westernjournal--2020-11-05--Tom Cotton Drops the Hammer on NYT, Exposes Liberal Media After Disastrous Election Predictions

After yet another mainstream media failure of accurately describing the state of the nation heading into a presidential election , journalists like the New York Times columnist David Brooks were forced to acknowledge just how badly their profession is failing at its chief job .
“ Our job in the media is to capture reality so that when reality voices itself , like last night , people aren ’ t surprised , ” Brooks wrote in a Twitter post .
“ Pretty massive failure .
We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country.
” Arkansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks wasn ’ t really looking for answers — he ’ s the kind who rarely is , for the unfamiliar .
Cotton gave one anyway .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question “ Maybe don ’ t fire your editor for publishing conservatives , ” he wrote in response .
When Cotton — with only one telling comment — took The Times , David Brooks and the rest of the media to task for getting it so spectacularly wrong for the second presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not have been aware of the history behind his remarks .
For the uninitiated , I ’ ll handle it in ( mostly ) reverse order .
The New York Times front page , Nov. 5 , 2020 : “ Tensions Rise as States Release More Results in Tight Race ” We were advised the 2020 election could drag on for days — months , even .
Given the exigencies of 2o2o and several near disasters during the primary season ( remember the Iowa caucuses ) , there were fears the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections wouldn ’ t be able to effectively handle the vote .
How smoothly that process went will be discovered in the days and weeks to come .
For the most part , the country seems to have avoided the kind of train wreck some ( myself included ) feared would happen in terms of getting ballots in and getting them counted .
The reason it ’ s dragging on is — lo and behold — all of those outlier pollsters who said this was a close race were right .
Again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t supposed to be this way .
In its final pre-election analysis , the RealClearPolitics average had the Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a 7.2 percent national lead over President Donald Trump .
Yet again , the polling industry missed — both nationally and in swing states — by a relatively wide margin .
The former vice president still had the clearer path to the presidency as of Thursday morning , but it was never supposed to be this tight .
Don ’ t just take my word for it , though .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Says 'Oh God ' When She Realizes Trump Is Gaining in Arizona The New York Times , Nov. 2 , 2020 : “ What Trump Needs to Win : A Polling Error Much Bigger Than 2016 ’ s ” From The Times ’ Nate Cohn , a national correspondent who focuses on polling and demographics : “ If the polls are right , Joe Biden could post the most decisive victory in a presidential election in three and a half decades , surpassing Bill Clinton ’ s win in 1996 , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big ‘ if.
’ “ The indelible memory of 2016 ’ s polling misfire , when Donald J. Trump trailed in virtually every pre-election poll and yet swept the battleground states and won the Electoral College , has hovered over the 2020 campaign .
Mr. Biden ’ s unusually persistent lead has done little to dispel questions about whether the polls could be off again .
“ Pollsters would have far fewer excuses than they did for missing the mark four years ago .
Mr. Trump ’ s upset victory was undoubtedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with credibility , that the polling wasn ’ t quite as bad as it seemed.
” Then Cohn claimed that there were a few reasons history wouldn ’ t repeat itself .
First among them ?
“ The national polls show a decisive Biden win .
Four years ago , the national polls showed Mrs. Clinton with a lead of around four percentage points , quite close to her eventual 2.1-point margin in the national vote .
This year , the national polls show Mr. Biden up by 8.5 percentage points , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveys generally show him ahead by even more.
” Cohn ’ s output for The Times and on Twitter has been prodigious over the past 72 hours , so he hasn ’ t found the time for a mea culpa yet .
That ’ s what we have this guy for : Brooks is a dishwater liberal kept on The Times ’ payroll so the hopelessly biased “ newspaper of record ” has a nominal conservative on staff .
Some things are so obvious , however , that even Brooks can get them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons behind this phenomenon , however — which is curious , because I could have ventured a guess at one .
Cotton had one ready to go .
Thanks to a column Cotton had published on The Times opinion pages in early June , and the aftershocks that followed it , the senator has had a unique view of the Gray Lady ’ s operations .
And they ’ re not pretty .
The New York Times , June 3 , 2020 : “ Tom Cotton : Send In the Troops ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 : “ James Bennet Resigns as New York Times Opinion Editor ” The New York Post , July 31 , 2020 : “ New York Times union wants ‘ sensitivity reads ’ as part of editorial process ” In the early days of the unrest touched off by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody , The Times published a Cotton opinion piece arguing that the circumstances called for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and send in federal troops to restore order .
Cotton , not incorrectly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with George Floyd , whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence .
On the contrary , nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction , with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd ’ s death for their own anarchic purposes.
” “ These rioters , if not subdued , not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives , ” Cotton wrote .
“ Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason the federal government was needed to keep the peace , Cotton wrote , was due to “ delusional politicians in other cities [ who ] refuse to do what ’ s necessary to uphold the rule of law.
” He also noted the Insurrection Act had been used in situations like the 1992 Los Angeles riots .
“ Not surprisingly , public opinion is on the side of law enforcement and law and order , not insurrectionists .
According to a recent poll , 58 percent of registered voters , including nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-Americans , would support cities ’ calling in the military to ‘ address protests and demonstrations ’ that are in ‘ response to the death of George Floyd.
’ That opinion may not appear often in chic salons , but widespread support for it is fact nonetheless , ” Cotton wrote .
For even allowing this line of thought into the paper , New York Times opinion page editor James Bennet was forced out .
“ At an all-staff virtual meeting on Friday , Mr. Bennet , 54 , apologized for the Op-Ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been published and that it had not been edited carefully enough , ” The Times reported .
“ An editors ’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a ‘ needlessly harsh ’ tone .
‘ The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published , ’ the note said .
No amount of abasement will save you after those sorts of judgment calls these days , however , and Bennet “ resigned ” two days later .
“ Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve experienced in recent years , ” New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote in a note to Times staff , the newspaper reported .
Then Sulzberger dropped this line in an interview with one of his own reporters : “ Both of us concluded that James would not be able to lead the team through the next leg of change that is required.
” One can venture a good guess as to who concluded that first .
There ’ s a certain irony in Sulzberger ’ s line of action inasmuch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bennet ’ s example that the beast of the mob , once awoken and woked , isn ’ t so easily sated .
A month later , the News Guild of New York — which represents 1,200 New York Times employees — laid out a number of ways to make the paper “ more diverse and equitable ” after an emergency meeting called in the wake of Cotton ’ s column .
Among them ?
“ Get it right from the beginning : sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do them , ” the union recommended .
What the union , and liberals who agree with it , are ignoring is that the “ publication process ” has safeguards built into it already — with the most important being the public to actually read what is being published .
In short , if you didn ’ t like the headline on the Tom Cotton piece , you didn ’ t have to read it .
If you started to read it and found it distasteful , you could stop at any point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Every step of the way is in the reader ’ s control — and those who would be offended had no reason to expose themselves to its thoughts .
The union , obviously , was making a different — and more dangerous — point .
Its implication was that , by even airing the views of an influential politician at an inflection moment in recent American history , The New York Times would incite either the White House or the president ’ s rabid , mouth-breathing base toward violence .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they got the idea that the president ’ s followers were pliable idiots in flyover country who ’ d listen to anything Dear Leader said .
The New York Times , Oct. 3 , 2019 : “ Why Trump Voters Stick With Him : An imagined conversation with Flyover Man , ” by David Brooks Brooks wrote this fictional , not-entirely-Socratic dialogue between Urban Guy ( anti-Trump ) and Flyover Man ( pro-Trump ) in the aftermath of the Ukrainian whistleblower report .
It got worse from there , although I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Man ’ s closing argument : “ Here ’ s a confession .
I used to think Trump was a jerk .
Now , after three years of battle , I see him as my captain .
He deserves my loyalty , thick and thin .
See ya ’ in hell , brother.
” David Brooks , a year , a month and a day after that column was published : “ We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country.
