hotair--2020-10-23--Lou Dobbs: I can't imagine why anyone would vote for Lindsey Graham

Here I was , thinking there was no common ground to be had this year between Never Trumpers and hardcore MAGA worshipers like Lou .
But life is full of surprises , isn ’ t it ?
Are there any other weaselly Trump sycophants in the Senate we can get together on besides Graham ?
This could be a kumbaya moment for all of us .
Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst are still very much in contention in their Senate races .
Can something be worked out to have Tucker Carlson denounce them on the air next week ?
Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kissing Trump ’ s ass because he was worried about being primaried by an even bigger Trump ass-kisser .
Which was a credible fear : Witness Kelly Loeffler , who ’ s having so much trouble fending off Doug Collins from the right in Georgia ’ s jungle primary that she ’ s taken to buddying up to QAnoners to prove her populist bona fides .
Graham managed to avoid a tough primary — only to find himself , against all odds , tied in the polls with a Democrat who ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history , all thanks to the man he ’ s running against .
And now here ’ s MAGA cheerleader supreme Lou Dobbs sticking the knife in anyway 11 days out from Election Day , at a moment when Graham needs every right-wing vote he can get to keep his seat from turning blue .
Unbelievable .
You realize this race might determine control of the Senate , don ’ t you , Lou ?
He knows .
But Dobbs is also a border hawk of longstanding and Graham , ah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so Dobbs is picking his spot to try to take Graham out despite the potentially dire consequences of an upset in SC .
He should have just been honest about his motive during his rant , though .
The reason he gives — Graham wants to wait two weeks before subpoenaing the lords of Big Tech — is so dumb and lame that it makes his anti-endorsement seem petty .
Even someone as deep in the MAGA bubble as Lou can ’ t seriously believe that subpoenaing Mark Zuckerberg and Jack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Even if they could be made to testify before Election Day , the session will consist of one part actual testimony to 10 parts grandstanding by the likes of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley , seizing their chance to produce some campaign-commercial material for their 2024 campaigns .
Senate hearings are worthless pandering garbage organized to sate the vanity of our sociopathic political class .
Surely we can find a little common ground on that point too , no ?
The irony of Always Trump and Never Trump coming together to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll fail .
I ’ ve thought from the start that SC is simply too red to elect Harrison , even with all of his money .
Last week the NYT found Graham up a comfortable six points there , 46/40 .
Other polls have had Harrison slightly ahead , but FiveThirtyEight still gives Graham a three-in-four chance of winning ( which frankly seems low ) .
I think the Times has the outcome more or less right .
I ’ d guess Graham 50 , Harrison 45 or thereabouts on Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is getting attention on social media today for its sheer wackiness .
Between this and Dobbs trying to oust a Trump crony from his Senate seat , the next 10 days at Fox are shaping up to be pretty wild .

Here I was, thinking there was no common ground to be had this year between Never Trumpers and hardcore MAGA worshipers like Lou.
But life is full of surprises, isn’t it?
Are there any other weaselly Trump sycophants in the Senate we can get together on besides Graham? This could be a kumbaya moment for all of us. Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst are still very much in contention in their Senate races. Can something be worked out to have Tucker Carlson denounce them on the air next week?
Graham spent four years swallowing his pride and kissing Trump’s ass because he was worried about being primaried by an even bigger Trump ass-kisser. Which was a credible fear: Witness Kelly Loeffler, who’s having so much trouble fending off Doug Collins from the right in Georgia’s jungle primary that she’s taken to buddying up to QAnoners to prove her populist bona fides. Graham managed to avoid a tough primary — only to find himself, against all odds, tied in the polls with a Democrat who’d eventually become the best-funded Senate candidate in American history, all thanks to the man he’s running against.
And now here’s MAGA cheerleader supreme Lou Dobbs sticking the knife in anyway 11 days out from Election Day, at a moment when Graham needs every right-wing vote he can get to keep his seat from turning blue. Unbelievable.
RINO Subversion: Lou says it’s time to tune out Lindsey Graham after the senator said he will not subpoena Twitter & Facebook’s CEOs until after the election. #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/oqFCAoGSBS — Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) October 23, 2020
You realize this race might determine control of the Senate, don’t you, Lou?
He knows. But Dobbs is also a border hawk of longstanding and Graham, ah, is not, to put it mildly, and so Dobbs is picking his spot to try to take Graham out despite the potentially dire consequences of an upset in SC. He should have just been honest about his motive during his rant, though. The reason he gives — Graham wants to wait two weeks before subpoenaing the lords of Big Tech — is so dumb and lame that it makes his anti-endorsement seem petty. Even someone as deep in the MAGA bubble as Lou can’t seriously believe that subpoenaing Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey before November 3 will meaningfully influence votes. Even if they could be made to testify before Election Day, the session will consist of one part actual testimony to 10 parts grandstanding by the likes of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, seizing their chance to produce some campaign-commercial material for their 2024 campaigns.
Senate hearings are worthless pandering garbage organized to sate the vanity of our sociopathic political class. Surely we can find a little common ground on that point too, no?
The irony of Always Trump and Never Trump coming together to oust Lindsey is that … we’ll fail. I’ve thought from the start that SC is simply too red to elect Harrison, even with all of his money. Last week the NYT found Graham up a comfortable six points there, 46/40. Other polls have had Harrison slightly ahead, but FiveThirtyEight still gives Graham a three-in-four chance of winning (which frankly seems low). I think the Times has the outcome more or less right. I’d guess Graham 50, Harrison 45 or thereabouts on Election Day.
Here’s your exit quotation, which is getting attention on social media today for its sheer wackiness. Between this and Dobbs trying to oust a Trump crony from his Senate seat, the next 10 days at Fox are shaping up to be pretty wild.


hotair--2020-10-23--NYT: If the polls are as wrong this year as they were in 2016, the election will be extremely tight

Via David Byler , it could happen .
But you can see from the chart below why Frank Luntz thinks political polling will never again be taken seriously if it blows this election .
Pollsters have no excuses this time .
They were caught by surprise four years ago by the strength of Trump ’ s appeal to working-class whites and his small but significant inroads with minority voters , especially men .
They ’ ve had years to adjust their assumptions about 2020 accordingly .
And they have adjusted , for instance by paying more attention to the educational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure Trump ’ s base is fully represented .
The question is whether they ’ ve adjusted enough .
To presume to learn the lessons of 2016 and then underestimate Trump again in 2020 by the same margin would mean the industry is incapable of calibrating its measurements of the electorate properly even when given a four-year heads-up on the dynamics of a candidate ’ s electoral coalition .
They ’ ll never recover .
Do the electoral math on the middle column there and you ’ ll find Sleepy Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a razor-thin lead in Pennsylvania .
Michigan and Arizona would get him to 259 electoral votes when added to Hillary ’ s 2016 total .
Holding on in Pennsylvania would give him another 20 and the presidency , but a victory by less than a point would mean a civic and legal nightmare — a recount , court challenges to mail-in ballots , an utter fiasco .
An election in which control of the White House turned on the tiniest of margins in PA would truly be the worst outcome for America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , it ’ s highly probable if not certain .
But let ’ s step back and look again at the chart .
One thing you ’ ll notice here is that Trump wins Wisconsin , an outcome that seems even more far-fetched this year than it did in 2016 .
Wisconsin was the site of the most infamous polling miss of that campaign , with surveys predicting a Clinton win in the six- to seven-point range only to have Trump eke it out by less than a point .
One problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a ton of quality pollsters focused on the race : There was Marquette and Monmouth , but many bigger firms stayed away for the same reason Hillary Clinton herself did , namely , they assumed she had the state in the bag .
This year , understandably , pollsters are taking Wisconsin seriously .
Fox News is polling it , as is the Times , CBS , NBC , ABC , etc etc .
RCP has a 4.6-point lead for Biden there today ; FiveThirtyEight ’ s weighted average has Biden ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of winning .
Given the intense attention being paid to the state this year , pollsters underestimating Trump again there — by seven points !
— would be an even more catastrophic miss than in 2016 .
Which seems unlikely .
Another thing you might notice on the chart is that Trump improves quite a bit in Florida and Pennsylvania from his current polling if you assume an error on par with 2016 .
He gains more than three points in FL and more than five points in PA .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll find that most surveys in the final days of that race were much more accurate than whatever the Times is using as its own baseline .
The final RCP average in Florida actually had Trump ahead by four-tenths of a point .
He ended up winning by 1.2 .
That should mean a polling gain of just 0.8 points for Trump this year if there ’ s a 2016-scale underestimation of his support — which would not be enough to erase Biden ’ s lead , per the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led in Pennsylvania by just 2.1 points when polls opened on Election Day .
Check out how much ground Trump made up in that state in the final week that year : There was a huge break towards Trump in the last days , probably due to James Comey ’ s letter reopening the Emailgate probe combined with the habit of late deciders to break for challengers instead of “ incumbents.
” Trump ended up winning PA by seven-tenths of a point , which means the polling average underestimated him by 2.8 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims , Biden is now leading in Pennsylvania by six , then the same polling error this year should lead to … a reasonably comfortable three-point Biden win .
All of which is a long way of saying that it may be that the Times ’ s 2016 polling was unusually crappy relative to the competition .
*They* missed big on Trump , but ( with the exception of Wisconsin ) lots of other pollsters were in the ballpark of predicting his share of the electorate in key battlegrounds .
One other thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The polls also missed notably in 2012 , but that year they missed by underestimating Democrats , not Republicans .
Obama pulled off a more decisive win than data nerds had expected .
Modelers like Nate Silver and Nate Cohn have made that point to their readers from time to time on social media this fall , that there ’ s nothing written in the stars this year that ensures bad polling will benefit Trump .
It could be that pollsters have underestimated the ferocious desire among lefties to beat him and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ ll be a late break towards Biden among the few remaining undecideds that ends up padding Sleepy Joe ’ s margins .
It could be that Trump ’ s inroads among Latino voters will end up evaporating before Election Day for whatever reason .
The “ Trump upset ” scenario is real , but the “ Biden tsunami ” scenario is real too .
It may even be more likely than a Trump upset : Amy Walter noted yesterday that , since 1980 , no incumbent president has overperformed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s approval today at Gallup is 43 percent .
If he pulls 47 percent of the vote on Election Day in what ’ s essentially a two-man race with Biden , that leaves Sleepy Joe apt to hit 50 or better .
Is Trump likely to eke out another electoral college win with those numbers ?
I doubt it .
There ’ s one more thing working against him .
As is always true in elections , the demographics of the electorate are different now than they were four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plays to his advantage .
“ Trump coalition ” here represents his base of whites without a college degree .
“ Biden coalition ” describes white college grads plus minority voters .
Winning over college-educated suburbanites should have been a top priority for Trump , especially after that cohort handed the House to Democrats two years ago .
He may pay for failing to do so in a big way .
I ’ ll leave you with one last point about the Times chart up top .
It notes that if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same degree it was in 2016 then Trump is trailing Biden by merely six points , not nine .
That ’ s nice , but Nate Silver estimated a few weeks ago that for Biden to be all but assured of winning the electoral college , he ’ d need to win the national popular vote by … five points .
( A margin that large nationally would imply that he ’ ll get what he needs in the battlegrounds , even if those races are tight . )
Assuming Silver ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rosy polling-error scenario for Trump should mean a Biden victory .
He has to cut further into the Democrat ’ s lead .
He has 10.5 days .

