State has fundamentally altered the manner in which Pennsylvania’s election is being conducted,” Scarnati and Corman said in a statement.
The senators detail two specific changes Scarnati made to Pennsylvania’s election process shortly before Nov. 3.
According to Scarnati and Corman, Boockvar told the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of October that any ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day would be “segregated” from other ballots. But on Nov. 1, she altered her instructions to the counties, telling them to count the late ballots “as soon as possible upon receipt.”
“In at least some counties, because of their machines, it’s not possible to both segregate and canvass ballots as directed, and this late-issued directive leaves open the possibility that timely votes will be commingled with votes received after 8 p.m. on Election Day, ” Scarnati and Corman wrote.
“These later-returned votes remain the subject of litigation before the United States Supreme Court” and thus must remain separate, they added.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in October that ballots could be received and counted up to three days after the election. The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but a 4-4 decision reverted the case back to the lower court’s ruling.
The other point of contention centers around instructions Boockvar emailed to the counties the night before the election, asking them to provide information to candidate and political party representatives to contact individuals whose mail-in or absentee ballot had been set aside due to an error or irregularity.
The last minute nature of these instructions meant that they were not carried out consistently throughout the counties, the state senators argue.
But the greater concern regarding Boockvar’s directive is that “the court ruled that is an issue for the legislature to decide, not for the courts or for the department,” Corman said during a Wednesday press conference.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, wrote in the majority opinion for Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar Sept. 8 that to the “extent that a voter is at risk for having his or her ballot rejected due to minor errors … we agree that the decision to provide a ‘notice and opportunity to cure’ procedure to alleviate that risk is one best suited for the Legislature.”
Boockvar responded to calls for her resignation by saying Scarnati and Corman are the ones who should resign for hindering a timely ballot count.
“They don’t like the late counting of ballots because they don’t like anything that allows more eligible voters to be enfranchised, so let’s be clear about that,” Boockvar said, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
“Frankly, I think they’re the ones that should resign for not having allowed Pennsylvania and this nation to start pre-canvassing ballots early as 46 other states across the country have done,” Boockvar said. “We would be getting results a lot sooner if they had.”
Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican, and five other plaintiffs have also filed a lawsuit against Boockvar for changing the voting guidelines so close to Election Day.


The Woke Lose

On Tuesday night , the American people spoke .
They spoke with millions upon millions of voices to produce the greatest presidential election voter turnout in over a century .
And they sent a variety of messages , most of them quite positive .
Voters rejected the prevailing narratives of a media determined to make the election a pure referendum on Donald Trump ’ s character .
Even if Joe Biden prevails eventually , he will likely be faced with a Republican Senate majority and a 2022 contest that will put the House of Representatives squarely in Republican sights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Pollsters were dramatically wrong in their national numbers and just as wrong in their Senate estimates .
Voters apparently aren ’ t all that interested in registering their opinions with elite firms who see them as social science subjects rather than as individuals .
Voters stuck to their guns in red states ; they stuck to their guns in blue states ; they stuck to their guns in purple states .
America is divided , and it is not growing less divided just out of the elitists ’ overwrought and hysterical mewling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country that is one-third conservative , one-third liberal , and one-third in the middle .
But one message resonated above all others : the outright rejection of the ongoing quest by Democrats and the media to paint Americans into racial categories and then declare demographics destiny .
Trump bucked four long years of Democrats and media members labeling both him and his supporters white supremacists , bigots , and homophobes .
He refused to be cowed by a media determined to paint him as a racist for refusing the faulty premise that America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increased share of black and Hispanic voters .
According to Edison exit polling , as of election night , Trump had gained two points with white women ; four points with black men and four points with black women ; three points with Latino men and three points with Latino women ; and five points in the “ other ” category .
In Florida , according to NBC News exit polling , Trump ’ s coalition included a 55 % share of the Cuban American vote , a 30 % share of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of “ other Latinos.
” Trump substantially elevated the national share of Latino and black voters for Republicans—and did so without pandering on illegal immigration or buying into the trite and ugly lies of the Black Lives Matter movement .
It wasn ’ t just Trump .
In California , a majority-minority state , voters refused to greenlight the racist Proposition 16 , which would have repealed a state constitutional provision banning racial discrimination , paving the way for reparations and affirmative action .
They did so by a margin of over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prop 16 advocates spent 12 times the money their opponents did .
All of this has sent woke thinkers into spasms of apoplexy .
The execrable Nikole Hannah-Jones , creator of the pseudo-historical 1619 Project , tweeted out that Latinos can no longer be considered a racial category , since some Cubans are “ white.
” Charles Blow of The New York Times tweeted , “ We are surrounded by racists.
” Actually , Hannah-Jones and Blow aren ’ t surrounded by racists .
They ’ re surrounded by people who reject racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethnicity ought to dictate voting pattern .
All of this is excellent news .
Americans spoke Tuesday night .
They spoke as Americans , as individuals , not as members of contrived interest groups .
And that is certainly worth celebrating .

On Tuesday night, the American people spoke. They spoke with millions upon millions of voices to produce the greatest presidential election voter turnout in over a century. And they sent a variety of messages, most of them quite positive.
Voters rejected the prevailing narratives of a media determined to make the election a pure referendum on Donald Trump’s character. Even if Joe Biden prevails eventually, he will likely be faced with a Republican Senate majority and a 2022 contest that will put the House of Representatives squarely in Republican sights.
