hotair--2020-11-10--Dem candidate in GA runoff on court-packing: "E Pluribus Unum," or something

“ E Pluribus Unum ” ?
Either Rev .
Ralph Warnock wants the Supreme Court reduced from “ many ” to one , or he ’ s tossing around a bizarre non-sequitur to avoid the question of court-packing .
In fact , the Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler in one of two runoffs in Georgia for its US Senate seats ducks the question twice in this interview : Just a few hours later , Loeffler pounced , as Republicans are wont to do in media coverage of Democrats ’ gaffes : Amusingly , CNN followed up on this dodge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesson over radical messaging : The Democratic Party is quickly mobilizing voters for two US Senate races in Georgia , applying the lessons learned from an unexpectedly poor showing in down-ballot races across the country to the contests that will determine whether Democrats control both chambers of Congress next year .
After losing seats in the House and falling short in several key Senate races , Democrats realized that their pandemic-induced shift to digital and television outreach had left behind potential voters .
They also saw that Republicans had succeeded in tying Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ defund the police.
” But Georgia Democratic Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have narrowly tailored their message to addressing the health care and economic crises , and Democrats plan to expand their field operation in the Peach State .
… Democrats performed better in Georgia congressional races than in other states President Donald Trump won in 2016 .
President-elect Joe Biden leads Trump in the state , the best showing for a Democrat since 1992 .
Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux flipped a House seat northeast of Atlanta , while Georgia Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburban seat by a greater margin than two years ago .
And Republican Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are both expected to miss the 50 % threshold to avoid a runoff , pitting them against Ossoff and Warnock in runoff elections on January 5 .
If Warnock isn ’ t distancing himself from the court-packing demands of the Left , then neither he nor the Democrats have learned anything from last week .
A dodge on this question , especially in a relatively friendly interview like this , looks suspicious and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate at stake in a Democratic administration , it ’ s going to look really suspicious to voters who might not have liked Donald Trump but certainly didn ’ t go all in with Democrats either .
And that really describes Georgia voters , particularly in the two Senate races .
The numbers have changed somewhat since my analysis last week of the runoffs , but the trends haven ’ t .
As of this afternoon , Jon Ossoff received 100,004 fewer votes than Joe Biden in the regular election against incumbent David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes more than Donald Trump .
In the special election for Loeffler ’ s seat , Republicans combined for 2.381 million votes , 76,000 fewer than Trump or Perdue .
Democrats combined for 2.373 million votes in that race , 96,000 fewer than Biden got .
Without Trump at the top of the ticket and with control of the Senate in play , the turnout in Georgia may rely entirely on whether Democrats can keep from sounding crazy .
They have to overcome a trend in Georgia that still favors Republicans down ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the top spot .
So far , Warnock ’ s failing that test , even if CNN wants to ignore it .

“E Pluribus Unum”? Either Rev. Raphael Warnock wants the Supreme Court reduced from “many” to one, or he’s tossing around a bizarre non-sequitur to avoid the question of court-packing. In fact, the Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler in one of two runoffs in Georgia for its US Senate seats ducks the question twice in this interview:
On raising the issues of court-packing, statehood for DC & Puerto Rico, @ReverendWarnock says the GOP is trying to "trying to divide us again, and it's really sad." Full interview here >>> https://t.co/y0mqvHZiZ7 #GASen pic.twitter.com/k6oSv4JJMU — Alana Austin (@alana_austin) November 9, 2020
Just a few hours later, Loeffler pounced, as Republicans are wont to do in media coverage of Democrats’ gaffes:
🚨 WATCH: @ReverendWarnock flat-out refuses to answer where he stands on Court packing & DC statehood. He’s avoiding these issues because he supports them–but doesn’t want Georgians to know. Help us defeat him on January 5: https://t.co/oztRVFzFKc #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/EN5r7GI8ii — Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) November 9, 2020
Amusingly, CNN followed up on this dodge today by claiming that Democrats learned their lesson over radical messaging:
The Democratic Party is quickly mobilizing voters for two US Senate races in Georgia, applying the lessons learned from an unexpectedly poor showing in down-ballot races across the country to the contests that will determine whether Democrats control both chambers of Congress next year. After losing seats in the House and falling short in several key Senate races, Democrats realized that their pandemic-induced shift to digital and television outreach had left behind potential voters. They also saw that Republicans had succeeded in tying Democratic candidates to far-left proposals and slogans like “defund the police.” But Georgia Democratic Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have narrowly tailored their message to addressing the health care and economic crises, and Democrats plan to expand their field operation in the Peach State. … Democrats performed better in Georgia congressional races than in other states President Donald Trump won in 2016. President-elect Joe Biden leads Trump in the state, the best showing for a Democrat since 1992. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux flipped a House seat northeast of Atlanta, while Georgia Democratic Rep. Lucy McBath won reelection for her suburban seat by a greater margin than two years ago. And Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are both expected to miss the 50% threshold to avoid a runoff, pitting them against Ossoff and Warnock in runoff elections on January 5.
If Warnock isn’t distancing himself from the court-packing demands of the Left, then neither he nor the Democrats have learned anything from last week. A dodge on this question, especially in a relatively friendly interview like this, looks suspicious and dishonest. And with control of the Senate at stake in a Democratic administration, it’s going to look really suspicious to voters who might not have liked Donald Trump but certainly didn’t go all in with Democrats either.
And that really describes Georgia voters, particularly in the two Senate races. The numbers have changed somewhat since my analysis last week of the runoffs, but the trends haven’t. As of this afternoon, Jon Ossoff received 100,004 fewer votes than Joe Biden in the regular election against incumbent David Perdue, who received a few hundred votes more than Donald Trump. In the special election for Loeffler’s seat, Republicans combined for 2.381 million votes, 76,000 fewer than Trump or Perdue. Democrats combined for 2.373 million votes in that race, 96,000 fewer than Biden got.
Without Trump at the top of the ticket and with control of the Senate in play, the turnout in Georgia may rely entirely on whether Democrats can keep from sounding crazy. They have to overcome a trend in Georgia that still favors Republicans down ballot, even if the state rejected Trump in the top spot. So far, Warnock’s failing that test, even if CNN wants to ignore it.
Update: I have corrected Warnock’s first name to “Raphael.”


hotair--2020-11-10--Rep. Clyburn: 'Defund the police' killed Democrats

Rep. James Clyburn is the House Majority Whip .
Yesterday he told Axios that “ defund the police ” and other progressives slogans cost Democrats seats in the House and Senate .
“ We were not able to discipline ourselves according to voter sentiment , ” Clyburn told Axios reporter Alexi McCammond .
He continued , “ We keep making that mistake .
This foolishness about , ‘ You got to be this progressive or that progressive.
’ That phrase — ‘ defund the police ’ — cost Jaime Harrison tremendously.
” Asked directly if he was blaming progressive members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wasn ’ t doing that but added , “ I want everyone in my caucus to be as practical as I am .
That ’ s the difference here.
” He then offered this advice on how to do things differently , “ Stop sloganeering .
Sloganeering kills people .
Sloganeering destroys movements .
Stop sloganeering .
And let ’ s go about the business of representing people and building hopes and aspirations for people.
” Again , he ’ s talking about “ defund the police ” and the movement he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter .
Later he explained that if you ask someone about that slogan “ they will explain that ’ s not what we mean.
” But according to Clyburn , “ the moment you start explaining what you mean , you ’ re losing the argument.
” Clyburn is far from the only person pointing to that particular slogan as a problem for Democrats .
Politico published a piece today in which losing Democratic Senator Doug Jones complained he ’ d been in the same boat as Jaime Harrison : “ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re portrayed to be , ” said Jones .
“ I was fighting the same battle that Jaime Harrison was fighting , that Mike Espy was fighting , that Cal Cunningham was fighting , that Steve Bullock was fighting .
And Democrats have not been able to fully counter the Republican narrative.
” … “ It ain ’ t over , ” said Rep. Gregory Meeks ( D-N.Y. ) , who offered to go to Georgia to explain to voters that Democrats don ’ t agree with liberal activists on everything .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think that I am trying to defund the police.
” … “ We always look at how we can do things better .
But the map was the map , ” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow ( D-Mich. ) , a close Schumer ally .
“ None of our candidates are supporting defunding the police , socialism .
But we still got tagged by it .
So the question becomes : How do you rise above that ?
” Of course we all know who the poster girl is for defund the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Nancy Pelosi and AOC made his job of fundraising easy .
Speaking specifically of AOC , he said “ That wing of the party , the socialist wing of the party , they are the new power of the Democratic Party…You watched on the floor .
Legislation couldn ’ t be passed unless AOC agreed with it.
” Notice that Axios ’ Mike Allen attempts to minimize AOC as a junior congresswoman which is absurd at this point .
Not many junior congresswomen are on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have people asking when they ’ ll run for president .
AOC raised $ 10 million for her reelection this year beating every Democrat in the House with the exception of Adam Schiff who had been on TV everyday because of impeachment .
She even outraised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
AOC campaigned with Bernie Sanders and helped bring in huge crowds .
The idea that she ’ s just some junior congresswoman is so absurd that Mike Allen should be embarrassed to utter it .
She is a leading national figures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growing Sanders wing of the party .
Which bring me back around to why more moderate Democrats had such an uphill battle in this election .
Everyone ( with the exception of Axios ’ Mike Allen ) can see that there are far left progressives like AOC and the rest of her Squad who are a rising force in the party .
Democrats can say over and over that Joe Biden isn ’ t for defunding the police but that doesn ’ t change the fact that there ’ s a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several cities around the country have already passed measures defunding police because the City Councils have more in common with AOC than with Joe Biden .
And that ’ s not to mention the left ’ s other priorities like single payer and the Green New Deal .
Clyburn seems to wish the far left would just show some “ discipline ” while the moderates get through the election , but voters aren ’ t so easily fooled .
They know where the real energy in the Democratic Party ( and the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not coming from Joe Biden .
He ’ s a 77-year-old moderate face , probably the last moderate face , for a party that is busy moving hard left toward Democratic Socialism .