Via David Byler, it could happen.
But you can see from the chart below why Frank Luntz thinks political polling will never again be taken seriously if it blows this election. Pollsters have no excuses this time. They were caught by surprise four years ago by the strength of Trump’s appeal to working-class whites and his small but significant inroads with minority voters, especially men. They’ve had years to adjust their assumptions about 2020 accordingly. And they have adjusted, for instance by paying more attention to the educational split in their samples and weighting accordingly to make sure Trump’s base is fully represented.
The question is whether they’ve adjusted enough. To presume to learn the lessons of 2016 and then underestimate Trump again in 2020 by the same margin would mean the industry is incapable of calibrating its measurements of the electorate properly even when given a four-year heads-up on the dynamics of a candidate’s electoral coalition. They’ll never recover.
Do the electoral math on the middle column there and you’ll find Sleepy Joe with pick-ups in Michigan and Arizona and a razor-thin lead in Pennsylvania. Michigan and Arizona would get him to 259 electoral votes when added to Hillary’s 2016 total. Holding on in Pennsylvania would give him another 20 and the presidency, but a victory by less than a point would mean a civic and legal nightmare — a recount, court challenges to mail-in ballots, an utter fiasco. An election in which control of the White House turned on the tiniest of margins in PA would truly be the worst outcome for America. Which means, since it’s 2020, it’s highly probable if not certain.
But let’s step back and look again at the chart.
One thing you’ll notice here is that Trump wins Wisconsin, an outcome that seems even more far-fetched this year than it did in 2016. Wisconsin was the site of the most infamous polling miss of that campaign, with surveys predicting a Clinton win in the six- to seven-point range only to have Trump eke it out by less than a point. One problem back then was that there wasn’t a ton of quality pollsters focused on the race: There was Marquette and Monmouth, but many bigger firms stayed away for the same reason Hillary Clinton herself did, namely, they assumed she had the state in the bag. This year, understandably, pollsters are taking Wisconsin seriously. Fox News is polling it, as is the Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc etc. RCP has a 4.6-point lead for Biden there today; FiveThirtyEight’s weighted average has Biden ahead by 6.5, with an 86 percent chance of winning. Given the intense attention being paid to the state this year, pollsters underestimating Trump again there — by seven points! — would be an even more catastrophic miss than in 2016. Which seems unlikely.
Another thing you might notice on the chart is that Trump improves quite a bit in Florida and Pennsylvania from his current polling if you assume an error on par with 2016. He gains more than three points in FL and more than five points in PA. But if you look back to the 2016 polling, you’ll find that most surveys in the final days of that race were much more accurate than whatever the Times is using as its own baseline. The final RCP average in Florida actually had Trump ahead by four-tenths of a point. He ended up winning by 1.2. That should mean a polling gain of just 0.8 points for Trump this year if there’s a 2016-scale underestimation of his support — which would not be enough to erase Biden’s lead, per the Times’s numbers. Similarly, Clinton led in Pennsylvania by just 2.1 points when polls opened on Election Day. Check out how much ground Trump made up in that state in the final week that year:
There was a huge break towards Trump in the last days, probably due to James Comey’s letter reopening the Emailgate probe combined with the habit of late deciders to break for challengers instead of “incumbents.” Trump ended up winning PA by seven-tenths of a point, which means the polling average underestimated him by 2.8 points overall. If, as the Times claims, Biden is now leading in Pennsylvania by six, then the same polling error this year should lead to … a reasonably comfortable three-point Biden win.
All of which is a long way of saying that it may be that the Times’s 2016 polling was unusually crappy relative to the competition. *They* missed big on Trump, but (with the exception of Wisconsin) lots of other pollsters were in the ballpark of predicting his share of the electorate in key battlegrounds.
One other thing to notice in the chart above. The polls also missed notably in 2012, but that year they missed by underestimating Democrats, not Republicans. Obama pulled off a more decisive win than data nerds had expected. Modelers like Nate Silver and Nate Cohn have made that point to their readers from time to time on social media this fall, that there’s nothing written in the stars this year that ensures bad polling will benefit Trump. It could be that pollsters have underestimated the ferocious desire among lefties to beat him and are lowballing Democratic turnout. It could be that there’ll be a late break towards Biden among the few remaining undecideds that ends up padding Sleepy Joe’s margins. It could be that Trump’s inroads among Latino voters will end up evaporating before Election Day for whatever reason. The “Trump upset” scenario is real, but the “Biden tsunami” scenario is real too. It may even be more likely than a Trump upset: Amy Walter noted yesterday that, since 1980, no incumbent president has overperformed his job approval by more than four points. Trump’s approval today at Gallup is 43 percent. If he pulls 47 percent of the vote on Election Day in what’s essentially a two-man race with Biden, that leaves Sleepy Joe apt to hit 50 or better. Is Trump likely to eke out another electoral college win with those numbers? I doubt it.
There’s one more thing working against him. As is always true in elections, the demographics of the electorate are different now than they were four years ago. And not in a way that plays to his advantage. “Trump coalition” here represents his base of whites without a college degree. “Biden coalition” describes white college grads plus minority voters.
Winning over college-educated suburbanites should have been a top priority for Trump, especially after that cohort handed the House to Democrats two years ago. He may pay for failing to do so in a big way.
I’ll leave you with one last point about the Times chart up top. It notes that if the national polling right now is off to the same degree it was in 2016 then Trump is trailing Biden by merely six points, not nine. That’s nice, but Nate Silver estimated a few weeks ago that for Biden to be all but assured of winning the electoral college, he’d need to win the national popular vote by … five points. (A margin that large nationally would imply that he’ll get what he needs in the battlegrounds, even if those races are tight.) Assuming Silver’s right then even the Times’s rosy polling-error scenario for Trump should mean a Biden victory. He has to cut further into the Democrat’s lead. He has 10.5 days.


hotair--2020-10-23--San Francisco: A string of drug stores close after shoplifters strip the shelves bare

