hotair--2020-11-12--Biden to freeze deportations, welcome illegals

Here ’ s yet another subject that I don ’ t recall Joe Biden mentioning during the general election campaign .
Unlike the 2016 race , the subject of illegal immigration was barely an afterthought in this election .
But now that Joe Biden appears poised to become the 46th President , he ’ s promising to undo even more of the progress achieved by Donald Trump in terms of enforcing the nation ’ s immigration laws .
Not only does he plan to fully restore the Obama-era DREAMER protections , but he will declare a 100-day freeze on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During that time he will be revising the guidelines for ICE as to which illegals can be deported , rolling back the gains we ’ ve made on that front over the past four years .
( CBS News ) After Mr. Biden is sworn-in in January , his administration will move to fully restore an Obama-era program that shields 640,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation , halting Mr. Trump ’ s unsuccessful efforts to end it , people familiar with the plans told CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rescind Mr. Trump ’ s travel and immigration restrictions on 13 mostly African or predominantly Muslim countries .
Mr. Biden will look to implement a 100-day freeze on deportations while his administration issues guidance narrowing who can be arrested by immigration agents .
Obama-era memos that prioritized the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions , recent border-crossers and those who entered the country illegally more than once were scrapped in 2017 by Mr. Trump so that no unauthorized immigrant would be exempted from being arrested and removed from the country .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that immigration hawks were raising the alarm about if the Democrats took back control of the White House .
Wrapped up in this package is an end to the travel ban that Donald Trump put in place shortly after taking office .
As part of the new “ guidelines ” for ICE , Biden ’ s spokesperson said that immigration enforcement officials would be steered away from so-called “ collateral arrests.
” Those are the incidents where ICE agents locate a higher-priority criminal illegal alien only to find that they are in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t as high on the list for detention and deportation .
Traditionally , these discoveries are considered something of a bonus and they wind up being deported along with the primary target of the enforcement action .
Much like Barack Obama , Biden will apparently use any excuse possible to allow more illegals to remain in the country , even if ICE officials have them in custody .
It ’ s going to be the next version of the catch and release programs that Democrats have favored in the past .
These changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making serious progress in the war to control our borders .
One of the few actual benefits of the pandemic is that traffic at the southern border has been hovering at historic lows .
This has allowed for closer scrutiny of anyone coming across the border , so illegal crossings are down considerably .
We ’ ve also been benefitting from Donald Trump ’ s negotiations with the government of Mexico , leading to the Remain in Mexico policy , along with that country ’ s refusal to allow massive caravans of illegals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
But now , with a Biden administration most likely on the horizon , all of those gains will be washed away .
The welcome mat will be out once again for people looking to illegally enter the United States and a blind eye will be turned to most of those who are already here .
And all of these changes will take place without Congress having any role in the process .
This is no way to run a business .

Here’s yet another subject that I don’t recall Joe Biden mentioning during the general election campaign. Unlike the 2016 race, the subject of illegal immigration was barely an afterthought in this election. But now that Joe Biden appears poised to become the 46th President, he’s promising to undo even more of the progress achieved by Donald Trump in terms of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Not only does he plan to fully restore the Obama-era DREAMER protections, but he will declare a 100-day freeze on all deportations, even for criminal illegal aliens. During that time he will be revising the guidelines for ICE as to which illegals can be deported, rolling back the gains we’ve made on that front over the past four years. (CBS News)
After Mr. Biden is sworn-in in January, his administration will move to fully restore an Obama-era program that shields 640,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, halting Mr. Trump’s unsuccessful efforts to end it, people familiar with the plans told CBS News. The incoming administration also intends to rescind Mr. Trump’s travel and immigration restrictions on 13 mostly African or predominantly Muslim countries. Mr. Biden will look to implement a 100-day freeze on deportations while his administration issues guidance narrowing who can be arrested by immigration agents. Obama-era memos that prioritized the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions, recent border-crossers and those who entered the country illegally more than once were scrapped in 2017 by Mr. Trump so that no unauthorized immigrant would be exempted from being arrested and removed from the country.
This is precisely the sort of pending disaster that immigration hawks were raising the alarm about if the Democrats took back control of the White House. Wrapped up in this package is an end to the travel ban that Donald Trump put in place shortly after taking office. As part of the new “guidelines” for ICE, Biden’s spokesperson said that immigration enforcement officials would be steered away from so-called “collateral arrests.” Those are the incidents where ICE agents locate a higher-priority criminal illegal alien only to find that they are in the company of other illegals who aren’t as high on the list for detention and deportation. Traditionally, these discoveries are considered something of a bonus and they wind up being deported along with the primary target of the enforcement action.
Much like Barack Obama, Biden will apparently use any excuse possible to allow more illegals to remain in the country, even if ICE officials have them in custody. It’s going to be the next version of the catch and release programs that Democrats have favored in the past.
These changes will be coming just as we were making serious progress in the war to control our borders. One of the few actual benefits of the pandemic is that traffic at the southern border has been hovering at historic lows. This has allowed for closer scrutiny of anyone coming across the border, so illegal crossings are down considerably. We’ve also been benefitting from Donald Trump’s negotiations with the government of Mexico, leading to the Remain in Mexico policy, along with that country’s refusal to allow massive caravans of illegals to cross their nation as they had in the past.
But now, with a Biden administration most likely on the horizon, all of those gains will be washed away. The welcome mat will be out once again for people looking to illegally enter the United States and a blind eye will be turned to most of those who are already here. And all of these changes will take place without Congress having any role in the process. This is no way to run a business.