Rep. James Clyburn is the House Majority Whip. Yesterday he told Axios that “defund the police” and other progressives slogans cost Democrats seats in the House and Senate.
“We were not able to discipline ourselves according to voter sentiment,” Clyburn told Axios reporter Alexi McCammond. He continued, “We keep making that mistake. This foolishness about, ‘You got to be this progressive or that progressive.’ That phrase — ‘defund the police’ — cost Jaime Harrison tremendously.”
Jaime Harrison lost his $100 million bid to unseat Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Asked directly if he was blaming progressive members for Democrats’ losses, Clyburn said he wasn’t doing that but added, “I want everyone in my caucus to be as practical as I am. That’s the difference here.”
He then offered this advice on how to do things differently, “Stop sloganeering. Sloganeering kills people. Sloganeering destroys movements. Stop sloganeering. And let’s go about the business of representing people and building hopes and aspirations for people.”
Again, he’s talking about “defund the police” and the movement he’s worried about is Black Lives Matter. Later he explained that if you ask someone about that slogan “they will explain that’s not what we mean.” But according to Clyburn, “the moment you start explaining what you mean, you’re losing the argument.”
Clyburn is far from the only person pointing to that particular slogan as a problem for Democrats. Politico published a piece today in which losing Democratic Senator Doug Jones complained he’d been in the same boat as Jaime Harrison:
“We’re not some demonic cult like we’re portrayed to be,” said Jones. “I was fighting the same battle that Jaime Harrison was fighting, that Mike Espy was fighting, that Cal Cunningham was fighting, that Steve Bullock was fighting. And Democrats have not been able to fully counter the Republican narrative.”… “It ain’t over,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), who offered to go to Georgia to explain to voters that Democrats don’t agree with liberal activists on everything. “I don’t want anyone to think that I am trying to defund the police.”… “We always look at how we can do things better. But the map was the map,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a close Schumer ally. “None of our candidates are supporting defunding the police, socialism. But we still got tagged by it. So the question becomes: How do you rise above that?”
Of course we all know who the poster girl is for defund the police and socialism. In this clip below, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Nancy Pelosi and AOC made his job of fundraising easy. Speaking specifically of AOC, he said “That wing of the party, the socialist wing of the party, they are the new power of the Democratic Party…You watched on the floor. Legislation couldn’t be passed unless AOC agreed with it.”
Notice that Axios’ Mike Allen attempts to minimize AOC as a junior congresswoman which is absurd at this point. Not many junior congresswomen are on the cover of major magazines. Not many have people asking when they’ll run for president.
AOC raised $10 million for her reelection this year beating every Democrat in the House with the exception of Adam Schiff who had been on TV everyday because of impeachment. She even outraised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. AOC campaigned with Bernie Sanders and helped bring in huge crowds. The idea that she’s just some junior congresswoman is so absurd that Mike Allen should be embarrassed to utter it. She is a leading national figures in her party and the heir apparent to the growing Sanders wing of the party.
Which bring me back around to why more moderate Democrats had such an uphill battle in this election. Everyone (with the exception of Axios’ Mike Allen) can see that there are far left progressives like AOC and the rest of her Squad who are a rising force in the party. Democrats can say over and over that Joe Biden isn’t for defunding the police but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot of energy on the far left. Several cities around the country have already passed measures defunding police because the City Councils have more in common with AOC than with Joe Biden. And that’s not to mention the left’s other priorities like single payer and the Green New Deal.
Clyburn seems to wish the far left would just show some “discipline” while the moderates get through the election, but voters aren’t so easily fooled. They know where the real energy in the Democratic Party (and the left in general) is coming from and it’s not coming from Joe Biden. He’s a 77-year-old moderate face, probably the last moderate face, for a party that is busy moving hard left toward Democratic Socialism.


hotair--2020-11-10--Los Angeles cops will no longer be answering certain calls

I guess the municipal government of Los Angeles must really be buying into the idea that the apparent election of Joe Biden will mark a new era of peace , love , understanding , unicorns and flowers .
I ’ m assuming that ’ s the case because they ’ re going to be further scaling back the size and duties of the LAPD .
I mean , why keep all of those cops roaming around the streets of the city if everyone is busy attending a huge hug festival , right ?
With that in mind , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police budget so they won ’ t be able to afford to keep as many cops on the payroll anyway .
Oh , and if you ’ re involved in a fender-bender with another car , don ’ t bother calling the cops .
They won ’ t be responding to those calls anymore .
( Daily Caller ) Amid a spike in homicides , the Los Angeles Police Department is set to downsize its homicide and robbery division and will stop responding to traffic collisions , according to CBSN Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 200 LAPD officers will be moved back to patrol under a “ broad reorganization aimed at preserving patrol and community engagement functions , ” according to the Los Angeles Times .
Under the plan , anyone with minor injuries from car accidents and hit-and-run crashes will need to file a report online .
In June , following protests and riots that erupted across the country over the death of George Floyd , the Los Angeles City Council moved toward defunding the LAPD , voting to cut the department ’ s budget by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to CBS .
Another 350 positions for uniformed officers will be eliminated by April according to the latest announcement .
The LAPD will be reducing the number of cops on a variety of task forces , including ( but not limited to ) robbery , homicide , and gang and narcotics units .
Boy… things must be really going well in Lalaland these days if they don ’ t need to keep the police working as diligently in those areas .
Oh , wait .
That ’ s not actually the case at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the City of Angels are up by 20 % compared to the same time last year .
And the number of arrests being made is down .
Some of you may hear about the proposal to not respond to minor accidents anymore and see it as no big deal .
But it is .
It goes back to the basic premise of the theory of broken windows policing .
When there ’ s an accident , even a minor one , and the police quickly show up , they keep a lid on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolved .
Left to their own devices , the people involved in the crash may start with finger-pointing and escalate to a full-blown fight .
Alternately , criminals who see the two damaged vehicles and the drivers who are now temporarily pedestrians and try to take advantage of the situation by robbing them .
Having armed , uniformed officers there to take required police reports and discourage any sort of escalation is common but important police work .
Here ’ s a nickel ’ s worth of free advice for the Mayor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t give a hoot about who won the election or George Floyd what we ’ re doing about the pandemic ?
The Crips and the Bloods and the rest of the gangs that rule Compton and other economically challenged areas of your city .
They ’ re out there taking care of their “ business ” as always , and business is apparently booming .
The same things are going on with the gangs in Chicago , New York City and other major cities .
While you people chatter on about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , the gang bangers are seeing opportunities on the horizon .
And in a literally cutthroat business such as theirs , you never let an opportunity go to waste .
Your political feel-good measures may assuage the hurt feelings of some of the activists who are protesting outside your doors , but they aren ’ t going to do a thing to keep the residents of your cities any safer .

