hotair--2020-06-25--You've got (lots of) mail: Will we know who won the election by Inauguration Day?

If you thought 2016 election set new records for conspiracy theories , you ain ’ t seen nothing yet .
The debate over election counting will seem quaint compared to the mess awaiting us in November , Roll Call predicts , as many states press voters to cast ballots by mail to avoid spreading COVID-19 in precincts on Election Day .
No one will know who won the election for weeks — and that ’ s a “ generous ” estimate , according to Niels Lesniewki : New York and Kentucky both accepted ballots as long as they were postmarked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of absentee voters surged because of precautions taken in light of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Ballots can be received as late as Saturday in Kentucky and June 30 in New York .
Joe Burns , a former deputy director at the New York State Board of Elections , said the counting of absentee ballots in November could take even longer .
“ I think weeks could potentially be generous if you ’ re talking about the number of absentee ballots in a given race going from , say , 4 or 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burns told reporters Wednesday .
“ If you go and increase the number of absentee ballots by a factor of 10 , you would think it ’ s going to take that much longer.
” … “ Come November , you ’ re going to have every Democrat , every Republican , every independent entitled to vote , and if the governor continues … the order that every voter is entitled to an absentee ballot should they be afraid of contracting the coronavirus , you ’ re looking at a massive number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on a press call , which was organized by Lawyers Democracy Fund .
New York is already seeing this problem in its primary this week .
Some of the races have been settled with the walk-in vote count , but most of them won ’ t get finalized until next month , thanks to the long-ish deadline : A deluge of yet-to-be-counted absentee ballots in New York this year means voters will have to wait until July to find out who won many primary elections Tuesday for the state legislature , Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to primary day came after a pandemic-era campaign season in which in-person politicking was curtailed , polling places consolidated , and all voters were encouraged to cast their ballots by mail , rather than risk getting exposed to the coronavirus at a polling location .
Nearly 1.8 million people requested absentee ballots .
They had until Tuesday to mail them .
Counting of those votes won ’ t begin until at least July 1 , and could last several days or even weeks .
And that ’ s just one state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its own protocols for handling vote-by-mail , and “ weeks ” does start to look generous .
We might be talking months rather than weeks , and that will be awkward by January 20 , which is when the next presidential term starts — two months and two weeks after Election Day .
Add in all of the ways in which mail-in balloting can be challenged , and we might not have a clear winner until the original Inauguration Day of March 4th ( 1793-1933 ) .
Even if the count could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s the matter of presidential transitions .
If Trump loses to Biden , the president-elect will need to have access to governance in order to prepare for a seamless transition by the first day of the new term .
Until the election gets certified by the Electoral College , however , the Trump administration might not feel like cooperating , especially if the results are in question and we really don ’ t know who won which states and by how much .
Or , conversely , Biden might insist on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appears he lost .
That ’ s bad all the way around .
The end result might be that the election goes to the House of Representatives .
And that would get ugly no matter who gets control there … which we won ’ t know either , thanks to the same ballot issues and an even earlier deadline for the next session of Congress to start .
Do both parties elect speakers and choose committee chairs ?
Should Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi arm-wrestle for the gavel ?
Could C-SPAN offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might even retire the national debt with that broadcast .
We could avoid all of this by sticking with reliable voting systems that require paper ballots , optical-scan machines , and a physical presence .
Rather than close down precincts , we should open more of them to spread out the demand and enable better social distancing .
If we can go to grocery stores and Wal-Marts in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic , we can go to the precincts to elect our leaders , too .
After the 2016 paranoid-conspiracy nonsense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election based on a system with far less confidence in security , more opaque processing , and lengthy waits for outcomes .

If you thought 2016 election set new records for conspiracy theories, you ain’t seen nothing yet. The debate over election counting will seem quaint compared to the mess awaiting us in November, Roll Call predicts, as many states press voters to cast ballots by mail to avoid spreading COVID-19 in precincts on Election Day. No one will know who won the election for weeks — and that’s a “generous” estimate, according to Niels Lesniewki:
New York and Kentucky both accepted ballots as long as they were postmarked by election day, and the numbers of absentee voters surged because of precautions taken in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ballots can be received as late as Saturday in Kentucky and June 30 in New York. Joe Burns, a former deputy director at the New York State Board of Elections, said the counting of absentee ballots in November could take even longer. “I think weeks could potentially be generous if you’re talking about the number of absentee ballots in a given race going from, say, 4 or 5 percent to 40 or 50 percent,” Burns told reporters Wednesday. “If you go and increase the number of absentee ballots by a factor of 10, you would think it’s going to take that much longer.” … “Come November, you’re going to have every Democrat, every Republican, every independent entitled to vote, and if the governor continues … the order that every voter is entitled to an absentee ballot should they be afraid of contracting the coronavirus, you’re looking at a massive number of absentee ballots to count,” Burns said on a press call, which was organized by Lawyers Democracy Fund.
New York is already seeing this problem in its primary this week. Some of the races have been settled with the walk-in vote count, but most of them won’t get finalized until next month, thanks to the long-ish deadline:
A deluge of yet-to-be-counted absentee ballots in New York this year means voters will have to wait until July to find out who won many primary elections Tuesday for the state legislature, Congress and other offices. The mostly unsatisfying end to primary day came after a pandemic-era campaign season in which in-person politicking was curtailed, polling places consolidated, and all voters were encouraged to cast their ballots by mail, rather than risk getting exposed to the coronavirus at a polling location. Nearly 1.8 million people requested absentee ballots. They had until Tuesday to mail them. Counting of those votes won’t begin until at least July 1, and could last several days or even weeks.
And that’s just one state. Multiply that across fifty states, each with its own protocols for handling vote-by-mail, and “weeks” does start to look generous. We might be talking months rather than weeks, and that will be awkward by January 20, which is when the next presidential term starts — two months and two weeks after Election Day. Add in all of the ways in which mail-in balloting can be challenged, and we might not have a clear winner until the original Inauguration Day of March 4th (1793-1933).
Even if the count could reliably be completed before January 20, there’s the matter of presidential transitions. If Trump loses to Biden, the president-elect will need to have access to governance in order to prepare for a seamless transition by the first day of the new term. Until the election gets certified by the Electoral College, however, the Trump administration might not feel like cooperating, especially if the results are in question and we really don’t know who won which states and by how much. Or, conversely, Biden might insist on setting up a shadow government even though it appears he lost. That’s bad all the way around.
The end result might be that the election goes to the House of Representatives. And that would get ugly no matter who gets control there … which we won’t know either, thanks to the same ballot issues and an even earlier deadline for the next session of Congress to start. Do both parties elect speakers and choose committee chairs? Should Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi arm-wrestle for the gavel? Could C-SPAN offer that as a pay-per-view event? We might even retire the national debt with that broadcast.
We could avoid all of this by sticking with reliable voting systems that require paper ballots, optical-scan machines, and a physical presence. Rather than close down precincts, we should open more of them to spread out the demand and enable better social distancing. If we can go to grocery stores and Wal-Marts in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can go to the precincts to elect our leaders, too. After the 2016 paranoid-conspiracy nonsense, the last thing we need is an election based on a system with far less confidence in security, more opaque processing, and lengthy waits for outcomes.


hotair--2020-06-25--The pull rope in Bubba Wallace's garage really did look like a noose