Voters rejected the pollsters’ overconfident modeling: Pollsters were dramatically wrong in their national numbers and just as wrong in their Senate estimates. Voters apparently aren’t all that interested in registering their opinions with elite firms who see them as social science subjects rather than as individuals.
Voters stuck to their guns in red states; they stuck to their guns in blue states; they stuck to their guns in purple states. America is divided, and it is not growing less divided just out of the elitists’ overwrought and hysterical mewling about Trump. This is still a country that is one-third conservative, one-third liberal, and one-third in the middle.
But one message resonated above all others: the outright rejection of the ongoing quest by Democrats and the media to paint Americans into racial categories and then declare demographics destiny.
Trump bucked four long years of Democrats and media members labeling both him and his supporters white supremacists, bigots, and homophobes. He refused to be cowed by a media determined to paint him as a racist for refusing the faulty premise that America is institutionally bigoted. And he won an increased share of black and Hispanic voters.
According to Edison exit polling, as of election night, Trump had gained two points with white women; four points with black men and four points with black women; three points with Latino men and three points with Latino women; and five points in the “other” category.
In Florida, according to NBC News exit polling, Trump’s coalition included a 55% share of the Cuban American vote, a 30% share of the Puerto Rican vote, and 48% of “other Latinos.”
Trump substantially elevated the national share of Latino and black voters for Republicans—and did so without pandering on illegal immigration or buying into the trite and ugly lies of the Black Lives Matter movement.
It wasn’t just Trump. In California, a majority-minority state, voters refused to greenlight the racist Proposition 16, which would have repealed a state constitutional provision banning racial discrimination, paving the way for reparations and affirmative action. They did so by a margin of over 10 points and despite the fact that Prop 16 advocates spent 12 times the money their opponents did.
All of this has sent woke thinkers into spasms of apoplexy. The execrable Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the pseudo-historical 1619 Project, tweeted out that Latinos can no longer be considered a racial category, since some Cubans are “white.” Charles Blow of The New York Times tweeted, “We are surrounded by racists.”
Actually, Hannah-Jones and Blow aren’t surrounded by racists. They’re surrounded by people who reject racism and reject the implicitly racist belief that ethnicity ought to dictate voting pattern.
All of this is excellent news. Americans spoke Tuesday night. They spoke as Americans, as individuals, not as members of contrived interest groups. And that is certainly worth celebrating.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


The Disinformationists

A republic is not just a nation of laws .
It also relies on its good-faith watchdogs , such as honest pollsters , the media , and bipartisan institutions .
We still didn ’ t know the final result of Tuesday ’ s presidential election as of Wednesday night .
But there are lots of reasons to worry that something in America has gone terribly wrong .
Many of the mainstream pre-election polls predicted that Donald Trump would lose in a landslide .
He did not—to the shock of a host of propagandists .
A CNN poll had Trump down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week before the election .
An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late October claimed Joe Biden was leading in Wisconsin by 17 points .
That state ’ s voting ended up nearly even .
YouGov ’ s election model showed Biden prevailing with a landslide win in the Electoral College .
Progressive statistics guru Nate Silver had for weeks issued pseudo-scientific analyses of a Trump wipeout .
Pollsters were widely wrong in 2016 .
Yet they learned nothing about their flawed methodologies .
So how do they remain credible after 2020 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cynic might answer that polling no longer aims to offer scientific assessments of voter intentions .
Pollsters , the vast majority of them progressives , have become political operatives .
They see their task as ginning up political support for their candidates and demoralizing the opposition .
Some are profiteering as internal pollsters for political campaigns and special interests .
Never again will Americans believe these “ mainstream ” pollsters ’ predictions because they have been exposed as rank propagandists .
That bleak assessment won ’ t make much difference to pollsters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become and why they are no longer scientific prognosticators .
Big liberal donors sent cash infusions totaling some $ 500 million into Senate races across the country to destroy Republican incumbents and take back the Senate .
In the end , they may have failed to change many of the outcomes .
But did they really fail ?
Democrats dispelled the fossilized notion that “ dark money ” is dangerous to politics .
They are now the party of the ultra-rich , at war with the middle classes , whom they write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and chumps .
In that context , the staggering amounts of money were a valuable marker .
The liberal mega-rich are warning politicians that from now on , they will try to bury populist conservatives with so much oppositional cash that they would be wise to keep a low profile .
Winning is not the only aim of lavish liberal campaign funding .
Deterring future opponents by warning them to be moderate or go bankrupt is another motivation .
Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey seemed unapologetic that his company was systematically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recent hearing he talked to members of the Senate as if he were a 19th-century railroad baron .
Google has been accused of massaging its search results to favor progressive agendas .
During the final weeks of the campaign , social media platforms shut down accounts and censored ads and messages , providing an enormously valuable gift to Biden .
Silicon Valley , like the 19th-century oil , rail , and sugar trusts , sees no reason to hide its partisanship and clout .
The media coverage of the election was unsavory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University ’ s Shorenstein Center , which in an assessment of news coverage of Trump ’ s first 100 days in office found that 80 % of the coverage was negative .
As in the fashion of the Russian collusion hoax , the media for weeks on end revved up their engines for a seemingly certain Biden landslide victory .
They rarely cross-examined Biden on the issues .
And they certainly stayed clear of the Biden family influence-peddling scandal .