I guess the municipal government of Los Angeles must really be buying into the idea that the apparent election of Joe Biden will mark a new era of peace, love, understanding, unicorns and flowers. I’m assuming that’s the case because they’re going to be further scaling back the size and duties of the LAPD. I mean, why keep all of those cops roaming around the streets of the city if everyone is busy attending a huge hug festival, right? With that in mind, they’ve already slashed $150 million from the police budget so they won’t be able to afford to keep as many cops on the payroll anyway. Oh, and if you’re involved in a fender-bender with another car, don’t bother calling the cops. They won’t be responding to those calls anymore. (Daily Caller)
Amid a spike in homicides, the Los Angeles Police Department is set to downsize its homicide and robbery division and will stop responding to traffic collisions, according to CBSN Los Angeles. Due to budgetary challenges, more than 200 LAPD officers will be moved back to patrol under a “broad reorganization aimed at preserving patrol and community engagement functions,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Under the plan, anyone with minor injuries from car accidents and hit-and-run crashes will need to file a report online. In June, following protests and riots that erupted across the country over the death of George Floyd, the Los Angeles City Council moved toward defunding the LAPD, voting to cut the department’s budget by up to $150 million, according to CBS.
The LAPD will soon downsize its specialized units and stop responding in person to traffic collisions and other minor incidents as part of a broad reorganization aimed at preserving patrol and community engagement amid a $150 million budget cut.https://t.co/DER7bhWJvK — Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 8, 2020
Another 350 positions for uniformed officers will be eliminated by April according to the latest announcement. The LAPD will be reducing the number of cops on a variety of task forces, including (but not limited to) robbery, homicide, and gang and narcotics units. Boy… things must be really going well in Lalaland these days if they don’t need to keep the police working as diligently in those areas. Oh, wait. That’s not actually the case at all. In fact, murders in the City of Angels are up by 20% compared to the same time last year. And the number of arrests being made is down.
Some of you may hear about the proposal to not respond to minor accidents anymore and see it as no big deal. But it is. It goes back to the basic premise of the theory of broken windows policing. When there’s an accident, even a minor one, and the police quickly show up, they keep a lid on the situation so it can be safely resolved. Left to their own devices, the people involved in the crash may start with finger-pointing and escalate to a full-blown fight. Alternately, criminals who see the two damaged vehicles and the drivers who are now temporarily pedestrians and try to take advantage of the situation by robbing them. Having armed, uniformed officers there to take required police reports and discourage any sort of escalation is common but important police work.
Here’s a nickel’s worth of free advice for the Mayor of Los Angeles. Do you know who doesn’t give a hoot about who won the election or George Floyd what we’re doing about the pandemic? The Crips and the Bloods and the rest of the gangs that rule Compton and other economically challenged areas of your city. They’re out there taking care of their “business” as always, and business is apparently booming.
The same things are going on with the gangs in Chicago, New York City and other major cities. While you people chatter on about needing to reform and scale back the police, the gang bangers are seeing opportunities on the horizon. And in a literally cutthroat business such as theirs, you never let an opportunity go to waste. Your political feel-good measures may assuage the hurt feelings of some of the activists who are protesting outside your doors, but they aren’t going to do a thing to keep the residents of your cities any safer.


hotair--2020-11-10--Here's the thing of the day: The obligatory "Tapper and every other sentient being school Joy Reid o

Here's the thing of the day: The obligatory "Tapper and every other sentient being school Joy Reid on meaning of 538" post

Too much fun to leave on the cutting-room floor , but it ’ s not all nonsense either .
MSNBC anchor Joy Reid started a Twitter storm over her nonsensical claim that the data-analytics site FiveThirtyEight named itself after the eventual margin in Florida ’ s disputed 2000 election result .
Shouldn ’ t the number 538 ring another bell for those with high-profile political-analyst jobs with major media outlets ?
Shouldn ’ t a national-outlet analyst/host also know that the Supreme Court didn ’ t reverse anything ?
The Supreme Court stopped the recount over a dispute about its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recount to take place only in specific counties , while the Bush campaign wanted it done state-wide .
Team Bush also challenged the protocols of the recounts that were being conducted at the time .
They won a 7-2 decision from the court on that point , deciding that the varying standards being applied violated the Equal Protection Clause .
The court then split 5-4 in favor of ending recounts altogether and certifying the election on the results already in hand rather than order a full statewide recount on a single standard .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slate of electors at risk of missing the “ safe harbor ” deadline for the Electoral College : Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy .
See post , at 6 ( Souter , J. , dissenting ) ; post , at 2 , 15 ( Breyer , J. , dissenting ) .
The only disagreement is as to the remedy .
Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ § 5 Justice Breyer ’ s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code , and hence could not be part of an “ appropriate ” order authorized by Fla. Stat .
§102.168 ( 8 ) ( 2000 ) .
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court , and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution ’ s design to leave the selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through their legislatures , and to the political sphere .
When contending parties invoke the process of the courts , however , it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront .
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed , and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion .
While this opinion is widely reviled for its impact on the election , a more careful read of it should restore confidence in the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its creaky voting system and shifting standards .
In fairness , though , Reid was correct in one point : the effective scope of recounts .
They work when gaps are in the hundreds , not the tens of thousands .
However , they ’ re also relatively easy to accomplish and can be finished well before the safe-harbor deadlines , as long as they use one standard applied in all instances and start immediately .
If campaigns want to foot the bill for recounts , they can waste the money on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
Maybe Reid should have just stuck to the point , rather than raise old and debunked conspiracy theories and “ fake news ” to make her argument .
So where did FiveThirtyEight derive its name ?
Duh :

Too much fun to leave on the cutting-room floor, but it’s not all nonsense either. MSNBC anchor Joy Reid started a Twitter storm over her nonsensical claim that the data-analytics site FiveThirtyEight named itself after the eventual margin in Florida’s disputed 2000 election result.
Shouldn’t the number 538 ring another bell for those with high-profile political-analyst jobs with major media outlets?
Here's the thing: the reason there's a thing called @FiveThirtyEight is because 538 was the margin in FL when the Republican SCOTUS reversed the 2000 election during a recount, making Dubya the president. That's the kind of margin where races can flip. That's not what's up now. — Joy-Ann Pro-Democracy & Masks Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) November 10, 2020
This isn’t accurate. The margin in Florida was 537 votes (538 is the number of electoral college voters); the SCOTUS didn’t reverse the 2000 election (Bush always led in every count). https://t.co/oVREnnu6nT — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 10, 2020
Shouldn’t a national-outlet analyst/host also know that the Supreme Court didn’t reverse anything?
This is factually inaccurate. 538 is the number of votes in the electoral college, not the FL margin. And, the Supreme Court never reversed anything — GWB was ahead every single day of the Florida recount. https://t.co/ixLCPxnEGZ — Ron Nehring (@RonNehring) November 10, 2020
The Supreme Court stopped the recount over a dispute about its scope. The Gore campaign wanted the recount to take place only in specific counties, while the Bush campaign wanted it done state-wide. Team Bush also challenged the protocols of the recounts that were being conducted at the time. They won a 7-2 decision from the court on that point, deciding that the varying standards being applied violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court then split 5-4 in favor of ending recounts altogether and certifying the election on the results already in hand rather than order a full statewide recount on a single standard. To do so would have put the slate of electors at risk of missing the “safe harbor” deadline for the Electoral College:
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000). None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
While this opinion is widely reviled for its impact on the election, a more careful read of it should restore confidence in the court — and put the blame on Florida and its creaky voting system and shifting standards.
In fairness, though, Reid was correct in one point: the effective scope of recounts. They work when gaps are in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands. However, they’re also relatively easy to accomplish and can be finished well before the safe-harbor deadlines, as long as they use one standard applied in all instances and start immediately. If campaigns want to foot the bill for recounts, they can waste the money on them … just like Jill Stein did in 2016. Maybe Reid should have just stuck to the point, rather than raise old and debunked conspiracy theories and “fake news” to make her argument.
So where did FiveThirtyEight derive its name? Duh:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1326146368512151554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326146368512151554%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Ftv%2Fmsnbcs-joy-reid-gets-fact-checked-by-cnns-jake-tapper-over-ridiculous-538-origin-story-this-isnt-accurate%2F


hotair--2020-11-10--Presidential historian loses MSNBC gig after failing to disclose he wrote Biden's acceptance speech

Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian Jon Meacham is a Biden supporter .
He endorsed Biden in March .
He had a job as a contributor , for which he was paid , on MSNBC .
According to reports , Meacham no longer has a contributor job because he failed to disclose that he writes and also edits speeches for Joe Biden .
While most network coverage of Biden ’ s victory speech on Saturday night swooned over the speech , Meacham appeared on MSNBC .
He was asked by show host Brian Williams for comments , leading it off by asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to how presidents in the past have sounded .
Meacham delivered his hot takes about the speech but he never disclosed that he played a role in the speechwriting .
Meacham isn ’ t just a presidential historian and author of best-selling books , he is a speechwriter , too .
During the Trump years , Mr. Meacham had also been a regular presence on MSNBC and NBC News broadcasts .
But as of Monday , he was not a paid contributor at the network , according to two people familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to NBC as an unpaid guest and could resume his paid role next year , possibly after the inauguration , the people said .
NBC declined to comment .
Indeed , Mr. Meacham appeared on MSNBC before and after Mr. Biden ’ s acceptance speech on Saturday .
About half an hour after Mr. Biden had concluded , the anchor Brian Williams introduced Mr. Meacham by saying , “ I ’ m not the historian that you are , and I don ’ t have the Pulitzer that you do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way we are used to hearing from our presidents ?
” “ Absolutely , ” Mr. Meacham responded , without disclosing that he had been involved in the writing of the speech .
Shortly before Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and Mr. Biden took the stage , Mr. Meacham commented on the symbolism of a new administration featuring a 77-year-old institutionalist and a vice president-elect “ who represents in many ways the changing demography of the country.
” The guy was delivering a critique on his own speech as though he was a passive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bridge too far even for MSNBC .
The cable network will be happy to have Meacham on as an unpaid guest , though .
Any bets on his re-hiring once Biden is inaugurated if the race is called for him by those tasked with making the call ?
You know they will .
Meacham has been a good little foot soldier for the left and Never-Trumpers during the Trump administration .
He even was given a speaking slot during the Democrat National Convention .
He took that opportunity to promote the wacky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like the silent Trump voters we often heard about .
Team Biden , with the help of the New York Times , is pushing back .
The staffers aren ’ t willing to admit that others wrote the speech for Sleepy Joe .
Meacham , as it turns out , was hiding his involvement in plain sight .
“ President-elect Joe Biden wrote the speech he delivered to the American people on Saturday night , which laid out his vision for uniting and healing the nation , ” said TJ Ducklo , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given the significance of the speech , he consulted a number of important and diverse voices as part of his writing process , as he often does , ” Mr. Ducklo added .
A Biden official said that Mr. Meacham was involved in discussions about the themes in the victory speech .
Does Mr. Ducklo really expect us to believe that Joe Biden is writing his own speeches ?
Good heavens .
Sleepy Joe can barely read his speeches from a teleprompter or from papers right in front of him .
Sometimes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words for the first time .
Meacham likes to claim politicians from both sides of the aisle as friends .
He ’ s big in Bush World , for example .
Meacham spoke at the funeral of Barbara Bush and has been a guest of the George W. Bush presidential library .
He wrote a favorable biography of former President George H.W .
Bush .
He is a member of the club , a member in good standing in The Swamp .
He surely is overjoyed to welcome Biden back into the Oval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book .
Jon Meacham sounds like any other woke liberal speaking on MSNBC .
He isn ’ t stingy in his use of flowery language to make his points ( he ’ s well-educated , you know ) and he sounds besotted with Biden ’ s victory .
I ’ ll note a little irony that it is a panel with Brian Williams that put Meacham in this embarrassing position .
Brian Williams has some professional baggage himself .
He was moved to MSNBC from his position of ten years as anchor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In February 2015 , Williams was suspended for six months from NBC Nightly News for lies he told about his time covering the Iraq War in 2003 .
He was demoted to a breaking news anchor for MSNBC after that .
He was publicly humiliated and received a slap on the wrist .
He ’ s still on the air , though .

Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian Jon Meacham is a Biden supporter. He endorsed Biden in March. He had a job as a contributor, for which he was paid, on MSNBC. According to reports, Meacham no longer has a contributor job because he failed to disclose that he writes and also edits speeches for Joe Biden.
While most network coverage of Biden’s victory speech on Saturday night swooned over the speech, Meacham appeared on MSNBC. He was asked by show host Brian Williams for comments, leading it off by asking if Biden’s speech was a return to how presidents in the past have sounded. Meacham delivered his hot takes about the speech but he never disclosed that he played a role in the speechwriting. Meacham isn’t just a presidential historian and author of best-selling books, he is a speechwriter, too.
During the Trump years, Mr. Meacham had also been a regular presence on MSNBC and NBC News broadcasts. But as of Monday, he was not a paid contributor at the network, according to two people familiar with the decision. Mr. Meacham was expected to return to NBC as an unpaid guest and could resume his paid role next year, possibly after the inauguration, the people said. NBC declined to comment. Indeed, Mr. Meacham appeared on MSNBC before and after Mr. Biden’s acceptance speech on Saturday. About half an hour after Mr. Biden had concluded, the anchor Brian Williams introduced Mr. Meacham by saying, “I’m not the historian that you are, and I don’t have the Pulitzer that you do, but do you concur that is the way we are used to hearing from our presidents?” “Absolutely,” Mr. Meacham responded, without disclosing that he had been involved in the writing of the speech. Shortly before Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and Mr. Biden took the stage, Mr. Meacham commented on the symbolism of a new administration featuring a 77-year-old institutionalist and a vice president-elect “who represents in many ways the changing demography of the country.” “It’s poetic,” Mr. Meacham said. “There’s a lot of poetry tonight.”
The guy was delivering a critique on his own speech as though he was a passive observer. It sounds like that was a bridge too far even for MSNBC. The cable network will be happy to have Meacham on as an unpaid guest, though. Any bets on his re-hiring once Biden is inaugurated if the race is called for him by those tasked with making the call? You know they will. Meacham has been a good little foot soldier for the left and Never-Trumpers during the Trump administration. He even was given a speaking slot during the Democrat National Convention. He took that opportunity to promote the wacky idea that there were silent Biden voters, like the silent Trump voters we often heard about.
Team Biden, with the help of the New York Times, is pushing back. The staffers aren’t willing to admit that others wrote the speech for Sleepy Joe. Meacham, as it turns out, was hiding his involvement in plain sight.
“President-elect Joe Biden wrote the speech he delivered to the American people on Saturday night, which laid out his vision for uniting and healing the nation,” said TJ Ducklo, a spokesman for Mr. Biden. “Given the significance of the speech, he consulted a number of important and diverse voices as part of his writing process, as he often does,” Mr. Ducklo added. A Biden official said that Mr. Meacham was involved in discussions about the themes in the victory speech.
Does Mr. Ducklo really expect us to believe that Joe Biden is writing his own speeches? Good heavens. Sleepy Joe can barely read his speeches from a teleprompter or from papers right in front of him. Sometimes it sounds as though he is reading the words for the first time.
Meacham likes to claim politicians from both sides of the aisle as friends. He’s big in Bush World, for example. Meacham spoke at the funeral of Barbara Bush and has been a guest of the George W. Bush presidential library. He wrote a favorable biography of former President George H.W. Bush. He is a member of the club, a member in good standing in The Swamp. He surely is overjoyed to welcome Biden back into the Oval Office and the prospects of another best-selling book.
Jon Meacham sounds like any other woke liberal speaking on MSNBC. He isn’t stingy in his use of flowery language to make his points (he’s well-educated, you know) and he sounds besotted with Biden’s victory.
I’ll note a little irony that it is a panel with Brian Williams that put Meacham in this embarrassing position. Brian Williams has some professional baggage himself. He was moved to MSNBC from his position of ten years as anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News. In February 2015, Williams was suspended for six months from NBC Nightly News for lies he told about his time covering the Iraq War in 2003. He was demoted to a breaking news anchor for MSNBC after that. He was publicly humiliated and received a slap on the wrist. He’s still on the air, though.


hotair--2020-11-10--Delaying the transition is hardly the end of the world

Now that the national media has largely run out of fuel for complaining about the possibility of President Trump winning a second term they ’ ve had to find something else to carp about .
The new topic of choice seems to be Trump ’ s refusal to leap into the process of transitioning to an anticipated Biden administration .
The Washington Post breathlessly describes the administration ’ s recent moves as something that “ threatens to impede the transfer of power ” in one of their less-newsy pieces in recent memory .
All that ’ s missing is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the White House lawn and drag Trump out by his heels .
The Trump White House on Monday instructed senior government leaders to block cooperation with President-elect Joe Biden ’ s transition team , escalating a standoff that threatens to impede the transfer of power and prompting the Biden team to consider legal action .
Officials at agencies across the government who had prepared briefing books and carved out office space for the incoming Biden team to use as soon as this week were told instead that the transition would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was confirmed by the General Services Administration , the low-profile agency that officially starts the transition .
While media outlets on Saturday projected Biden as the winner , President Trump has not conceded the election .
Let me just start by saying that I tend to disagree with Trump ’ s decision to stonewall on this matter .
Even if he truly believes he ’ s going to prevail , it ’ s still far from a sure thing .
If he winds up having to leave , a transition will need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns this battle around and winds up winning a second term , there is no damage done by engaging with a transition team that winds up not being needed .
The refusal just makes the President appear rather petty in my opinion .
But with that said , the drama and arm-waving going on over this question is obviously far over the top .
We ’ re barely a week out from the election .
There are more than two months to go before Biden would be required or even able to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these media mavens old enough to remember the election of 2000 ?
That race wasn ’ t even decided until December 12 when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in favor of George W. Bush .
There wasn ’ t much in the way of “ transition ” work going on with the Clinton White House prior to that and the country still somehow managed to soldier on and usher in the next president .
Besides , there ’ s still a lot that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the General Services Administration .
He ’ s going to need to interview a lot of people for cabinet positions in the coming months and that can be done anywhere without the need of temporary office space at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue .
( You ’ ll recall that Trump did a lot of this sort of work from his hotel in New York after his victory in 2016 . )
Biden will be bringing in his own staff of advisors when he takes office since he ’ s unlikely to keep Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering information and briefing him , assuming he stays awake for the prep sessions .
Joe Biden has already declared his intention to issue a flurry of executive orders on his first day in office to undo much of the progress made by Donald Trump .
( This despite his many complaints about Trump issuing executive orders . )
He should probably be using this time to have some of his aides begin drafting and reviewing those so they can be run past a team of attorneys .
How long does anyone really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on for ?
Any petition in the courts that ’ s taken even remotely seriously will almost certainly be sent directly to the Supreme Court for an emergency review and decision .
And we don ’ t have to wait for every one of the disputed states to be formally declared to be in Biden ’ s column before this is over .
Just losing Pennsylvania ( assuming it happens ) would put Biden over the top .
At that point , Trump really won ’ t have any other options and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think what we ’ re seeing in the press this week is just a last gasp of Trump Derangement Syndrome .
They ’ ve been hounding the President since before he was sworn into office and they won ’ t be able to break that addiction until he flies off for his last ride on Marine One in January if everything plays out the way his detractors hope .
But win or lose , the country will stumble through this like we always do and the next administration , be it Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will begin on schedule .