hotair--2020-11-12--Joint statement from DHS agency, local officials: There's no evidence that any voting system was in

Joint statement from DHS agency, local officials: There's no evidence that any voting system was in any way compromised

It shouldn ’ t be admirable for government officials to publicly defend the integrity of their own work , especially on a matter as basic as election security .
But after spending five years watching so many rodents in the GOP ’ s leadership class cower before Trump for fear of losing their jobs , having DHS and its partner agencies step up to counter the president ’ s “ voter fraud ” narrative at a moment like this is not just remarkable but subversive .
Here ’ s the statement from the “ Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes an alphabet soup of agencies at the federal and local level .
The most noteworthy is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , an arm of DHS created by Trump in 2018 and charged with protecting critical infrastructure like elections from cyberattacks .
CISA has been debunking voter fraud claims on its official webpage and on social media for the past week ; its director , Chris Krebs , has amplified those debunkings on social media as well , sometimes with his own comments .
Earlier today , Reuters reported that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a critique it posted of the Dominion “ Hammer and Scorecard ” conspiracy theory that Trump screamed about in a tweet this morning .
Krebs refused , and told people around him that he expected to be fired because of it .
The last tweet he sent as I ’ m writing this is a retweet of this item , calling out Trump specifically : Ominously , Krebs ’ s name isn ’ t on the joint statement issued this evening .
It ’ s the assistant director who ’ s credited with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already a goner .
If so , his career went out with the political equivalent of a Viking funeral .
From the statement : “ The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history .
Right now , across the country , election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result .
“ When states have close elections , many will recount ballots .
All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count each ballot if necessary .
This is an added benefit for security and resilience .
This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors .
There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes , changed votes , or was in any way compromised .
“ Other security measures like pre-election testing , state certification of voting equipment , and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission ’ s ( EAC ) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections , we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections , and you should too .
When you have questions , turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.
” The boldface part was boldfaced by the authors themselves in the version sent to reporters , not by me .
“ [ T ] he sad reality is it ’ s a dangerous document for the officials who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correctly .
“ Every person who had a hand in writing it will almost certainly face the wrath of Trump and his inner circle in the White House.
” My brain doesn ’ t know how to process information at this point involving federal officials showing integrity in the face of threats from the president despite the risk to their careers just because it ’ s the right thing to do for the country .
It ’ s almost literally inconceivable in our banana-republic government of 2020 .
And because it is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything to influence Senate Republicans .
Forced to choose on the one hand between the credibility of a dozen or so cybersecurity agencies involved in election security at a granular level and on the other hand Trump and his cavalcade of embarrassing conspiracy-minded lawyers like Rudy Giuliani , people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz will remain studiously agnostic unless and until Trump releases them by backing off from his “ I was cheated ” claims .
Meanwhile tonight in Arizona , a state that ’ s nearly must-win for the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down below 270 electoral votes : More than half of all counties in Arizona have conducted post-election audits and found either no discrepancies or microscopic issues that don ’ t affect the outcome of the race , according to reports filed with the Arizona secretary of state ’ s office .
Audits in Arizona ’ s four largest counties , which comprised 86 % of all votes for president in the state , turned up no evidence of the systematic voter fraud about which President Donald Trump has complained .
There were no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most populous county in the battleground state and includes Phoenix , the reports show .
Officials in Pima County , home to Tucson , audited a random sample of 4,239 votes in the presidential race and only found a two-vote discrepancy .
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Trump ’ s advisors “ believe he has accepted that he is unlikely to overturn President-elect Joe Biden ’ s election victory and will begin to plot life after the White House , including a 2024 run , once his campaign had exhausted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I suspect that once those cases are heard and adjudicated , and once we get through the Georgia recount , that the president will begin the public off-ramp.
” Okay , but I ’ m not sure how he takes that off-ramp after he tweeted to 80 million people this morning that “ Dominion deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide.
” His fans are going to cling to that .
What ’ s he supposed to say , “ It totally happened but literally no one can prove it but somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
For cripes sake .
Anyway , I hope Biden hires Krebs back .
We need more people with integrity in government .
A lot , lot , lot more .