You ’ ll be shocked to learn there are some serious problems in San Francisco with petty crime .
This week the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the seventh Walgreens drug store to announce it is closing in the city since last year .
The problem is a wave of shoplifting from retail locations that can add up to millions of dollars in lost merchandise : The drugstore , which serves many older people who live in the Opera Plaza area , is the seventh Walgreens to close in the city since 2019 .
“ All of us knew it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , they always have problems with shoplifters , ” said longtime customer Sebastian Luke , who lives a block away and is a frequent customer who has been posting photos of the thefts for months .
The other day , Luke photographed a man casually clearing a couple of shelves and placing the goods into a backpack… A recent trip to the store revealed aisle after aisle of empty or near-empty shelves .
Beauty supplies appear to be a favored target… When a clerk was asked where all the goods had gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people in the alleys , they have it all.
” … No sooner had the clerk spoken than a man wearing a virus mask walked in , emptied two shelves of snacks into a bag , then headed back for the door .
As he walked past the checkout line , a customer called out , “ Sure you don ’ t want a drink with that ?
” The Walgreens clerks can ’ t do anything about the theft because the company has a policy preventing them from interfering in shoplifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I suspect it ’ s really because if they didn ’ t have this policy and anyone got hurt , they would be sued .
And trying to stop this wave of thieves would be like throwing a pebble in a stream .
It wouldn ’ t make any real difference anyway .
A theft of less than $ 950 is a misdemeanor in California and even if the shoplifters get arrested they would likely be back on the streets almost immediately .
In the case of this particular store there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hoodline reports that Walgreens ’ lease for the space had expired and there are plans to tear down the existing 5-story building and replace it with a 47-story residential tower .
However , there ’ s no doubt the city in general and this store in particular had a serious retail theft problem .
Inside Edition sent a video crew there for a story and witnessed a man jumping over the counter to steal some remaining merchandise : All of this theft adds up .
Earlier this month California ’ s attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theft-ring in the Bay Area responsible for stealing $ 8 million worth of merchandise .
Most of it had been shoplifted from a CVS drug store : On September 30 , during a search and arrest warrant operations in the San Francisco Bay Area , agents seized and recovered approximately $ 8 million of stolen merchandise from retailers across the San Francisco Bay Area including CVS , Target and Walgreens as well as $ 85,000 in cash from the suspects ’ residences , a warehouse and storage facilities… Trailer after trailer , bin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stored on pallets , stacked floor to ceiling , two stories tall .
It took a team of 30 people two days to catalog it , mostly merchandise from CVS , as part of ‘ Operation Proof ’ of Purchase , $ 8 million dollars worth in all… “ They pay those thieves approximately $ 1 or $ 2 an item .
And then they sell it to an illicit wholesale operation , ” said [ CVS crime expert Ben ] Dugan .
The stolen goods eventually find their way to Ebay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they are sold at a steep discount .
You can ’ t lose $ 8 million worth of merchandise and stay in business obviously .
The city is turning a blind eye to this low-level crime and collectively it ’ s going to push retailers out .
To wrap this up , I came across another video from July of several thefts in progress at the same time inside a San Francisco drug store .
I can ’ t be 100 % sure but after comparing the two I believe this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above .
It ’ s just being looted here and no one is stopping it .
Notice at the end of this clip , someone is threatening to take the phone away from the person filming .
San Francisco isn ’ t going to have any retail left if this continues .

You’ll be shocked to learn there are some serious problems in San Francisco with petty crime. This week the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the seventh Walgreens drug store to announce it is closing in the city since last year. The problem is a wave of shoplifting from retail locations that can add up to millions of dollars in lost merchandise:
The drugstore, which serves many older people who live in the Opera Plaza area, is the seventh Walgreens to close in the city since 2019. “All of us knew it was coming. Whenever we go in there, they always have problems with shoplifters, ” said longtime customer Sebastian Luke, who lives a block away and is a frequent customer who has been posting photos of the thefts for months. The other day, Luke photographed a man casually clearing a couple of shelves and placing the goods into a backpack… A recent trip to the store revealed aisle after aisle of empty or near-empty shelves. Beauty supplies appear to be a favored target… When a clerk was asked where all the goods had gone, he said, “Go ask the people in the alleys, they have it all.”… No sooner had the clerk spoken than a man wearing a virus mask walked in, emptied two shelves of snacks into a bag, then headed back for the door. As he walked past the checkout line, a customer called out, “Sure you don’t want a drink with that?”
The Walgreens clerks can’t do anything about the theft because the company has a policy preventing them from interfering in shoplifting. Allegedly this is for their safety but I suspect it’s really because if they didn’t have this policy and anyone got hurt, they would be sued.
And trying to stop this wave of thieves would be like throwing a pebble in a stream. It wouldn’t make any real difference anyway. A theft of less than $950 is a misdemeanor in California and even if the shoplifters get arrested they would likely be back on the streets almost immediately.
In the case of this particular store there may be another reason the shelves are bare. Hoodline reports that Walgreens’ lease for the space had expired and there are plans to tear down the existing 5-story building and replace it with a 47-story residential tower.
However, there’s no doubt the city in general and this store in particular had a serious retail theft problem. Inside Edition sent a video crew there for a story and witnessed a man jumping over the counter to steal some remaining merchandise:
All of this theft adds up. Earlier this month California’s attorney general announced he had busted a major theft-ring in the Bay Area responsible for stealing $8 million worth of merchandise. Most of it had been shoplifted from a CVS drug store:
On September 30, during a search and arrest warrant operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, agents seized and recovered approximately $8 million of stolen merchandise from retailers across the San Francisco Bay Area including CVS, Target and Walgreens as well as $85,000 in cash from the suspects’ residences, a warehouse and storage facilities… Trailer after trailer, bin after bin, sack after sack — stored on pallets, stacked floor to ceiling, two stories tall. It took a team of 30 people two days to catalog it, mostly merchandise from CVS, as part of ‘Operation Proof’ of Purchase, $8 million dollars worth in all… “They pay those thieves approximately $1 or $2 an item. And then they sell it to an illicit wholesale operation,” said [CVS crime expert Ben] Dugan. The stolen goods eventually find their way to Ebay, Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace and Amazon, where they are sold at a steep discount.
You can’t lose $8 million worth of merchandise and stay in business obviously. The city is turning a blind eye to this low-level crime and collectively it’s going to push retailers out.
To wrap this up, I came across another video from July of several thefts in progress at the same time inside a San Francisco drug store. I can’t be 100% sure but after comparing the two I believe this is the same Walgreens store as the clip above. It’s just being looted here and no one is stopping it. Notice at the end of this clip, someone is threatening to take the phone away from the person filming. San Francisco isn’t going to have any retail left if this continues.


hotair--2020-10-23--'Happy Days' cast reunites to raise money for WI Democrats, Biden despite one member's protest

Attention young Baby Boomers and Gen Xers : the cast of Happy Days is reuniting after all these years for the purpose of raising money for Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign .
Ritchie , Fonzie , Potsie , and Mrs. Cunningham are getting the gang back together for a virtual fundraiser on Sunday with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin .
The cast members will answer questions from fans and provide behind-the-scene stories .
The cost of participation in the fundraiser is cheap , too .
A mere $ 1 contribution allows a fan to participate in the event .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Howard ( Ritchie Cunningham ) and Henry Winkler ( The Fonz ) are liberal Trump opponents .
They frequently speak out against Trump and his administration and are both supporting Joe Biden now .
The show was set in Milwaukee so it was a no-brainer for the state Democrats to pursue this cast reunion .
The Wisconsin Democrats have hosted several of these cast reunions leading up to the election .
They have hosted reunions for the cast of The Princess Bride , Parks and Recreation , and Veep .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and raise some money as they hope to attract new voters and motivate registered voters to get out and vote for Joe .
Will young voters and college kids be interested in the aging cast of Happy Days , though ?
Not to be ghoulish but some of the original cast have passed away .
“ We ’ re thrilled a show made famous in Milwaukee is coming back home to help make Donald Trump a one-term President , ” said Ben Wikler , Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House go through the Badger State , and with the cast of Happy Days helping us raise money to take back the White House , we believe even more we can deliver a victory on November 3rd.
” The Democrats may be thrilled but not all the cast members are thrilled with this decision .
Scott Baio , otherwise known as Chachi , is a big Trump supporter and he ’ s not having any part of it .
He doesn ’ t believe in “ socialism and Marxists ” , he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the reunion “ a little bizarre ” because its plan is to “ promote ” Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris , he said .
“ I ’ m not on board , obviously , because I don ’ t believe in socialism and Marxists , ” Baio , a vocal Trump supporter , told the host .
Additionally , Baio explained that he was opposing the cast reunion because it strips the American values of “ Happy Days.
” He said the show “ represented traditional American values , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americana.
” Baio also reiterated his support for Trump , noting that the incumbent candidate has his support because he believes “ in America , ” “ in hard work , ” and “ in individualism.
” “ I don ’ t hate this country like most liberals do .
I don ’ t think it was founded in a bad way , I love it , ” Baio added , noting that like him , “ President Trump loves this country.
” A feud is playing out in social media between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Uncle Jessie from Full House ) because Stamos asked if he can play Chachi in the reunion .
Who knew Uncle Jessie is a socialist ?
Baio isn ’ t amused .
Ouch .
Aunt Becky ( Lori Loughlin ) is facing prison time for her part in the college admissions fraud scandal .
Stamos has a non-partisan get-out-the-vote Instagram photo on his account .
I guess he decided he ’ d like to join the cool kids from Happy Days and join the Wisconsin Democrats in fundraising after that .
Anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Fox Business interview that Biden and Kamala “ condone , encourage and foment rioting and looting ” so his opinion of them is clear .
And , he took a shot at Stamos , too .