Now that the national media has largely run out of fuel for complaining about the possibility of President Trump winning a second term they’ve had to find something else to carp about. The new topic of choice seems to be Trump’s refusal to leap into the process of transitioning to an anticipated Biden administration. The Washington Post breathlessly describes the administration’s recent moves as something that “threatens to impede the transfer of power” in one of their less-newsy pieces in recent memory. All that’s missing is a demand for Seal Team 6 to land on the White House lawn and drag Trump out by his heels.
The Trump White House on Monday instructed senior government leaders to block cooperation with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team, escalating a standoff that threatens to impede the transfer of power and prompting the Biden team to consider legal action. Officials at agencies across the government who had prepared briefing books and carved out office space for the incoming Biden team to use as soon as this week were told instead that the transition would not be recognized until the Democrat’s election was confirmed by the General Services Administration, the low-profile agency that officially starts the transition. While media outlets on Saturday projected Biden as the winner, President Trump has not conceded the election.
Let me just start by saying that I tend to disagree with Trump’s decision to stonewall on this matter. Even if he truly believes he’s going to prevail, it’s still far from a sure thing. If he winds up having to leave, a transition will need to take place. And even if he turns this battle around and winds up winning a second term, there is no damage done by engaging with a transition team that winds up not being needed. The refusal just makes the President appear rather petty in my opinion.
But with that said, the drama and arm-waving going on over this question is obviously far over the top. We’re barely a week out from the election. There are more than two months to go before Biden would be required or even able to take his first official action. Are any of these media mavens old enough to remember the election of 2000? That race wasn’t even decided until December 12 when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in favor of George W. Bush. There wasn’t much in the way of “transition” work going on with the Clinton White House prior to that and the country still somehow managed to soldier on and usher in the next president.
Besides, there’s still a lot that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can be doing without the full cooperation of the General Services Administration. He’s going to need to interview a lot of people for cabinet positions in the coming months and that can be done anywhere without the need of temporary office space at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (You’ll recall that Trump did a lot of this sort of work from his hotel in New York after his victory in 2016.) Biden will be bringing in his own staff of advisors when he takes office since he’s unlikely to keep Trump’s family on. They can be gathering information and briefing him, assuming he stays awake for the prep sessions. Joe Biden has already declared his intention to issue a flurry of executive orders on his first day in office to undo much of the progress made by Donald Trump. (This despite his many complaints about Trump issuing executive orders.) He should probably be using this time to have some of his aides begin drafting and reviewing those so they can be run past a team of attorneys.
How long does anyone really expect these challenges and recounts to drag on for? Any petition in the courts that’s taken even remotely seriously will almost certainly be sent directly to the Supreme Court for an emergency review and decision. And we don’t have to wait for every one of the disputed states to be formally declared to be in Biden’s column before this is over. Just losing Pennsylvania (assuming it happens) would put Biden over the top. At that point, Trump really won’t have any other options and the transition will have to begin.
I think what we’re seeing in the press this week is just a last gasp of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They’ve been hounding the President since before he was sworn into office and they won’t be able to break that addiction until he flies off for his last ride on Marine One in January if everything plays out the way his detractors hope. But win or lose, the country will stumble through this like we always do and the next administration, be it Biden’s first or Trump’s second, will begin on schedule.


hotair--2020-11-10--Refund the police? Minneapolis starts begging for outside resources

Old and busted : We don ’ t need our police in our city !
New hotness : We need your police in our city !
Minneapolis ’ city council , which spent most of the summer and fall demanding the ability to dismantle its police force , has now started begging for police officers from neighboring jurisdictions to help them deal with skyrocketing crime : Minneapolis officials are considering bringing in officers from other jurisdictions to help the city ’ s Police Department as they face a wave of violent crime and an officer shortage .
If the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers from the Hennepin County Sheriff ’ s Office and Metro Transit Police would temporarily work with the city , primarily helping to respond to violent 911 calls .
“ We ’ re not gon na be having these people out taking bicycle theft reports .
These are going to be people out combating crime issues , ” said John Elder , a spokesman for Minneapolis police .
The officers would form Joint Enforcement Teams , known as JETs .
Elder said the city has relied on such teams in the past , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was spiking .
So how much will this cost Minneapolis residents , who are still paying for a full-sized police department ?
Looks like defund has turned to refund , according to WCCO : Earlier this year , WCCO-TV reported that the department has lost a large number of officers in the wake of the unrest following the death of George Floyd .
That led to some residents suing the city , claiming there are not enough officers to protect them as crime is on the rise .
There is currently a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for supplemental patrols from the Hennepin County Sheriff ’ s Office and Metro Transit through the end of the year .
That ’ s a half-million dollars for seven weeks of police patrols .
And WCCO misses out on one key point — it wasn ’ t the unrest that prompted the exodus from the MPD .
It was the lack of political support for police and the outright hostility to their continuing presence by the city government which prompted it .
Their “ abolish the police ” crusade incentivized the departure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MPD ’ s recruiting efforts to find even a normal replacement level .
Now the bill has finally come due for “ defund the police.
” Will Minneapolis residents finally put the blame where it ’ s due — on the idiocracy they themselves created by electing their current city council ?

Old and busted: We don’t need our police in our city! New hotness: We need your police in our city! Minneapolis’ city council, which spent most of the summer and fall demanding the ability to dismantle its police force, has now started begging for police officers from neighboring jurisdictions to help them deal with skyrocketing crime:
Minneapolis officials are considering bringing in officers from other jurisdictions to help the city’s Police Department as they face a wave of violent crime and an officer shortage. If the mayor and City Council approve the plan, officers from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and Metro Transit Police would temporarily work with the city, primarily helping to respond to violent 911 calls. “We’re not gonna be having these people out taking bicycle theft reports. These are going to be people out combating crime issues,” said John Elder, a spokesman for Minneapolis police. The officers would form Joint Enforcement Teams, known as JETs. Elder said the city has relied on such teams in the past, particularly to help in areas where violence was spiking.
So how much will this cost Minneapolis residents, who are still paying for a full-sized police department? Looks like defund has turned to refund, according to WCCO:
Earlier this year, WCCO-TV reported that the department has lost a large number of officers in the wake of the unrest following the death of George Floyd. That led to some residents suing the city, claiming there are not enough officers to protect them as crime is on the rise. There is currently a $500,000 proposal on the table to pay for supplemental patrols from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and Metro Transit through the end of the year.
That’s a half-million dollars for seven weeks of police patrols. And WCCO misses out on one key point — it wasn’t the unrest that prompted the exodus from the MPD. It was the lack of political support for police and the outright hostility to their continuing presence by the city government which prompted it. Their “abolish the police” crusade incentivized the departure of experienced police officers and all but killed the MPD’s recruiting efforts to find even a normal replacement level.
Now the bill has finally come due for “defund the police.” Will Minneapolis residents finally put the blame where it’s due — on the idiocracy they themselves created by electing their current city council?


hotair--2020-11-10--D.C. Mayor: You can take the boards off of your shops now

Do you remember when police and municipal officials were advising all of the businesses in their cities to board up their shops in anticipation of all of the looting and violence that would break out if Donald Trump won the election ?
Well , at least in the nation ’ s capital it appears that the crisis has passed .
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has sent out a notice asking all of the businesses to begin taking down the plywood coverings nailed to their windows .
Apparently , the declaration that Joe Biden will be the next president has solved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everyone can just go about their business as usual .
( Well… except for the places that are shut down because of the pandemic , of course . )
So I guess all is right with the world once again , right ?
Bear with me here , because I smell a rat and I think many of you will also .
( Free Beacon ) Washington , D.C. , officials are asking shopkeepers to remove plywood boards protecting their stores , claiming that “ no credible threats of violence ” exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Businesses and government agencies in the nation ’ s capital , dozens of which were damaged during anti-police protests this summer , boarded up windows and entryways in preparation for potentially violent post-election protests .
On Saturday , the Associated Press declared Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden the election ’ s winner , leading D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser ’ s ( D. ) administration to make the request .
The director of the District ’ s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency is quoted as saying that local businesses “ should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riots and looting .
City administration officials are echoing that sentiment , and thus far they seem to be correct .
Local anti-police group # ShutDownDC had planned a huge protest near the White House for Saturday in conjunction with the local Black Lives Matter group .
That didn ’ t happen , and the District was largely peaceful aside from some Biden victory celebrations .
At this point , we should be asking ourselves why the nearly daily riots have suddenly tapered off .
And even more to the point , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of predicting a cessation of the violence and property damage ?
Let ’ s consider the following .
Joe Biden isn ’ t in office yet and even if all of Donald Trump ’ s court challenges fail , Biden won ’ t be sworn in for more than two months .
Even more to the point , the underlying driver of all of these riots was supposedly the alleged widespread wave of police killing allegedly innocent Black people .
What ’ s changed ?
There are still no charges against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd and Daniel Prude cases haven ’ t moved forward significantly .
Efforts at defunding or abolishing the police have largely stalled around the nation .
So what ’ s changed ?
In reality , almost nothing .
If all of those issues that were driving the riots are still hanging out there in the public square , why would the unrest suddenly grind to a halt on the day that the media declared Joe Biden the winner of the election ?
And more to the point , how would the municipal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these protests know that the coast is clear and their local businesses can safely reopen ?
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like , but this all sounds rather unlikely .
It ’ s almost as if there was some sort of massive national display of violence and unrest designed to characterize the Trump presidency as a period of chaos and turmoil , perhaps scaring some people into voting for Biden .
And now that Trump is perceived to be on the way out , the need for the riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may kick back into gear at some point , but this just strikes me as more than could be easily written off as coincidence .
We all know that those riots were driven by liberals and progressives , mixed in with a collection of anarchists and opportunistic gang members .
Electing Joe Biden didn ’ t somehow resolve all of their complaints in an instant .
I ’ d like to hear Mayor Bowser ’ s thoughts on the subject .