It shouldn’t be admirable for government officials to publicly defend the integrity of their own work, especially on a matter as basic as election security. But after spending five years watching so many rodents in the GOP’s leadership class cower before Trump for fear of losing their jobs, having DHS and its partner agencies step up to counter the president’s “voter fraud” narrative at a moment like this is not just remarkable but subversive.
Here’s the statement from the “Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee,” which includes an alphabet soup of agencies at the federal and local level. The most noteworthy is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an arm of DHS created by Trump in 2018 and charged with protecting critical infrastructure like elections from cyberattacks. CISA has been debunking voter fraud claims on its official webpage and on social media for the past week; its director, Chris Krebs, has amplified those debunkings on social media as well, sometimes with his own comments. Earlier today, Reuters reported that the White House was pressuring CISA to remove a critique it posted of the Dominion “Hammer and Scorecard” conspiracy theory that Trump screamed about in a tweet this morning. Krebs refused, and told people around him that he expected to be fired because of it.
The last tweet he sent as I’m writing this is a retweet of this item, calling out Trump specifically:
Please don't retweet wild and baseless claims about voting machines, even if they're made by the president. These fantasies have been debunked many times, including by @DHSgov @CISAgov on this excellent site/resource, Rumor Control.https://t.co/XUcOkrQUf6 — David Becker (@beckerdavidj) November 12, 2020
Ominously, Krebs’s name isn’t on the joint statement issued this evening. It’s the assistant director who’s credited with it, which I assume means Krebs is already a goner. If so, his career went out with the political equivalent of a Viking funeral. From the statement:
“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result. “When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised. “Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020. “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”
The boldface part was boldfaced by the authors themselves in the version sent to reporters, not by me. “[T]he sad reality is it’s a dangerous document for the officials who wrote it,” says Axios, correctly. “Every person who had a hand in writing it will almost certainly face the wrath of Trump and his inner circle in the White House.” My brain doesn’t know how to process information at this point involving federal officials showing integrity in the face of threats from the president despite the risk to their careers just because it’s the right thing to do for the country. It’s almost literally inconceivable in our banana-republic government of 2020.
And because it is, it probably won’t do much of anything to influence Senate Republicans. Forced to choose on the one hand between the credibility of a dozen or so cybersecurity agencies involved in election security at a granular level and on the other hand Trump and his cavalcade of embarrassing conspiracy-minded lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz will remain studiously agnostic unless and until Trump releases them by backing off from his “I was cheated” claims.
Meanwhile tonight in Arizona, a state that’s nearly must-win for the president if he wants to somehow knock Biden down below 270 electoral votes:
More than half of all counties in Arizona have conducted post-election audits and found either no discrepancies or microscopic issues that don’t affect the outcome of the race, according to reports filed with the Arizona secretary of state’s office. Audits in Arizona’s four largest counties, which comprised 86% of all votes for president in the state, turned up no evidence of the systematic voter fraud about which President Donald Trump has complained. There were no irregularities found in Maricopa County, which is the most populous county in the battleground state and includes Phoenix, the reports show. Officials in Pima County, home to Tucson, audited a random sample of 4,239 votes in the presidential race and only found a two-vote discrepancy.
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Trump’s advisors “believe he has accepted that he is unlikely to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory and will begin to plot life after the White House, including a 2024 run, once his campaign had exhausted all its lawsuits.” According to one, “I suspect that once those cases are heard and adjudicated, and once we get through the Georgia recount, that the president will begin the public off-ramp.” Okay, but I’m not sure how he takes that off-ramp after he tweeted to 80 million people this morning that “Dominion deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide.” His fans are going to cling to that. What’s he supposed to say, “It totally happened but literally no one can prove it but somehow I know it’s true”? For cripes sake.
Anyway, I hope Biden hires Krebs back. We need more people with integrity in government. A lot, lot, lot more.


hotair--2020-11-12--Another NY Times take on 2020 polling concludes the problem is 'alarming' (but never really says why

Another NY Times take on 2020 polling concludes the problem is 'alarming' (but never really says why)

Tuesday I wrote about NY Times ’ polling guru Nate Cohn ’ s take on the 2020 polling .
He suggested it may , when all is said and done , turn out to be a worse miss than 2016 .
Today the Times published another piece by reporter Daivd Leonhardt which doesn ’ t quite go that far but nevertheless concludes the miss this time out was “ alarming.
” For the second straight presidential election , the polling industry missed the mark .
The miss was not as blatant as in 2016 , when polls suggested Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as large as it appeared it might be on election night .
Once all the votes are counted , the polls will have correctly pointed to the winner of the presidential campaign in 48 states — all but Florida and North Carolina — and correctly signaled that Mr. Biden would win .
But this year ’ s problems are still alarming , both to people inside the industry and to the millions of Americans who follow presidential polls with a passion once reserved for stock prices , sports scores and lottery numbers… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” David Shor , a data scientist who advises Democratic campaigns , said .
Douglas Rivers , the chief scientist of YouGov , a global polling firm , said , “ We ’ re obviously going to have a black eye on this.
” The problems spanned the public polls that voters see and the private polls that campaigns use .
Internal polls , conducted for both Democratic and Republican candidates , tended to make Republican candidates look weaker than they were .
To illustrate the failure of polling this year the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the election to estimates of what the final results will show once all the votes have been counted .
If you subtracted 3 points from every poll about half of them would be within a point of the final result ( almost all of them still overestimating Biden ) .
But 3 points really wouldn ’ t help you at all in Wisconsin or Ohio or Iowa .
The polling in these states was miles off .
The bad polling had real world consequences : The Trump campaign pulled back from campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and advertising , and lost both only narrowly .
In Arizona , a Republican strategist who worked on Senator Martha McSally ’ s re-election campaign said that public polling showing her far behind “ probably cost us $ 4 or $ 5 million ” in donations .
Ms. McSally lost to Mark Kelly by less than three percentage points .
Mr. Biden spent valuable time visiting Iowa and Ohio in the campaign ’ s final days , only to lose both soundly .
Democrats also poured money into races that may never have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate race , while paying less attention to some of their House incumbents who party leaders wrongly thought were safe .
The party ended up losing seats .
That ’ s the real impact the polling had on the campaigns but the best part of the piece comes where Leonhardt speaks to the narrative that pollsters and the media helped to generate .
By the final weeks of this year ’ s campaign , the polls seemed to be telling a clear story : Mr. Biden had led Mr. Trump by a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead had widened since the summer .
Some combination of the coronavirus , Mr. Trump ’ s reaction to police brutality and his erratic behavior at the first debate had put Mr. Biden within reach of the most lopsided presidential win since Ronald Reagan ’ s in 1984 .
In the campaign ’ s final 10 days , a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed Mr. Biden up by 10 percentage points nationwide , as did a YouGov poll .
Fox News put the lead at eight points , and CNN at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to be at least eight points .
In Wisconsin , which Mr. Trump had won narrowly in 2016 , a YouGov poll found Mr. Biden up by nine percentage points .
A New York Times/Siena College poll showed the lead was 11 points , while Morning Consult said 13 points .
A Washington Post/ABC News poll reported the lead was 17 points .
In congressional races , the Cook Political Report called the Democrats clear favorites to retake the Senate and gain seats in the House .
After laying out this accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media presenting a blue wave for Biden as a fait accompli , Leonhardt drifts away from the obvious follow up question : What impact did this have on voters ?
Instead he spends the rest of the piece discussing why the polls were wrong and what might help to fix it .
No doubt that ’ s a worthy discussion to have but the first step should be an admission that the bad polling impacted voters even as it impacted campaigns .
Telling Republicans they are doomed for months on end must have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one wants to talk about that .
The most we get in this piece are a couple of paragraph , one near the beginning and one near the end , which indicating the Times is reevaluating its future use of polling : …media organizations including The New York Times , which financially support and promote polls , are re-evaluating how they portray polls in future coverage .
Some editors believe the best approach may be to give them less prominent coverage , despite intense interest from readers and despite the dominant role polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of changes may involve how the media present polling and whether publications spend as much money on it in the future .
“ The media that sponsor polls should demand better results because their reputations are on the line , ” James A. Baker III , the former secretary of state , wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week .
That ’ s worthwhile but it ’ s curious to me that Leonhardt never really spells out why .
What we get in this lengthy story is this : • Polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately misleading story to the public in 2020 .
• That misleading story impacted the campaigns and depressed giving and [ no discussion of the impact on voters or the results ] .
• Some media organizations think polls deserve less coverage in future .
This story skipped over the most important part .
And yet you can sort of read between the lines from point 3 and see that there is some concern this is unfair and can ’ t be repeated .
Again , I ’ m not suggesting we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters or the results was in a definite sense .
I ’ m certainly not saying it swung the election .
But I don ’ t see how you can look at the tight results and assume it didn ’ t matter .
It ’ s very weird to set the table with a discussion of the misleading narrative the media created and never follow through on that .
The media wants to turn this into a largely technical question about why the polls were wrong but that ’ s the pollsters problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t why it happened it ’ s how much the failure impacted the results .
In this case , Leonhardt walked right up to the edge of that question and then walks away .
He ’ s a reporter so I don ’ t expect him to offer his personal opinion but he could have found someone with an opinion to at least raise the question as the most important one to talk about .