What do all these power players—big polling , big money , big tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than their partisanship and their powerful reach ?
One , they stereotypically represent a virtue-signaling coastal elite that feels its own moral superiority allows it to destroy its own professional standards .
Two , they worry little about popular pushback because they assume that their money , loaded surveys , and internet and media cartels create , rather than reflect , public opinion .
Three , while these elite cadres have enormous resources , they still are relatively unpopular .
Despite being outspent 2-to-1 , pronounced doomed by pollsters , often censored on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on television , Trump was neck and neck with Biden—a fact that a few days ago was deemed impossible .
If Biden wins , we should assume that in late January 2021 these same forces will regroup to frame a new post-election narrative .
Expect our Big Brothers to instruct Americans that the COVID-19 pandemic is mutating into little more than a bad flu .
The “ Biden vaccine ” and miraculous “ Biden recovery ” will have ended the need for Trump-era lockdowns .
And the rioting , looting , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappeared because the disuniter and inciter Donald Trump is now gone .

A republic is not just a nation of laws. It also relies on its good-faith watchdogs, such as honest pollsters, the media, and bipartisan institutions.
We still didn’t know the final result of Tuesday’s presidential election as of Wednesday night. But there are lots of reasons to worry that something in America has gone terribly wrong.
Many of the mainstream pre-election polls predicted that Donald Trump would lose in a landslide. He did not—to the shock of a host of propagandists.
A CNN poll had Trump down 12 percentage points nationally entering the final week before the election. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late October claimed Joe Biden was leading in Wisconsin by 17 points. That state’s voting ended up nearly even.
YouGov’s election model showed Biden prevailing with a landslide win in the Electoral College. Progressive statistics guru Nate Silver had for weeks issued pseudo-scientific analyses of a Trump wipeout.
Pollsters were widely wrong in 2016. Yet they learned nothing about their flawed methodologies. So how do they remain credible after 2020, when most were wildly off again?
A cynic might answer that polling no longer aims to offer scientific assessments of voter intentions.
Pollsters, the vast majority of them progressives, have become political operatives. They see their task as ginning up political support for their candidates and demoralizing the opposition. Some are profiteering as internal pollsters for political campaigns and special interests.
Never again will Americans believe these “mainstream” pollsters’ predictions because they have been exposed as rank propagandists.
That bleak assessment won’t make much difference to pollsters. They privately understand what their real mission has become and why they are no longer scientific prognosticators.
Big liberal donors sent cash infusions totaling some $500 million into Senate races across the country to destroy Republican incumbents and take back the Senate. In the end, they may have failed to change many of the outcomes.
But did they really fail?
Democrats dispelled the fossilized notion that “dark money” is dangerous to politics. They are now the party of the ultra-rich, at war with the middle classes, whom they write off as clingers, deplorables, dregs, and chumps.
In that context, the staggering amounts of money were a valuable marker. The liberal mega-rich are warning politicians that from now on, they will try to bury populist conservatives with so much oppositional cash that they would be wise to keep a low profile.
Winning is not the only aim of lavish liberal campaign funding. Deterring future opponents by warning them to be moderate or go bankrupt is another motivation.
Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey seemed unapologetic that his company was systematically censoring and de-platforming conservative users. In a recent hearing he talked to members of the Senate as if he were a 19th-century railroad baron.
Google has been accused of massaging its search results to favor progressive agendas. During the final weeks of the campaign, social media platforms shut down accounts and censored ads and messages, providing an enormously valuable gift to Biden.
Silicon Valley, like the 19th-century oil, rail, and sugar trusts, sees no reason to hide its partisanship and clout.
The media coverage of the election was unsavory. Journalists confirmed the findings of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, which in an assessment of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in office found that 80% of the coverage was negative.
As in the fashion of the Russian collusion hoax, the media for weeks on end revved up their engines for a seemingly certain Biden landslide victory. They rarely cross-examined Biden on the issues. And they certainly stayed clear of the Biden family influence-peddling scandal.
What do all these power players—big polling, big money, big tech, and big media—have in common other than their partisanship and their powerful reach?
One, they stereotypically represent a virtue-signaling coastal elite that feels its own moral superiority allows it to destroy its own professional standards.
Two, they worry little about popular pushback because they assume that their money, loaded surveys, and internet and media cartels create, rather than reflect, public opinion.
Three, while these elite cadres have enormous resources, they still are relatively unpopular. Despite being outspent 2-to-1, pronounced doomed by pollsters, often censored on social media, and demonized in print and on television, Trump was neck and neck with Biden—a fact that a few days ago was deemed impossible.
If Biden wins, we should assume that in late January 2021 these same forces will regroup to frame a new post-election narrative.
Expect our Big Brothers to instruct Americans that the COVID-19 pandemic is mutating into little more than a bad flu.
The “Biden vaccine” and miraculous “Biden recovery” will have ended the need for Trump-era lockdowns.
And the rioting, looting, and arson?
They will all have miraculously disappeared because the disuniter and inciter Donald Trump is now gone.
(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-11-06--Trump on Presidential Race: ‘They’re Trying to Steal an Election’

In remarks Thursday night , President Donald Trump argued that the outcome of the 2020 presidential election could be affected by voter fraud .
“ If you count the legal votes , I easily win , ” Trump said , speaking in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House .
“ If you count the illegal votes , they can try to steal the election from us.