Do you remember when police and municipal officials were advising all of the businesses in their cities to board up their shops in anticipation of all of the looting and violence that would break out if Donald Trump won the election? Well, at least in the nation’s capital it appears that the crisis has passed. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has sent out a notice asking all of the businesses to begin taking down the plywood coverings nailed to their windows. Apparently, the declaration that Joe Biden will be the next president has solved all of our problems with social unrest and everyone can just go about their business as usual. (Well… except for the places that are shut down because of the pandemic, of course.) So I guess all is right with the world once again, right? Bear with me here, because I smell a rat and I think many of you will also. (Free Beacon)
Washington, D.C., officials are asking shopkeepers to remove plywood boards protecting their stores, claiming that “no credible threats of violence” exist despite left-wing groups’ planned post-election demonstrations. Businesses and government agencies in the nation’s capital, dozens of which were damaged during anti-police protests this summer, boarded up windows and entryways in preparation for potentially violent post-election protests. On Saturday, the Associated Press declared Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden the election’s winner, leading D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s (D.) administration to make the request.
The director of the District’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency is quoted as saying that local businesses “should not be fearful of” another wave of riots and looting. City administration officials are echoing that sentiment, and thus far they seem to be correct. Local anti-police group #ShutDownDC had planned a huge protest near the White House for Saturday in conjunction with the local Black Lives Matter group. That didn’t happen, and the District was largely peaceful aside from some Biden victory celebrations.
At this point, we should be asking ourselves why the nearly daily riots have suddenly tapered off. And even more to the point, why would city officials be so confident in terms of predicting a cessation of the violence and property damage? Let’s consider the following.
Joe Biden isn’t in office yet and even if all of Donald Trump’s court challenges fail, Biden won’t be sworn in for more than two months. Even more to the point, the underlying driver of all of these riots was supposedly the alleged widespread wave of police killing allegedly innocent Black people. What’s changed? There are still no charges against the cops that shot Bronna Taylor. The George Floyd and Daniel Prude cases haven’t moved forward significantly. Efforts at defunding or abolishing the police have largely stalled around the nation. So what’s changed? In reality, almost nothing.
If all of those issues that were driving the riots are still hanging out there in the public square, why would the unrest suddenly grind to a halt on the day that the media declared Joe Biden the winner of the election? And more to the point, how would the municipal officials who were supposedly the targets of all of these protests know that the coast is clear and their local businesses can safely reopen?
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but this all sounds rather unlikely. It’s almost as if there was some sort of massive national display of violence and unrest designed to characterize the Trump presidency as a period of chaos and turmoil, perhaps scaring some people into voting for Biden. And now that Trump is perceived to be on the way out, the need for the riots has evaporated. Maybe not. They may kick back into gear at some point, but this just strikes me as more than could be easily written off as coincidence. We all know that those riots were driven by liberals and progressives, mixed in with a collection of anarchists and opportunistic gang members. Electing Joe Biden didn’t somehow resolve all of their complaints in an instant. I’d like to hear Mayor Bowser’s thoughts on the subject.


hotair--2020-11-10--Barr to DoJ: Investigate voter-fraud claims -- but ...

Is William Barr attempting to change the results of the election ?
Or is the Attorney General putting limits on the Department of Justice in an attempt to walk a tightwire for the next few weeks ?
Under tons of public pressure from Donald Trump , Barr finally ordered the DoJ to start investigating reports of election fraud even before states have certified their results .
But only some reports , and only under specific conditions , as the Associated Press reported last night : In a memo to U.S. attorneys , obtained by The Associated Press , Barr wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that , if true , could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.
” He said any allegations that would “ clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election ” should be delayed until after those elections are certified and prosecutors should likely open so-called preliminary inquiries , which would allow investigators and prosecutors to see if there is evidence that would allow them to take further investigative measures .
Barr does not identify any specific instances of purported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is imperative that credible allegations be addressed in a timely and effective manner , it is equally imperative that Department personnel exercise appropriate caution and maintain the Department ’ s absolute commitment to fairness , neutrality and non-partisanship , ” Barr wrote .
This does deviate from DoJ policy in a couple of ways that might end up benefiting Trump , or at least his PR campaign .
In general , the DoJ does not announce its investigations , although in this case they aren ’ t announcing a specific investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any voter-fraud probes until after states certify their results so as not to interfere with that process .
Both of those deviations are enough to raise some eyebrows ; the DoJ ’ s top prosecutor for election fraud resigned that post in protest , although Richard Pilger is staying within the DoJ in a more general capacity .
The normal policies reflect the usual scope of voter fraud , which usually doesn ’ t rise to a level where it impacts the overall result of an election .
On rare occasions , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a North Carolina congressional race two years ago forced a do-over and resulted in prosecution .
However , the state and Congress dealt with that issue themselves , with investigations into the fraud and refusing to seat the apparent Republican winner .
Both parties agreed to the do-over ( eventually ) , which Republicans won anyway .
The DoJ didn ’ t need to get involved in the Leslie McCrae Dowless case , as North Carolina prosecuted Dowless instead .
Presidential elections may seem like another matter , but they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are fond of pointing out , presidential elections take place in separate state elections .
There are federal laws governing some of that process , but the mechanics of voting are almost entirely handled by state law .
That ’ s why we saw such disparate handling of mail-in ballots by different states , and wide variance in their adoption .
To have true jurisdiction in voter-fraud cases , the DoJ will likely have to establish some kind of interstate action in support of the fraud .
So this seems like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to be a box-checking exercise anyway .
In this case , Barr may have concerns that larger-scale fraud occurred , but he ’ s pointedly limiting early DoJ action to only those allegations , and only those which are “ credible ” .
Anything less than the kind of scale that could have swung tens of thousands of votes in states like Pennsylvania , Arizona , and Georgia won ’ t get addressed until after states certify their results .
That seems like a good distinction to make ; if voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should know about it before they certify their results .
And if it didn ’ t , the DoJ shouldn ’ t be an obstacle to that process based on the usual type of small-scale allegations that won ’ t change the results .
And it would be so singular that one could conclude that Barr ’ s basically betting that no such credible allegation will emerge at all , making this more of a PR move to placate Trump and his supporters .

Is William Barr attempting to change the results of the election? Or is the Attorney General putting limits on the Department of Justice in an attempt to walk a tightwire for the next few weeks? Under tons of public pressure from Donald Trump, Barr finally ordered the DoJ to start investigating reports of election fraud even before states have certified their results.
But only some reports, and only under specific conditions, as the Associated Press reported last night:
In a memo to U.S. attorneys, obtained by The Associated Press, Barr wrote that investigations “may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” He said any allegations that would “clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election” should be delayed until after those elections are certified and prosecutors should likely open so-called preliminary inquiries, which would allow investigators and prosecutors to see if there is evidence that would allow them to take further investigative measures. Barr does not identify any specific instances of purported fraud in the memo. “While it is imperative that credible allegations be addressed in a timely and effective manner, it is equally imperative that Department personnel exercise appropriate caution and maintain the Department’s absolute commitment to fairness, neutrality and non-partisanship,” Barr wrote.
This does deviate from DoJ policy in a couple of ways that might end up benefiting Trump, or at least his PR campaign. In general, the DoJ does not announce its investigations, although in this case they aren’t announcing a specific investigation. Also, they usually refrain from conducting any voter-fraud probes until after states certify their results so as not to interfere with that process. Both of those deviations are enough to raise some eyebrows; the DoJ’s top prosecutor for election fraud resigned that post in protest, although Richard Pilger is staying within the DoJ in a more general capacity.
The normal policies reflect the usual scope of voter fraud, which usually doesn’t rise to a level where it impacts the overall result of an election. On rare occasions, though, it does. The ballot-harvesting fraud in a North Carolina congressional race two years ago forced a do-over and resulted in prosecution. However, the state and Congress dealt with that issue themselves, with investigations into the fraud and refusing to seat the apparent Republican winner. Both parties agreed to the do-over (eventually), which Republicans won anyway. The DoJ didn’t need to get involved in the Leslie McCrae Dowless case, as North Carolina prosecuted Dowless instead.
Presidential elections may seem like another matter, but they’re not — at least legally. As Republicans are fond of pointing out, presidential elections take place in separate state elections. There are federal laws governing some of that process, but the mechanics of voting are almost entirely handled by state law. That’s why we saw such disparate handling of mail-in ballots by different states, and wide variance in their adoption. To have true jurisdiction in voter-fraud cases, the DoJ will likely have to establish some kind of interstate action in support of the fraud.
So this seems like a reach anyway, but this move appears more to be a box-checking exercise anyway. In this case, Barr may have concerns that larger-scale fraud occurred, but he’s pointedly limiting early DoJ action to only those allegations, and only those which are “credible”. Anything less than the kind of scale that could have swung tens of thousands of votes in states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia won’t get addressed until after states certify their results.
That seems like a good distinction to make; if voter fraud on that scale did occur, states should know about it before they certify their results. And if it didn’t, the DoJ shouldn’t be an obstacle to that process based on the usual type of small-scale allegations that won’t change the results. And it would be so singular that one could conclude that Barr’s basically betting that no such credible allegation will emerge at all, making this more of a PR move to placate Trump and his supporters.


hotair--2020-11-11--Now COVID is causing mental illness?