After the FBI announced that the “ noose ” in Wallace ’ s garage had been there since late 2019 , I couldn ’ t understand how Wallace and others might have mistaken a pull rope for a hate symbol .
These guys spend half their lives in garages .
Surely they ’ d seen slip knots fashioned to create hand loops for the ropes attached to garage doors .
Why on earth would they jump to the conclusion that what they were looking at was a noose , unless they were eager to find some petty reason to treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This photo from NASCAR would seem to answer that .
It ’ s not a basic slip knot .
It ’ s a hangman ’ s knot , with the rope coiled in spirals above the loop .
It does look like a noose .
This photo from November 2019 that made the rounds a few days ago isn ’ t very clear but you can just sort of make out the telltale spirals .
( TMZ has a much larger version . )
It was hard to be sure what that thicker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing that it ’ s a hangman ’ s knot makes it apparent .
An obvious question now arises : How many pull ropes in NASCAR garages are tied with hangman ’ s knots ?
As … weird as it would be to use that knot in standard practice , maybe it ’ s customary for whatever reason .
If so , it would put us right back at square one with Wallace .
Why would he freak out now upon seeing a knot that should be familiar to him on NASCAR tracks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
NASCAR surveyed every garage on the circuit and announced its findings today : “ As you can see from the photo , the noose was real , as was our concern for Bubba , ” said Phelps .
So in other words , since Wallace was randomly assigned to garage number four at Talladega , he had a 153-to-one chance of landing at a garage with a loop on the pull rope and a 1,684-to-one chance of landing at a garage with a rope with a hangman ’ s knot — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire sport .
And that doesn ’ t account for the timing : He happened to encounter NASCAR ’ s lone “ noose ” pull rope less than two weeks after he made headlines calling on NASCAR to ban the Confederate flag at events .
Coincidences do happen .
But that ’ s some coincidence .
Even so , I ’ m having trouble fashioning a plausible conspiracy theory to explain it .
If the “ noose ” has been there since 2019 then neither Wallace nor an ally fashioned it themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across a “ noose ” as a political stunt , there would have been far easier ways to do it than by looking for a NASCAR garage that just so happened to have a pull rope already fashioned with a hangman ’ s knot .
There ’ s no evidence either that his assignment to garage number four was anything other than random .
And if it wasn ’ t random , you need to come up with a theory as to why NASCAR would willingly give itself a black eye by assigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that he ’ d encounter the noose — and then risk having to walk the whole thing back once the cops investigated and announced that , uh , it ’ s just a pull rope that ’ s been there since 2019 .
The simplest conspiracy theory is that someone at NASCAR fashioned the rope into a hangman ’ s knot within the past day or two in order to save face .
“ See , it really looks like a noose !
Bubba wasn ’ t lying !
” But then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 photo seems to show the same hangman ’ s knot .
Actually , the simplest conspiracy would be if NASCAR discovered that there were other pull ropes tied with hangman ’ s knots and quietly untied them over the past few days because it would have been strange and embarrassing to say , “ Uh , yeah , a lot of our ropes are tied like that.
” Maybe the rope in garage number four really wasn ’ t the only “ noose ” rope on the circuit ; maybe there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quietly disappeared .
But in that case you ’ d need to believe in a widespread conspiracy of silence among NASCAR teams past and present to conceal that fact .
No one has stepped forward this week that I ’ m aware of to say , “ Oh , yeah , lots of pull ropes look like nooses .
Bubba knows that.
” Is it really just a bizarre coincidence ?
I ’ m a cynic by nature so I ’ m skeptical , but the alternate explanations don ’ t seem convincing @

After the FBI announced that the “noose” in Wallace’s garage had been there since late 2019, I couldn’t understand how Wallace and others might have mistaken a pull rope for a hate symbol. These guys spend half their lives in garages. Surely they’d seen slip knots fashioned to create hand loops for the ropes attached to garage doors.
Why on earth would they jump to the conclusion that what they were looking at was a noose, unless they were eager to find some petty reason to treat Wallace as a victim of racism?
This photo from NASCAR would seem to answer that. It’s not a basic slip knot. It’s a hangman’s knot, with the rope coiled in spirals above the loop. It does look like a noose.
NASCAR releases photo to the media of the garage pull rope formed as a noose from the Bubba Wallace garage Sunday at Talladega Superspeedway.
This image was provide by NASCAR. pic.twitter.com/Z4ZyBzpREF — Marty Smith (@MartySmithESPN) June 25, 2020
This photo from November 2019 that made the rounds a few days ago isn’t very clear but you can just sort of make out the telltale spirals. (TMZ has a much larger version.) It was hard to be sure what that thicker part was originally. The new photo showing that it’s a hangman’s knot makes it apparent.
Apologies for not knowing who originally created this image, but it has been making the rounds on Twitter and turned out to be correct. You can see in the left photo the rope was in noose form — apparently as a handle — last year and then cut for evidence Sunday. pic.twitter.com/MIrtF3uqtN — Jeff Gluck (@jeff_gluck) June 23, 2020
An obvious question now arises: How many pull ropes in NASCAR garages are tied with hangman’s knots? As … weird as it would be to use that knot in standard practice, maybe it’s customary for whatever reason. If so, it would put us right back at square one with Wallace. Why would he freak out now upon seeing a knot that should be familiar to him on NASCAR tracks?
It’s not familiar, though. NASCAR surveyed every garage on the circuit and announced its findings today:
NASCAR president Steve Phelps says NASCAR conducted a "thorough sweep of all 29 tracks where they race, and 1684 garage stalls, they found only 11 total ropes that had a pulldown rope tied in a knot, and just one noose: The one in Bubba Wallace garage." — Marty Smith (@MartySmithESPN) June 25, 2020
“As you can see from the photo, the noose was real, as was our concern for Bubba,” said Phelps. So in other words, since Wallace was randomly assigned to garage number four at Talladega, he had a 153-to-one chance of landing at a garage with a loop on the pull rope and a 1,684-to-one chance of landing at a garage with a rope with a hangman’s knot — the one and only such rope in the entire sport. And that doesn’t account for the timing: He happened to encounter NASCAR’s lone “noose” pull rope less than two weeks after he made headlines calling on NASCAR to ban the Confederate flag at events.
Coincidences do happen. But that’s some coincidence.
Even so, I’m having trouble fashioning a plausible conspiracy theory to explain it. If the “noose” has been there since 2019 then neither Wallace nor an ally fashioned it themselves. If they had wanted to stumble across a “noose” as a political stunt, there would have been far easier ways to do it than by looking for a NASCAR garage that just so happened to have a pull rope already fashioned with a hangman’s knot. There’s no evidence either that his assignment to garage number four was anything other than random. And if it wasn’t random, you need to come up with a theory as to why NASCAR would willingly give itself a black eye by assigning its lone black driver to that garage so that he’d encounter the noose — and then risk having to walk the whole thing back once the cops investigated and announced that, uh, it’s just a pull rope that’s been there since 2019.
The simplest conspiracy theory is that someone at NASCAR fashioned the rope into a hangman’s knot within the past day or two in order to save face. “See, it really looks like a noose! Bubba wasn’t lying!” But then you have to explain why the November 2019 photo seems to show the same hangman’s knot.
Actually, the simplest conspiracy would be if NASCAR discovered that there were other pull ropes tied with hangman’s knots and quietly untied them over the past few days because it would have been strange and embarrassing to say, “Uh, yeah, a lot of our ropes are tied like that.” Maybe the rope in garage number four really wasn’t the only “noose” rope on the circuit; maybe there were 50 others, say, all now quietly disappeared. But in that case you’d need to believe in a widespread conspiracy of silence among NASCAR teams past and present to conceal that fact. No one has stepped forward this week that I’m aware of to say, “Oh, yeah, lots of pull ropes look like nooses. Bubba knows that.”
Is it really just a bizarre coincidence? I’m a cynic by nature so I’m skeptical, but the alternate explanations don’t seem convincing.


hotair--2020-06-25--Too late to stimulate: Government sent $1.4 billion in coronavirus stimulus checks to dead people

Last weekend the Washington Post reported that the government had sent some coronavirus stimulus checks to some people who had died .
This happened because the IRS was in a hurry to send out checks , so if you filed a tax return in 2018 or 2019 and records showed you met the criteria , you got a check : While the living wait for much-needed funds , the IRS has rushed out stimulus checks to the deceased .
Payments have gone out to surviving spouses and to bank accounts that relatives kept open to settle a dead loved one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working off tax returns filed as far back as 2018 , even if the filer is no longer alive .
Toni Kamins , who lives in New York , received two $ 1,200 payments , one for herself and another for her ex-husband , who died last year .
Since her husband had left no will and had no heirs , Kamins handled filing his 2019 return .
On the return , she told the IRS that her ex had died .
Dennis Akers ’ s 88-year-old mother-in-law died in January .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Akers held a joint checking account with each of them because he helped take care of their bills .
Both deceased women received direct-deposit stimulus payments .
While it was clear this had happened it wasn ’ t clear until today just how often it had happened .
Today the Post reports that , according to the GAO , more than a million deceased people received payments : The federal government sent coronavirus stimulus payments to almost 1.1 million dead people totaling nearly $ 1.4 billion , Congress ’ independent watchdog reported Thursday… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead people came as Treasury and the IRS rushed to disburse some 160.4 million of these payments totaling $ 269 billion after the Cares Act was passed in March .
The problem relates partly to the fact that , while the IRS has access to the Social Security Administration ’ s full set of death records , the Treasury Department and its Bureau of the Fiscal Service — which actually issue the payments — do not , GAO said .
The report said that Congress should “ provide Treasury with access to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death records , and require that Treasury consistently use it , to help reduce similar types of improper payments.
” So it sounds like there is a pretty clear reason why this happened and one that can be fixed to prevent it happening again .
It ’ s pretty embarrassing but under the circumstances , Treasury really was under pressure to get the money out when it was needed even if that meant a somewhat sloppy process .
So will the money be paid back ?
It ’ s supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that payments to the deceased needed to be returned , though at the time it wouldn ’ t say how many people had received such payments .
But other than an update to a FAQ page on irs.gov , the IRS apparently has no plants to actually do anything to collect the money .
I guess those who decide to keep it , meaning the surviving relatives with access to the accounts , could simply have it added to their tax bill later if they don ’ t return it , though figuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to the deceased could be a challenge when there are this many people involved .
The reality is that as much money as this is , it ’ s still a rounding error in the scope of the money shoveled out the door in the past few months .
Last month USA Today published this graphic on total stimulus spending related to the virus : The same story pointed out just how much money that is .
If you had $ 2.4 trillion in $ 1 bills you could blanket the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 140 times .
Compared to that , the $ 1.4 billion sent to the dead is a drop in the ocean .