” Later , Trump added , “ They ’ re trying to steal an election .
They ’ re trying to rig an election and we can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia , known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country easily , can not be responsible for engineering the outcome of a presidential race , ” the president said .
In Michigan , with over 98 % of the votes reported , former Vice President Joe Biden is leading Trump , 50.5 % to 47.9 % .
In Pennsylvania , with 94 % of the votes counted , Trump is leading Biden , 49.8 % to 48.9 % .
Alluding to states where ballots are still being counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ The voting apparatus of those states are run in all cases by Democrats.
” In Arizona , North Carolina , and Pennsylvania , the secretaries of state—Katie Hobbs , Elaine Marshall , and Kathy Boockvar—are Democrats .
In Georgia and Nevada , the secretaries of state , Brad Raffensperger and Barbara Cegavske , are both Republican .
“ We were winning in all the key locations by a lot , actually , and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret , and they wouldn ’ t allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Pennsylvania , the Trump campaign pursued , and won , a court case to allow closer observation of vote counting .
“ They want to find out how many votes they need , and then they seem to be able to find them .
They wait and wait and then they find them , ” Trump said , adding , “ It ’ s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided , too.
” A Pew Research Center poll , conducted in late July and early August , found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Biden voters wanted to vote in person .
In contrast , 56 % of Biden supporters and 17 % of Trump supporters preferred to vote by mail .
Trump criticized “ historic election interference from Big Media , Big Money , and Big Tech.
” The president was also critical of pollsters , saying , “ Media polling was election interference , in the truest sense of that word , by powerful special interests.
” “ These really phony polls … were designed to keep our voters at home , create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and diminish Republicans ’ ability to raise funds , ” Trump said .
“ They were … suppression polls .
”

In remarks Thursday night, President Donald Trump argued that the outcome of the 2020 presidential election could be affected by voter fraud.
“If you count the legal votes, I easily win,” Trump said, speaking in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House. “If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.”
Later, Trump added, “They’re trying to steal an election. They’re trying to rig an election and we can’t let that happen.”
“Detroit and Philadelphia, known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country easily, cannot be responsible for engineering the outcome of a presidential race,” the president said.
In Michigan, with over 98% of the votes reported, former Vice President Joe Biden is leading Trump, 50.5% to 47.9%. In Pennsylvania, with 94% of the votes counted, Trump is leading Biden, 49.8% to 48.9%.
Alluding to states where ballots are still being counted and the race is tight, Trump said, “The voting apparatus of those states are run in all cases by Democrats.”
In Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, the secretaries of state—Katie Hobbs, Elaine Marshall, and Kathy Boockvar—are Democrats. In Georgia and Nevada, the secretaries of state, Brad Raffensperger and Barbara Cegavske, are both Republican.
“We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually, and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret, and they wouldn’t allow legally permissible observers,” Trump added.
In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign pursued, and won, a court case to allow closer observation of vote counting.
“They want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait and then they find them,” Trump said, adding, “It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided, too.”
A Pew Research Center poll, conducted in late July and early August, found that 60% of Trump voters and 23% of Biden voters wanted to vote in person. In contrast, 56% of Biden supporters and 17% of Trump supporters preferred to vote by mail.
Trump criticized “historic election interference from Big Media, Big Money, and Big Tech.”
The president was also critical of pollsters, saying, “Media polling was election interference, in the truest sense of that word, by powerful special interests.”
“These really phony polls … were designed to keep our voters at home, create the illusion of momentum for Mr. Biden, and diminish Republicans’ ability to raise funds,” Trump said. “They were … suppression polls.”


dailysignal--2020-11-06--Is Voter Fraud Afoot? A Look at 7 Claims

As might be expected during the undecided presidential contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden , pundits and typical voters alike are voicing more concerns about voter fraud and unfair election practices .
Already numerous internet rumors have been proven wrong or lack evidence .
That doesn ’ t mean every assertion will prove to be without merit , however .
Conversely , some legitimate questions about ballot counting have enough evidence behind them to support litigation .
That doesn ’ t mean such questions won ’ t ultimately have satisfactory answers .
Here ’ s a sampling—based on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postelection chaos .
One popular claim circulating on social media and at least one viral email goes like this : “ Wisconsin magically now has more votes than registered voters.
” That essentially is a “ fake ” claim , said J. Christian Adams , president of the conservative-leaning election integrity watchdog group Public Interest Legal Foundation .
“ Wisconsin has same-day voter registration , so you are obviously always going to have more voters than registered voters , ” Adams told The Daily Signal .
Adams noted that by Thursday afternoon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for investigations into bogus rumors floating on the internet .
FactCheck.org determined that the number of registered voters as of Nov. 1 actually exceeded the actual voters Nov. 3 by 388,000 .
An example of a legitimate problem is in Maricopa County , Arizona , Adams said , where 11 voters are suing the county for not “ curing ” their vote , meaning not providing a new ballot when a ballot is somehow spoiled .
The lead client in the case , Laurie Aguilera , represented by the Public Interest Legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindicate her voting rights .
Aguilera is joined by 10 unnamed plaintiffs , dubbed “ Does I-X.
” The lawsuit asks the court to order that election officials identify and correct all ballots that were denied because poll workers had required voters to use Sharpie markers in filling out ballots .
Aguilera was issued a Sharpie to mark up her ballot on Election Day , according to the lawsuit .