Now COVID is causing mental illness?

You ’ d think that nearly a year into the throes of the pandemic we ’ d have figured out most of the details about this disease , wouldn ’ t you ?
And yet COVID-19 continues to surprise doctors around the world , with new discoveries arising on a regular basis .
The latest one that popped up in my news feed this week seems a bit dubious , however .
A medical journal that typically deals with issues not related to contagious diseases has published a study suggesting an unexpected side effect among survivors of the plague .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down with some form of mental illness .
( NY Post ) Twenty percent of coronavirus patients later develop a new mental illness , according to a study .
The most common disorders experienced by COVID-19 survivors within 90 days of their diagnoses are anxiety , depression and insomnia , according to the study published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal .
“ People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of mental health problems , and our findings … show this to be likely , ” said Paul Harrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Oxford University .
The study in question wasn ’ t limited to some small number of test subjects .
The researchers went through the electronic records of more than 60,000 patients .
( They can do that ? )
But what sorts of mental illnesses are we talking about here ?
While I dread having to wade into such a controversial topic yet again , I ’ ve long been convinced that when it comes to the field of psychiatry , there are mental illnesses and then there are “ mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to are diagnoses of “ anxiety , depression and insomnia.
” I ’ m not trying to minimize the issues that some people have to deal with when it comes to their mental well-being , but when I think of someone with a mental disorder I ’ m usually picturing someone suffering from schizophrenia or some other , equally serious malady .
Recognizing that there are various levels of severity for pretty much any illness , the issues highlighted in this study seem to fall toward the other end of the mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus are anxious , depressed , and have a hard time sleeping .
No kidding .
We ’ re in the middle of a pandemic , we ’ ve just wrapped up an incredibly contentious election , a significant portion of the country is out of work and the economy is still on the skids .
On top of that , they just found another 500 murder hornets .
And then you came down with the disease everyone is dreading ?
How many people do you know who aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having trouble sleeping seem to be defining characteristics for most of the people I talk to .
Hell , I ’ m frequently anxious and/or depressed at some point during the day and I ’ m fortunate enough to still be employed .
If I tested positive for COVID , I ’ d probably be a basket case .
At least for me , this issue dredges up questions that have long bothered me about psychology and psychiatry in general .
The inner workings of the human mind ( as opposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty mysterious , despite all of the work that ’ s gone into studying the subject .
When does a person cross the line from being understandably sad to being clinically “ depressed ?
” It ’ s perfectly normal to be nervous ( or “ anxious ” ) about a potentially dangerous situation , but who qualifies for a medical diagnosis of “ anxiety ?
” How many nights in a row do you have to experience bad dreams or take too long to fall asleep before you have a “ sleep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not a doctor of any sort , so use your own best judgment .
But it seems to me that for anyone who contracts this virus it would be the most natural thing in the world to experience those effects .
Or maybe I ’ m the one who ’ s crazy here ?

You’d think that nearly a year into the throes of the pandemic we’d have figured out most of the details about this disease, wouldn’t you? And yet COVID-19 continues to surprise doctors around the world, with new discoveries arising on a regular basis. The latest one that popped up in my news feed this week seems a bit dubious, however. A medical journal that typically deals with issues not related to contagious diseases has published a study suggesting an unexpected side effect among survivors of the plague. A significant portion of them will come down with some form of mental illness. (NY Post)
Twenty percent of coronavirus patients later develop a new mental illness, according to a study. The most common disorders experienced by COVID-19 survivors within 90 days of their diagnoses are anxiety, depression and insomnia, according to the study published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal. “People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of mental health problems, and our findings … show this to be likely,” said Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at Britain’s Oxford University.
The study in question wasn’t limited to some small number of test subjects. The researchers went through the electronic records of more than 60,000 patients. (They can do that?)
But what sorts of mental illnesses are we talking about here? While I dread having to wade into such a controversial topic yet again, I’ve long been convinced that when it comes to the field of psychiatry, there are mental illnesses and then there are “mental illnesses.” What these researchers are pointing to are diagnoses of “anxiety, depression and insomnia.”
I’m not trying to minimize the issues that some people have to deal with when it comes to their mental well-being, but when I think of someone with a mental disorder I’m usually picturing someone suffering from schizophrenia or some other, equally serious malady. Recognizing that there are various levels of severity for pretty much any illness, the issues highlighted in this study seem to fall toward the other end of the mental health spectrum. So people who have contracted the novel coronavirus are anxious, depressed, and have a hard time sleeping. No kidding. We’re in the middle of a pandemic, we’ve just wrapped up an incredibly contentious election, a significant portion of the country is out of work and the economy is still on the skids. On top of that, they just found another 500 murder hornets. And then you came down with the disease everyone is dreading?
How many people do you know who aren’t feeling some anxiety? Feeling depressed and having trouble sleeping seem to be defining characteristics for most of the people I talk to. Hell, I’m frequently anxious and/or depressed at some point during the day and I’m fortunate enough to still be employed. If I tested positive for COVID, I’d probably be a basket case.
At least for me, this issue dredges up questions that have long bothered me about psychology and psychiatry in general. The inner workings of the human mind (as opposed to the physical wellness of the brain) are pretty mysterious, despite all of the work that’s gone into studying the subject. When does a person cross the line from being understandably sad to being clinically “depressed?” It’s perfectly normal to be nervous (or “anxious”) about a potentially dangerous situation, but who qualifies for a medical diagnosis of “anxiety?” How many nights in a row do you have to experience bad dreams or take too long to fall asleep before you have a “sleep disorder?”
Again, I’m not a doctor of any sort, so use your own best judgment. But it seems to me that for anyone who contracts this virus it would be the most natural thing in the world to experience those effects. Or maybe I’m the one who’s crazy here?


hotair--2020-11-11--VIP Gold chat: Elections, recounts, lawsuits, with Cam Edwards and Ed Morrissey -- and you!

Get ready for another tremendous live , interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms ’ Cam Edwards and HotAir ’ s Ed Morrissey !
The duo will take VIP Gold members ’ questions and comments and give an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day .
The live podcast starts at 1:00 pm ET .
If you are not a VIP Gold member , join below so you can watch today and participate in future chats !
Use LOYALTY for 25 % off !
While Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ed has kept pace with developments abroad , at home and at the local level as well .
We ’ ll plenty to discuss and lots of time to take your questions .
The hot topics so far are : • What happened in the 2020 election • Will a renewed Supreme Court take more # 2A cases ?
• Court-packing : is it dead now ?
• Developments in the Breonna Taylor and McCluskey cases With all the fast-moving developments , our VIP Gold members can get the latest as it @ @ @ @ @ @

Did you miss the tremendous live, interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards and HotAir’s Ed Morrissey? The duo took VIP Gold members’ questions and comments and gave an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day.
If you missed the chat or are not a VIP Gold member, no worries! Join below so you can watch what you missed and participate in future chats! Use LOYALTY for 25% off!


hotair--2020-11-10--Are YouTube music reaction videos a rejection of identity politics?