” Most in the mainstream media , alas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newsroom experience that would allow them to take stock of why that is , the way they should have in 2016 .
However , David Brooks has : a ) The contact information for Kathleen Kingsbury , the acting editorial page editor at The Times who replaced Bennet when he was unceremoniously thrown under every bus at Grand Central Station for daring to publish Cotton piece ; and Both of those are fruitful places to start if Brooks wants some answers as to why the media got President Trump ’ s level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has any questions , he can ask Tom Cotton .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

After yet another mainstream media failure of accurately describing the state of the nation heading into a presidential election, journalists like the New York Times columnist David Brooks were forced to acknowledge just how badly their profession is failing at its chief job.
“Our job in the media is to capture reality so that when reality voices itself, like last night, people aren’t surprised,” Brooks wrote in a Twitter post. “Pretty massive failure. We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country.”
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton probably noticed David Brooks wasn’t really looking for answers — he’s the kind who rarely is, for the unfamiliar. Cotton gave one anyway.
Maybe don’t fire your editor for publishing conservatives. https://t.co/oSH23bDHY4 — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) November 4, 2020
“Maybe don’t fire your editor for publishing conservatives,” he wrote in response.
When Cotton — with only one telling comment — took The Times, David Brooks and the rest of the media to task for getting it so spectacularly wrong for the second presidential election in a row, some readers might not have been aware of the history behind his remarks.
For the uninitiated, I’ll handle it in (mostly) reverse order.
The New York Times front page, Nov. 5, 2020: “Tensions Rise as States Release More Results in Tight Race”
Do you think the mainstream media will ever recognize its own bias? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 2% (17 Votes) No: 98% (780 Votes)
We were advised the 2020 election could drag on for days — months, even. Given the exigencies of 2o2o and several near disasters during the primary season (remember the Iowa caucuses), there were fears the United States Postal Service or local boards of elections wouldn’t be able to effectively handle the vote.
How smoothly that process went will be discovered in the days and weeks to come. For the most part, the country seems to have avoided the kind of train wreck some (myself included) feared would happen in terms of getting ballots in and getting them counted. The reason it’s dragging on is — lo and behold — all of those outlier pollsters who said this was a close race were right. Again.
From pre-election polls, it wasn’t supposed to be this way.
In its final pre-election analysis, the RealClearPolitics average had the Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a 7.2 percent national lead over President Donald Trump. Yet again, the polling industry missed — both nationally and in swing states — by a relatively wide margin.
The former vice president still had the clearer path to the presidency as of Thursday morning, but it was never supposed to be this tight. Don’t just take my word for it, though.
The New York Times, Nov. 2, 2020: “What Trump Needs to Win: A Polling Error Much Bigger Than 2016’s”
From The Times’ Nate Cohn, a national correspondent who focuses on polling and demographics:
“If the polls are right, Joe Biden could post the most decisive victory in a presidential election in three and a half decades, surpassing Bill Clinton’s win in 1996,” he wrote. “That’s a big ‘if.’
“The indelible memory of 2016’s polling misfire, when Donald J. Trump trailed in virtually every pre-election poll and yet swept the battleground states and won the Electoral College, has hovered over the 2020 campaign. Mr. Biden’s unusually persistent lead has done little to dispel questions about whether the polls could be off again.
“Pollsters would have far fewer excuses than they did for missing the mark four years ago. Mr. Trump’s upset victory was undoubtedly a surprise, but pollsters argued, with credibility, that the polling wasn’t quite as bad as it seemed.”
Then Cohn claimed that there were a few reasons history wouldn’t repeat itself.
First among them?
“The national polls show a decisive Biden win. Four years ago, the national polls showed Mrs. Clinton with a lead of around four percentage points, quite close to her eventual 2.1-point margin in the national vote. This year, the national polls show Mr. Biden up by 8.5 percentage points, according to our average. The higher-quality national surveys generally show him ahead by even more.”
Cohn’s output for The Times and on Twitter has been prodigious over the past 72 hours, so he hasn’t found the time for a mea culpa yet.
That’s what we have this guy for:
New York Times columnist David Brooks, Nov. 4, 2020, on Twitter:
Our job in the media is to capture reality so that when reality voices itself, like last night, people aren’t surprised. Pretty massive failure. We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country. — David Brooks (@nytdavidbrooks) November 4, 2020
Brooks is a dishwater liberal kept on The Times’ payroll so the hopelessly biased “newspaper of record” has a nominal conservative on staff. Some things are so obvious, however, that even Brooks can get them right. No conjectures from him at the reasons behind this phenomenon, however — which is curious, because I could have ventured a guess at one.
Cotton had one ready to go.
Maybe don’t fire your editor for publishing conservatives. https://t.co/oSH23bDHY4 — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) November 4, 2020
Thanks to a column Cotton had published on The Times opinion pages in early June, and the aftershocks that followed it, the senator has had a unique view of the Gray Lady’s operations. And they’re not pretty.
The New York Times, June 3, 2020: “Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops”
The New York Times, June 7, 2020: “James Bennet Resigns as New York Times Opinion Editor”
The New York Post, July 31, 2020: “New York Times union wants ‘sensitivity reads’ as part of editorial process”
In the early days of the unrest touched off by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, The Times published a Cotton opinion piece arguing that the circumstances called for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and send in federal troops to restore order.
Cotton, not incorrectly, pointed out “the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.”
“These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton wrote. “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.”
The reason the federal government was needed to keep the peace, Cotton wrote, was due to “delusional politicians in other cities [who] refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.” He also noted the Insurrection Act had been used in situations like the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
“Not surprisingly, public opinion is on the side of law enforcement and law and order, not insurrectionists. According to a recent poll, 58 percent of registered voters, including nearly half of Democrats and 37 percent of African-Americans, would support cities’ calling in the military to ‘address protests and demonstrations’ that are in ‘response to the death of George Floyd.’ That opinion may not appear often in chic salons, but widespread support for it is fact nonetheless,” Cotton wrote.
For even allowing this line of thought into the paper, New York Times opinion page editor James Bennet was forced out.
“At an all-staff virtual meeting on Friday, Mr. Bennet, 54, apologized for the Op-Ed, saying that it should not have been published and that it had not been edited carefully enough,” The Times reported. “An editors’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a ‘needlessly harsh’ tone. ‘The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published,’ the note said.
No amount of abasement will save you after those sorts of judgment calls these days, however, and Bennet “resigned” two days later.
“Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years,” New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote in a note to Times staff, the newspaper reported.
Then Sulzberger dropped this line in an interview with one of his own reporters: “Both of us concluded that James would not be able to lead the team through the next leg of change that is required.”
One can venture a good guess as to who concluded that first.
There’s a certain irony in Sulzberger’s line of action inasmuch as he didn’t learn from Bennet’s example that the beast of the mob, once awoken and woked, isn’t so easily sated. A month later, the News Guild of New York — which represents 1,200 New York Times employees — laid out a number of ways to make the paper “more diverse and equitable” after an emergency meeting called in the wake of Cotton’s column.
Among them? “Get it right from the beginning: sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication process, with compensation for those who do them,” the union recommended.
What the union, and liberals who agree with it, are ignoring is that the “publication process” has safeguards built into it already — with the most important being the public to actually read what is being published.
In short, if you didn’t like the headline on the Tom Cotton piece, you didn’t have to read it. If you started to read it and found it distasteful, you could stop at any point before your sensitivities were hurt too badly. Every step of the way is in the reader’s control — and those who would be offended had no reason to expose themselves to its thoughts.
The union, obviously, was making a different — and more dangerous — point.
Its implication was that, by even airing the views of an influential politician at an inflection moment in recent American history, The New York Times would incite either the White House or the president’s rabid, mouth-breathing base toward violence.
On the last count, one might wonder where they got the idea that the president’s followers were pliable idiots in flyover country who’d listen to anything Dear Leader said.