Tuesday I wrote about NY Times’ polling guru Nate Cohn’s take on the 2020 polling. He suggested it may, when all is said and done, turn out to be a worse miss than 2016. Today the Times published another piece by reporter Daivd Leonhardt which doesn’t quite go that far but nevertheless concludes the miss this time out was “alarming.”
For the second straight presidential election, the polling industry missed the mark. The miss was not as blatant as in 2016, when polls suggested Mr. Trump would lose, nor was the miss as large as it appeared it might be on election night. Once all the votes are counted, the polls will have correctly pointed to the winner of the presidential campaign in 48 states — all but Florida and North Carolina — and correctly signaled that Mr. Biden would win. But this year’s problems are still alarming, both to people inside the industry and to the millions of Americans who follow presidential polls with a passion once reserved for stock prices, sports scores and lottery numbers… “This was a bad year for polling,” David Shor, a data scientist who advises Democratic campaigns, said. Douglas Rivers, the chief scientist of YouGov, a global polling firm, said, “We’re obviously going to have a black eye on this.” The problems spanned the public polls that voters see and the private polls that campaigns use. Internal polls, conducted for both Democratic and Republican candidates, tended to make Republican candidates look weaker than they were.
To illustrate the failure of polling this year the Times created this table comparing final polls before the election to estimates of what the final results will show once all the votes have been counted.
If you subtracted 3 points from every poll about half of them would be within a point of the final result (almost all of them still overestimating Biden). But 3 points really wouldn’t help you at all in Wisconsin or Ohio or Iowa. The polling in these states was miles off. The bad polling had real world consequences:
The Trump campaign pulled back from campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin, reducing visits and advertising, and lost both only narrowly. In Arizona, a Republican strategist who worked on Senator Martha McSally’s re-election campaign said that public polling showing her far behind “probably cost us $4 or $5 million” in donations. Ms. McSally lost to Mark Kelly by less than three percentage points. Mr. Biden spent valuable time visiting Iowa and Ohio in the campaign’s final days, only to lose both soundly. Democrats also poured money into races that may never have been winnable, like the South Carolina Senate race, while paying less attention to some of their House incumbents who party leaders wrongly thought were safe. The party ended up losing seats.
That’s the real impact the polling had on the campaigns but the best part of the piece comes where Leonhardt speaks to the narrative that pollsters and the media helped to generate.
After laying out this accurate and devastating case that pollsters and the media presenting a blue wave for Biden as a fait accompli, Leonhardt drifts away from the obvious follow up question: What impact did this have on voters? Instead he spends the rest of the piece discussing why the polls were wrong and what might help to fix it.
No doubt that’s a worthy discussion to have but the first step should be an admission that the bad polling impacted voters even as it impacted campaigns. Telling Republicans they are doomed for months on end must have had some impact but it seems no one wants to talk about that. The most we get in this piece are a couple of paragraph, one near the beginning and one near the end, which indicating the Times is reevaluating its future use of polling:
…media organizations including The New York Times, which financially support and promote polls, are re-evaluating how they portray polls in future coverage. Some editors believe the best approach may be to give them less prominent coverage, despite intense interest from readers and despite the dominant role polls play in shaping campaign strategies… A separate set of changes may involve how the media present polling and whether publications spend as much money on it in the future. “The media that sponsor polls should demand better results because their reputations are on the line,” James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week.
That’s worthwhile but it’s curious to me that Leonhardt never really spells out why. What we get in this lengthy story is this:
Polls and the media told a clear but ultimately misleading story to the public in 2020. That misleading story impacted the campaigns and depressed giving and [no discussion of the impact on voters or the results]. Some media organizations think polls deserve less coverage in future.
This story skipped over the most important part. And yet you can sort of read between the lines from point 3 and see that there is some concern this is unfair and can’t be repeated.
Again, I’m not suggesting we can know for sure what the impact on voters or the results was in a definite sense. I’m certainly not saying it swung the election. But I don’t see how you can look at the tight results and assume it didn’t matter. It’s very weird to set the table with a discussion of the misleading narrative the media created and never follow through on that.
The media wants to turn this into a largely technical question about why the polls were wrong but that’s the pollsters problem. The really important question isn’t why it happened it’s how much the failure impacted the results. In this case, Leonhardt walked right up to the edge of that question and then walks away. He’s a reporter so I don’t expect him to offer his personal opinion but he could have found someone with an opinion to at least raise the question as the most important one to talk about.