Andrew Breitbart used to say that “ politics is downstream of culture.
” I had a professor once who taught that “ cult is culture.
” The idea behind both sayings is that the things any large enough group of people like and believe put off bits of culture ( music , art , architecture , etc ) that form culture and politics is like a lagging indicator of those impulses .
Because of this , you can sometimes see things happening in culture which seem to be not exactly political but maybe pre-political .
Recently I think I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in something that is currently popular on YouTube : Music reaction videos .
If you ’ re not familiar with this particular genre of YouTube clips the idea is pretty simple .
People film themselves listening to a song for the first time and giving their reactions in real time .
Maybe that sounds boring or odd but it ’ s actually been getting some significant attention lately .
Remember Nathan Apodaca , the random guy who filmed himself on TikTok drinking juice as he listened to Fleetwood Mac ’ s Dreams ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and got reactions from at least 3 of the band members .
Nathan now has an agent plus a free car and year ’ s supply of juice .
Technically that video wasn ’ t a reaction video but it does demonstrate how watching someone reacting to music can attract a lot of eyeballs .
There ’ s something about seeing other people feel the same way you feel about a great song that is appealing .
Here ’ s another recent example .
A channel called TwinstheNewTrend did a reaction video to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twin brothers Tim and Fred Williams had done lots of reaction videos just like it before but for some reason this particular video went viral .
It has been viewed nearly 8 million times .
The Williams brothers are black and it turns out that may play a role in what appeals to some viewers about reaction videos .
Sometimes people are just curious what someone of a different race will think about a song that probably isn ’ t the genre they know or listen to .
An important part of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a song , usually recommended by subscribers , that they ’ ve never heard before .
It ’ s meant to provide a pure reaction to something unfamiliar .
And the Williams brothers aren ’ t alone in making this type of video a success .
Rolling Stone recently wrote about some other music reaction channels and the way that race seems to play at least a part in their appeal : As Tim Williams and other music reactors know well , there is a magnetic , possibly neurological appeal to watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else discovers an iconic song .
Viewers flock to these videos to relive the joy of Mavis Staples ’ verse in the Last Waltz version of “ The Weight , ” Steven Tyler ’ s screaming coda at the end of “ Dream On , ” Johnny Cash ’ s broken baritone in “ Hurt , ” or Lars Ulrich ’ s explosive drumming in “ Master of Puppets.
” Watching such videos can feel like playing a favorite song for a friend who ’ s never heard it before , minus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t end up liking the song as much as you ’ d hoped… Channels like Twins the New Trend and Lost in Vegas tend to downplay any larger cultural statements they might , however unintentionally , be making .
Tim and Fred see their young age as their biggest allure , while Baker and Tolliver have grown their own devoted fan base drawn to the channel ’ s particularly in-depth musical and lyrical analysis… [ Mona ] Platt , who goes by PinkMetalHead , does see her identity as a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos ’ appeal .
“ I saw a lot of comments when I first started , saying , ‘ Honestly , I clicked because I saw Metallica and I saw your thumbnail , and I really wanted to know what this person thinks about this type of music.
’ ” ( For this very reason , Baker and Tolliver don ’ t put pictures of themselves in their Lost in Vegas YouTube thumbnail image . )
Platt is also black which is why that commenter what curious what she might think of Metallica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is her reaction to Pink Floyd ’ s Time ( 1.3 million views ) .
What did she think ?
It nearly brought her to tears .
“ That was like a beautiful masterpiece .
I ’ ve never heard anything like that in my life , ” she said .
One of the first music reaction videos I remember seeing was for an 80s metal guitarist that I like .
I pulled up a video and noticed there was a reaction video by a channel called Jamal_AKA_Jamal .
Jamal is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction videos .
He appears to do one video a day and has done videos for over 1,00o songs at this point .
Just like the commenter above , when I saw his video I was curious what he would think of this very particular sub-genre of metal ( Yngwie Malmsteen ) and in particular what he would think of one of my favorite songs .
Would he be wowed by the playing or would he find it off-putting ?
I wanted to know .
Recently , Jamal did a roundup of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a result of his channel .
Jamal ’ s top 10 included everything from Gordon Lightfoot to Brooks and Dunn .
In each case he talked about how the songs made him feel or what it make him think about .
Without really trying to make a point ( it ’ s pre-politics , remember ) there was a subtle message in Jamal ’ s list about music ’ s ability to transcend identity by communicating that some experiences are universal .
I don ’ t think that ’ s intentional .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure Jamal and other creators are aware their videos do better when they praise the songs they are asked to react to .
But however you look at it , there ’ s an effort from creators and viewers to bridge a perceived cultural gap .
Personally , I think what these black content creators are doing speaks to the fundamental idea that people are individuals first and not racial or cultural identities .
That idea has fallen very much out of fashion with people on the woke left who have embraced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite , i.e .
racial and cultural identity are primary .
But what ’ s happening on YouTube shows the opposite idea is still out there in the broader culture , shaping things and bring people together in spite of their superficial differences .

Andrew Breitbart used to say that “politics is downstream of culture.” I had a professor once who taught that “cult is culture.” The idea behind both sayings is that the things any large enough group of people like and believe put off bits of culture (music, art, architecture, etc) that form culture and politics is like a lagging indicator of those impulses.
Because of this, you can sometimes see things happening in culture which seem to be not exactly political but maybe pre-political. Recently I think I’ve seen a little bit of that in something that is currently popular on YouTube: Music reaction videos.
If you’re not familiar with this particular genre of YouTube clips the idea is pretty simple. People film themselves listening to a song for the first time and giving their reactions in real time. Maybe that sounds boring or odd but it’s actually been getting some significant attention lately.
Remember Nathan Apodaca, the random guy who filmed himself on TikTok drinking juice as he listened to Fleetwood Mac’s Dreams? That video was viewed millions of times and got reactions from at least 3 of the band members. Nathan now has an agent plus a free car and year’s supply of juice.
Technically that video wasn’t a reaction video but it does demonstrate how watching someone reacting to music can attract a lot of eyeballs. There’s something about seeing other people feel the same way you feel about a great song that is appealing.
Here’s another recent example. A channel called TwinstheNewTrend did a reaction video to Phil Collins In the Air Tonight. Twin brothers Tim and Fred Williams had done lots of reaction videos just like it before but for some reason this particular video went viral. It has been viewed nearly 8 million times.
The Williams brothers are black and it turns out that may play a role in what appeals to some viewers about reaction videos. Sometimes people are just curious what someone of a different race will think about a song that probably isn’t the genre they know or listen to. An important part of this YouTube genre is that someone is listening to a song, usually recommended by subscribers, that they’ve never heard before. It’s meant to provide a pure reaction to something unfamiliar.
And the Williams brothers aren’t alone in making this type of video a success. Rolling Stone recently wrote about some other music reaction channels and the way that race seems to play at least a part in their appeal:
As Tim Williams and other music reactors know well, there is a magnetic, possibly neurological appeal to watching, in real time, as someone else discovers an iconic song. Viewers flock to these videos to relive the joy of Mavis Staples’ verse in the Last Waltz version of “The Weight,” Steven Tyler’s screaming coda at the end of “Dream On,” Johnny Cash’s broken baritone in “Hurt,” or Lars Ulrich’s explosive drumming in “Master of Puppets.” Watching such videos can feel like playing a favorite song for a friend who’s never heard it before, minus the inevitable embarrassment that comes when that friend doesn’t end up liking the song as much as you’d hoped… Channels like Twins the New Trend and Lost in Vegas tend to downplay any larger cultural statements they might, however unintentionally, be making. Tim and Fred see their young age as their biggest allure, while Baker and Tolliver have grown their own devoted fan base drawn to the channel’s particularly in-depth musical and lyrical analysis… [Mona] Platt, who goes by PinkMetalHead, does see her identity as a black woman as a large factor in her videos’ appeal. “I saw a lot of comments when I first started, saying, ‘Honestly, I clicked because I saw Metallica and I saw your thumbnail, and I really wanted to know what this person thinks about this type of music.’” (For this very reason, Baker and Tolliver don’t put pictures of themselves in their Lost in Vegas YouTube thumbnail image.)
Platt is also black which is why that commenter what curious what she might think of Metallica. Her most watched video to date is her reaction to Pink Floyd’s Time (1.3 million views). What did she think? It nearly brought her to tears. “That was like a beautiful masterpiece. I’ve never heard anything like that in my life,” she said.
One of the first music reaction videos I remember seeing was for an 80s metal guitarist that I like. I pulled up a video and noticed there was a reaction video by a channel called Jamal_AKA_Jamal. Jamal is one of the market leaders in this type of reaction videos. He appears to do one video a day and has done videos for over 1,00o songs at this point. Just like the commenter above, when I saw his video I was curious what he would think of this very particular sub-genre of metal (Yngwie Malmsteen) and in particular what he would think of one of my favorite songs. Would he be wowed by the playing or would he find it off-putting? I wanted to know.
Recently, Jamal did a roundup of his favorite 20 songs he’s heard as a result of his channel. Jamal’s top 10 included everything from Gordon Lightfoot to Brooks and Dunn. In each case he talked about how the songs made him feel or what it make him think about.
Without really trying to make a point (it’s pre-politics, remember) there was a subtle message in Jamal’s list about music’s ability to transcend identity by communicating that some experiences are universal. I don’t think that’s intentional. To be clear, I’m sure Jamal and other creators are aware their videos do better when they praise the songs they are asked to react to. But however you look at it, there’s an effort from creators and viewers to bridge a perceived cultural gap.
Personally, I think what these black content creators are doing speaks to the fundamental idea that people are individuals first and not racial or cultural identities. That idea has fallen very much out of fashion with people on the woke left who have embraced a kind of identity politics which says almost the opposite, i.e. racial and cultural identity are primary. But what’s happening on YouTube shows the opposite idea is still out there in the broader culture, shaping things and bring people together in spite of their superficial differences.