Attention young Baby Boomers and Gen Xers: the cast of Happy Days is reuniting after all these years for the purpose of raising money for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Ritchie, Fonzie, Potsie, and Mrs. Cunningham are getting the gang back together for a virtual fundraiser on Sunday with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The cast members will answer questions from fans and provide behind-the-scene stories. The cost of participation in the fundraiser is cheap, too. A mere $1 contribution allows a fan to participate in the event.
It’s no surprise that Ron Howard (Ritchie Cunningham) and Henry Winkler (The Fonz) are liberal Trump opponents. They frequently speak out against Trump and his administration and are both supporting Joe Biden now. The show was set in Milwaukee so it was a no-brainer for the state Democrats to pursue this cast reunion. The Wisconsin Democrats have hosted several of these cast reunions leading up to the election. They have hosted reunions for the cast of The Princess Bride, Parks and Recreation, and Veep. It’s a clever way to market the party and raise some money as they hope to attract new voters and motivate registered voters to get out and vote for Joe. Will young voters and college kids be interested in the aging cast of Happy Days, though? Not to be ghoulish but some of the original cast have passed away.
“We’re thrilled a show made famous in Milwaukee is coming back home to help make Donald Trump a one-term President,” said Ben Wikler, Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “We know all roads to the White House go through the Badger State, and with the cast of Happy Days helping us raise money to take back the White House, we believe even more we can deliver a victory on November 3rd.”
The most important election of our lifetimes is right around the corner and Wisconsin is a must-win swing state. So, I’m thrilled to announce a #HappyDaysReunion to support @WisDems on Oct 25. Chip in any amount to attend – https://t.co/otVhvvojQZ — Ron Howard (@RealRonHoward) October 19, 2020
The Democrats may be thrilled but not all the cast members are thrilled with this decision. Scott Baio, otherwise known as Chachi, is a big Trump supporter and he’s not having any part of it. He doesn’t believe in “socialism and Marxists”, he says.
Speaking to Maria Bartiromo, Baio called the reunion “a little bizarre” because its plan is to “promote” Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, he said. “I’m not on board, obviously, because I don’t believe in socialism and Marxists,” Baio, a vocal Trump supporter, told the host. Additionally, Baio explained that he was opposing the cast reunion because it strips the American values of “Happy Days.” He said the show “represented traditional American values, good morals” and “a slice of Americana.” Baio also reiterated his support for Trump, noting that the incumbent candidate has his support because he believes “in America,” “in hard work,” and “in individualism.” “I don’t hate this country like most liberals do. I don’t think it was founded in a bad way, I love it,” Baio added, noting that like him, “President Trump loves this country.”
A feud is playing out in social media between Baio and actor John Stamos (a.k.a. Uncle Jessie from Full House) because Stamos asked if he can play Chachi in the reunion. Who knew Uncle Jessie is a socialist? Baio isn’t amused.
Shouldn't he be taking care of Aunt Becky? 🤔 https://t.co/NGDy9fdkwN — Scott Baio (@ScottBaio) October 20, 2020
Ouch. Aunt Becky (Lori Loughlin) is facing prison time for her part in the college admissions fraud scandal.
Stamos has a non-partisan get-out-the-vote Instagram photo on his account. I guess he decided he’d like to join the cool kids from Happy Days and join the Wisconsin Democrats in fundraising after that. Anything for publicity, right?
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGYlAf_glsZ/?igshid=yslr38lgy8g0
Baio said in the Fox Business interview that Biden and Kamala “condone, encourage and foment rioting and looting” so his opinion of them is clear. And, he took a shot at Stamos, too.
“I think Stamos always wanted to be Chachi instead of playing second fiddle to a 3-year-old,” Baio remarked, referring to Stamos’ turn as Uncle Jesse on Full House, when he appeared alongside the Olsen twins’ Michelle.
Sunday, Monday, Happy Days. Tuesday, Wednesday, Happy Days. Thursday, Friday, Happy Days …


hotair--2020-10-23--U.S. sets new daily record in COVID cases as European numbers continue to skyrocket; <span class='re

U.S. sets new daily record in COVID cases as European numbers continue to skyrocket; Update: Another record

There isn ’ t much to say that isn ’ t said clearly by the data itself , apart from a reminder that it ’ s not even winter-coat weather yet in the U.S .
If we ’ re setting records for cases with the entirety of respiratory disease season ( a.k.a .
“ flu season ” ) still ahead of us , God only knows what sort of epidemic we ’ ll be facing on , say , Christmas Day .
Hardcore COVID deniers are known to say that the pandemic will mysteriously disappear the day after Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served its purpose of tanking Trump ’ s electoral chances .
In reality , given the trendline , we ’ ll probably be breaking our record for new daily cases regularly in November .
And Europe ’ s even worse off than we are .
More on that in a moment .
But by midnight , 77,640 new coronavirus cases were on the books , up from the previous record of 75,723 set on July 29 , the newest figures showed .
And the death toll had risen by 921… In the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases have been driven by surges in Midwestern states like Illinois , Indiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Nebraska , Ohio , Wisconsin , North and South Dakota that have recorded rises in case numbers in the last two weeks .
The situation in Idaho is so dire that local health officials are considering sending new coronavirus patients to neighboring Washington state and Oregon because they are running out of hospital beds .
The COVID Tracking Project recorded more than 1,000 deaths yesterday , the highest single-day total since late September .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pair of studies showing that coronavirus has become less lethal over time , probably because doctors have simply become better at treating infections .
But a lower infection rate doesn ’ t necessarily mean a lower daily death toll ; that depends on how widely the virus is spreading .
The weekly death toll in the U.S. rose by more than 10 percent last week despite the virus ’ s declining lethality .
More spread means more dead .
Here ’ s how bad it is in the midwest right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse result in North Dakota despite San Francisco ’ s much , much higher density .
But it could be worse .
We could be Europe .
And maybe we will be before too long .
Via Worldometer : The number of daily new cases in the U.S. there is wrong ( it may be that Worldometer updates earlier in the day , before the final count here ) but the European numbers are accurate , I believe .
And they ’ re staggering .
France , Italy , and the UK each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the size of the USA ’ s .
Spain ’ s population is around one-seventh our size .
If those countries were as big as we are and had the same case counts yesterday proportionally , France would be over 200,000 per day , Spain at 140,000 , and the UK and Italy at around 100,000 .
You can find solace in that , that our own epidemic could be worse right now .
But you could also take it as a harbinger of things to come here , remembering that we followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those countries took their lockdowns seriously too , driving case counts down this summer in the belief that a smaller baseline of community spread as fall began would mean a less ferocious second wave this winter .
They ’ ve now learned otherwise .
And since April , we ’ ve never made a concerted national effort to suppress the virus .
We ’ re entering respiratory disease season with a higher baseline than the Europeans did , with new antibody drugs in short supply near-term and widespread access to a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do until then ?
Here ’ s a fascinating bit of data from WaPo ’ s Christopher Ingraham , gleaned from a COVID-tracking project at Carnegie Mellon .
There ’ s a strong negative correlation between the percentage of a state ’ s population that says it ’ s wearing masks most or all of the time outside of home and the percentage that ’ s observed COVID symptoms in someone they know .
Does that prove that mask-wearing reduces infection ?
No .
You ’ ll notice that some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus in spring fare well on this graph ; it may be that people there only started wearing masks en masse after the virus had already run its course , creating some degree of local immunity .
It ’ s also possible that people who are prone to wearing masks are also prone to taking other precautions that are more effective than masks are .
Maybe the states with higher rates of mask-wearing are also more diligent about social distancing .
But that graph obviously raises the possibility that widespread mask-wearing is helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to reduce transmission of the virus in quantities sufficient to produce symptomatic cases .
There ’ s been a theory kicking around that , while masks don ’ t prevent the wearer from being infected , they *might* block enough viral particles from being inhaled to affect how severe the the wearer ’ s infection is .
If higher viral loads produce more severe cases of COVID ( another theory ) then it ’ s important to limit how much of the virus enters your system when you happen to encounter someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a study on whether there are in fact fewer symptomatic cases in states where mask-wearing is more prevalent .
Ingraham ’ s graph suggests that , but doesn ’ t confirm it .
Update : WaPo says we beat yesterday ’ s case count today , cracking 80,000 nationally for the first time .
“ New record ” may be a common news story on weekdays for the foreseeable future .