The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2019: “Why Trump Voters Stick With Him: An imagined conversation with Flyover Man,” by David Brooks
Brooks wrote this fictional, not-entirely-Socratic dialogue between Urban Guy (anti-Trump) and Flyover Man (pro-Trump) in the aftermath of the Ukrainian whistleblower report.
Urban Guy: I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent. This is impeachable. I don’t see how you can deny the facts in front of your face. Flyover Man: I haven’t really had time to look into it. There’s always some fight between Trump and the East Coast media. I guess I just try to stay focused on the big picture. The big picture is this: We knew this guy was a snake when we signed up. But he was the only one who saw us. He was the only one who saw that the America we love is being transformed in front of our eyes. Good jobs for hard-working people were gone. Our communities in tatters. Our kids in trouble. I had one shot at change, so I made a deal with the devil, and you’d have made it, too.
It got worse from there, although I’ll spare all the details except for Flyover Man’s closing argument: “Here’s a confession. I used to think Trump was a jerk. Now, after three years of battle, I see him as my captain. He deserves my loyalty, thick and thin. See ya’ in hell, brother.”
David Brooks, a year, a month and a day after that column was published: “We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country.”
Most in the mainstream media, alas, are deprived of the same in-person newsroom experience that would allow them to take stock of why that is, the way they should have in 2016. However, David Brooks has:
a) The contact information for Kathleen Kingsbury, the acting editorial page editor at The Times who replaced Bennet when he was unceremoniously thrown under every bus at Grand Central Station for daring to publish Cotton piece; and
b) A mirror.
Both of those are fruitful places to start if Brooks wants some answers as to why the media got President Trump’s level of support wrong yet again.
If he has any questions, he can ask Tom Cotton.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Top Pollster: Fox News’ Arizona Call ‘Should Be Retracted’ as New Results Show Trump Gaining Fast

One of the nation ’ s best-known pollsters called out news networks that rushed to declare an Arizona victory for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Nate Silver , the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight , said on his site ’ s live blog Thursday that outlets such as The Associated Press and Fox News that named Biden the Arizona victor Tuesday should have retracted those calls .
“ I don ’ t know , I guess I ’ d say that Biden will win Arizona if you forced me to pick , but I sure as heck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been called by anyone , and I think the calls that were previously made should be retracted now , ” Silver said .
He said the fallout for that call could be a premature victory declaration for the former vice president .
“ For the time being , if you made the mistake ( IMO ) of calling AZ in the first place , you don ’ t want being part of what gets Biden over the top to 270 , ” Silver said on Twitter .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden Into Question According to Newsweek , Fox News stood by its call of the Grand Canyon State , while the AP stated , “ After an analysis of ballots cast statewide concluded there were not enough outstanding to allow Trump to catch up.
” Should Biden win Arizona , he ’ ll be the first Democrat to take the state since Bill Clinton in 1996 .
Before Clinton , the last Democrat to win Arizona was Harry Truman in 1948 .
Silver deduced that 44 percent of Arizona ’ s remaining 450,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 23 percent Democrat and “ 33 percent independent or other parties.
” He said those votes in most states would mean a Biden shoe-in , but in Arizona they ’ ll likely go to President Donald Trump .
“ Republicans have a fairly strong mail voting program in Arizona and — this is the key part — the mail ballots that were returned later in the process ( the ones yet to be counted ) were significantly redder than the ones that came in earlier on , as Democrats sent their votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said this could narrow the 93,000-vote Biden lead and create “ a 21-point GOP edge , which would put Trump on track to tie things up.
” Silver cautioned that Arizona “ has a lot of ancestral Republicans who have now turned into swing voters ” and “ Biden also had a big lead among independents in polls.
” The Arizona Republic also weighed in on the mail-in votes Thursday , focusing especially on an estimated 140,000 in Maricopa County .
“ Trump won the batches of ballots from Maricopa County counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 57-40 margin over former Vice President Joe Biden , ” it reported .
The Maricopa County Elections Department said Thursday its full results should be available by 7 p.m. Friday .
It also set up 24-hour livestream .
Another pollster , Paul Bentz , told The Republic that the president “ needs to win 57.6 percent of the 470,000 votes that The Arizona Republic estimates remain to be counted.
” Bentz broke down the remaining ballots , saying Trump “ still has a shot , ” but those votes “ must be spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties , which include areas that are very blue : Pima , Coconino and Santa Cruz counties.
” “ The first step in the long journey was a successful one in Trump ’ s tightrope walk , ” Bentz said .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

One of the nation’s best-known pollsters called out news networks that rushed to declare an Arizona victory for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Nate Silver, the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, said on his site’s live blog Thursday that outlets such as The Associated Press and Fox News that named Biden the Arizona victor Tuesday should have retracted those calls.
“I don’t know, I guess I’d say that Biden will win Arizona if you forced me to pick, but I sure as heck don’t think the state should have been called by anyone, and I think the calls that were previously made should be retracted now,” Silver said.
He said the fallout for that call could be a premature victory declaration for the former vice president.
“For the time being, if you made the mistake (IMO) of calling AZ in the first place, you don’t want being part of what gets Biden over the top to 270,” Silver said on Twitter.
For the time being, if you made the mistake (IMO) of calling AZ in the first place, you don’t want being part of what gets Biden over the top to 270. So that leaves out calling based on NV. GA+NV is plausible but GA looks so close as to maybe be recount-bound. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2020
According to Newsweek, Fox News stood by its call of the Grand Canyon State, while the AP stated, “After an analysis of ballots cast statewide concluded there were not enough outstanding to allow Trump to catch up.”
Should Biden win Arizona, he’ll be the first Democrat to take the state since Bill Clinton in 1996. Before Clinton, the last Democrat to win Arizona was Harry Truman in 1948.
Do you think Trump will win Arizona after all the votes are counted? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 94% (3783 Votes) No: 6% (236 Votes)
Silver deduced that 44 percent of Arizona’s remaining 450,000 mail-in ballots to be counted are Republican, 23 percent Democrat and “33 percent independent or other parties.”
He said those votes in most states would mean a Biden shoe-in, but in Arizona they’ll likely go to President Donald Trump.
“Republicans have a fairly strong mail voting program in Arizona and — this is the key part — the mail ballots that were returned later in the process (the ones yet to be counted) were significantly redder than the ones that came in earlier on, as Democrats sent their votes in early, ” Silver said.
He said this could narrow the 93,000-vote Biden lead and create “a 21-point GOP edge, which would put Trump on track to tie things up.”
Silver cautioned that Arizona “has a lot of ancestral Republicans who have now turned into swing voters” and “Biden also had a big lead among independents in polls.”
The Arizona Republic also weighed in on the mail-in votes Thursday, focusing especially on an estimated 140,000 in Maricopa County.
“Trump won the batches of ballots from Maricopa County counted Wednesday and early Thursday by a roughly 57-40 margin over former Vice President Joe Biden,” it reported.
The Maricopa County Elections Department said Thursday its full results should be available by 7 p.m. Friday. It also set up 24-hour livestream.
Additional Maricopa County results are now posted. Unofficial results show 1,792,313 ballots cast. About 275k remaining, plus provisionals. More results to come tomorrow at 7 p.m. Find them at https://t.co/iARFPk6WX3. — Maricopa County Elections Department (@MaricopaVote) November 5, 2020
Good morning! As planned our team started at 7:30 a.m. to continue counting #GeneralElection ballots. You can watch our 24 hour livestream at https://t.co/q5XN3h8GYS. (Be sure to enable flash on your computer.) We will release today’s results at 7 p.m. at https://t.co/iARFPkoxOB. pic.twitter.com/tWZ4YjhSG7 — Maricopa County Elections Department (@MaricopaVote) November 5, 2020
Another pollster, Paul Bentz, told The Republic that the president “needs to win 57.6 percent of the 470,000 votes that The Arizona Republic estimates remain to be counted.”