Last weekend the Washington Post reported that the government had sent some coronavirus stimulus checks to some people who had died. This happened because the IRS was in a hurry to send out checks, so if you filed a tax return in 2018 or 2019 and records showed you met the criteria, you got a check:
While the living wait for much-needed funds, the IRS has rushed out stimulus checks to the deceased. Payments have gone out to surviving spouses and to bank accounts that relatives kept open to settle a dead loved one’s estate. The IRS is working off tax returns filed as far back as 2018, even if the filer is no longer alive. Toni Kamins, who lives in New York, received two $1,200 payments, one for herself and another for her ex-husband, who died last year. Since her husband had left no will and had no heirs, Kamins handled filing his 2019 return. On the return, she told the IRS that her ex had died. Dennis Akers’s 88-year-old mother-in-law died in January. His 96-year-old mother died a month later. Akers held a joint checking account with each of them because he helped take care of their bills. Both deceased women received direct-deposit stimulus payments.
While it was clear this had happened it wasn’t clear until today just how often it had happened. Today the Post reports that, according to the GAO, more than a million deceased people received payments:
The federal government sent coronavirus stimulus payments to almost 1.1 million dead people totaling nearly $1.4 billion, Congress’ independent watchdog reported Thursday… The GAO said that the payments to dead people came as Treasury and the IRS rushed to disburse some 160.4 million of these payments totaling $269 billion after the Cares Act was passed in March. The problem relates partly to the fact that, while the IRS has access to the Social Security Administration’s full set of death records, the Treasury Department and its Bureau of the Fiscal Service — which actually issue the payments — do not, GAO said. The report said that Congress should “provide Treasury with access to the Social Security Administration’s full set of death records, and require that Treasury consistently use it, to help reduce similar types of improper payments.”
So it sounds like there is a pretty clear reason why this happened and one that can be fixed to prevent it happening again. It’s pretty embarrassing but under the circumstances, Treasury really was under pressure to get the money out when it was needed even if that meant a somewhat sloppy process.
So will the money be paid back? It’s supposed to be. The IRS announced back in May that payments to the deceased needed to be returned, though at the time it wouldn’t say how many people had received such payments. But other than an update to a FAQ page on irs.gov, the IRS apparently has no plants to actually do anything to collect the money.
I guess those who decide to keep it, meaning the surviving relatives with access to the accounts, could simply have it added to their tax bill later if they don’t return it, though figuring out who was responsible for spending money sent to the deceased could be a challenge when there are this many people involved.
The reality is that as much money as this is, it’s still a rounding error in the scope of the money shoveled out the door in the past few months. Last month USA Today published this graphic on total stimulus spending related to the virus:
The same story pointed out just how much money that is. If you had $2.4 trillion in $1 bills you could blanket the entire 68.3 square miles of Washington, DC 140 times. Compared to that, the $1.4 billion sent to the dead is a drop in the ocean.


hotair--2020-06-25--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Seattle sue-em, cancel anthem, Pelosi tantrum, reform phantom, and more

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Seattle sue-em, cancel anthem, Pelosi tantrum, reform phantom, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll cover the latest out of Seattle , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will we need to cancel the national anthem , and can we “ imagine ” what will replace it ?
Plus , Tim Scott blasts Nancy Pelosi , Mitch McConnell blasts Chuck Schumer , and police reform isn ’ t blasting off at all .
• We ’ ll also take your comments and questions , so be sure to log in and join us !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll cover the latest out of Seattle, where CHAZ/CHOP may or may not be disappearing. Will we need to cancel the national anthem, and can we “imagine” what will replace it? Plus, Tim Scott blasts Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell blasts Chuck Schumer, and police reform isn’t blasting off at all.
We’ll also take your comments and questions, so be sure to log in and join us!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-06-25--Yahoo News: Let's face it, it's time to cancel the Star Spangled Banner

Should the US pick a new national anthem — and is the Star Spangled Banner too problematic in our woke times ?
It ’ s not a new demand , and in fact isn ’ t even a new argument , so it ’ s hardly surprising to see it emerge in the social unrest surrounding the police killing of George Floyd .
Yahoo News music editor Lyndsey Parker says it ’ s time to replace the Francis Scott Key poem with something more appropriate for our enlightened times , but replace it with what ?
That ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increasingly antiracist era when problematic iconography — ranging from Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben to even the Dukes of Hazzard General Lee car and country band Lady Antebellum ’ s name — is being reassessed , revised or retired , America ’ s national anthem , “ The Star-Spangled Banner , ” seems to be striking a wrong note .
Last week , protesters in San Francisco toppled a statue of the song ’ s composer , Francis Scott Key , a known slaveholder who once said that African-Americans were “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.
” This week , Liana Morales , an Afro-Latinx student at New York ’ s Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts , refused to sing “ The Star-Spangled Banner ” at her virtual graduation ceremony , explaining to the Wall Street Journal , “ With everything that ’ s happening , if I stand there and sing it , I ’ m being complicit to a system that has oppressed people of color.
” Instead , Morales performed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hymn widely considered to be the “ Black national anthem.
” So , is it time for this country to dispense with “ The Star-Spangled Banner ” and adopt a new anthem with a less troubling history and a more inclusive message ?
Historian and scholar Dr. Daniel E. Walker , the author of No More , No More : Slavery and Cultural Resistance in Havana and New Orleans and producer of the documentary How Sweet the Sound : Gospel in Los Angeles , says yes .
“ The 53-year-old in me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that have existed forever .
But then there are these young people who say that America needs to live up to its real creed , ” Walker tells Yahoo Entertainment .
“ And so , I do side with the people who say that we should rethink this as the national anthem , because this is about the deep-seated legacy of slavery and white supremacy in America , where we do things over and over and over again that are a slap in the face of people of color and women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we were doing and we wanted to be sexist and racist .
And now we do it under the guise of ‘ legacy.
’ ” The specific issue with Key is his personal history on slavery , as well as the third stanza of his poem , which rarely if ever gets performed .
( Most performances stick with just the first verse . )
The third stanza castigates “ the hireling and slave , ” which — depending on your point of view — either references the freed slaves fighting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1812 or the British navy ’ s “ impression ” of Americans into their service : The meaning of this stanza is hotly disputed , but it has long been a sore spot for those who take its meaning as triumphalism over slaves .
That is certainly a valid point for a debate , but it ’ s hardly the only argument for dumping Key ’ s poem as the national anthem .
Michael Kinsley offered more convincing arguments in 2009 , especially on the difficulty of performing it , but he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Star-Spangled Banner ” is notoriously unsingable .
A professor of music , Caldwell Titcomb of Brandeis , pointed out years ago in the New Republic that its melody spans nearly two octaves , when most people are good for one octave , max .
The first eight lines are one enormous sentence with subordinate clauses , leaving no really good place to take a breath .
There are far too many mandatory leaps off the high board ( “ .
.
.
what so PROU-dly we hail .
.
.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old English drinking song .
The lyrics are all about bombs and war and bloodshed — and not in a good way .
By the penultimate verse , the song has turned really nasty : “ No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
” In the first verse — the one we generally sing — there is only one reference to any value commonly associated with America : “ land of the free.
” By contrast , “ home of the brave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing in the American myth ( let alone reality ) to suggest that we are braver than anyone else .
As I wrote at the time , except for that whole rescuing-Europe-from-itself-twice-without-territorial-acquisition thing .
That wasn ’ t evident in 1812 , perhaps , but it ’ s more apropos now , especially after winning the Cold War and finally rescuing eastern Europe from totalitarianism .
Overall , though , our national anthem is not just unsingable for most people , it ’ s not terribly inspiring except as a long tradition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only started in 1916 when Woodrow Wilson decreed it , and that Democratic president had his own issues on race , along with free speech , constitutional order , and … well , lots of issues , really .
So what should replace it ?
Parker has a couple of ideas , one of which is … awful : That ’ s absurd .
“ Imagine ” is a nihilistic song that fantasizes about a world where nothing matters at all .
How does that speak to a national identity based on liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law ?
Not only does it literally have nothing to do with an American vision , it explicitly asks people to “ imagine there ’ s no countries , ” which is the antithesis of a national anthem .
Parker has another idea , which is a vast improvement on her first but still misses the mark : At least this song does have some relation to a national identity , but … it never mentions the nation at all .
If we need a new national anthem at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly about the United States ?
“ America the Beautiful ” is a well-known song , one that is occasionally performed in place of the Star Spangled Banner and relatively easy to sing .
Lee Greenwood ’ s “ God Bless the USA ” would be a popular choice , or perhaps “ God Bless America , ” the Irving Berlin song made most famous by Kate Smith .
“ The Battle Hymn of the Republic ” explicitly focuses on freedom and the defeat of slavery , for that matter .
Shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriotic feelings about the United States in some manner , and our yearning to make a more perfect union ?
I ’ d be happy to have a debate over it , but perhaps after our current wave of nihilism has passed first .
Unfortunately , “ Imagine ” is the perfect song for this particular moment in time .
Let ’ s leave the last word to the late , great Ray Charles who had his own way of expressing his love of our country , as imperfect as it was and @ @