hotair--2020-11-12--GA SecState: Hand recount will be accurate -- and won't change the overall result

Why , pray tell , is Georgia doing a hand recount rather than re-running the machine count ?
That ’ s a good question from ABC News ’ Brad Mielke in this short clip of his interview with Brad Raffensperger , who never quite answers the why question .
Instead , the Georgia secretary of state explains why people can have confidence in the results of a hand recount , as the paper ballots are simplified and they only need to recount one election : Raffensperger offers a very good , if brief , explanation of the how .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can refer back to Allahpundit ’ s lengthy post this afternoon , in which he reviews all the ways in which Donald Trump and his allies have spent the last week undermining machine systems .
That sets an environment where the only way to deal with recounts is by hand , even though they may have a marginally more significant issue with accuracy , as Mielke says .
However , we are still talking about extremely small deviations , and in this case the counters will have observers to double-check and challenge as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , the process choice doesn ’ t really matter much .
American voting infrastructure is highly reliable and resilient to manipulation , even if the voting process can sometimes be less immune to it .
That is why , as Karl Rove argued last night , there is almost zero chance that any of the states in which Trump trails will flip in a recount , let alone three or more necessary to move the Electoral College count to 270 in Trump ’ s favor .
Georgia Secretary of State Brad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his state , after Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue , along with the state GOP chair , criticized his handling of the election .
“ At the end of the day , we don ’ t see widespread voter fraud , but we will investigate every case we hear , ” Raffensperger said on “ CBS This Morning ” Thursday .
While he acknowledged that election officials already had “ multiple investigations ” ongoing , Raffensperger said they do not “ rise to the level of 14,000 ” — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is trailing President-elect Biden .
… “ We had record registrations , and people were just participating on both sides of the aisle , ” he said .
“ At the end of the day , I think you ’ ll find that when we do the hand recount of all the votes , it will substantiate what we have gotten with electronic ballot counting.
” Raffensperger called a hand recount of all ballots cast in the presidential race on Wednesday , in order to “ build confidence ” in Georgia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just restore confidence in Georgia ’ s voting system , but also in the US system in general .
There will probably be other recounts — Team Trump has already demanded one in Wisconsin — but the gap there is over 20,000 , larger than Georgia with a smaller number of votes cast .
Once those are finished , and without any evidence of actual fraud being presented in court where it has to be submitted in good faith , we can put this election behind us and move onto dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still have an impact on 2020 .

Why, pray tell, is Georgia doing a hand recount rather than re-running the machine count? That’s a good question from ABC News’ Brad Mielke in this short clip of his interview with Brad Raffensperger, who never quite answers the why question. Instead, the Georgia secretary of state explains why people can have confidence in the results of a hand recount, as the paper ballots are simplified and they only need to recount one election:
.@StartHereABC speaks with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on the state’s hand recount of the presidential election results. LISTEN: https://t.co/hXlz8lDEK4 pic.twitter.com/fQyvepDUck — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) November 12, 2020
Raffensperger offers a very good, if brief, explanation of the how. What about the why? For that we can refer back to Allahpundit’s lengthy post this afternoon, in which he reviews all the ways in which Donald Trump and his allies have spent the last week undermining machine systems. That sets an environment where the only way to deal with recounts is by hand, even though they may have a marginally more significant issue with accuracy, as Mielke says. However, we are still talking about extremely small deviations, and in this case the counters will have observers to double-check and challenge as the need arises.
In the end, however, the process choice doesn’t really matter much. American voting infrastructure is highly reliable and resilient to manipulation, even if the voting process can sometimes be less immune to it. That is why, as Karl Rove argued last night, there is almost zero chance that any of the states in which Trump trails will flip in a recount, let alone three or more necessary to move the Electoral College count to 270 in Trump’s favor.
Raffensperger told CBS News that today, too:
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger dismissed accusations of widespread voter fraud in his state, after Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, along with the state GOP chair, criticized his handling of the election. “At the end of the day, we don’t see widespread voter fraud, but we will investigate every case we hear,” Raffensperger said on “CBS This Morning” Thursday. While he acknowledged that election officials already had “multiple investigations” ongoing, Raffensperger said they do not “rise to the level of 14,000” — the number of approximate ballots by which President Trump is trailing President-elect Biden. … “We had record registrations, and people were just participating on both sides of the aisle,” he said. “At the end of the day, I think you’ll find that when we do the hand recount of all the votes, it will substantiate what we have gotten with electronic ballot counting.” Raffensperger called a hand recount of all ballots cast in the presidential race on Wednesday, in order to “build confidence” in Georgia’s electoral system.
Perhaps this will not just restore confidence in Georgia’s voting system, but also in the US system in general. There will probably be other recounts — Team Trump has already demanded one in Wisconsin — but the gap there is over 20,000, larger than Georgia with a smaller number of votes cast. Once those are finished, and without any evidence of actual fraud being presented in court where it has to be submitted in good faith, we can put this election behind us and move onto dealing with the runoffs in Georgia — where we can still have an impact on 2020.