There isn’t much to say that isn’t said clearly by the data itself, apart from a reminder that it’s not even winter-coat weather yet in the U.S. If we’re setting records for cases with the entirety of respiratory disease season (a.k.a. “flu season”) still ahead of us, God only knows what sort of epidemic we’ll be facing on, say, Christmas Day.
Hardcore COVID deniers are known to say that the pandemic will mysteriously disappear the day after Election Day, once the unfavorable media coverage has served its purpose of tanking Trump’s electoral chances. In reality, given the trendline, we’ll probably be breaking our record for new daily cases regularly in November.
And Europe’s even worse off than we are. More on that in a moment.
But by midnight, 77,640 new coronavirus cases were on the books, up from the previous record of 75,723 set on July 29, the newest figures showed. And the death toll had risen by 921… In the U.S., much of the increase in new cases have been driven by surges in Midwestern states like Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota that have recorded rises in case numbers in the last two weeks. The situation in Idaho is so dire that local health officials are considering sending new coronavirus patients to neighboring Washington state and Oregon because they are running out of hospital beds.
The COVID Tracking Project recorded more than 1,000 deaths yesterday, the highest single-day total since late September. We got good news earlier this week with a pair of studies showing that coronavirus has become less lethal over time, probably because doctors have simply become better at treating infections. But a lower infection rate doesn’t necessarily mean a lower daily death toll; that depends on how widely the virus is spreading. The weekly death toll in the U.S. rose by more than 10 percent last week despite the virus’s declining lethality. More spread means more dead.
Here’s how bad it is in the midwest right now, via CTP:
To get a sense of the extent of the spread of COVID-19 in North Dakota, a comparison with San Francisco is instructive. There are more people in the city of San Francisco (883,000 people in 47 sq. miles) than in the state of North Dakota (762,000 people in 70,762 sq. miles). This week, more than 5,200 people in North Dakota tested positive for the coronavirus; San Francisco counted 213. Since the pandemic began, San Francisco has recorded just over 12,000 cases and 138 deaths; North Dakota has seen 34,165 cases and 323 deaths since March.
Comparable populations but a worse result in North Dakota despite San Francisco’s much, much higher density.
But it could be worse. We could be Europe. And maybe we will be before too long. Via Worldometer:
The number of daily new cases in the U.S. there is wrong (it may be that Worldometer updates earlier in the day, before the final count here) but the European numbers are accurate, I believe. And they’re staggering. France, Italy, and the UK each have populations on the order of one-fifth the size of the USA’s. Spain’s population is around one-seventh our size. If those countries were as big as we are and had the same case counts yesterday proportionally, France would be over 200,000 per day, Spain at 140,000, and the UK and Italy at around 100,000.
You can find solace in that, that our own epidemic could be worse right now. But you could also take it as a harbinger of things to come here, remembering that we followed Europe’s trajectory in the spring. Those countries took their lockdowns seriously too, driving case counts down this summer in the belief that a smaller baseline of community spread as fall began would mean a less ferocious second wave this winter. They’ve now learned otherwise. And since April, we’ve never made a concerted national effort to suppress the virus. We’re entering respiratory disease season with a higher baseline than the Europeans did, with new antibody drugs in short supply near-term and widespread access to a vaccine still many months away.
What can we do until then? Here’s a fascinating bit of data from WaPo’s Christopher Ingraham, gleaned from a COVID-tracking project at Carnegie Mellon.
NEW: Real-time coronavirus data from @CmuDelphi show a stunning correlation, at the state level, between mask use and prevalence of covid-19 symptoms https://t.co/NLcEo4ixSS pic.twitter.com/oqhL6ey7uV — Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) October 23, 2020
There’s a strong negative correlation between the percentage of a state’s population that says it’s wearing masks most or all of the time outside of home and the percentage that’s observed COVID symptoms in someone they know. Does that prove that mask-wearing reduces infection? No. You’ll notice that some of the northeastern states that were ravaged by the virus in spring fare well on this graph; it may be that people there only started wearing masks en masse after the virus had already run its course, creating some degree of local immunity. It’s also possible that people who are prone to wearing masks are also prone to taking other precautions that are more effective than masks are. Maybe the states with higher rates of mask-wearing are also more diligent about social distancing.
But that graph obviously raises the possibility that widespread mask-wearing is helping reduce transmission — or, more specifically, to reduce transmission of the virus in quantities sufficient to produce symptomatic cases. There’s been a theory kicking around that, while masks don’t prevent the wearer from being infected, they *might* block enough viral particles from being inhaled to affect how severe the the wearer’s infection is. If higher viral loads produce more severe cases of COVID (another theory) then it’s important to limit how much of the virus enters your system when you happen to encounter someone who’s infectious. We need a study on whether there are in fact fewer symptomatic cases in states where mask-wearing is more prevalent. Ingraham’s graph suggests that, but doesn’t confirm it.
Update: WaPo says we beat yesterday’s case count today, cracking 80,000 nationally for the first time. “New record” may be a common news story on weekdays for the foreseeable future.


hotair--2020-10-23--Judge Sullivan orders DOJ to review accuracy of evidence

Judge Emmett Sullivan ’ s efforts to drag out his decision about whether or not to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn continues .
Today Flynn demanded that the DOJ review evidence submitted in the case and swear under penalty of perjury that it is accurate : A federal judge on Friday ordered prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case to swear under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of evidence they had filed after a former FBI agent accused prosecutors of altering documents .
Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) until Monday to attest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from former FBI agent Peter Strzok .
He also ordered the prosecutors to provide the dates and authors for each filing as well as a transcription for each handwritten document .
Politico has more on the Judge ’ s order : In his new order , Sullivan notes that DOJ did not respond to his request to authenticate all 14 exhibits it has filed in support of the dismissal motion .
“ Although the government relies heavily on these 14 Exhibits , the government has not provided a declaration attesting that the Exhibits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote Friday .
Though he acknowledged there is typically a legal “ presumption ” that documents filed by the government are authentic , it doesn ’ t apply in this case .
“ Here , however , the government has acknowledged that altered FBI records have been produced by the government and filed on the record in this case.
” Unfortunately , the DOJ opened itself up to this scrutiny by making a mistake they have since admitted when submitting two previous documents .
Specifically , agents had place two sticky notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Strzok ’ s notes .
When the DOJ scanned and submitted those to the court , the sticky notes were not removed : “ Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters , before they were forwarded to our office for production , ” [ DOJ attorney Jocelyn ] Ballantine added .
“ The government has also confirmed with Mr. Goelman and can represent that the content of the notes was not otherwise altered.
” Assuming the DOJ meets his requirements by Monday will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally make a decision on dismissing the case ?
Maybe he ’ s hoping to find some other discrepancy that will generate a new round of headlines and an excuse to further delay his decision .
We ’ ll find out soon enough .
But Monday aside , what ’ s the goal here ?
Sullivan has already dragged this out for weeks and at this point it really does look like he ’ s trying to drag it out past the next election .
I ’ m not sure what that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s DOJ will still be in place until January .
Maybe he ’ s hoping to force Trump to pardon Flynn ?
I don ’ t know what the endgame is but as far as resistance theatrics go Judge Sullivan is putting on a good show .

Judge Emmett Sullivan’s efforts to drag out his decision about whether or not to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn continues. Today Flynn demanded that the DOJ review evidence submitted in the case and swear under penalty of perjury that it is accurate:
A federal judge on Friday ordered prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case to swear under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of evidence they had filed after a former FBI agent accused prosecutors of altering documents. Judge Emmet Sullivan gave the Department of Justice (DOJ) until Monday to attest to the evidence, which includes handwritten notes from former FBI agent Peter Strzok. He also ordered the prosecutors to provide the dates and authors for each filing as well as a transcription for each handwritten document.
Politico has more on the Judge’s order:
In his new order, Sullivan notes that DOJ did not respond to his request to authenticate all 14 exhibits it has filed in support of the dismissal motion. “Although the government relies heavily on these 14 Exhibits, the government has not provided a declaration attesting that the Exhibits are true and correct copies,” he wrote Friday. Though he acknowledged there is typically a legal “presumption” that documents filed by the government are authentic, it doesn’t apply in this case. “Here, however, the government has acknowledged that altered FBI records have been produced by the government and filed on the record in this case.”
Unfortunately, the DOJ opened itself up to this scrutiny by making a mistake they have since admitted when submitting two previous documents. Specifically, agents had place two sticky notes with possible dates on two pages of Peter Strzok’s notes. When the DOJ scanned and submitted those to the court, the sticky notes were not removed:
“Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production,” [DOJ attorney Jocelyn] Ballantine added. “The government has also confirmed with Mr. Goelman and can represent that the content of the notes was not otherwise altered.”
Assuming the DOJ meets his requirements by Monday will that settle this and allow him to finally make a decision on dismissing the case? Maybe he’s hoping to find some other discrepancy that will generate a new round of headlines and an excuse to further delay his decision. We’ll find out soon enough. But Monday aside, what’s the goal here?
Sullivan has already dragged this out for weeks and at this point it really does look like he’s trying to drag it out past the next election. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to accomplish since Trump’s DOJ will still be in place until January. Maybe he’s hoping to force Trump to pardon Flynn? I don’t know what the endgame is but as far as resistance theatrics go Judge Sullivan is putting on a good show.


hotair--2020-10-23--Struggling Democrats force Senate into closed session which lasts all of 20 minutes

Wednesday Democrats announced that they would boycott the Judiciary Committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett .
Instead of showing up for the vote they set up over-sized photos in their chairs of people who could lose their Obamacare insurance .
This stunt didn ’ t accomplish anything except to signal to frustrated resistance Democrats that their representatives are willing to fight every inch of the way to oppose Barrett .
Democrats want outrage , not the calm collegiality ( and the hug ) offered by Sen. Feinstein .
Today those efforts to impress the angry base continued as Democrats made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Barrett ’ s confirmation : The procedural maneuvering began as soon as the Senate convened , with Schumer forcing all senators for a “ live quorum call , ” a roll call where every senator has to declare that they are present .
He then called for an in-person vote to proceed with the legislative session , and forced the Senate to convene for a rare closed session to “ talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.
” The Washington Post has more on Schumer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate majority is on the precipice of making a colossal and historic mistake , ” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said as he moved to close the Senate .
Referring to the Senate and the Supreme Court , Schumer said the “ damage to Americans ’ faith in these institutions could be lasting , so before we go any further , we should shut off the cameras , close the Senate and talk face-to-face about what this might mean for the country.
” The move immediately garnered attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to succeed , but why not ?
” But before any momentum could build in support of it , the closed session was over .
It lasted less than 20 minutes : Schumer quickly whined about the stunt ’ s failure on Twitter : As did other Democrats : Again , Democrats know this isn ’ t likely to accomplish anything .
That ’ s not really the point .
The point is to signal to the base that they are fighting , fighting , fighting .
So even though this was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set out to accomplish .
Tonight the evening news will report they gave every last ounce of effort to oppose the nominee .
In any case , here ’ s the bottom line from the Post : Here ’ s Schumer forcing the closed session to strike a pose for the cameras :