Should the US pick a new national anthem — and is the Star Spangled Banner too problematic in our woke times? It’s not a new demand, and in fact isn’t even a new argument, so it’s hardly surprising to see it emerge in the social unrest surrounding the police killing of George Floyd. Yahoo News music editor Lyndsey Parker says it’s time to replace the Francis Scott Key poem with something more appropriate for our enlightened times, but replace it with what?
That’s where this runs off the rails:
In an increasingly antiracist era when problematic iconography — ranging from Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben to even the Dukes of Hazzard General Lee car and country band Lady Antebellum’s name — is being reassessed, revised or retired, America’s national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” seems to be striking a wrong note. Last week, protesters in San Francisco toppled a statue of the song’s composer, Francis Scott Key, a known slaveholder who once said that African-Americans were “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.” This week, Liana Morales, an Afro-Latinx student at New York’s Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts, refused to sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at her virtual graduation ceremony, explaining to the Wall Street Journal, “With everything that’s happening, if I stand there and sing it, I’m being complicit to a system that has oppressed people of color.” Instead, Morales performed “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” a hymn widely considered to be the “Black national anthem.” So, is it time for this country to dispense with “The Star-Spangled Banner” and adopt a new anthem with a less troubling history and a more inclusive message? Historian and scholar Dr. Daniel E. Walker, the author of No More, No More: Slavery and Cultural Resistance in Havana and New Orleans and producer of the documentary How Sweet the Sound: Gospel in Los Angeles, says yes. “The 53-year-old in me says, we can’t change things that have existed forever. But then there are these young people who say that America needs to live up to its real creed,” Walker tells Yahoo Entertainment. “And so, I do side with the people who say that we should rethink this as the national anthem, because this is about the deep-seated legacy of slavery and white supremacy in America, where we do things over and over and over again that are a slap in the face of people of color and women. We do it first because we knew what we were doing and we wanted to be sexist and racist. And now we do it under the guise of ‘legacy.’”
The specific issue with Key is his personal history on slavery, as well as the third stanza of his poem, which rarely if ever gets performed. (Most performances stick with just the first verse.) The third stanza castigates “the hireling and slave,” which — depending on your point of view — either references the freed slaves fighting on the British side in the War of 1812 or the British navy’s “impression” of Americans into their service:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The meaning of this stanza is hotly disputed, but it has long been a sore spot for those who take its meaning as triumphalism over slaves. That is certainly a valid point for a debate, but it’s hardly the only argument for dumping Key’s poem as the national anthem. Michael Kinsley offered more convincing arguments in 2009, especially on the difficulty of performing it, but he did also include the third-stanza issue:
“The Star-Spangled Banner” is notoriously unsingable. A professor of music, Caldwell Titcomb of Brandeis, pointed out years ago in the New Republic that its melody spans nearly two octaves, when most people are good for one octave, max. The first eight lines are one enormous sentence with subordinate clauses, leaving no really good place to take a breath. There are far too many mandatory leaps off the high board (“. . . what so PROU-dly we hail . . .”). The melody is lifted from an old English drinking song. The lyrics are all about bombs and war and bloodshed — and not in a good way. By the penultimate verse, the song has turned really nasty: “No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.” In the first verse — the one we generally sing — there is only one reference to any value commonly associated with America: “land of the free.” By contrast, “home of the brave” is empty bravado. There is nothing in the American myth (let alone reality) to suggest that we are braver than anyone else.
As I wrote at the time, except for that whole rescuing-Europe-from-itself-twice-without-territorial-acquisition thing. That wasn’t evident in 1812, perhaps, but it’s more apropos now, especially after winning the Cold War and finally rescuing eastern Europe from totalitarianism. Overall, though, our national anthem is not just unsingable for most people, it’s not terribly inspiring except as a long tradition of being the national anthem. That tradition only started in 1916 when Woodrow Wilson decreed it, and that Democratic president had his own issues on race, along with free speech, constitutional order, and … well, lots of issues, really.
So what should replace it? Parker has a couple of ideas, one of which is … awful:
So, if “The Star-Spangled Banner” goes the way of the Confederate flag and Gone With the Wind, what should America’s new national anthem be? Whatever it is, Walker says there should be a formal “vetting process” to make sure the next anthem doesn’t have a terrible past; Powell, for his part, suggests John Lennon’s “Imagine,” which he says is “the most beautiful, unifying, all-people, all-backgrounds-together kind of song you could have.”
That’s absurd. “Imagine” is a nihilistic song that fantasizes about a world where nothing matters at all. How does that speak to a national identity based on liberty, freedom, and self-governance through the rule of law? Not only does it literally have nothing to do with an American vision, it explicitly asks people to “imagine there’s no countries,” which is the antithesis of a national anthem.
Parker has another idea, which is a vast improvement on her first but still misses the mark:
But what about “Lift Every Voice and Sing”? That song, written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson in 1900, set to music by his brother J. Rosamond Johnson in 1905, and first publicly performed as part of a celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday by Johnson’s brother John, was dubbed “the Negro national hymn” by the NAACP in 1919. In more recent years, it has been referenced in Maya Angelou’s 1969 autobiography I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Spike Lee’s 1989 film Do the Right Thing; it was also performed in 1972 by Kim Weston as the opening number for the Wattstax festival and by Beyoncé during her celebrated 2018 Coachella set.
At least this song does have some relation to a national identity, but … it never mentions the nation at all.
If we need a new national anthem at all, why not choose a song that is explicitly about the United States? “America the Beautiful” is a well-known song, one that is occasionally performed in place of the Star Spangled Banner and relatively easy to sing. Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” would be a popular choice, or perhaps “God Bless America,” the Irving Berlin song made most famous by Kate Smith. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” explicitly focuses on freedom and the defeat of slavery, for that matter. Shouldn’t our national anthem speak to our patriotic feelings about the United States in some manner, and our yearning to make a more perfect union?
I’d be happy to have a debate over it, but perhaps after our current wave of nihilism has passed first. Unfortunately, “Imagine” is the perfect song for this particular moment in time. Let’s leave the last word to the late, great Ray Charles who had his own way of expressing his love of our country, as imperfect as it was and is:


hotair--2020-06-25--New York magazine: The Washington Post was trying to avoid a scandal with that Halloween blackface s

New York magazine: The Washington Post was trying to avoid a scandal with that Halloween blackface story