hotair--2020-11-12--Lindsey Graham: It's time to start giving Biden the Presidential Daily Brief

I mean , it ’ d be nice if *someone* were getting a presidential intelligence briefing .
According to Trump ’ s public schedule , the last one he had was on October 2 .
Other Senate Republicans have called today for letting Biden be briefed , as Ed noted earlier , but Graham ’ s a special case because he ’ s the first real Trump crony in the chamber to do so .
I don ’ t take this as a sign that he ’ s going to break with Trump on the “ voter fraud ” claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham is one of the people entertaining the nuclear scenario in which state legislatures like Pennsylvania ’ s simply void the election on pretend fraud grounds and award the president their electors .
If anything , he ’ ll stick with Trump even longer than his colleagues in the Senate will .
I think his interest in letting Biden be briefed has a simpler explanation .
Graham ’ s defining political trait is his hyper-hawkishness and he ’ s understandably worried that if intelligence is secreted away from the incoming Biden administration they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign threats .
On Tuesday two former chiefs of staff , John Podesta and Andy Card , flagged the delayed transition after the contested 2000 election as a factor in the 9/11 attacks .
“ When the 9/11 Commission finished its report , it found that the delayed transition ‘ hampered the new administration in identifying , recruiting , clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees ’ in the national security arena , ” Podesta and Card wrote .
“ The commission also concluded that avoiding future disruptions in transitions was deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more , Card and Podesta noted that Bush *did* start receiving intelligence briefings even as the litigation was playing out in Florida .
The delay that damaged the transition was GSA refusing to release transition resources to the Bush campaign because it couldn ’ t fairly “ ascertain ” him as the winner until after the court battle .
The 2000 election was incredibly tight , with Bush and Gore separated by fewer than a thousand votes in a single deciding state .
The current election is nowhere near as close as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation pending anywhere .
Biden ’ s not even getting the intel briefings that Bush got , and GSA hasn ’ t released transition resources to him even though the same agency made an “ ascertainment ” that Trump had won the election the day after the vote in 2016 .
Biden ’ s all but guaranteed to end up with the same number of electoral votes Trump had that year and margins in close states like Wisconsin , Georgia , and Arizona comparable to the margins Trump enjoyed in Wisconsin , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he ’ ll have won the popular vote comfortably , not lost it .
( Right , granted , Hillary conceded the day after the 2016 election whereas Trump hasn ’ t conceded this year , but GSA has never required a concession to “ ascertain ” who won . )
There ’ s no reason why an “ ascertainment ” shouldn ’ t be made on Biden ’ s behalf in the interest of national security , to get the new team up and running as quickly as possible .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure intimidation felt by his deputy at the GSA that ’ s holding this back .
If there ’ s anything that might drive a wedge between the president and the Senate Republicans who are momentarily giving him cover in obstructing the transition , it ’ s the damage a frozen transition might do to foreign policy and national security .
For all the ways that Trump has influenced the party , there ’ s not much evidence of him shifting congressional Republicans towards a more dovish stance on , well , anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham and Marco Rubio , define themselves by their advocacy for a “ muscular ” policy abroad .
I imagine they ’ re already nervous about what ’ s going on at the Pentagon , with Mark Esper ousted and a variety of Trump cronies installed in top positions ( which may or may not be a prerequisite to implement an upcoming withdrawal from Afghanistan ) .
But if Trump ends up decapitating U.S. intelligence , tossing Gina Haspel and Chris Wray into the trash bin , that ’ s where I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting more vocal about Trump having lost the election .
Trump may realize that too .
It ’ s noteworthy to me that he dumped Esper but hasn ’ t made any moves yet against the leaders of the “ deep state ” about whom he complains so much .
Republican senators are reportedly urging him not to fire Haspel and Bill Barr has stuck up for Wray in the past .
Maybe Trump believe that he can ’ t afford to do anything to piss off Senate Republicans too much at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party leaders on his desperate search to prove voter fraud .
Once he gives up on winning , *then* he ’ ll fire Haspel and Wray .
I ’ m morbidly curious to see how the hawks in the Senate react to this impending move too : Top U.S. cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs has told associates he expects to be fired by the White House , three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters… [ H ] e drew the ire of the Trump White House over a website run by CISA dubbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the election , according to the three people familiar with the matter .
White House officials have asked for content to be edited or removed from the website , which has pushed back against numerous false claims about the election , including that Democrats are behind a mass election fraud scheme .
In response , CISA officials have refused to delete accurate information .
In particular , one person said , the White House was angry about a CISA post rejecting a conspiracy theory that falsely claims an intelligence agency supercomputer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could have flipped votes nationally .
No such system exists , according to Krebs , election security experts and former U.S. officials .
A capable cybersecurity official being canned because he wouldn ’ t promote Trump propaganda that wrecks public trust in American elections is just the perfect banana-republic note on which to wind down this era .
I wonder if Lindsey Graham will say a word about it when it happens .
On the one hand , he pretends to care about national security , including cybersecurity .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require him to feign credulity in the Hammer and Scorecard conspiracy theory .
Dilemmas , dilemmas .
We may also be approaching the point where House Democrats start leaning on GSA to release transition resources to Biden .
I think Biden ’ s keeping them at bay for now in the hope that Trump will grasp that he ’ s not winning in court and start to ease off the obstructionism without any official pressure ; the country doesn ’ t need any dramatic forms of escalation right now .
But that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious legal effort to stop states from certifying their results , or if there ’ s some desperation play after the certification to try to steal electors somehow .
That ’ s when we might see House hearings .
If it drags on into December , I wonder if we might even see impeachment again .
Probably not — Dems don ’ t want to do anything that might damage them in the Georgia runoffs — but they ’ re not going to be passive about this until January 5 .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , a man who ’ s wrong about a lot of things but not everything .