Bentz broke down the remaining ballots, saying Trump “still has a shot,” but those votes “must be spread across all Arizona’s 15 diverse counties, which include areas that are very blue: Pima, Coconino and Santa Cruz counties.”
“The first step in the long journey was a successful one in Trump’s tightrope walk,” Bentz said.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Report: Mitch McConnell To Thwart Potential Biden Admin’s Plans, Force a Centrist Cabinet

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would use a GOP Senate majority to force Democrats to refrain from choosing radical Cabinet appointees in the event of a potential Joe Biden presidency , according to a report .
While the presidential election results have not been declared as of Thursday morning , Biden ’ s campaign has set up a transition website , and a number establishment media outlets seem prepared to declare the Democrat as Tuesday ’ s winner .
Axios reported that should Biden win , McConnell intents to “ wreak havoc ” on his transition plans .
Noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter which way the presidential race goes , Axios reported people close to the Biden campaign are making transition plans with McConnell in mind .
Biden ’ s transition team is being forced to “ consider limiting its prospective Cabinet nominees to those who Mitch McConnell can live with , ” the outlet reported , citing unnamed sources .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question According to the report , McConnell ’ s expected opposition to radical Cabinet appointees could rule out former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and failed 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams in the event Democrats win the White House .
“ A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no ‘ radical progressives ’ or ones who are controversial with conservatives , ” Axios reported .
“ The Biden agenda would be severely restricted by GOP control , the source added : ‘ It ’ s going to be armed camps.
’ ” The outlet concluded that the dynamics of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a centrist approach to his Cabinet picks should he win the election .
There is also speculation that such a scenario would give Biden an excuse not to give high-level jobs to far-left Democratic senators such as Sens .
Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts .
Former Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken was linked by Axios to a potential State Department vacancy , while Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lael Brainard was linked to a potential Treasury Department vacancy .
The Washington Post reported that Democrats had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday ’ s election with complete control over the federal government .
But with the Senate likely to remain in GOP hands and with Democrats shedding House seats , they will be forced to let go of any dreams of major government reforms .
The Post noted any plans for packing the Supreme Court and ending the Senate filibuster will have to be shelved .
Democrats might also have to curtail plans to bolster the Affordable Care Act , pass a massive coronavirus spending bill and climate change legislation , and eliminate GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump comes away from the hotly contested election victorious , Democrats will be have a slimmer House majority and will remain a minority opposition party .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would use a GOP Senate majority to force Democrats to refrain from choosing radical Cabinet appointees in the event of a potential Joe Biden presidency, according to a report.
While the presidential election results have not been declared as of Thursday morning, Biden’s campaign has set up a transition website, and a number establishment media outlets seem prepared to declare the Democrat as Tuesday’s winner.
Axios reported that should Biden win, McConnell intents to “wreak havoc” on his transition plans.
Noting that Republicans appear primed to retain Senate control no matter which way the presidential race goes, Axios reported people close to the Biden campaign are making transition plans with McConnell in mind.
Biden’s transition team is being forced to “consider limiting its prospective Cabinet nominees to those who Mitch McConnell can live with,” the outlet reported, citing unnamed sources.
? ? scoop: McConnell, if he keeps the Senate majority, plans to prevent Joe Biden from stacking his Cabinet with liberals and force him to go with centrist options, like Lael Brainard 4 Treasury, Tony Blinken for State, sources tell @mikeallen https://t.co/nRh7GJbeh0 — Jim VandeHei (@JimVandeHei) November 5, 2020
According to the report, McConnell’s expected opposition to radical Cabinet appointees could rule out former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and failed 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams in the event Democrats win the White House.
“A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no ‘radical progressives’ or ones who are controversial with conservatives,” Axios reported. “The Biden agenda would be severely restricted by GOP control, the source added: ‘It’s going to be armed camps.’”
Do you think Joe Biden will be declared the winner of Tuesday's election? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 22% (1051 Votes) No: 78% (3820 Votes)
The outlet concluded that the dynamics of a split government could ultimately force Biden to take a centrist approach to his Cabinet picks should he win the election.
There is also speculation that such a scenario would give Biden an excuse not to give high-level jobs to far-left Democratic senators such as Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken was linked by Axios to a potential State Department vacancy, while Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lael Brainard was linked to a potential Treasury Department vacancy.
The Washington Post reported that Democrats had signaled they intended to come away from Tuesday’s election with complete control over the federal government.
But with the Senate likely to remain in GOP hands and with Democrats shedding House seats, they will be forced to let go of any dreams of major government reforms.
The Post noted any plans for packing the Supreme Court and ending the Senate filibuster will have to be shelved.
Dems had quietly mapped out plans – how to quickly pass massive covid relief, then shoring up ACA, climate, taxes, etc.
Not to mention dreams of nixing f’buster, expanding SCOTUS. All that ran ashore as McConnell still wields power.
By @ericawerner https://t.co/PvJAtYZUzn — Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) November 5, 2020
Democrats might also have to curtail plans to bolster the Affordable Care Act, pass a massive coronavirus spending bill and climate change legislation, and eliminate GOP tax reforms.
Of course, if President Donald Trump comes away from the hotly contested election victorious, Democrats will be have a slimmer House majority and will remain a minority opposition party.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--GOP Women Dominate on Election Day, Add 10 to House of Representatives

Despite the left ’ s efforts to paint the GOP and President Donald Trump as leaders bent on subverting the dignity and rights of women in America , female representation among House Republicans increased by at least 10 in Tuesday ’ s election .
This isn ’ t good for Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York who presume to be the voice for American women and now must face the reality that their political concerns are diverse .
The Washington Examiner reported that Republicans had increased from 13 to 23 total women in the House based on races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question The growing ranks of female Republicans in D.C. could mean more women supporting and voting for the party in the future .
The youngest GOP woman headed to the House is Florida ’ s Cammack , who is 32 .
Cammack had campaigned as a pro-life conservative , saying doctors had encouraged her mother to abort her .
“ When my mom was pregnant with me the doctors told her because she had had a stroke with my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to have children again , ” she said in a campaign video .
“ So , when she found out she was pregnant the doctors advised her to abort me .
My grandmother advised her — begged and pleaded — to have me aborted .
My mom said no .
So , when given the choice , my mom chose life and that ’ s why I ’ m pro-life.
” RELATED : If Nancy Pelosi Were To Follow in the Steps of Newt Gingrich , She Would Resign Within Days Boebert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant in Rifle , Colorado , where all of the waitresses openly carry handguns , ran a campaign that emphasized Second Amendment rights and liberty in general .
After her victory , she tweeted that she was “ honored ” to be among the Republican women elected to Congress .
Ten female GOP representatives retained their offices , with 11 more possibly winning “ key ” races for the House , according to Town Hall .
Republican women have also done well in races for the upper chamber of Congress .
“ On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or advanced further in races in Georgia , Iowa , Mississippi , West Virginia , Wyoming and Maine , ” Town Hall reported .
The gains of GOP women and minority representation in Congress will make it harder and harder for the left to push its narratives about “ racist ” and “ sexist ” Republicans .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Despite the left’s efforts to paint the GOP and President Donald Trump as leaders bent on subverting the dignity and rights of women in America, female representation among House Republicans increased by at least 10 in Tuesday’s election.
This isn’t good for Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York who presume to be the voice for American women and now must face the reality that their political concerns are diverse.
The Washington Examiner reported that Republicans had increased from 13 to 23 total women in the House based on races called Wednesday by The Associated Press.
These women include:
• Stephanie Bice, Oklahoma 5th
• Lauren Boebert, Colorado 3rd Congressional District
• Kat Cammack, Florida 3rd
• Michelle Fischbach, Minnesota 7th
• Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia 14th
• Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee 1st
• Yvette Herrell, New Mexico 2nd
• Ashley Hinson, Iowa 1st
• Nancy Mace, South Carolina 1st
• Lisa McClain, Michigan 10th
• Mary Miller, Illinois 15th
• Maria Elvira Salazar, Florida 27th
The growing ranks of female Republicans in D.C. could mean more women supporting and voting for the party in the future.