That ’ s despite established state guidance that felt-tip writing utensils not be used .
Aguilera said she became alarmed when she noticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her ballot , according to the lawsuit .
Election officials instructed her to feed her ballot through the counting machine .
When the machine failed to accept her ballot , the attending poll worker cancelled the ballot and Aguilera ’ s request for a replacement ballot was denied , according to the lawsuit .
“ These voters were denied the right to vote .
Arizona election officials allegedly were part of the problem , and denial of the right to vote should not occur because of failures in the process of casting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public statement .
The suit asks that ballots denied because of the supplied Sharpies be identified and allowed to be cured ; that voters who were given felt-tip markers be given the chance to be present to observe the handling and adjudication of their ballots ; and that the court order their votes to be tabulated .
Maricopa County officials pushed back , saying that Sharpies in fact may be used , referring to an Election Day video that said ink could not bleed through ballots .
Another claim about Wisconsin is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden between 3:30 and 4:30 a.m. Wednesday morning .
The left-leaning PolitiFact identified a Facebook post as being the source of this rumor , which the social media site flagged .
PolitiFact called this claim “ false , ” quoting Reid Magney , a spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission , as stating , “ Absolutely no ballots were ‘ found.
’ ” Magney added : “ All of the election results that were reported in the early morning hours of Wednesday were valid ballots that were received by 8 p.m. on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aside from social media and a blog post , no major Republican or conservative figures have made a case for this claim .
A lawsuit filed Wednesday in Detroit asserts that Democratic observers are reviewing thousands of spoiled ballots without an Republican observer present , as required by law .
About 100 counting groups operating in Wayne County determined that ballots rejected by voting machines had to be reviewed .
State law allows a Democrat and Republican election observer to review each ineligible ballot and make a mutual determination of the voter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allege that only Democratic observers were correcting such ballots in violation of state law , the lawsuit says .
“ The law in Michigan requires Republican and Democrat observers , ” Phill Kline , a former Kansas attorney general who now directs the Amistad Project and represents the plaintiffs in the case , told The Daily Signal .
Kline said every ballot could be perfectly legitimate , but the public needs to have confidence in the process and so far , Wayne County has not been transparent .
“ The lawsuit is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
We need to know how the votes are being counted , ” Kline said .
“ We know they are violating state law .
That makes fraud easier.
” The suit calls for officials to quarantine the ballots until representatives of both parties have evaluated them .
Biden supporters assert that the charge of no Republican observers is “ unfounded.
” Another claim stated that Michigan at one point gained 138,339 ballots , all marked for Biden and none for Trump .
This didn ’ t require hostile fact-checking .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is false .
The Detroit Free Press reported that this rumor began when Matt Mackowiak , chairman of Texas ’ Travis County Republican Party , first tweeted that Biden received 100 % of newly counted votes .
An attachment showed two election maps .
But Mackowiak deleted the tweet and posted another tweet saying : “ I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county.
” It ’ s nearly impossible for such a thing to happen anywhere , said Hans von Spakovsky , manager of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation .
“ There are a lot of stories and rumors that turn out not to be true , ” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal .
“ If it was true that tens of thousands of votes appeared and every single one was for one candidate , that would of course raise grave suspicions , particularly this year when even black and Hispanic voters supported Trump in surprisingly high numbers .
In 2016 , Trump won 62 % of the vote in Antrim County , Michigan , in his race against Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county tabulated votes this week , Biden reportedly beat Trump by 3,000 votes .
Republicans at the local and national level , including American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp , flagged this development as unusual .
The questions got results when the Antrim County Clerk ’ s Office announced it would count the ballots manually .
The county has about 24,000 residents .
“ There is no way that we flipped from 62 % Trump in 2016 to upside-down this time around , ” said state Rep. Triston Cole , a Republican , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Interest Legal Foundation also filed a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania for failing to maintain and update voter rolls after finding 21,000 apparently deceased voters still on the rolls .
That does not mean anyone was falsely voting under the names .
However , critics have said unclean voter rolls present the opportunity for fraud .

As might be expected during the undecided presidential contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, pundits and typical voters alike are voicing more concerns about voter fraud and unfair election practices.
Already numerous internet rumors have been proven wrong or lack evidence. That doesn’t mean every assertion will prove to be without merit, however.
Conversely, some legitimate questions about ballot counting have enough evidence behind them to support litigation. That doesn’t mean such questions won’t ultimately have satisfactory answers.
Here’s a sampling—based on what currently is known—of seven claims in the postelection chaos.
1. Wisconsin Votes vs. Registered Voters?
One popular claim circulating on social media and at least one viral email goes like this: “Wisconsin magically now has more votes than registered voters.”
That essentially is a “fake” claim, said J. Christian Adams, president of the conservative-leaning election integrity watchdog group Public Interest Legal Foundation.
“Wisconsin has same-day voter registration, so you are obviously always going to have more voters than registered voters,” Adams told The Daily Signal.
Adams noted that by Thursday afternoon, he had gotten at least 20 emails calling for investigations into bogus rumors floating on the internet.
FactCheck.org determined that the number of registered voters as of Nov. 1 actually exceeded the actual voters Nov. 3 by 388,000.
2. No Sharpies in Arizona?
An example of a legitimate problem is in Maricopa County, Arizona, Adams said, where 11 voters are suing the county for not “curing” their vote, meaning not providing a new ballot when a ballot is somehow spoiled.