I mean, it’d be nice if *someone* were getting a presidential intelligence briefing. According to Trump’s public schedule, the last one he had was on October 2.
Other Senate Republicans have called today for letting Biden be briefed, as Ed noted earlier, but Graham’s a special case because he’s the first real Trump crony in the chamber to do so. I don’t take this as a sign that he’s going to break with Trump on the “voter fraud” claims anytime soon, though. Remember, Graham is one of the people entertaining the nuclear scenario in which state legislatures like Pennsylvania’s simply void the election on pretend fraud grounds and award the president their electors. If anything, he’ll stick with Trump even longer than his colleagues in the Senate will.
I think his interest in letting Biden be briefed has a simpler explanation. Graham’s defining political trait is his hyper-hawkishness and he’s understandably worried that if intelligence is secreted away from the incoming Biden administration they might be slow-footed next year in detecting foreign threats.
Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN Thursday he thinks President-elect Joe Biden should get intelligence briefings starting now. “Yeah, I think he should,” said Graham, a close ally of President Trump… Graham said he has not expressed his thoughts with the White House but said, “I hope so,” when asked if he expects Biden to get the briefings soon.
On Tuesday two former chiefs of staff, John Podesta and Andy Card, flagged the delayed transition after the contested 2000 election as a factor in the 9/11 attacks. “When the 9/11 Commission finished its report, it found that the delayed transition ‘hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees’ in the national security arena,” Podesta and Card wrote. “The commission also concluded that avoiding future disruptions in transitions was deeply in the national interest.” What’s more, Card and Podesta noted that Bush *did* start receiving intelligence briefings even as the litigation was playing out in Florida. The delay that damaged the transition was GSA refusing to release transition resources to the Bush campaign because it couldn’t fairly “ascertain” him as the winner until after the court battle.
The 2000 election was incredibly tight, with Bush and Gore separated by fewer than a thousand votes in a single deciding state. The current election is nowhere near as close as that and there’s no decisive litigation pending anywhere. Biden’s not even getting the intel briefings that Bush got, and GSA hasn’t released transition resources to him even though the same agency made an “ascertainment” that Trump had won the election the day after the vote in 2016. Biden’s all but guaranteed to end up with the same number of electoral votes Trump had that year and margins in close states like Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona comparable to the margins Trump enjoyed in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania four years ago. And he’ll have won the popular vote comfortably, not lost it. (Right, granted, Hillary conceded the day after the 2016 election whereas Trump hasn’t conceded this year, but GSA has never required a concession to “ascertain” who won.) There’s no reason why an “ascertainment” shouldn’t be made on Biden’s behalf in the interest of national security, to get the new team up and running as quickly as possible. It’s pure spite by Trump and pure intimidation felt by his deputy at the GSA that’s holding this back.
If there’s anything that might drive a wedge between the president and the Senate Republicans who are momentarily giving him cover in obstructing the transition, it’s the damage a frozen transition might do to foreign policy and national security. For all the ways that Trump has influenced the party, there’s not much evidence of him shifting congressional Republicans towards a more dovish stance on, well, anything. Some of these people, like Graham and Marco Rubio, define themselves by their advocacy for a “muscular” policy abroad. I imagine they’re already nervous about what’s going on at the Pentagon, with Mark Esper ousted and a variety of Trump cronies installed in top positions (which may or may not be a prerequisite to implement an upcoming withdrawal from Afghanistan). But if Trump ends up decapitating U.S. intelligence, tossing Gina Haspel and Chris Wray into the trash bin, that’s where I think even the Grahams and Rubios might start getting more vocal about Trump having lost the election.
Trump may realize that too. It’s noteworthy to me that he dumped Esper but hasn’t made any moves yet against the leaders of the “deep state” about whom he complains so much. Republican senators are reportedly urging him not to fire Haspel and Bill Barr has stuck up for Wray in the past. Maybe Trump believe that he can’t afford to do anything to piss off Senate Republicans too much at a moment when he needs some cover from party leaders on his desperate search to prove voter fraud. Once he gives up on winning, *then* he’ll fire Haspel and Wray.
I’m morbidly curious to see how the hawks in the Senate react to this impending move too:
Top U.S. cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs has told associates he expects to be fired by the White House, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters… [H]e drew the ire of the Trump White House over a website run by CISA dubbed “Rumor Control” which debunks misinformation about the election, according to the three people familiar with the matter. White House officials have asked for content to be edited or removed from the website, which has pushed back against numerous false claims about the election, including that Democrats are behind a mass election fraud scheme. In response, CISA officials have refused to delete accurate information. In particular, one person said, the White House was angry about a CISA post rejecting a conspiracy theory that falsely claims an intelligence agency supercomputer and program, purportedly named Hammer and Scorecard, could have flipped votes nationally. No such system exists, according to Krebs, election security experts and former U.S. officials.
A capable cybersecurity official being canned because he wouldn’t promote Trump propaganda that wrecks public trust in American elections is just the perfect banana-republic note on which to wind down this era. I wonder if Lindsey Graham will say a word about it when it happens. On the one hand, he pretends to care about national security, including cybersecurity. On the other hand, his duties as a crony require him to feign credulity in the Hammer and Scorecard conspiracy theory. Dilemmas, dilemmas.
We may also be approaching the point where House Democrats start leaning on GSA to release transition resources to Biden. I think Biden’s keeping them at bay for now in the hope that Trump will grasp that he’s not winning in court and start to ease off the obstructionism without any official pressure; the country doesn’t need any dramatic forms of escalation right now. But that’ll end if there’s a serious legal effort to stop states from certifying their results, or if there’s some desperation play after the certification to try to steal electors somehow. That’s when we might see House hearings. If it drags on into December, I wonder if we might even see impeachment again. Probably not — Dems don’t want to do anything that might damage them in the Georgia runoffs — but they’re not going to be passive about this until January 5.
I’ll leave you with this from Barack Obama, a man who’s wrong about a lot of things but not everything.