Wednesday night New York magazine published a story investigating why the Washington Post published that very strange story about blackface at a Halloween party two years ago .
Authors Josh Barro and Olivia Nuzzi ask a simple question that everyone was asking : Why is this newsworthy ?
The answer they get from the Post doesn ’ t make a lot of sense , but a picture of the paper ’ s real motivation does emerge , and it isn ’ t pretty .
Briefly , in case you missed this before , the story involves a Halloween Party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Post cartoonist Tom Toles .
A woman named Sue Schafer came to the party in black face , intending to make a satirical point about Megyn Kelly ( who had defended blackface in some circumstances and been fired ) .
Schafer was confronted at the party by two women who , two years later , wrote to Toles asking if he could identify the woman .
Eventually , their story became a 3,000 word feature which led to Schafer being fired .
According to the Post ’ s spokesperson , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-public person was worthy of a 3,000 word feature : “ Employees of the Washington Post , including a prominent host , were involved in this incident , which impelled us to tell the story ourselves thoroughly and accurately while allowing all involved to have their say , ” said Kris Coratti , a spokesperson for the paper .
“ The piece conveys with nuance and sensitivity the complex , emotionally fraught circumstances that unfolded at the party attended by media figures only two years ago where an individual in blackface was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s grappling with racism has entered a phase in which people who once felt they should keep quiet are now raising their voices in public .
The story is a microcosm of what the country is going through right now.
” That explanation is a microcosm of the bulls**t many organizations are spewing in an effort to appease BLM right now .
No one asked for this story ( besides the two women who should have been told no ) and no one needed it .
What it actually says about what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that organizations are so eager to show they are on the side of the mob they will abandon their own standards to do it .
In particular , the Post has a standard about news relevance that was clearly ignored here .
So what ’ s the real reason the Post published this ?
No one at the Post seems to know but there ’ s a suggestion that the authors were assigned this disaster and had no choice about it .
“ My reaction , like everybody , was , What the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” a feature writer at the Post told New York .
“ My second reaction was , Why is this a 3,000-word feature ?
” The feature writer added , “ This was not drawn up by the ‘ Style ’ section.
” … But a second person interviewed by Fisher said , “ He expressed his misgivings about the story to me.
” This person said that the impression Fisher left was that he had been told to do the story and that it was not his decision .
We never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question who assigned this trainwreck but we do get some hints about why they might have done so .
It appears the Post was trying to cover its own ass in case the story involving two of their staffers ( Dana Milbank was also at the party ) wound up at some other outlet .
If it had leaked that the Post had neglected to pursue a story about blackface , or if the women who brought the tip to the Post had taken it to another outlet or simply tweeted about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have taken… Schafer [ the woman in blackface ] told New York that when she asked Fisher — a reporter who , like Trent , has worked at the Post for more than 20 years — why the story was news , he replied , “ We have to do it or they will go to another outlet.
” Gruber , too , said that Trent asked if she was speaking to other media outlets .
But it wasn ’ t just a generalized desire to cover its own backside that pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ’ s had specific problems that it was worried might put it on the wrong side of the demands being made by its own staff and their union : So the Post was afraid this would get out at some other news site or , even worse , that the two women pushing this would start some kind of complaint online to which they would be left backpedaling and trying to explain why they hadn ’ t dealt with it themselves .
The Post could envision the mob forming and decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which framed Schafer as the villain .
Not surprisingly this has been a PR disaster for almost everyone involved .
Schafer was fired when she told her boss this story was about to run .
Lexie Gruber and Lyric Prince , who pushed the Post to report on this in the first place , have faced a backlash .
Gruber is said to have recently read So You ’ ve Been Publicly Shamed , a book about being dragged online .
The Post even removed the celebratory photo of the pair in Malcolm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran with the story , allegedly because they were receiving threats ( New York magazine says removing the photo appears to be another violation of the Post ’ s editorial practice ) .
The authors of the story appear ashamed of it .
Neither one of them has tweeted it out or posted it on Facebook .
And the Post took a major beating in its own comments section as I pointed out here .
It ’ s one of the very few times you ’ ll see people on the left and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newspaper : This story wasn ’ t newsworthy and the fact that the Post pretended otherwise is embarrassing .
Ironically , the only person involved who hasn ’ t suffered any repercussions is Tom Toles , the cartoonist whose involvement as the host of the Halloween party supposedly made this newsworthy in the first place .
For the record , I don ’ t think Toles should face any punishment .
In fact , he appears to be the only person at the Post who had the good sense to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were determined to make this a story in the first place .
When Gruber and Prince wrote and asked him for the name of the woman in blackface at his party , Toles lied and said he didn ’ t know her .
If only whoever assigned this story had done the same everyone involved would be better off .
That ’ s the real story of this entire fiasco .
There are no adults left willing to tell the young revolutionaries what they most need to hear : No .

Wednesday night New York magazine published a story investigating why the Washington Post published that very strange story about blackface at a Halloween party two years ago. Authors Josh Barro and Olivia Nuzzi ask a simple question that everyone was asking: Why is this newsworthy? The answer they get from the Post doesn’t make a lot of sense, but a picture of the paper’s real motivation does emerge, and it isn’t pretty.
Briefly, in case you missed this before, the story involves a Halloween Party that took place in 2018 at the home of Post cartoonist Tom Toles. A woman named Sue Schafer came to the party in black face, intending to make a satirical point about Megyn Kelly (who had defended blackface in some circumstances and been fired). Schafer was confronted at the party by two women who, two years later, wrote to Toles asking if he could identify the woman. Eventually, their story became a 3,000 word feature which led to Schafer being fired. According to the Post’s spokesperson, here’s why this old story about a non-public person was worthy of a 3,000 word feature:
“Employees of the Washington Post, including a prominent host, were involved in this incident, which impelled us to tell the story ourselves thoroughly and accurately while allowing all involved to have their say,” said Kris Coratti, a spokesperson for the paper. “The piece conveys with nuance and sensitivity the complex, emotionally fraught circumstances that unfolded at the party attended by media figures only two years ago where an individual in blackface was not told promptly to leave. America’s grappling with racism has entered a phase in which people who once felt they should keep quiet are now raising their voices in public. The story is a microcosm of what the country is going through right now.”
That explanation is a microcosm of the bulls**t many organizations are spewing in an effort to appease BLM right now. No one asked for this story (besides the two women who should have been told no) and no one needed it. What it actually says about what the country is going through right now is that organizations are so eager to show they are on the side of the mob they will abandon their own standards to do it. In particular, the Post has a standard about news relevance that was clearly ignored here.
So what’s the real reason the Post published this? No one at the Post seems to know but there’s a suggestion that the authors were assigned this disaster and had no choice about it.
“My reaction, like everybody, was, What the hell? Why is this a story?” a feature writer at the Post told New York. “My second reaction was, Why is this a 3,000-word feature?” The feature writer added, “This was not drawn up by the ‘Style’ section.”… But a second person interviewed by Fisher said, “He expressed his misgivings about the story to me.” This person said that the impression Fisher left was that he had been told to do the story and that it was not his decision.
We never do get a clear answer to the question who assigned this trainwreck but we do get some hints about why they might have done so. It appears the Post was trying to cover its own ass in case the story involving two of their staffers (Dana Milbank was also at the party) wound up at some other outlet.
If it had leaked that the Post had neglected to pursue a story about blackface, or if the women who brought the tip to the Post had taken it to another outlet or simply tweeted about it, who knows what direction the story might have taken… Schafer [the woman in blackface] told New York that when she asked Fisher — a reporter who, like Trent, has worked at the Post for more than 20 years — why the story was news, he replied, “We have to do it or they will go to another outlet.” Gruber, too, said that Trent asked if she was speaking to other media outlets.
But it wasn’t just a generalized desire to cover its own backside that pushed the Post in this direction. The Post’s had specific problems that it was worried might put it on the wrong side of the demands being made by its own staff and their union:
As the story about the two-year-old Halloween party was being reported, senior managers at the Post had recently received 32 pages of employees’ stories about racism and discrimination within the company, gathered by the employee union, according to an email reviewed by New York. A Post employee petition demanding changes in hiring and editorial practices drew nearly 500 signatures in 48 hours. Basically, it was the worst possible time for the Post to have a “blackface scandal,” especially one whose frame it did not control.
So the Post was afraid this would get out at some other news site or, even worse, that the two women pushing this would start some kind of complaint online to which they would be left backpedaling and trying to explain why they hadn’t dealt with it themselves. The Post could envision the mob forming and decided to inoculate themselves by running this absurd feature which framed Schafer as the villain.
Not surprisingly this has been a PR disaster for almost everyone involved. Schafer was fired when she told her boss this story was about to run. Lexie Gruber and Lyric Prince, who pushed the Post to report on this in the first place, have faced a backlash. Gruber is said to have recently read So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, a book about being dragged online. The Post even removed the celebratory photo of the pair in Malcolm X park (see above) that ran with the story, allegedly because they were receiving threats (New York magazine says removing the photo appears to be another violation of the Post’s editorial practice).
The authors of the story appear ashamed of it. Neither one of them has tweeted it out or posted it on Facebook. And the Post took a major beating in its own comments section as I pointed out here. It’s one of the very few times you’ll see people on the left and right agreeing almost unanimously about something in a newspaper: This story wasn’t newsworthy and the fact that the Post pretended otherwise is embarrassing.
Ironically, the only person involved who hasn’t suffered any repercussions is Tom Toles, the cartoonist whose involvement as the host of the Halloween party supposedly made this newsworthy in the first place. For the record, I don’t think Toles should face any punishment. In fact, he appears to be the only person at the Post who had the good sense to try to discourage the two social justice warriors who were determined to make this a story in the first place. When Gruber and Prince wrote and asked him for the name of the woman in blackface at his party, Toles lied and said he didn’t know her. If only whoever assigned this story had done the same everyone involved would be better off.
That’s the real story of this entire fiasco. There are no adults left willing to tell the young revolutionaries what they most need to hear: No.


hotair--2020-06-25--NYT poll: Biden leads in all six major battlegrounds, in some by as many as 11 points