The lead client in the case, Laurie Aguilera, represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, is asking a court to vindicate her voting rights. Aguilera is joined by 10 unnamed plaintiffs, dubbed “Does I-X.”
The lawsuit asks the court to order that election officials identify and correct all ballots that were denied because poll workers had required voters to use Sharpie markers in filling out ballots.
Aguilera was issued a Sharpie to mark up her ballot on Election Day, according to the lawsuit. That’s despite established state guidance that felt-tip writing utensils not be used.
Aguilera said she became alarmed when she noticed ink bleeding to the other side of her ballot, according to the lawsuit. Election officials instructed her to feed her ballot through the counting machine.
When the machine failed to accept her ballot, the attending poll worker cancelled the ballot and Aguilera’s request for a replacement ballot was denied, according to the lawsuit.
“These voters were denied the right to vote. Arizona election officials allegedly were part of the problem, and denial of the right to vote should not occur because of failures in the process of casting a ballot,” Adams said in a public statement.
The suit asks that ballots denied because of the supplied Sharpies be identified and allowed to be cured; that voters who were given felt-tip markers be given the chance to be present to observe the handling and adjudication of their ballots; and that the court order their votes to be tabulated.
Maricopa County officials pushed back, saying that Sharpies in fact may be used, referring to an Election Day video that said ink could not bleed through ballots.
Did you know we use Sharpies in the Vote Centers so the ink doesn’t smudge as ballots are counted onsite? New offset columns on the ballots means bleed through won’t impact your vote! Find a location before the polls close at 7 p.m. today at https://t.co/8YEmXbWyRL. pic.twitter.com/KKG2O8rQhf — Maricopa County Elections Department (@MaricopaVote) November 3, 2020
3. Wisconsin Ballot Dump?
Another claim about Wisconsin is that someone discovered more than 112,000 ballots marked for Biden between 3:30 and 4:30 a.m. Wednesday morning.
The left-leaning PolitiFact identified a Facebook post as being the source of this rumor, which the social media site flagged.
PolitiFact called this claim “false,” quoting Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, as stating, “Absolutely no ballots were ‘found.’”
Magney added: “All of the election results that were reported in the early morning hours of Wednesday were valid ballots that were received by 8 p.m. on Election Day according to the law.”
Aside from social media and a blog post, no major Republican or conservative figures have made a case for this claim.
4. Who’s Counting in Michigan?
A lawsuit filed Wednesday in Detroit asserts that Democratic observers are reviewing thousands of spoiled ballots without an Republican observer present, as required by law.
About 100 counting groups operating in Wayne County determined that ballots rejected by voting machines had to be reviewed.
State law allows a Democrat and Republican election observer to review each ineligible ballot and make a mutual determination of the voter’s intent. However, several witnesses allege that only Democratic observers were correcting such ballots in violation of state law, the lawsuit says.
“The law in Michigan requires Republican and Democrat observers,” Phill Kline, a former Kansas attorney general who now directs the Amistad Project and represents the plaintiffs in the case, told The Daily Signal.
Kline said every ballot could be perfectly legitimate, but the public needs to have confidence in the process and so far, Wayne County has not been transparent.
“The lawsuit is only asking to open the record to the public. We need to know how the votes are being counted,” Kline said. “We know they are violating state law. That makes fraud easier.”
The suit calls for officials to quarantine the ballots until representatives of both parties have evaluated them.
Biden supporters assert that the charge of no Republican observers is “unfounded.”
5. 138,000 for Biden, 0 for Trump?
Another claim stated that Michigan at one point gained 138,339 ballots, all marked for Biden and none for Trump.
This didn’t require hostile fact-checking. The person who first made the assertion admits it is false.
The Detroit Free Press reported that this rumor began when Matt Mackowiak, chairman of Texas’ Travis County Republican Party, first tweeted that Biden received 100% of newly counted votes. An attachment showed two election maps.
But Mackowiak deleted the tweet and posted another tweet saying: “I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county.”
This tweet was taken and share honestly. I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county.
I have deleted the original tweet. pic.twitter.com/NXQINWDbEH — Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) November 4, 2020
It’s nearly impossible for such a thing to happen anywhere, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.
“There are a lot of stories and rumors that turn out not to be true,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “If it was true that tens of thousands of votes appeared and every single one was for one candidate, that would of course raise grave suspicions, particularly this year when even black and Hispanic voters supported Trump in surprisingly high numbers.
6. Huge Biden Flip of Trump County?
In 2016, Trump won 62% of the vote in Antrim County, Michigan, in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Yet, when the county tabulated votes this week, Biden reportedly beat Trump by 3,000 votes.
Republicans at the local and national level, including American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp, flagged this development as unusual.
Have Republican votes mysteriously disappeared in Antrim County Michigan and it has become a strong Biden territory? Odd that @GovWhitmer owns property in the county – coincidence? #StopTheSteal https://t.co/etfrhdyLRW — Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) November 4, 2020
The questions got results when the Antrim County Clerk’s Office announced it would count the ballots manually. The county has about 24,000 residents.
“There is no way that we flipped from 62% Trump in 2016 to upside-down this time around,” said state Rep. Triston Cole, a Republican, according to Interlochen Public Radio.
7. Dead Voters?
The Public Interest Legal Foundation also filed a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania for failing to maintain and update voter rolls after finding 21,000 apparently deceased voters still on the rolls.