The youngest GOP woman headed to the House is Florida’s Cammack, who is 32.
Florida’s 3rd Congressional District, which includes Clay and Putnam County, elected Kat Cammack. At 32-years-old she’ll be the youngest Republican woman to serve in Congress. https://t.co/uWswCZPjEn — News4JAX (@wjxt4) November 4, 2020
Cammack had campaigned as a pro-life conservative, saying doctors had encouraged her mother to abort her.
“When my mom was pregnant with me the doctors told her because she had had a stroke with my sister that she wouldn’t be able to have children again,” she said in a campaign video. “So, when she found out she was pregnant the doctors advised her to abort me. My grandmother advised her — begged and pleaded — to have me aborted. My mom said no. So, when given the choice, my mom chose life and that’s why I’m pro-life.”
Boebert, who operates Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where all of the waitresses openly carry handguns, ran a campaign that emphasized Second Amendment rights and liberty in general.
After her victory, she tweeted that she was “honored” to be among the Republican women elected to Congress.
The underreported story of the election – an incredible surge of GOP women in the incoming freshman class for the House! So honored to be a part. — Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) November 5, 2020
Ten female GOP representatives retained their offices, with 11 more possibly winning “key” races for the House, according to Town Hall.
Republican women have also done well in races for the upper chamber of Congress.
“On the Senate side, Republican women won or advanced further in races in Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, West Virginia, Wyoming and Maine,” Town Hall reported.
The gains of GOP women and minority representation in Congress will make it harder and harder for the left to push its narratives about “racist” and “sexist” Republicans.
Did you know that The Western Journal now publishes some content in Spanish as well as English, for international audiences? Click here to read this article on The Western Journal en Español!
CORRECTION, Nov. 6, 2020: An earlier version of this story said Lisa McClain won in Mississippi rather than Michigan.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Numerous Arrests Made as Election Chaos Hits Major Cities

Fires and fury followed Tuesday ’ s elections as rioters took to the streets of major cities across America on Wednesday night .
New York City police logged more than 50 arrests in a series of chaotic clashes , according to Fox News .
In a pattern that has become all too familiar , what began as a protest march morphed into spasms of violence directed at outdoor diners , police and any other target that was handy .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question In Portland , Oregon , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oregon National Guard was called out after Portland police declared a riot .
At least one Molotov cocktail and other objects were thrown at police .
Eleven people were arrested amid vandalism that led rioters to smash storefront windows in downtown Portland .
WARNING : The following videos contain vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive : In Minneapolis , more than 200 protesters blocked I-94 , leading police to start arresting them , according to WCCO-TV .
Organizers previously told the station the march was meant to signify that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life better for minority and marginalized citizens .
In Denver , marchers set fires in a protest that they claimed was directed against fascists .
In one New York City confrontation captured on social media , a woman spat in the face of a New York City Police Department officer .
Devina Singh , 24 , was arrested for allegedly spitting in the officer ’ s face , according to the New York Post , She appeared to scream , F— you , fascist ” at the officer , who adjusted his mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back , sending Singh to the ground , to the condemnation of other demonstrators .
NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan warned that police were seeking agitators who were provoking violence .
“ We are going to be on the lookout for anarchists who are trying to hijack these peaceful marches , ” Monahan said .
“ We have also asked the organizers to help us identify these outside people.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Fires and fury followed Tuesday’s elections as rioters took to the streets of major cities across America on Wednesday night.
New York City police logged more than 50 arrests in a series of chaotic clashes, according to Fox News.
Knives, explosives and a stun gun were confiscated.
In a pattern that has become all too familiar, what began as a protest march morphed into spasms of violence directed at outdoor diners, police and any other target that was handy.
Officers recovered these items tonight in connection with a protest.
In addition to knives, a taser, spray paint and m-80’s, they also put out fires and arrested someone breaking a store window. @NYCSpeakerCoJo https://t.co/XFMYJrpJXZ — Commissioner Shea (@NYPDShea) November 5, 2020
In Portland, Oregon, where demonstrators have run amok since May, the Oregon National Guard was called out after Portland police declared a riot.
At least one Molotov cocktail and other objects were thrown at police. Eleven people were arrested amid vandalism that led rioters to smash storefront windows in downtown Portland.
WARNING: The following videos contain vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive:
American flag being burned in the same intersection we’ve been at. Officers drove by but did not stay. @fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/kIkQytTqQY — Brenna Kelly (@BrennaKellyNews) November 5, 2020
Protesters just tried to break windows of Starbucks then began vandalizing ATM. We’re here to document this event but it’s clear they don’t want to be filmed. @fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/IuxaaRsimB — Brenna Kelly (@BrennaKellyNews) November 5, 2020
Loaded rifle seized in arrest. Deputies arrested a man believed to have thrown a Molotov cocktail at PPB officers. Deps. seized a rifle w/ a full magazine. They also recovered add’l magazines, commercial grade fireworks, a knife & spray paint cans. Arrest info to come later. pic.twitter.com/8kERARSSQw — Multnomah Co Sheriff (@MultCoSO) November 5, 2020
In Minneapolis, more than 200 protesters blocked I-94, leading police to start arresting them, according to WCCO-TV. Organizers previously told the station the march was meant to signify that the outcome of the election would not make life better for minority and marginalized citizens.
Law enforcement in their riot gear marching behind the protest but keeping their distance. @WCCO pic.twitter.com/eQktA2SavD — Jeff Wagner (@Jeff_Wagner4) November 5, 2020
In Denver, marchers set fires in a protest that they claimed was directed against fascists.
Hearing word of a handful of arrests after protesters clash with @DenverPolice Protesters seen carrying different banners. @channel2kwgn @KDVR @CSP_News pic.twitter.com/t7tUNwiWrW — Gregory Nieto (@greg_nieto) November 5, 2020
In one New York City confrontation captured on social media, a woman spat in the face of a New York City Police Department officer.
Devina Singh, 24, was arrested for allegedly spitting in the officer’s face, according to the New York Post,
She appeared to scream, F— you, fascist” at the officer, who adjusted his mask then responded to the provocation by pushing back, sending Singh to the ground, to the condemnation of other demonstrators.
Disgraceful, disgusting and dangerous. Nobody has the right to spit in a police officer’s face, especially during a pandemic. This is not “peaceful protest.” It’s assault. https://t.co/DBfbJwcf0x — NYC PBA (@NYCPBA) November 5, 2020
NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan warned that police were seeking agitators who were provoking violence.
“We are going to be on the lookout for anarchists who are trying to hijack these peaceful marches,” Monahan said. “We have also asked the organizers to help us identify these outside people.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--If Nancy Pelosi Were To Follow in the Steps of Newt Gingrich, She Would Resign Within Days

Newt Gingrich ’ s tenure as speaker of the House casts a long shadow over the landscape of American politics — so long , in fact , that we often forget his tenure only lasted for four years .
Few other House speakers have had such an outsized influence on the political landscape since World War II , and almost all of them lasted far longer in the position .
Sam Rayburn served 16 years , Tip O ’ Neill served 10 .
Even those who didn ’ t leave their mark politically spent longer in office .
From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts , distinguished by nothing except for being a walking advertisement for term limits who managed to serve in the House from 1928 until 1971 , spent almost nine years as speaker ) to the disgraced ( Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois , later a convicted felon who admitted to being a serial child molester , spent eight undistinguished years in the office ) , there are no shortage of other speakers who ’ ve served in the office for longer than Gingrich .
The Republican Party didn ’ t lose control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , they wouldn ’ t lose control of the lower chamber until after the 2006 midterms , when Nancy Pelosi replaced , um , Dennis Hastert .
Why would Gingrich walk away ?