One of the most memorable polls of the last year , and among the most encouraging for Trump , was the NYT ’ s battleground survey from last November .
Trump trailed various Democratic primary candidates big in national polling even at the time , but at the end of the day national polls don ’ t matter .
States matter .
And only a handful of states , at that .
Look past the national polls , the Times wrote in November , and you ’ ll see that Trump is well positioned to pull the same trick he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toughest match-up among the Democratic contenders , but even against Biden he managed to make the battlegrounds a coin flip .
That was eight months , one pandemic , and a series of nationwide anti-racism protests ago .
You already know what the latest NYT national poll looks like , but Nate Cohn went digging through that data to see what the margins look like in the battlegrounds specifically .
How far has Trump slipped since November ?
Note that the November survey was a poll of likely voters whereas the new one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We can safely knock a few points off of Biden ’ s margin in each state here .
But not six points .
And certainly not 11 .
Cohn sees the same problem in the battlegrounds as we saw in the national data yesterday : The white vote is in play , and you can ’ t win as a Republican when that ’ s the case .
Specifically , Biden ’ s up 21 points among white college grads ; in the November poll he led them by just 10 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his core base of whites without a degree , sliding from a 24-point lead in November to a 16-point lead now .
In fact , notes Cohn , Trump trails outright among whites in all three Rust Belt battlegrounds .
In 2016 he won that demographic in those states by nearly 10 points .
Despite everything that ’ s happened in America since November 2019 , Biden ’ s margins among blacks and Latinos in the swing states have barely budged .
All of the erosion for Trump is among whites .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his tone-deaf response to each — seem to be what ’ s killing him : A majority of voters , 63 percent , say they would rather back a presidential candidate who focuses on the cause of protests , even when the protests go too far , while just 31 percent say they would prefer to support a candidate who says we need to be tough on demonstrations that go too far .
Despite double-digit unemployment , 55 percent of voters in these six states say the federal government ’ s priority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , even if it hurts the economy , while just 35 percent say the federal government ’ s priority should be to restart the economy .
Even the newly unemployed , who would seem to have the most to gain from a reopened economy , say stopping the coronavirus should be the government ’ s priority .
Those are attitudes you ’ d expect among the white college grads who are defecting to Biden .
They ’ re a bit more progressive on racial issues but probably also a bit more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserves to weather a lockdown that the working class doesn ’ t .
Trump ’ s on the wrong side of both issues from them and it ’ s showing .
Combine that with the fact that suburbanites were already trending blue since the 2018 midterms due to skepticism about Trump and he may have lost those votes for good .
His only option at this point might be to try to run up the score to a staggering degree among blue-collar whites .
And I think he ’ s trying , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his focus on getting the economy moving .
But it ’ s not working right now , for whatever reason .
Maybe even working-class whites are more eager to see the virus contained than they are to get back to work .
The most noteworthy detail from the head-to-head-numbers above is that Trump is polling at 41 percent or worse in every state .
His national job approval right now is 42.5 percent .
That means we ’ re seeing the same thing here that we saw in yesterday ’ s NYT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who think he ’ s doing a good enough job are nonetheless inclined to support Biden , which means Trump might need a job approval of something like 48 percent on Election Day to make another electoral-college win likely .
He ’ s never touched 48 in the RCP average ; in fact , the only time he ’ s touched 47 was briefly at the end of March , when political leaders across the spectrum got a bounce in their approval amid public anxiety about the erupting pandemic .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his support in the battlegrounds before November ?
Not much , if you believe the Times ’ s sample : Again , that ’ s registered voters , not likely voters .
But if , say , 50 percent of likelies are a hard no four months out from the election , it ’ s easy to see how ugly this might get .
The UVA “ Crystal Ball ” has 268 electoral votes in Biden ’ s column right now if you include states that are leaning Democratic in polling ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts him one state away from victory with Wisconsin , Arizona , North Carolina , and Florida all in play ( and Ohio , Iowa , Georgia , and Texas not looking rock-solid at the moment ) .
If Biden won all six battlegrounds polled by the Times plus all the Hillary states from 2016 he ’ d have 333 electoral votes , more than Trump won four years ago .
POTUS is annoyed at the polling news this week : He likes spinning discouraging polling as a “ suppression ” tactic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I ’ ve seen Biden fans on social media spin them in an oddly similar way — not as a “ suppression ” tactic , of course , but as a complacency risk .
Righties want to believe that a Biden +10 survey is aimed at convincing them not to bother voting , which is silly when we ’ re still more than four months out from the election .
But paranoid lefties and Never Trumpers , spooked by Trump ’ s victory in 2016 , fear that Democrats will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting ( or donating or phone-banking or organizing ) in the mistaken belief that this election is in the bag .
Forgive the profanity , but this tweet by Trump-hater Joe Walsh captures it succinctly : It ’ s a “ suppression poll ” for Republicans and a “ complacency poll ” for Dems and their bedfellows .
Sheesh .
One last note about the Times data .
It would help Trump greatly if lefties were holding Biden ’ s victory over Bernie Sanders , and his general squishy centrism , against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
He ’ s winning 93 percent of Democrats in the Times battleground poll and his margin over Trump in the 18-29 group has more than doubled since November , from +17 to +38 .
( Which isn ’ t completely surprising since Bernie dropped out over that period . )
Maybe Biden will say or do something between now and November to alienate them , but Biden himself may be irrelevant to the equation here : More than half his voters , 55 percent , say they ’ re voting against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a Trump referendum election , plain and simple .
At least for now .

One of the most memorable polls of the last year, and among the most encouraging for Trump, was the NYT’s battleground survey from last November. Trump trailed various Democratic primary candidates big in national polling even at the time, but at the end of the day national polls don’t matter. States matter.
And only a handful of states, at that.
Look past the national polls, the Times wrote in November, and you’ll see that Trump is well positioned to pull the same trick he pulled in 2016. Biden was his toughest match-up among the Democratic contenders, but even against Biden he managed to make the battlegrounds a coin flip.
That was eight months, one pandemic, and a series of nationwide anti-racism protests ago. You already know what the latest NYT national poll looks like, but Nate Cohn went digging through that data to see what the margins look like in the battlegrounds specifically. How far has Trump slipped since November?
A lot, it turns out:
Note that the November survey was a poll of likely voters whereas the new one’s a poll of registered voters. We can safely knock a few points off of Biden’s margin in each state here. But not six points. And certainly not 11.
Cohn sees the same problem in the battlegrounds as we saw in the national data yesterday: The white vote is in play, and you can’t win as a Republican when that’s the case. Specifically, Biden’s up 21 points among white college grads; in the November poll he led them by just 10. Trump’s also lost ground among his core base of whites without a degree, sliding from a 24-point lead in November to a 16-point lead now. In fact, notes Cohn, Trump trails outright among whites in all three Rust Belt battlegrounds. In 2016 he won that demographic in those states by nearly 10 points.
So, ~all of Biden's gains relative to Clinton in the battlegrounds are because of white voters, both college and noncollege whites. Interesting in the context of the protests and Trump's attempts to appeal to white identity. https://t.co/Zv1BMiIDBK — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 25, 2020
Despite everything that’s happened in America since November 2019, Biden’s margins among blacks and Latinos in the swing states have barely budged. All of the erosion for Trump is among whites.
The pandemic and the protests — or rather, his tone-deaf response to each — seem to be what’s killing him:
A majority of voters, 63 percent, say they would rather back a presidential candidate who focuses on the cause of protests, even when the protests go too far, while just 31 percent say they would prefer to support a candidate who says we need to be tough on demonstrations that go too far. Despite double-digit unemployment, 55 percent of voters in these six states say the federal government’s priority should be to limit the spread of the coronavirus, even if it hurts the economy, while just 35 percent say the federal government’s priority should be to restart the economy. Even the newly unemployed, who would seem to have the most to gain from a reopened economy, say stopping the coronavirus should be the government’s priority.
Those are attitudes you’d expect among the white college grads who are defecting to Biden. They’re a bit more progressive on racial issues but probably also a bit more reluctant to reopen since they have financial reserves to weather a lockdown that the working class doesn’t. Trump’s on the wrong side of both issues from them and it’s showing. Combine that with the fact that suburbanites were already trending blue since the 2018 midterms due to skepticism about Trump and he may have lost those votes for good. His only option at this point might be to try to run up the score to a staggering degree among blue-collar whites. And I think he’s trying, with his threats of military force against looters and his focus on getting the economy moving.
But it’s not working right now, for whatever reason. Maybe even working-class whites are more eager to see the virus contained than they are to get back to work.
The most noteworthy detail from the head-to-head-numbers above is that Trump is polling at 41 percent or worse in every state. His national job approval right now is 42.5 percent. That means we’re seeing the same thing here that we saw in yesterday’s NYT poll, namely, some small share of people who think he’s doing a good enough job are nonetheless inclined to support Biden, which means Trump might need a job approval of something like 48 percent on Election Day to make another electoral-college win likely. He’s never touched 48 in the RCP average; in fact, the only time he’s touched 47 was briefly at the end of March, when political leaders across the spectrum got a bounce in their approval amid public anxiety about the erupting pandemic.
How much room does he have to grow his support in the battlegrounds before November? Not much, if you believe the Times’s sample:
Over all, 55 percent of registered voters in the battleground states said there was at least “some chance” they would support Mr. Biden in the election, including 12 percent of Republicans, 11 percent of voters who backed Mr. Trump in 2016, and 44 percent of the Republican-tilting undecided voters. As for Mr. Trump, 55 percent of registered voters in the battlegrounds said there was “not really any chance” they would vote for him this November.
Again, that’s registered voters, not likely voters. But if, say, 50 percent of likelies are a hard no four months out from the election, it’s easy to see how ugly this might get. The UVA “Crystal Ball” has 268 electoral votes in Biden’s column right now if you include states that are leaning Democratic in polling (which means Michigan and Pennsylvania). That puts him one state away from victory with Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida all in play (and Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, and Texas not looking rock-solid at the moment). If Biden won all six battlegrounds polled by the Times plus all the Hillary states from 2016 he’d have 333 electoral votes, more than Trump won four years ago.
POTUS is annoyed at the polling news this week:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1276173394053156865
He likes spinning discouraging polling as a “suppression” tactic, which is part of his conspiratorial outlook, but I’ve seen Biden fans on social media spin them in an oddly similar way — not as a “suppression” tactic, of course, but as a complacency risk. Righties want to believe that a Biden +10 survey is aimed at convincing them not to bother voting, which is silly when we’re still more than four months out from the election. But paranoid lefties and Never Trumpers, spooked by Trump’s victory in 2016, fear that Democrats will be the ones inadvertently persuaded not to bother voting (or donating or phone-banking or organizing) in the mistaken belief that this election is in the bag. Forgive the profanity, but this tweet by Trump-hater Joe Walsh captures it succinctly:
To every American who wants Donald Trump to lose in November: IGNORE THE FUCKING POLLS! — Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 25, 2020
It’s a “suppression poll” for Republicans and a “complacency poll” for Dems and their bedfellows. Sheesh.
One last note about the Times data. It would help Trump greatly if lefties were holding Biden’s victory over Bernie Sanders, and his general squishy centrism, against him. But they aren’t so far. He’s winning 93 percent of Democrats in the Times battleground poll and his margin over Trump in the 18-29 group has more than doubled since November, from +17 to +38. (Which isn’t completely surprising since Bernie dropped out over that period.) Maybe Biden will say or do something between now and November to alienate them, but Biden himself may be irrelevant to the equation here: More than half his voters, 55 percent, say they’re voting against Trump, not “for” Biden. It’s a Trump referendum election, plain and simple. At least for now.