That does not mean anyone was falsely voting under the names. However, critics have said unclean voter rolls present the opportunity for fraud.
The lawsuit in Pennsylvania states:


dailysignal--2020-11-06--Democrats Grapple With Impact of ‘Socialist’ Label

Jinhui Chen is a 47-year-old immigrant from China who says he went through the steps to become a U.S. citizen last year so he could vote for Donald Trump .
Chen came to this country 21 years ago as a student at the University of Cincinnati .
He went on to study at Northwestern University before earning his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Michigan .
He settled down , married a U.S. citizen , and had two sons , now ages 11 and 16 .
He was living the American dream , without going through the formality that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizenship .
But the prevailing political winds helped change his mind .
“ I really appreciate this country for giving me an opportunity to go to school and get a better education , ” he told RealClearPolitics after attending a rally with Vice President Mike Pence in Peoria , Arizona , last month .
“ I don ’ t want to let it turn into the country where I came from , communist China , where they repress freedom of speech , they intimidate people who want to talk about their ideas.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life for his sons here in the United States is filled with so many opportunities to work hard and succeed .
He marvels at the rights his children have to express themselves freely without fear of societal or government repercussions .
“ My children can be independent .
They can share ideas .
They can have different opinions [ than mine ] , ” he said .
“ Even though we might argue sometimes , I don ’ t want to let them to live in a socialist or communist country , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day stretches into Election Week and the nation waits for resolution in the presidential contest , there ’ s been plenty of time for recriminations and rationalizations about what went wrong for each side .
Democrats and some in the media have tried to explain away the inroads Trump made with Latino voters in Florida and elsewhere by claiming that his campaign and conservative outside groups targeted Hispanics in the Sunshine State with a massive “ disinformation ” campaign designed to falsely tie Joe Biden to socialism .
“ False News Targeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times headline asserted the morning after Election Day .
“ Election disinformation is flying in Spanish and English , ” charged the Los Angeles Times last week .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , the leader of “ the squad ” —a group of younger , far-left members of Congress who embrace the socialist label and have pushed their agenda on the party over the last two years—fired off emergency flares in the final days of the campaign .
“ There is a massive Spanish-language disinformation campaign happening on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned on Twitter .
“ Please check in on your parents and family and , if possible , coach them to identify questionable content.
” As election results in Florida ’ s heavily Latino Miami-Dade County showed strong support for Trump , CBS ’ Maria Elena Salinas complained about “ disinformation ” from the Trump campaign and allied groups in Florida , which successfully “ scared ” Latinos into voting for the president over fears of Democrats ’ socialist policy plans .
The socialism that Sen. Bernie Sanders and other prominent Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autocratic , repressive brand of the Castros in Cuba or the abuses of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro , Salinas and others argued .
The backlash was swift .
Many members of immigrant communities were offended by the idea that their support for Trump was the result of media manipulation of a vulnerable , uneducated community rather than a wholesale rejection of the government-heavy leftist policies that Ocasio-Cortez embraces .
“ It ’ s called Venezuelans , AOC , ” Daniel Di Martino , who identified himself as an economics Ph.D. candidate at Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We come from a place where your policies were implemented and we ’ re determined to stop you and anyone else from destroying the United States and turning it into another Venezuela.
” Trump ’ s hard-line immigration policies were supposed to lead to his demise in states with large Latino populations .
Instead of sinking his reelection hopes , however , in several of these states Latinos provided the margin to keep those hopes alive .
This was especially true in Florida where Cuban Americans and members of the Venezuelan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the socialist patterns of the governments they fled .
And as Chen and others attest , the anti-socialism message wasn ’ t just resonating in Latino communities .
Several prominent Democrats have argued it likely cost them gains even in House districts with much smaller minority populations and prevented anti-Trump momentum from building into a blue wave resulting in a Biden landslide , gains in the House , and a decisive Democratic Senate takeover .
Centrist House Democrats responded forcefully during a caucus-wide conference call Thursday , blasting Ocasio-Cortez and others for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party seats .
Rep. Abigail Spanberger , who is still fighting for her political life in a too-close-to-call reelection bid in Virginia , reportedly told her colleagues never to utter that word “ socialism ” again .
She also lambasted the Democratic campaign strategy as a failure , arguing that calls to defund the police and the pushing of other far-left agenda items cost Democrats races “ we shouldn ’ t have lost.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to push back against the claims .
“ I do disagree , Abigail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi interjected .
“ We won the House.
” That ’ s little solace for House Democrats who lost their seats .
Trump outperformed most national and battleground state polls and remained competitive in the “ blue wall ” of the upper Midwest—even during a global pandemic that collapsed a soaring economy .
If Biden emerges from the legal morass as the victor , he won ’ t have a national mandate among the working-class Americans who formed the backbone of the Democratic Party when the former vice president started his political career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workers ’ party , while casting Democrats as the coddlers of Big Tech , Hollywood , and other elites .
In response , some influential Democrats are calling for a party reckoning .
“ @ JoeBiden will get the 270 [ electoral votes ] he needs .
But the ‘ socialist ’ attacks worked—while we rolled our eyes .
A rejection of elites , ” tweeted Joe Trippi , a veteran campaign strategist who worked for former California Gov .
Jerry Brown and most notably as manager of Howard Dean ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who has read polls for 40 years—it ’ s all broken .