Put bluntly , the House GOP ’ s performance in the 1998 midterms was eerily similar to the House Democrats ’ 2020 performance .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question They didn ’ t lose the House , mind you , although the likelihood of that happening roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while the anticipated “ blue wave ” didn ’ t happen — Joe Biden will likely only win the popular vote by a few percentage points instead of the massive victory augured in most polls and the Democrats ’ path to retake the Senate is exceptionally narrow as of Thursday morning — the performance of the House Democrats was easily the biggest aggregate disappointment of Election Day for the left .
Pelosi tried to put a positive spin on things speaking late Tuesday : “ I ’ m very , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively early , we ’ re able to say that we have held the House , ” Pelosi said , according to a transcript of her speech .
“ Our purpose in this race was to win so that we could protect the Affordable Care Act , and that we could crush the virus.
” Her ability to do either , so much as she can , may be attenuated by how the Democrats maintained their House majority , however .
The New York Times put together a helpful chart which showed every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party winning .
The seats were grouped into five columns : seats where Democrats or Republicans were expected to win easily , seats where Democrats or Republicans were expected to win narrowly and toss-ups .
Let ’ s disregard the first two categories .
The interest lay in the middle three columns , where the races were supposed to be narrowly decided for either side or where no consensus existed .
The Times ’ readership no doubt cued up the page on Tuesday evening , expecting those columns to fill with blue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ As of Thursday morning , here ’ s how it ’ s going : Just a quick primer in case you ’ re confused : Decided seats that flipped parties are denoted with stripes .
In only two of the toss-up seats — California ’ s 25th Congressional District and Utah ’ s 4th — were Democrats leading as of Thursday morning .
Only one of these would be a flip : California ’ s 25th , formerly held by the scandal-plagued Katie Hill .
The rest of the uncalled seats in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengths .
The remainder of the toss-ups have Republicans flipping five seats and holding serve on the rest of them .
The Democrats have flipped no seats Republicans were expected to win narrowly .
Democrats did flip two seats that Republicans were expected to lose narrowly .
At the same time , Republicans flipped three seats in that latter column .
In a letter to the Democratic House caucus regarding the election results , Pelosi wasn ’ t particularly effective or sanguine in her rhetoric .
“ Though it was a challenging election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us proud , ” Pelosi wrote in the letter .
“ Our success enabled us to win in our ‘ mobilization , messaging and money , ’ forcing Republicans to defend their own territory.
” Yes — and they did so effectively , which is a problem .
“ At least seven House Democratic incumbents lost their re-election races , including first-term moderates in Florida , New Mexico and South Carolina and even the long-serving chairman of the House Agriculture Committee , ” Bloomberg ’ s Billy House noted .
“ This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading the party ’ s negotiations with the Trump administration on a new round of coronavirus relief .
There has been grumbling — including from some of the Democrats who lost Tuesday — about her top-down approach to the talks and her resolve to hold out for a package worth more than $ 2 trillion .
“ Pelosi will also face pressure from the growing progressive wing of the party , which will have additional clout with a handful of new members who won primaries against senior incumbents , ” House continued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal lightning rod , members on the left of her caucus complain she has actually been too timid when it comes to proposals like Medicare for All and the environmental measures included in the Green New Deal.
” It ’ s not just the left that wants her gone , but the more traditionally liberal wing of the party wouldn ’ t mind her leaving , either .
The Hill reported Thursday that two “ moderate ” Democrats said “ they were reaching out to their colleagues about backing one of Pelosi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairman Hakeem Jeffries ( N.Y. ) , for Speaker in the next Congress.
” “ He ’ s the only one prepared and positioned ” for the role , one of the lawmakers told The Hill anonymously .
“ He bridges moderates and progressives better than anyone .
And most importantly , he ’ s not Nancy Pelosi.
” And that ’ s where Gingrich comes in .
During the 1998 midterms , Gingrich was supposed to expand the Republican majority in the House significantly , particularly since the impeachment of then-President Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was perceived as wildly unpopular after the Starr Report , published that September , detailed his sexual relationship with a White House intern and how he ’ d both lied about it under oath and allegedly tried to obstruct justice .
The perception was wrong .
The Republicans didn ’ t win a landslide in the House .
They didn ’ t even win a few seats , as the party that doesn ’ t control the White House almost always does in the midterms .
The House Republicans lost seats — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership , Gingrich resigned as House speaker just four years after the so-called “ Republican Revolution ” he helped lead .
“ Today I have reached a difficult personal decision , ” he said in a statement at the time , according to The Washington Post .
“ The Republican conference needs to be unified , and it is time for me to move forward where I believe I still have a significant role to play for our country and our party.
” Will Nancy Pelosi do the same thing ?
She ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as Democratic minority leader in 2017 .
After Democrat Jon Ossoff lost a House special election in Georgia that Democrats poured money into , there were calls for her to step aside .
After all , the Democrats had been the minority party in the lower chamber since 2011 — and while the Karen Handel-Jon Ossoff 2017 race wouldn ’ t have affected that in any substantive way , it would have been the first major symbolic triumph for the party in the Trump administration # Resistance era .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Pelosi said at the time .
If you define “ trouble ” as “ flubbing it at the ballot box , ” 2018 seemed to indicate trouble was gone .
It merely went into remission , however , and Tuesday was a full-blown relapse of trouble .
It ’ s certainly not the first time that ’ s happened since she took over as the leader of the House Democratic caucus in 2003 .
If she were to follow in the steps of Newt Gingrich , it ought to be the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a performance like this , and in an election that didn ’ t carry the same consequences .
I ’ d argue Nancy Pelosi was never worth the trouble , but she certainly isn ’ t now .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Newt Gingrich’s tenure as speaker of the House casts a long shadow over the landscape of American politics — so long, in fact, that we often forget his tenure only lasted for four years.
Few other House speakers have had such an outsized influence on the political landscape since World War II, and almost all of them lasted far longer in the position. Sam Rayburn served 16 years, Tip O’Neill served 10.
Even those who didn’t leave their mark politically spent longer in office. From the anodyne (Democrat John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, distinguished by nothing except for being a walking advertisement for term limits who managed to serve in the House from 1928 until 1971, spent almost nine years as speaker) to the disgraced (Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois, later a convicted felon who admitted to being a serial child molester, spent eight undistinguished years in the office), there are no shortage of other speakers who’ve served in the office for longer than Gingrich.
The Republican Party didn’t lose control of the House when Gingrich quit in 1998. In fact, they wouldn’t lose control of the lower chamber until after the 2006 midterms, when Nancy Pelosi replaced, um, Dennis Hastert. Why would Gingrich walk away?
Put bluntly, the House GOP’s performance in the 1998 midterms was eerily similar to the House Democrats’ 2020 performance.
They didn’t lose the House, mind you, although the likelihood of that happening roughly correlated with the likelihood of President Kanye. And while the anticipated “blue wave” didn’t happen — Joe Biden will likely only win the popular vote by a few percentage points instead of the massive victory augured in most polls and the Democrats’ path to retake the Senate is exceptionally narrow as of Thursday morning — the performance of the House Democrats was easily the biggest aggregate disappointment of Election Day for the left.
Pelosi tried to put a positive spin on things speaking late Tuesday: “I’m very, very proud of the fact that tonight, relatively early, we’re able to say that we have held the House,” Pelosi said, according to a transcript of her speech. “Our purpose in this race was to win so that we could protect the Affordable Care Act, and that we could crush the virus.”
Her ability to do either, so much as she can, may be attenuated by how the Democrats maintained their House majority, however.
The New York Times put together a helpful chart which showed every House seat and the likelihood of each party winning. The seats were grouped into five columns: seats where Democrats or Republicans were expected to win easily, seats where Democrats or Republicans were expected to win narrowly and toss-ups.
Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resign? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (1095 Votes) No: 1% (10 Votes)
Let’s disregard the first two categories. The interest lay in the middle three columns, where the races were supposed to be narrowly decided for either side or where no consensus existed. The Times’ readership no doubt cued up the page on Tuesday evening, expecting those columns to fill with blue.
That’s how it started. As of Thursday morning, here’s how it’s going:
Just a quick primer in case you’re confused: Decided seats that flipped parties are denoted with stripes.
In only two of the toss-up seats — California’s 25th Congressional District and Utah’s 4th — were Democrats leading as of Thursday morning. Only one of these would be a flip: California’s 25th, formerly held by the scandal-plagued Katie Hill. The rest of the uncalled seats in the tossup column show Republican leads of varying strengths.
The remainder of the toss-ups have Republicans flipping five seats and holding serve on the rest of them.
The Democrats have flipped no seats Republicans were expected to win narrowly. Democrats did flip two seats that Republicans were expected to lose narrowly. At the same time, Republicans flipped three seats in that latter column.
In a letter to the Democratic House caucus regarding the election results, Pelosi wasn’t particularly effective or sanguine in her rhetoric.
“Though it was a challenging election, all of our candidates … made us proud,” Pelosi wrote in the letter. “Our success enabled us to win in our ‘mobilization, messaging and money,’ forcing Republicans to defend their own territory.”
Yes — and they did so effectively, which is a problem.
“At least seven House Democratic incumbents lost their re-election races, including first-term moderates in Florida, New Mexico and South Carolina and even the long-serving chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,” Bloomberg’s Billy House noted.
“This has immediate implications for Pelosi’s leverage leading the party’s negotiations with the Trump administration on a new round of coronavirus relief. There has been grumbling — including from some of the Democrats who lost Tuesday — about her top-down approach to the talks and her resolve to hold out for a package worth more than $2 trillion.
“Pelosi will also face pressure from the growing progressive wing of the party, which will have additional clout with a handful of new members who won primaries against senior incumbents,” House continued. “While Republicans depict Pelosi as a liberal lightning rod, members on the left of her caucus complain she has actually been too timid when it comes to proposals like Medicare for All and the environmental measures included in the Green New Deal.”
It’s not just the left that wants her gone, but the more traditionally liberal wing of the party wouldn’t mind her leaving, either.
The Hill reported Thursday that two “moderate” Democrats said “they were reaching out to their colleagues about backing one of Pelosi’s top lieutenants, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), for Speaker in the next Congress.”
“He’s the only one prepared and positioned” for the role, one of the lawmakers told The Hill anonymously. “He bridges moderates and progressives better than anyone. And most importantly, he’s not Nancy Pelosi.”
And that’s where Gingrich comes in. During the 1998 midterms, Gingrich was supposed to expand the Republican majority in the House significantly, particularly since the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton had just gotten underway. Clinton was perceived as wildly unpopular after the Starr Report, published that September, detailed his sexual relationship with a White House intern and how he’d both lied about it under oath and allegedly tried to obstruct justice.
The perception was wrong. The Republicans didn’t win a landslide in the House. They didn’t even win a few seats, as the party that doesn’t control the White House almost always does in the midterms.
The House Republicans lost seats — and, facing a potential challenge to his leadership, Gingrich resigned as House speaker just four years after the so-called “Republican Revolution” he helped lead.
“Today I have reached a difficult personal decision,” he said in a statement at the time, according to The Washington Post. “The Republican conference needs to be unified, and it is time for me to move forward where I believe I still have a significant role to play for our country and our party.”
Will Nancy Pelosi do the same thing? She’s faced a similar crossroads during her time as Democratic minority leader in 2017. After Democrat Jon Ossoff lost a House special election in Georgia that Democrats poured money into, there were calls for her to step aside.
After all, the Democrats had been the minority party in the lower chamber since 2011 — and while the Karen Handel-Jon Ossoff 2017 race wouldn’t have affected that in any substantive way, it would have been the first major symbolic triumph for the party in the Trump administration #Resistance era.
“I think I’m worth the trouble,” Pelosi said at the time.
If you define “trouble” as “flubbing it at the ballot box,” 2018 seemed to indicate trouble was gone.
It merely went into remission, however, and Tuesday was a full-blown relapse of trouble.
It’s certainly not the first time that’s happened since she took over as the leader of the House Democratic caucus in 2003.
If she were to follow in the steps of Newt Gingrich, it ought to be the last one. He resigned within days of a performance like this, and in an election that didn’t carry the same consequences.
I’d argue Nancy Pelosi was never worth the trouble, but she certainly isn’t now.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Victor Davis Hanson: Never Again Will Americans Believe the Propagandist ‘Mainstream’ Pollsters

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 Thursday morning .
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 President Donald Trump would lose in a landslide .
He did not — to the shock of a host of propagandists .
A CNN poll had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final week before the election .
An ABC News/Washington Post poll in late October claimed Democratic nominee Joe Biden was leading in Wisconsin by 17 points .
That state ’ s voting ended up nearly even .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ?
RELATED : The Upper Cut : Taylor 's 'Damning Account ' Did n't Damn Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 deplatforming 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden .
Silicon Valley , like the 19th-century oil , rail and sugar trusts , sees no reason to hide its partisanship and clout .
The establishment 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 percent of the coverage was negative .
As in the fashion of the Russian collusion hoax , the media for weeks on end revved up their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

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 Thursday morning. 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 President 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 Democratic nominee 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 deplatforming 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 Joe Biden.
Silicon Valley, like the 19th-century oil, rail and sugar trusts, sees no reason to hide its partisanship and clout.
The establishment 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 percent 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.
© 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Cal Thomas: A Fortune Teller Selling Love Potion Would Have Been Better Than the Pollsters

The pollsters got it wrong again .
Some claimed going into Tuesday ’ s election that Democratic nominee Joe Biden had an unbeatable margin of 17 points in some states .
Pundits claimed Republicans would lose between five and 15 seats in the House .
It appears they ’ ve picked up a few .
And because final results will not be known until states count mail-in votes and end their extended vote-counting processes , Republicans could pick up a few more .
Why do some continue to employ these pollsters who miss the “ silent majority , ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Donald Trump , many of whom refused to speak with or hung up on their robocalls ?
Some conservatives believe it is part of an effort by the left to discourage conservative voters so they will give up and not bother to vote .
Instead , they showed up in person and in huge numbers at polling places across the country .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question Then there ’ s the bad practice of calling races with a fraction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday night , one of the members on the “ decision desk ” was interviewed after Arizona was called for Biden with a small percentage of the votes counted , prompting howls from the Trump campaign and anger from some viewers .
Why is this necessary ?
Some would argue , credibly , that the result can be to drive down voter turnout by discouraging people who might think Trump lost .
There ’ s a golden oldies song and a movie with the same title that featured a fortune teller and potion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called “ Love Potion Number 9.
” The fortune teller was named Madame Ruth .
I think I ’ ll consult her before the next election .
Her predictions might be more reliable than the ones by these failed pollsters .
This is — because it isn ’ t over — another multibillion-dollar election .
Remember campaign finance reform ?
Gone with the wind .
In Sen. Mitch McConnell ’ s Kentucky election victory , according to the Center for Responsive Politics , nearly $ 100 million was contributed and spent .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state .
It was the same in South Carolina where incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham won re-election in a hotly contested race .
Graham joked that the $ 107 million contributed to his opponent , Democrat Jaime Harrison , was a “ bad investment.
” A pipe break in Fulton County , Georgia , delayed voting .
Could this be the “ hanging chads ” of the 2000 election in Florida ?
Will ballots be water damaged , making some of them unreadable or questionable ?
We need to reform the election process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do in the United Kingdom .
Their election season usually takes weeks , not years like ours .
RELATED : Itxu Díaz : The Candidates Are the Real Scam On Tuesday night , some anchors were already speculating who might run for president in 2024 .
Ridiculous .
The paper ballot — even those scanned by machines when they work — is a relic of the past .
We live in a digital age .