hotair--2020-06-25--Surprise! Gun sales explode in Minnesota after riots, #DefundthePolice

Gee , whodathunkit ?
Let ’ s allow the streets to burn , demand the dismantling of the police department , and then call concern over property crimes and assaults a symptom of “ privilege.
” Minnesotans have responded by rediscovering one of the core purposes of the Second Amendment — mainly first-time firearms buyers , local CBS affiliate WCCO reports .
“ People are really scared , ” one gun-store owner says , and they should be : The spike started with the COVID-19 shutdown , which shows that Minnesotans had an inkling of what might be coming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the riots , however : Background checks in Minnesota spiked in March as COVID-19 hit the United States , with more than 96,000 filed — the most for any month in 20 years .
Kory Krause , the owner of Frontiersman Sports in St. Louis Park , says demand again grew following George Floyd ’ s death last month , and it is still climbing .
“ People are really scared coming in here , ” Krause said .
“ We had a three , four hour wait just to get up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rioting.
” Chris Hardin was in the store Wednesday picking up a shotgun he bought .
He already owns a handgun , but the recent unrest near his home in Minneapolis got him thinking about his family .
“ A little scary , ” Hardin said .
“ You just have to protect yourself , you know .
Be prepared.
” What happens when civic authority retreats ?
Those with the most credible threat of violence fill the vacuum .
That ’ s what happened in the riots themselves , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Police “ protection ” on a personal basis has always been a myth anyway , but without them , order and public peace are impossible in cities of any significant size .
Under those circumstances , people will find ways to defend themselves and their property , and they won ’ t have the training or experience that trained police officers bring to the job .
Minneapolis residents have started to question whether defunding the police will work out well for them , especially in poorer areas .
“ Is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over here ?
” one North Side resident asked the Star Tribune as a spate of violence has convulsed the city after the council announced it would find a way to dismantle the Minneapolis PD : Now those forces had converged in the latest of a spate of shootings on the North Side , as city leaders scrambled to call in outside law enforcement to help stop the violence .
“ I know on one side of the city , it looks beautiful for defunding to happen , ” Franklin said from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marked shell casings that fell inches from where his car had driven .
“ But here on this side of the city , I ’ m scared if you defund the police … Is it going to turn into World War III over here ?
” Surveying the block , Steven Belton , president and CEO of the Urban League Twin Cities , noted a “ significant , dramatic uptick ” in violent crime since June 7 , when nine Minneapolis City Council members publicly pledged support for defunding police .
Belton called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports transforming the department .
He said those council members had not consulted with people who have a stake in the black community , particularly those on the North Side .
Violent people “ have used that sound bite — ‘ defund the police ’ — as an indication that there is no consequence , that there is no policing , and [ concluded ] that they are free to do whatever they want to do , ” Belton said .
They did “ consult ” with the wealthier white progressives in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ defund ” effort .
They even checked their privilege and pledged not to call police .
And that has worked out … pretty much exactly as you ’ d expect : After the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police , Ms. Albers , who is white , and many of her progressive neighbors have vowed to avoid calling law enforcement into their community .
Doing so , they believed , would add to the pain that black residents of Minneapolis were feeling and could put them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being challenged .
Two weeks ago , dozens of multicolored tents appeared in the neighborhood park .
They were brought by homeless people who were displaced during the unrest that gripped the city .
The multiracial group of roughly 300 new residents seems to grow larger and more entrenched every day .
They do laundry , listen to music and strategize about how to find permanent housing .
Some are hampered by mental illness , addiction or both .
Their presence has drawn heavy car traffic into the neighborhood , some from drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overdosed in the encampment and had to be taken away in ambulances .
The influx of outsiders has kept Ms. Albers awake at night .
Though it is unlikely to happen , she has had visions of people from the tent camp forcing their way into her home .
She imagines using a baseball bat to defend herself .
Not being able to call the police , as she has done for decades , has shaken her .
“ I am afraid , ” she said .
“ I know my neighbors are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling grounded in my city at all .
Anything could happen.
” It ’ s probably belaboring the point to note that this is why cities have police departments .
That point apparently requires belaboring these days in the Twin Cities , at least among the utopian progressives .
The people who get impacted the hardest by a vacuum of leadership already know this — which is why gun stores in Minnesota are doing a booming business this month .
And I ’ d bet that the wealthy white progressives cheering on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of that first-timer demand , too .