Wednesday Democrats announced that they would boycott the Judiciary Committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett. Instead of showing up for the vote they set up over-sized photos in their chairs of people who could lose their Obamacare insurance. This stunt didn’t accomplish anything except to signal to frustrated resistance Democrats that their representatives are willing to fight every inch of the way to oppose Barrett. Democrats want outrage, not the calm collegiality (and the hug) offered by Sen. Feinstein.
Today those efforts to impress the angry base continued as Democrats made a number of moves to delay progress toward Barrett’s confirmation:
The procedural maneuvering began as soon as the Senate convened, with Schumer forcing all senators for a “live quorum call,” a roll call where every senator has to declare that they are present. He then called for an in-person vote to proceed with the legislative session, and forced the Senate to convene for a rare closed session to “talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”
The Washington Post has more on Schumer’s closed session maneuver:
“I believe the Senate majority is on the precipice of making a colossal and historic mistake,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said as he moved to close the Senate. Referring to the Senate and the Supreme Court, Schumer said the “damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting, so before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face-to-face about what this might mean for the country.”
The move immediately garnered attention from the media:
Schumer just moved to force a closed session in order to have a “candid conversation” about the push to confirm the nomination. Sen. John Kennedy, the presiding officer, ordered all galleries cleared, including where us reporters were seated. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 23, 2020
The Washington Post:
The Senate unexpectedly goes into closed session to, in theory, try to candidly discuss their differences over the confirmation process of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) October 23, 2020
Politico:
Closed session has begun. Staffers were just kicked out of the Senate chamber. — Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) October 23, 2020
“Long shot to succeed, but why not?”
Whoa…Schumer just forced the Senate into a rare closed door session. No cameras. No press. Doors being locked as I type. A last ditch effort to convince Republicans to not send the Senate into this death spiral of power politics. Long shot to succeed, but why not?Stay tuned. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 23, 2020
But before any momentum could build in support of it, the closed session was over. It lasted less than 20 minutes:
Marco Rubio says there was no debate during the closed Senate session
He says the GOP just immediately moved to a roll call vote to open up the Senate — Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 23, 2020
Extremely anticlimactic closed session. As soon as the Senate went into closed session they started voting to get out of it. Rubio called it “crazy” to have 100 senators locked “in a poorly ventilated room” — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) October 23, 2020
Schumer quickly whined about the stunt’s failure on Twitter:
I required the GOP to show up for a live quorum call—Senate can't do business without quorum Then I forced us into closed session to talk face-to-face about this nomination & its impact on America But the GOP decided to keep forcing this nominee through an illegitimate process — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 23, 2020
As did other Democrats:
I can't talk about the closed session, but you can tell from how briefly we were in there that my GOP colleagues are hellbent on ramming through this nom even if it means torching Senate’s traditions, rules, & integrity. They're not even willing to listen with the cameras off. — Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) October 23, 2020
Again, Democrats know this isn’t likely to accomplish anything. That’s not really the point. The point is to signal to the base that they are fighting, fighting, fighting. So even though this was a failure, they probably accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Tonight the evening news will report they gave every last ounce of effort to oppose the nominee. In any case, here’s the bottom line from the Post:
Barrett’s confirmation, which has produced a rancorous yet truncated fight in the Senate, is all but assured at this point. She has the support of nearly all GOP senators, and needs only a simple majority of the Senate to clear two key floor votes en route to becoming a justice.
Here’s Schumer forcing the closed session to strike a pose for the cameras:


hotair--2020-10-23--"A glorious day for peace": Trump announces normalization deal between Israel, Sudan; <span class='r

"A glorious day for peace": Trump announces normalization deal between Israel, Sudan; CNN: A "significant foreign-policy accomplishment"

“ We ’ ll have a big , beautiful party at the end , ” Donald Trump promised today in announcing two moves in the Middle East .
Trump ordered the removal of Sudan from the State Department list of terror sponsors after the new government adopted US requirements , and ponied up over $ 300 million in a fund for terror victims .
In return for that consideration , Sudan agreed to work with Israel on normalized ties as part of the Abraham Accord process , although it ’ s not immediately clear just how far those negotiations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formally notified Congress that his administration will remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism Friday , nearly 30 years after the African country was first listed .
In a historic joint call afterwards , he also announced a “ very special deal ” between Israel and Sudan — marking the third Arab country to move toward normalizing relations with the Jewish state in an election-season push by his administration .
It ’ s unclear if Sudan , which had pushed back on the White House efforts , is formally recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Either way , Friday ’ s events mark a historic new chapter , 18 months after the Sudanese people overthrew their strongman leader in mass protests .
But several critical hurdles remain , including for U.S. victims of terror attacks with legal claims against Sudan .
In an agreement reached between the State Department and Sudan ’ s transitional government , the country agreed to pay $ 335 million to the victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania , victims of the USS Cole attack , and the family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What about the “ big , beautiful party ” ?
Trump promised that several more Arab countries would soon join the list that has normalized relations with Israel .
Trump explicitly named Saudi Arabia amongst those countries , which is a bit more explicit than the Saudis have been thus far .
They have certainly sent plenty of signals in that direction , which is likely why Sudan felt comfortable cutting this deal even though they ’ re still dealing with unrest .
The Saudis have held out in order to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it abundantly clear that the window is closing — fast — for a negotiated settlement .
How far along is the normalization deal ?
Axios puts the arc more toward the beginning of talks than toward the end .
But Barak Ravid also explains why Sudan ’ s recognition is a very big deal , and very bad news for Hamas in particular : Unlike with Israel ’ s recent deals with the UAE and Bahrain , there was a state of belligerency between Israel and Sudan for years .
… The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Khartoum for years and maintained a military and political alliance with Israel ’ s enemies Iran and Hezbollah .
The Iranians used Sudan as a base for arms smuggling to the Gaza Strip , and established a massive factory for long-range rockets there .
Between 2008 and 2014 , a series of airstrikes took place against Gaza-bound weapons convoys in Sudan , an Iranian weapons ship docked in Port Sudan and the Iranian missile factory in Khartoum .
The Sudanese government blamed Israel , which never took responsibility for the strikes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Iran cooled dramatically as it started getting closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
It also engaged in quiet talks with Israel , which led Israel to lobby the U.S. and European countries to provide Sudan with economic aid .
This , then , is an actual peace deal , or will be when it gets executed .
Israeli prime minister called these developments “ a glorious day for peace , ” and explained at length how normalization has allowed Israelis to travel much more freely over the past few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mindful of diplomatic necessities in his exuberance , dodging a rather undiplomatic attempt by Trump to get Netanyahu to help Trump ’ s re-election campaign : Joe Biden certainly wouldn ’ t have been able to make this deal if he recalibrated back toward Iran , as he has promised to do .
For that matter , his plans to handicap American energy production would increase prices for Iran ’ s main export in oil , strengthening their hand in conducting proxy wars in the region to gain hegemonic control of the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make himself in that regard .
But asking Netanyahu to comment in that manner was inappropriate , and clearly Netanyahu knew he needed to extricate himself from Trump ’ s suggestion .
Otherwise , though , this is very good news for Trump , for the US , for the Middle East region , and for America ’ s allies in it .
It ’ s very bad news for our opponents there , especially Iran and its satellites .
It also reminds us that neither of the two moderators in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy in any detail outside of China or Russia .
I wonder why .
Update : Credit where it ’ s due for CNN ’ s coverage , which gives credit … where it ’ s due :