Why can ’ t we vote digitally in a manner that would instantly confirm our votes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having to wait days and possibly weeks to determine the next president reduces the credibility of our election process and makes us a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world .
It would be a shame if this election winds up in the Supreme Court , widening the divide in our already fractured country .
Many were hoping for a decisive outcome , whichever candidate won .
It looks like we are not going to get it and the rancor , name-calling and demonstrations will continue .
It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who will step forward and call for meaningful reforms ?
I ’ m going to ask Madame Ruth .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The pollsters got it wrong again.
Some claimed going into Tuesday’s election that Democratic nominee Joe Biden had an unbeatable margin of 17 points in some states.
Pundits claimed Republicans would lose between five and 15 seats in the House. It appears they’ve picked up a few. And because final results will not be known until states count mail-in votes and end their extended vote-counting processes, Republicans could pick up a few more.
Why do some continue to employ these pollsters who miss the “silent majority,” or in this case “shy” voters for President Donald Trump, many of whom refused to speak with or hung up on their robocalls?
Some conservatives believe it is part of an effort by the left to discourage conservative voters so they will give up and not bother to vote. Instead, they showed up in person and in huge numbers at polling places across the country.
Then there’s the bad practice of calling races with a fraction of the vote counted. On Fox News Tuesday night, one of the members on the “decision desk” was interviewed after Arizona was called for Biden with a small percentage of the votes counted, prompting howls from the Trump campaign and anger from some viewers.
Why is this necessary? Some would argue, credibly, that the result can be to drive down voter turnout by discouraging people who might think Trump lost.
There’s a golden oldies song and a movie with the same title that featured a fortune teller and potion mixer. The song and film were called “Love Potion Number 9.” The fortune teller was named Madame Ruth. I think I’ll consult her before the next election. Her predictions might be more reliable than the ones by these failed pollsters.
This is — because it isn’t over — another multibillion-dollar election. Remember campaign finance reform? Gone with the wind.
In Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky election victory, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly $100 million was contributed and spent. Much of the money came from people outside the state.
It was the same in South Carolina where incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham won re-election in a hotly contested race. Graham joked that the $107 million contributed to his opponent, Democrat Jaime Harrison, was a “bad investment.”
A pipe break in Fulton County, Georgia, delayed voting. Could this be the “hanging chads” of the 2000 election in Florida? Will ballots be water damaged, making some of them unreadable or questionable?
We need to reform the election process.
Campaigning should be made shorter as they do in the United Kingdom. Their election season usually takes weeks, not years like ours.
On Tuesday night, some anchors were already speculating who might run for president in 2024. Ridiculous.
The paper ballot — even those scanned by machines when they work — is a relic of the past. We live in a digital age. Why can’t we vote digitally in a manner that would instantly confirm our votes and send them to a secure database? Having to wait days and possibly weeks to determine the next president reduces the credibility of our election process and makes us a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world.
It would be a shame if this election winds up in the Supreme Court, widening the divide in our already fractured country. Many were hoping for a decisive outcome, whichever candidate won. It looks like we are not going to get it and the rancor, name-calling and demonstrations will continue.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Who will step forward and call for meaningful reforms?
I’m going to ask Madame Ruth.
© 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-11-05--Democrats Flop in State Races Despite ‘Flip Everything’ Push

After a costly and intense political battle for control of state capitols , the composition of state legislatures and governors ’ offices will look a lot like it did before Tuesday ’ s elections .
That means Republicans will again control significantly more states than Democrats , giving the GOP greater power over the once-a-decade task of redrawing congressional and legislative districts as well as a continued platform to push for conservative economic and social policies .
“ When you look at state legislative races , a lot of money got spent , a lot of turnout was had , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much where we started , ” Wendy Underhill , director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures , said .
Heading into Tuesday , Republicans had full control of 29 state legislatures compared to 19 for Democrats .
The GOP also held 26 governors ’ offices while the Democrats had 24 .
TRENDING : Discovery of Arizona Data Error Suddenly Throws Early Calls for Biden Into Question The GOP governors ’ count grew by one as Montana voters elected U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ flip control of the New Hampshire House and Senate , according to tracking by the NCSL and national Republican and Democratic groups .
Control of the Republican-led Arizona House and Senate — which ranked among the Democrats ’ top prospects for flipping chambers — remained undecided because of some close races .
If the Arizona chambers don ’ t flip , the 2020 elections could produce the smallest number of changes in chamber control since the 1944 general election , Underhill said .
After being dominated by Republicans in the 2010 elections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motto ahead of the next round of redistricting .
Democratic-aligned groups combined to raise more than $ 100 million this election cycle .
They were countered by the Republican state leadership committee , which had a target of about $ 70 million .
But Democrats failed Tuesday in several of their highly targeted states , including the Texas House , the North Carolina House and Senate , and the Florida House .
The result is that Republicans will fully control redistricting in all three of those states , an advantage that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. House seats as a result of its population growth .
The election results “ will put the Republican Party in a position where we ’ re able to secure a decade of power across the country ” through redistricting , according to Austin Chambers , president of the Republican State Leadership Committee .
Heading into Tuesday , Minnesota was the only state with a House controlled by one party and a Senate by the other .
The state seems poised for more partisan gridlock , as Democrats retained a diminished House majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their slim Senate majority , despite Democrats ’ efforts to try to flip the chamber .
In Kansas , Democrats had hoped to flip at least a few seats to break the Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate .
Instead , Republicans added to their House ranks with more conservatives , increasing the potential to override vetoes by Democratic Gov .
Laura Kelly .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

After a costly and intense political battle for control of state capitols, the composition of state legislatures and governors’ offices will look a lot like it did before Tuesday’s elections.
That means Republicans will again control significantly more states than Democrats, giving the GOP greater power over the once-a-decade task of redrawing congressional and legislative districts as well as a continued platform to push for conservative economic and social policies.
“When you look at state legislative races, a lot of money got spent, a lot of turnout was had, and yet the end result was pretty much where we started,” Wendy Underhill, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said.
“This was a status quo election.”
Heading into Tuesday, Republicans had full control of 29 state legislatures compared to 19 for Democrats. The GOP also held 26 governors’ offices while the Democrats had 24.
The GOP governors’ count grew by one as Montana voters elected U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.
Republicans also appeared to flip control of the New Hampshire House and Senate, according to tracking by the NCSL and national Republican and Democratic groups.
Control of the Republican-led Arizona House and Senate — which ranked among the Democrats’ top prospects for flipping chambers — remained undecided because of some close races.
If the Arizona chambers don’t flip, the 2020 elections could produce the smallest number of changes in chamber control since the 1944 general election, Underhill said.
Are you surprised that the GOP retained control of states? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 17% (23 Votes) No: 83% (113 Votes)
After being dominated by Republicans in the 2010 elections, Democrats had a “flip everything” motto ahead of the next round of redistricting.
Democratic-aligned groups combined to raise more than $100 million this election cycle. They were countered by the Republican state leadership committee, which had a target of about $70 million.
But Democrats failed Tuesday in several of their highly targeted states, including the Texas House, the North Carolina House and Senate, and the Florida House.
The result is that Republicans will fully control redistricting in all three of those states, an advantage that’s even more important because each could gain U.S. House seats as a result of its population growth.
The election results “will put the Republican Party in a position where we’re able to secure a decade of power across the country” through redistricting, according to Austin Chambers, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee.
Heading into Tuesday, Minnesota was the only state with a House controlled by one party and a Senate by the other.
The state seems poised for more partisan gridlock, as Democrats retained a diminished House majority and Republicans appeared likely to hang onto their slim Senate majority, despite Democrats’ efforts to try to flip the chamber.
In Kansas, Democrats had hoped to flip at least a few seats to break the Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate.
Instead, Republicans added to their House ranks with more conservatives, increasing the potential to override vetoes by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.
[jwplayer zZk9ndXZ]
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.