Gee, whodathunkit? Let’s allow the streets to burn, demand the dismantling of the police department, and then call concern over property crimes and assaults a symptom of “privilege.” Minnesotans have responded by rediscovering one of the core purposes of the Second Amendment — mainly first-time firearms buyers, local CBS affiliate WCCO reports.
“People are really scared,” one gun-store owner says, and they should be:
The spike started with the COVID-19 shutdown, which shows that Minnesotans had an inkling of what might be coming. Demand is rebounding with a fury after the riots, however:
Background checks in Minnesota spiked in March as COVID-19 hit the United States, with more than 96,000 filed — the most for any month in 20 years. Kory Krause, the owner of Frontiersman Sports in St. Louis Park, says demand again grew following George Floyd’s death last month, and it is still climbing. “People are really scared coming in here,” Krause said. “We had a three, four hour wait just to get up to the counter during the height of … the rioting.” Chris Hardin was in the store Wednesday picking up a shotgun he bought. He already owns a handgun, but the recent unrest near his home in Minneapolis got him thinking about his family. “A little scary,” Hardin said. “You just have to protect yourself, you know. Be prepared.”
What happens when civic authority retreats? Those with the most credible threat of violence fill the vacuum. That’s what happened in the riots themselves, and that’s what happened in Seattle, too. Police “protection” on a personal basis has always been a myth anyway, but without them, order and public peace are impossible in cities of any significant size. Under those circumstances, people will find ways to defend themselves and their property, and they won’t have the training or experience that trained police officers bring to the job.
Minneapolis residents have started to question whether defunding the police will work out well for them, especially in poorer areas. “Is it going to turn into World War III over here?” one North Side resident asked the Star Tribune as a spate of violence has convulsed the city after the council announced it would find a way to dismantle the Minneapolis PD:
Now those forces had converged in the latest of a spate of shootings on the North Side, as city leaders scrambled to call in outside law enforcement to help stop the violence. “I know on one side of the city, it looks beautiful for defunding to happen,” Franklin said from the parking lot of Merwin Liquors as investigators marked shell casings that fell inches from where his car had driven. “But here on this side of the city, I’m scared if you defund the police … Is it going to turn into World War III over here?” Surveying the block, Steven Belton, president and CEO of the Urban League Twin Cities, noted a “significant, dramatic uptick” in violent crime since June 7, when nine Minneapolis City Council members publicly pledged support for defunding police. Belton called the move irresponsible, even as he supports transforming the department. He said those council members had not consulted with people who have a stake in the black community, particularly those on the North Side. Violent people “have used that sound bite — ‘defund the police’ — as an indication that there is no consequence, that there is no policing, and [concluded] that they are free to do whatever they want to do,” Belton said.
They did “consult” with the wealthier white progressives in Minneapolis, who initially were all aboard with the “defund” effort. They even checked their privilege and pledged not to call police. And that has worked out … pretty much exactly as you’d expect:
After the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police, Ms. Albers, who is white, and many of her progressive neighbors have vowed to avoid calling law enforcement into their community. Doing so, they believed, would add to the pain that black residents of Minneapolis were feeling and could put them in danger. Already, that commitment is being challenged. Two weeks ago, dozens of multicolored tents appeared in the neighborhood park. They were brought by homeless people who were displaced during the unrest that gripped the city. The multiracial group of roughly 300 new residents seems to grow larger and more entrenched every day. They do laundry, listen to music and strategize about how to find permanent housing. Some are hampered by mental illness, addiction or both. Their presence has drawn heavy car traffic into the neighborhood, some from drug dealers. At least two residents have overdosed in the encampment and had to be taken away in ambulances. The influx of outsiders has kept Ms. Albers awake at night. Though it is unlikely to happen, she has had visions of people from the tent camp forcing their way into her home. She imagines using a baseball bat to defend herself. Not being able to call the police, as she has done for decades, has shaken her. “I am afraid,” she said. “I know my neighbors are around, but I’m not feeling grounded in my city at all. Anything could happen.”
It’s probably belaboring the point to note that this is why cities have police departments. That point apparently requires belaboring these days in the Twin Cities, at least among the utopian progressives. The people who get impacted the hardest by a vacuum of leadership already know this — which is why gun stores in Minnesota are doing a booming business this month. And I’d bet that the wealthy white progressives cheering on “defunding” might make up a significant part of that first-timer demand, too.


hotair--2020-06-25--Chris Cuomo slobbers over Andrew: You're the best politician in the country

Congrats to Jim Acosta on no longer being the cringiest circus act at CNN .
I don ’ t know that there ’ s much to say about this clip that I didn ’ t say a month ago about the Cuomo brothers ’ “ giant swab ” segment but I ’ ll try .
One obvious point is that there ’ s no meaningful difference between this interview , conducted on a “ serious ” and “ objective ” cable news network , and the pattycake session between the president and Don Jr last weekend .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The dad/son chat was a Father ’ s Day political stunt done mostly for fun , not something presented as approximating journalism .
You would think CNN might have pulled the plug on the Cuomo vs. Cuomo nonsense after that Trump interview ran if only to avoid the obvious comparison .
But they don ’ t care .
At some point they made peace with the egregious conflict of interest here and decided to let it rip .
Maybe that ’ s because they ’ ve embraced the anti-Trump/pro-Democrat brand they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s just one of the many types of rule-bending that institutions have adopted in the age of COVID-19 to make managing the pandemic more “ comfortable ” to them .
In sports that means reorganizing the season and finding new places to play games .
In schools and workplaces it means conducting business via video chat instead of in-person .
At CNN it means throwing ethics out the window and letting the governor of New York be interviewed by his admiring brother because the myth of Andrew Cuomo as a master @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the most obnoxious part — this whole interview is in service to a myth .
If Cuomo really had done as superb of a job in holding down the outbreak in New York as his fans like to think , on-air adulation from Chris would still be unethical but understandable .
The segments might be factually , if not ethically , correct .
And to listen to Chris , you would think they are .
Here ’ s what he said after the interview ended , shortly after the clip below cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big brother , I love him .
Of course I ’ m not objective , but let ’ s call it straight .
Look at the state .
Look at the numbers .
Look at New Jersey .
Look at Connecticut .
Look how they came together .
Yeah , he ’ s my brother .
There ’ s no question , I can cry about it in a second .
But the results are there for all to see .
Was it perfect ?
No .
You tell me what is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in.
” “ Was it perfect ?
No , ” is an astoundingly cavalier way to allude to Cuomo ’ s fateful decision in March to send infected patients back into nursing homes , where they spread the virus to an unusually susceptible population .
I ’ m not going to rehash all of the belated media criticism of his handling of the pandemic , including how late he was to lock down as the epidemic exploded — you ’ ll find the most damning stories linked here — but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York might have had a much brighter outcome on COVID-19 if it had been governed by , say , Ron DeSantis or Mike DeWine than by Cuomo .
( And of course if New York City didn ’ t have an imbecile for a mayor . )
The worst problem with this segment isn ’ t the conflict of interest , it ’ s the whitewash of a major politician ’ s performance in a matter with the highest life-and-death stakes .
It ’ s a de facto campaign commercial by CNN for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability for him that ’ s so potentially damaging it might plausibly end his career .
And it ’ s hosted by his own brother and offered as “ journalism.
” In lieu of an exit question , go read Mediaite ’ s compilation of pundits across the spectrum shredding the network for allowing this to happen .

Congrats to Jim Acosta on no longer being the cringiest circus act at CNN.
I don’t know that there’s much to say about this clip that I didn’t say a month ago about the Cuomo brothers’ “giant swab” segment but I’ll try. One obvious point is that there’s no meaningful difference between this interview, conducted on a “serious” and “objective” cable news network, and the pattycake session between the president and Don Jr last weekend. In fact, that comparison is unfair to the Trumps: The dad/son chat was a Father’s Day political stunt done mostly for fun, not something presented as approximating journalism. You would think CNN might have pulled the plug on the Cuomo vs. Cuomo nonsense after that Trump interview ran if only to avoid the obvious comparison.
But they don’t care. At some point they made peace with the egregious conflict of interest here and decided to let it rip. Maybe that’s because they’ve embraced the anti-Trump/pro-Democrat brand they’ve built among Republicans, or maybe it’s just one of the many types of rule-bending that institutions have adopted in the age of COVID-19 to make managing the pandemic more “comfortable” to them. In sports that means reorganizing the season and finding new places to play games. In schools and workplaces it means conducting business via video chat instead of in-person. At CNN it means throwing ethics out the window and letting the governor of New York be interviewed by his admiring brother because the myth of Andrew Cuomo as a master virus-killer persists even now.
That’s the most obnoxious part — this whole interview is in service to a myth. If Cuomo really had done as superb of a job in holding down the outbreak in New York as his fans like to think, on-air adulation from Chris would still be unethical but understandable. The segments might be factually, if not ethically, correct. And to listen to Chris, you would think they are. Here’s what he said after the interview ended, shortly after the clip below cuts out:
“He’s my big brother, I love him. Of course I’m not objective, but let’s call it straight. Look at the state. Look at the numbers. Look at New Jersey. Look at Connecticut. Look how they came together. Yeah, he’s my brother. There’s no question, I can cry about it in a second. But the results are there for all to see. Was it perfect? No. You tell me what is. But look at the state our country is in.”
“Was it perfect? No,” is an astoundingly cavalier way to allude to Cuomo’s fateful decision in March to send infected patients back into nursing homes, where they spread the virus to an unusually susceptible population. I’m not going to rehash all of the belated media criticism of his handling of the pandemic, including how late he was to lock down as the epidemic exploded — you’ll find the most damning stories linked here — but it’s clear at this point that New York might have had a much brighter outcome on COVID-19 if it had been governed by, say, Ron DeSantis or Mike DeWine than by Cuomo. (And of course if New York City didn’t have an imbecile for a mayor.) The worst problem with this segment isn’t the conflict of interest, it’s the whitewash of a major politician’s performance in a matter with the highest life-and-death stakes. It’s a de facto campaign commercial by CNN for Cuomo 2022 aimed at spinning a political liability for him that’s so potentially damaging it might plausibly end his career.
And it’s hosted by his own brother and offered as “journalism.”
In lieu of an exit question, go read Mediaite’s compilation of pundits across the spectrum shredding the network for allowing this to happen.