“We’ll have a big, beautiful party at the end,” Donald Trump promised today in announcing two moves in the Middle East. Trump ordered the removal of Sudan from the State Department list of terror sponsors after the new government adopted US requirements, and ponied up over $300 million in a fund for terror victims. In return for that consideration, Sudan agreed to work with Israel on normalized ties as part of the Abraham Accord process, although it’s not immediately clear just how far those negotiations have already gone:
President Donald Trump has formally notified Congress that his administration will remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism Friday, nearly 30 years after the African country was first listed. In a historic joint call afterwards, he also announced a “very special deal” between Israel and Sudan — marking the third Arab country to move toward normalizing relations with the Jewish state in an election-season push by his administration. It’s unclear if Sudan, which had pushed back on the White House efforts, is formally recognizing Israel or ending hostilities against it. Either way, Friday’s events mark a historic new chapter, 18 months after the Sudanese people overthrew their strongman leader in mass protests. But several critical hurdles remain, including for U.S. victims of terror attacks with legal claims against Sudan. In an agreement reached between the State Department and Sudan’s transitional government, the country agreed to pay $335 million to the victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, victims of the USS Cole attack, and the family of murdered USAID employee John Granville.
What about the “big, beautiful party”? Trump promised that several more Arab countries would soon join the list that has normalized relations with Israel. Trump explicitly named Saudi Arabia amongst those countries, which is a bit more explicit than the Saudis have been thus far. They have certainly sent plenty of signals in that direction, which is likely why Sudan felt comfortable cutting this deal even though they’re still dealing with unrest. The Saudis have held out in order to provide the Palestinians some leverage, but have also made it abundantly clear that the window is closing — fast — for a negotiated settlement.
How far along is the normalization deal? Axios puts the arc more toward the beginning of talks than toward the end. But Barak Ravid also explains why Sudan’s recognition is a very big deal, and very bad news for Hamas in particular:
Unlike with Israel’s recent deals with the UAE and Bahrain, there was a state of belligerency between Israel and Sudan for years. … The backdrop: Sudan hosted a Hamas headquarters in Khartoum for years and maintained a military and political alliance with Israel’s enemies Iran and Hezbollah. The Iranians used Sudan as a base for arms smuggling to the Gaza Strip, and established a massive factory for long-range rockets there. Between 2008 and 2014, a series of airstrikes took place against Gaza-bound weapons convoys in Sudan, an Iranian weapons ship docked in Port Sudan and the Iranian missile factory in Khartoum. The Sudanese government blamed Israel, which never took responsibility for the strikes. Since 2014, Sudan’s relations with Iran cooled dramatically as it started getting closer to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It also engaged in quiet talks with Israel, which led Israel to lobby the U.S. and European countries to provide Sudan with economic aid.
There’s also this historical context:
The Khartoum Summit, following the 6-Day War, was hosted by Sudan & it’s where the Arab League passed the resolution known as "The Three No's" — ‘NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, NO negotiations with Israel.’ Fast forward to today’s news👇 https://t.co/0gfCo1MPFE — Dan Senor (@dansenor) October 23, 2020
This, then, is an actual peace deal, or will be when it gets executed. Israeli prime minister called these developments “a glorious day for peace,” and explained at length how normalization has allowed Israelis to travel much more freely over the past few months. Still, Netanyahu was a bit mindful of diplomatic necessities in his exuberance, dodging a rather undiplomatic attempt by Trump to get Netanyahu to help Trump’s re-election campaign:
Trump has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on speaker phone to discuss a deal normalizing relations between Israel and Sudan. He asks: "Do you think Sleepy Joe could have made this deal?" Netanyahu: "We appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America" pic.twitter.com/OtCAL37m8e — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 23, 2020
Joe Biden certainly wouldn’t have been able to make this deal if he recalibrated back toward Iran, as he has promised to do. For that matter, his plans to handicap American energy production would increase prices for Iran’s main export in oil, strengthening their hand in conducting proxy wars in the region to gain hegemonic control of the region. Trump has a really good argument to make himself in that regard. But asking Netanyahu to comment in that manner was inappropriate, and clearly Netanyahu knew he needed to extricate himself from Trump’s suggestion.
Otherwise, though, this is very good news for Trump, for the US, for the Middle East region, and for America’s allies in it. It’s very bad news for our opponents there, especially Iran and its satellites. It also reminds us that neither of the two moderators in the presidential debates ever bothered to ask about foreign policy in any detail outside of China or Russia. I wonder why.
Update: Credit where it’s due for CNN’s coverage, which gives credit … where it’s due:


hotair--2020-10-23--Frank Luntz: If the polls are wrong again this time, my profession is finished

No profession is ever really “ finished ” after a catastrophic failure .
Ask someone who opposed the Iraq war .
They ’ ll talk your ear off about how cheerleaders for the invasion ended up failing upward in the foreign policy establishment or landing softly as “ wise men ” commentators in American media .
Polling won ’ t disappear either if it misjudges Trump ’ s chances again this time .
Everyone will pay *some* attention to it in 2024 .
But the industry , and satellite industries like election modelers , will never fully regain their credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underestimate Trump by three points in 2016 , a year when you had no inkling of how strong his support might be among working-class white voters .
It ’ s another thing to recalibrate for that , conclude that he ’ s trailing this time by eight or nine points instead of three — and then miss gain .
Better get the outcome right this time .
All the well-meaning introspective “ how we blew it ” postmorterms in the world will be farts in the wind in terms or rebuilding public confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminding fans lately on social media that although Trump is currently a longshot to win ( a 12 percent chance in FiveThirtyEight ’ s model ) , it ’ s not that long a shot .
Which is true — he has about a one in eight chance if Silver ’ s model is right , not a one in a thousand chance .
You wouldn ’ t write off an eight-to-one underdog in a football game .
But there ’ s a note of anxiety in those reminders , especially since Silver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t as bullish on Hillary as some of his competitors ’ models were .
There were people who gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of victory ; FiveThirtyEight gave her a more reasonable 71 percent chance .
Silver reminds readers of that periodically too , that all the taunts about having gotten it so wrong fall a bit flat when you consider that he gave Trump a better than one in four chance of winning .
Flip a coin twice and call heads or tails on each .
By Election Day 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were better than yours were of getting both calls right , at least according to FiveThirtyEight .
As the days creep by and the polling doesn ’ t tighten , though , Silver ’ s 2020 model has slid towards greater certainty that Biden has this race by the throat .
It may reach 90 percent probability of victory for him if nothing changes by November 3 .
If Trump ends up pulling another upset this year despite something like a 10 percent shot at winning , readers aren ’ t going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds aren ’ t really all that long .
Missing one upset is human ; missing two after you ’ ve had four years to retrench would suggest systemic methodological failure .
In hindsight , the models will look less like complex statistical analysis than haruspicy .
The most the pollsters will be able to say is that Trump turned out to be completely sui generis as a political persona and the data will turn more accurate again once American turns back to more traditional candidates .
For what it ’ s worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate looked especially bleak for him .
Biden leading by six or more in Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , and Florida is the makings of a bloodbath .
Morning Consult also found 2016 ’ s third-party voters breaking for Biden at a 53/21 clip , which might be sufficient to deliver him the nailbiter states from four years ago even if other demographic variables remained constant .
This Gallup poll released yesterday also raised some eyebrows : Not everyone who believes that Trump doesn ’ t deserve reelection will end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that category is a *big* number to have to overcome 11 days out from an election .
Jonathan Last flagged it yesterday in a ( far too confident ) piece claiming that “ Trump is toast , ” arguing that the more it seems that turnout this year will be unusually high , the more confidence we should have that the polls will be accurate .
And right now turnout does look to be very high .
Early-voting turnout is through the roof — the U.S. has already surpassed total early voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half still to go before Election Day — and it ’ s also Democrats who are mainly benefiting from it : Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day .
In a more worrisome sign for Republicans , Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP , according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish , a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Republicans and independent experts… The GOP caught an encouraging glimpse in Florida on Tuesday , when more Republicans began casting in-person , early ballots than Democrats in Trump ’ s must-win state .
But Democrats have dominated voting by mail and on Thursday held a historic lead in total pre-Election Day ballots cast of 463,000 , or 10 percentage points , according to the state ’ s Division of Elections… At a glance , the top-line Democratic margins also look huge in Arizona ( 16 percentage points ) , Michigan ( 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points ) , Pennsylvania ( 46 points ) , and Wisconsin ( 22 ) , according to the analysis from Hawkfish , which is funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg , a Trump foe .
Could it be that Dems are merely cannibalizing their overall turnout by having people show up early , with Republicans set to overwhelm them on November 3 ?
Sure .
But it ’ s hard to grok that one chunk of their electorate would be so eager to beat Trump that they ’ re setting records and crushing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chunk is so ambivalent about Trump that the party will end up with mediocre turnout overall .
For MAGA to beat the left this year , it increasingly appears , Trumpers will need to turn out for their guy in considerably bigger numbers than they did four years ago .
It ’ s conceivable that they will , as there were a lot of working-class whites who sat out the last election despite Trump ’ s appeal who might be persuadable now .
But it ’ s a lift .
If righties do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , that ’ ll doubtless be the pollsters ’ excuse afterward for missing so badly : No one could have foreseen turnout like this .
It was a 500-year flood .
You can ’ t hold our error against us .