People don ’ t want to hear it—but we have to come out of our silos and talk to GOP voters .
”

Jinhui Chen is a 47-year-old immigrant from China who says he went through the steps to become a U.S. citizen last year so he could vote for Donald Trump.
Chen came to this country 21 years ago as a student at the University of Cincinnati. He went on to study at Northwestern University before earning his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Michigan. He settled down, married a U.S. citizen, and had two sons, now ages 11 and 16. He was living the American dream, without going through the formality that would grant him all the rights of citizenship.
But the prevailing political winds helped change his mind.
“I really appreciate this country for giving me an opportunity to go to school and get a better education,” he told RealClearPolitics after attending a rally with Vice President Mike Pence in Peoria, Arizona, last month. “I don’t want to let it turn into the country where I came from, communist China, where they repress freedom of speech, they intimidate people who want to talk about their ideas.”
Now an Arizona resident, Chen says life for his sons here in the United States is filled with so many opportunities to work hard and succeed. He marvels at the rights his children have to express themselves freely without fear of societal or government repercussions.
“My children can be independent. They can share ideas. They can have different opinions [than mine],” he said. “Even though we might argue sometimes, I don’t want to let them to live in a socialist or communist country, then repeat my life in China.”
As Election Day stretches into Election Week and the nation waits for resolution in the presidential contest, there’s been plenty of time for recriminations and rationalizations about what went wrong for each side.
Democrats and some in the media have tried to explain away the inroads Trump made with Latino voters in Florida and elsewhere by claiming that his campaign and conservative outside groups targeted Hispanics in the Sunshine State with a massive “disinformation” campaign designed to falsely tie Joe Biden to socialism.
“False News Targeting Latinos Trails the Election,” one New York Times headline asserted the morning after Election Day.
“Election disinformation is flying in Spanish and English,” charged the Los Angeles Times last week.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the leader of “the squad”—a group of younger, far-left members of Congress who embrace the socialist label and have pushed their agenda on the party over the last two years—fired off emergency flares in the final days of the campaign.
“There is a massive Spanish-language disinformation campaign happening on social media networks targeting our election,” Ocasio-Cortez warned on Twitter. “Please check in on your parents and family and, if possible, coach them to identify questionable content.”
As election results in Florida’s heavily Latino Miami-Dade County showed strong support for Trump, CBS’ Maria Elena Salinas complained about “disinformation” from the Trump campaign and allied groups in Florida, which successfully “scared” Latinos into voting for the president over fears of Democrats’ socialist policy plans.
The socialism that Sen. Bernie Sanders and other prominent Democrats are pushing is not the same as the autocratic, repressive brand of the Castros in Cuba or the abuses of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro, Salinas and others argued.
The backlash was swift. Many members of immigrant communities were offended by the idea that their support for Trump was the result of media manipulation of a vulnerable, uneducated community rather than a wholesale rejection of the government-heavy leftist policies that Ocasio-Cortez embraces.
“It’s called Venezuelans, AOC,” Daniel Di Martino, who identified himself as an economics Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, tweeted back to her. “We come from a place where your policies were implemented and we’re determined to stop you and anyone else from destroying the United States and turning it into another Venezuela.”
Trump’s hard-line immigration policies were supposed to lead to his demise in states with large Latino populations. Instead of sinking his reelection hopes, however, in several of these states Latinos provided the margin to keep those hopes alive.
This was especially true in Florida where Cuban Americans and members of the Venezuelan and Colombian immigrant communities are all too familiar with the socialist patterns of the governments they fled.
And as Chen and others attest, the anti-socialism message wasn’t just resonating in Latino communities. Several prominent Democrats have argued it likely cost them gains even in House districts with much smaller minority populations and prevented anti-Trump momentum from building into a blue wave resulting in a Biden landslide, gains in the House, and a decisive Democratic Senate takeover.
Centrist House Democrats responded forcefully during a caucus-wide conference call Thursday, blasting Ocasio-Cortez and others for advancing an agenda they believe cost the party seats.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, who is still fighting for her political life in a too-close-to-call reelection bid in Virginia, reportedly told her colleagues never to utter that word “socialism” again.
She also lambasted the Democratic campaign strategy as a failure, arguing that calls to defund the police and the pushing of other far-left agenda items cost Democrats races “we shouldn’t have lost.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to push back against the claims. “I do disagree, Abigail, that it was a failure,” Pelosi interjected. “We won the House.”
That’s little solace for House Democrats who lost their seats.
Trump outperformed most national and battleground state polls and remained competitive in the “blue wall” of the upper Midwest—even during a global pandemic that collapsed a soaring economy.
If Biden emerges from the legal morass as the victor, he won’t have a national mandate among the working-class Americans who formed the backbone of the Democratic Party when the former vice president started his political career.
Republicans are claiming the mantle of the workers’ party, while casting Democrats as the coddlers of Big Tech, Hollywood, and other elites. In response, some influential Democrats are calling for a party reckoning.
“@JoeBiden will get the 270 [electoral votes] he needs. But the ‘socialist’ attacks worked—while we rolled our eyes. A rejection of elites,” tweeted Joe Trippi, a veteran campaign strategist who worked for former California Gov. Jerry Brown and most notably as manager of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. “And as someone who has read polls for 40 years—it’s all broken. People don’t want to hear it—but we have to come out of our silos and talk to GOP voters.”
Originally published by RealClearPolitics