No profession is ever really “finished” after a catastrophic failure. Ask someone who opposed the Iraq war. They’ll talk your ear off about how cheerleaders for the invasion ended up failing upward in the foreign policy establishment or landing softly as “wise men” commentators in American media.
Polling won’t disappear either if it misjudges Trump’s chances again this time. Everyone will pay *some* attention to it in 2024. But the industry, and satellite industries like election modelers, will never fully regain their credibility. It’s one thing to underestimate Trump by three points in 2016, a year when you had no inkling of how strong his support might be among working-class white voters. It’s another thing to recalibrate for that, conclude that he’s trailing this time by eight or nine points instead of three — and then miss gain.
Better get the outcome right this time. All the well-meaning introspective “how we blew it” postmorterms in the world will be farts in the wind in terms or rebuilding public confidence.
GOP pollster laments how "my profession is done" if pollsters are wrong about who will win the election. pic.twitter.com/EDDIox4FhQ — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) October 23, 2020
Modelers like Nate Silver have been reminding fans lately on social media that although Trump is currently a longshot to win (a 12 percent chance in FiveThirtyEight’s model), it’s not that long a shot. Which is true — he has about a one in eight chance if Silver’s model is right, not a one in a thousand chance. You wouldn’t write off an eight-to-one underdog in a football game. But there’s a note of anxiety in those reminders, especially since Silver’s 2016 model famously wasn’t as bullish on Hillary as some of his competitors’ models were. There were people who gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of victory; FiveThirtyEight gave her a more reasonable 71 percent chance. Silver reminds readers of that periodically too, that all the taunts about having gotten it so wrong fall a bit flat when you consider that he gave Trump a better than one in four chance of winning. Flip a coin twice and call heads or tails on each. By Election Day 2016, Trump’s odds at the presidency were better than yours were of getting both calls right, at least according to FiveThirtyEight.
As the days creep by and the polling doesn’t tighten, though, Silver’s 2020 model has slid towards greater certainty that Biden has this race by the throat. It may reach 90 percent probability of victory for him if nothing changes by November 3. If Trump ends up pulling another upset this year despite something like a 10 percent shot at winning, readers aren’t going to be soothed by after-the-fact assurances that one-in-10 odds aren’t really all that long. Missing one upset is human; missing two after you’ve had four years to retrench would suggest systemic methodological failure. In hindsight, the models will look less like complex statistical analysis than haruspicy. The most the pollsters will be able to say is that Trump turned out to be completely sui generis as a political persona and the data will turn more accurate again once American turns back to more traditional candidates.
For what it’s worth, the polls on the eve of the debate looked especially bleak for him.
NEW: Joe Biden leads in the key battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin while Donald Trump leads in South Carolina. Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas are all within the margin of error. https://t.co/jLPH4hBZSn pic.twitter.com/He5cENonfA — Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) October 22, 2020
Biden leading by six or more in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida is the makings of a bloodbath. Morning Consult also found 2016’s third-party voters breaking for Biden at a 53/21 clip, which might be sufficient to deliver him the nailbiter states from four years ago even if other demographic variables remained constant. This Gallup poll released yesterday also raised some eyebrows:
Not everyone who believes that Trump doesn’t deserve reelection will end up voting for Biden, but 56 percent in that category is a *big* number to have to overcome 11 days out from an election. Jonathan Last flagged it yesterday in a (far too confident) piece claiming that “Trump is toast,” arguing that the more it seems that turnout this year will be unusually high, the more confidence we should have that the polls will be accurate.
And right now turnout does look to be very high. Early-voting turnout is through the roof — the U.S. has already surpassed total early voting from 2016 with a week and a half still to go before Election Day — and it’s also Democrats who are mainly benefiting from it:
Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day. In a more worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP, according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish, a new Democratic research firm, which was reviewed by Republicans and independent experts… The GOP caught an encouraging glimpse in Florida on Tuesday, when more Republicans began casting in-person, early ballots than Democrats in Trump’s must-win state. But Democrats have dominated voting by mail and on Thursday held a historic lead in total pre-Election Day ballots cast of 463,000, or 10 percentage points, according to the state’s Division of Elections… At a glance, the top-line Democratic margins also look huge in Arizona (16 percentage points), Michigan (24 points), North Carolina (14 points), Pennsylvania (46 points), and Wisconsin (22), according to the analysis from Hawkfish, which is funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a Trump foe.
Could it be that Dems are merely cannibalizing their overall turnout by having people show up early, with Republicans set to overwhelm them on November 3? Sure. But it’s hard to grok that one chunk of their electorate would be so eager to beat Trump that they’re setting records and crushing the GOP in early voting while the remaining chunk is so ambivalent about Trump that the party will end up with mediocre turnout overall. For MAGA to beat the left this year, it increasingly appears, Trumpers will need to turn out for their guy in considerably bigger numbers than they did four years ago. It’s conceivable that they will, as there were a lot of working-class whites who sat out the last election despite Trump’s appeal who might be persuadable now. But it’s a lift. If righties do swamp the polls with a red storm, though, that’ll doubtless be the pollsters’ excuse afterward for missing so badly: No one could have foreseen turnout like this. It was a 500-year flood. You can’t hold our error against us.


hotair--2020-10-23--Reactions to Biden's comments about closing down the oil industry

This morning Ed wrote about Joe Biden ’ s comments in last night ’ s debate about the oil industry .
I wanted to highlight some reactions from the media and from within the industry itself .
Ed included video of the exchange but in case you missed it , here ’ s what was said : Trump : Would you close down the oil industry ?
Biden : By the way , I would transition from the oil industry , yes .
I would transition .
Trump : Oh , that is a big statement .
Welker : Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I ’ d stop giving to the oil industry , I ’ d stop giving them federal subsidies.
” Later his campaign tried to clean up his remarks a bit with a focus on that last part .
And then Biden himself tried to clear it up : Biden went on to say that fossil fuels would be gone by 2050 .
Asked if that meant lost of people in the oil and gas industry would lose their jobs , Biden said no .
This is very close to being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like your plan you can keep it.
” In this case Biden is claiming people in the industry he wants to “ transition ” won ’ t lose their jobs because they ’ ll have other jobs .
Um…sorry but having a new job definitely means you lost your old job .
Or here ’ s another way to look at it : So what were the reactions to this big statement followed by a big clarification ?
National review pointed out some media outlets reached for the familiar “ Republicans pounce ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat : The Washington Post was a bit more nuanced but still basically used basically the same frame : Those dastardly Republicans are always willing to take advantage of mistakes by their opponents , unlike the sweet and lovable Democrats who never do that .
But while progressives in the media tried to spin it as an overreach the comments were worrisome enough that some vulnerable Democrats quickly distanced themselves from Biden : Fox News highlighted reaction from some within the oil and gas industry : “ Six-dollar gas is coming if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resources founder Harold Hamm told FOX Business on Friday after the former vice president outlined his approach to energy policy at Thursday night ’ s debate in Nashville , Tenn. “ If Biden is elected and his plan on energy is adopted , he will send America into a deep depression and millions of jobs will be lost in Texas , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Michigan , Oklahoma , North Dakota and we will once again be beholden to foreign rogue regimes for our energy , ” Hamm argued .
The American Petroleum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We are proud of the grit , innovation and progress we ’ ve made so that Americans no longer have to choose between environmental progress and access to affordable , reliable and cleaner energy.
” But it concluded , “ And we aren ’ t going anywhere .
”

This morning Ed wrote about Joe Biden’s comments in last night’s debate about the oil industry. I wanted to highlight some reactions from the media and from within the industry itself. Ed included video of the exchange but in case you missed it, here’s what was said:
Trump: Would you close down the oil industry? Biden: By the way, I would transition from the oil industry, yes. I would transition. Trump: Oh, that is a big statement. Biden: It is a big statement. Welker: Why would you do that? Biden: Because the oil industry pollutes significantly.
Biden added, “I’d stop giving to the oil industry, I’d stop giving them federal subsidies.” Later his campaign tried to clean up his remarks a bit with a focus on that last part.
Biden's team seeks to clarify Biden's remarks on the oil industry, with @KBeds saying that Biden was referring to ending oil subsidies. — Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) October 23, 2020
And then Biden himself tried to clear it up:
Biden was also asked after the debate about his answers tonight on fossil fuels. “We’re not going to get rid of fossil fuels,” he said. “We’re going to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.” — Matt Viser (@mviser) October 23, 2020
Biden went on to say that fossil fuels would be gone by 2050. Asked if that meant lost of people in the oil and gas industry would lose their jobs, Biden said no.
After debate, before boarding plane home, Biden tries to clean up his statement that he would 'transition from the oil industry.' From pool report: pic.twitter.com/3eFfqniEMU — Byron York (@ByronYork) October 23, 2020
This is very close to being the energy sector equivalent of “if you like your plan you can keep it.” In this case Biden is claiming people in the industry he wants to “transition” won’t lose their jobs because they’ll have other jobs. Um…sorry but having a new job definitely means you lost your old job. Or here’s another way to look at it:
Biden told the entire oil industry to learn to code tonight. — thebradfordfile (@thebradfordfile) October 23, 2020
So what were the reactions to this big statement followed by a big clarification? National review pointed out some media outlets reached for the familiar “Republicans pounce” response to any bad news for a Democrat:
Politico, which unironically used “Conservatives pounce” in the headline, explained that “the former vice president said he would stop giving the industry federal subsidies, to the consternation of President Donald Trump and his supporters.” “President Donald Trump pounced” on Biden’s comments, TIME’s Justin Worland stated in his lede, before explaining that actually, Biden is pretty clear in his demands.
The Washington Post was a bit more nuanced but still basically used basically the same frame:
The problem for Biden is that he is running against someone ready and willing to pounce on any perceived mistake — see Hillary Clinton’s emails — and amplify them as loudly as possible, even if or when it gets away from the facts.
Those dastardly Republicans are always willing to take advantage of mistakes by their opponents, unlike the sweet and lovable Democrats who never do that.
But while progressives in the media tried to spin it as an overreach the comments were worrisome enough that some vulnerable Democrats quickly distanced themselves from Biden:
Here’s one of the places Biden and I disagree. We must stand up for our oil and gas industry. We need an all-of-the-above energy approach that’s consumer friendly, values energy independence, and protects OK jobs. I'll keep fighting for that in Congress. https://t.co/9fIaZ8pyY1 — Kendra Horn (@HornForCongress) October 23, 2020
I will continue to stand up to my party when they're out of touch with the reality on the ground in #NM02. 2/2 — Xochitl Torres Small (@xochnm) October 23, 2020
Fox News highlighted reaction from some within the oil and gas industry:
“Six-dollar gas is coming if Trump isn’t re-elected,” Continental Resources founder Harold Hamm told FOX Business on Friday after the former vice president outlined his approach to energy policy at Thursday night’s debate in Nashville, Tenn. “If Biden is elected and his plan on energy is adopted, he will send America into a deep depression and millions of jobs will be lost in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, North Dakota and we will once again be beholden to foreign rogue regimes for our energy,” Hamm argued.
The American Petroleum Institute put out a statement saying, “We are proud of the grit, innovation and progress we’ve made so that Americans no longer have to choose between environmental progress and access to affordable, reliable and cleaner energy.” But it concluded, “And we aren’t going anywhere.”