hotair--2020-11-12--Another flipped seat: Democrat Max Rose concedes in New York's 11th congressional district

The slowest states in the country to count votes for uncalled House seats have been California and New York .
Of the two , New York seems to be doing the worst .
There are currently 15 uncalled races nationwide and 9 of those are in New York .
But as of a short time ago , one of those races is now over .
Democratic Rep. Max Rose has conceded his race in New York ’ s 11th congressional district .
Rep. Max Rose , D-N.Y. , conceded to Republican Congresswoman-elect Nicole Malliotakis , pledging in a statement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition ” of power .
“ As we continue to count every ballot and are on track to dramatically narrow the gap by tens of thousands of votes to a 4-5 point margin , it is now clear that we will fall short of 50.1 % , ” Rose said .
The NY Times reports that Rose struggled after attending a BLM march which led to accusations that he supported defunding the police : In June , Mr. Rose attended a demonstration in Staten Island to protest the death of George Floyd .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms. Malliotakis ’ s campaign , enabling her to accuse Mr. Rose of being a supporter of efforts to defund the police… “ This city has seen a significant shift to the left that ’ s made a lot of people uncomfortable in our community , ” she said in an interview the day after Election Day .
“ I will be a voice that will provide a different perspective , and that ’ s where you get good policy — when you have a debate and hopefully end up somewhere in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Rose to his more progressive peers , including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor de Blasio .
Looking back on some of Malliotakis ’ campaign ads , her focus was on changes happening in New York City including bail reform , closing Rikers and big cuts to the NYPD budget .
She successfully connected Max Rose to those efforts by tying him to Mayor de Blasio .
Here ’ s one of her ads : The NY Times has reported the story but hasn ’ t updated it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ win is the 10th flipped seat for the GOP .
Democrats have managed to flip 3 seats so that puts Republicans at +7 overall .
Republican women in particular are getting it done this year .
One last thing .
The NY Times just un-called a House race in New Jersey .
This race was called a week ago and I can confirm that , as of this morning , the NY Times showed it as a Democratic win .
Now it ’ s back to being too close to call : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 6,200 votes with 92 % of the vote counted .
It looks like this is going to be another close one .
And there are still several more potential GOP pickups that haven ’ t been called yet .

The slowest states in the country to count votes for uncalled House seats have been California and New York. Of the two, New York seems to be doing the worst. There are currently 15 uncalled races nationwide and 9 of those are in New York. But as of a short time ago, one of those races is now over. Democratic Rep. Max Rose has conceded his race in New York’s 11th congressional district.
Rep. Max Rose, D-N.Y., conceded to Republican Congresswoman-elect Nicole Malliotakis, pledging in a statement on Thursday to work toward a “smooth transition” of power. “As we continue to count every ballot and are on track to dramatically narrow the gap by tens of thousands of votes to a 4-5 point margin, it is now clear that we will fall short of 50.1%,” Rose said.
The NY Times reports that Rose struggled after attending a BLM march which led to accusations that he supported defunding the police:
In June, Mr. Rose attended a demonstration in Staten Island to protest the death of George Floyd. His participation became a focal point of Ms. Malliotakis’s campaign, enabling her to accuse Mr. Rose of being a supporter of efforts to defund the police… “This city has seen a significant shift to the left that’s made a lot of people uncomfortable in our community,” she said in an interview the day after Election Day. “I will be a voice that will provide a different perspective, and that’s where you get good policy — when you have a debate and hopefully end up somewhere in the middle.” She spent her campaign tying Mr. Rose to his more progressive peers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor de Blasio.
Looking back on some of Malliotakis’ campaign ads, her focus was on changes happening in New York City including bail reform, closing Rikers and big cuts to the NYPD budget. She successfully connected Max Rose to those efforts by tying him to Mayor de Blasio. Here’s one of her ads:
The NY Times has reported the story but hasn’t updated it’s House map yet. Malliotakis’ win is the 10th flipped seat for the GOP. Democrats have managed to flip 3 seats so that puts Republicans at +7 overall. Republican women in particular are getting it done this year.
One last thing. The NY Times just un-called a House race in New Jersey. This race was called a week ago and I can confirm that, as of this morning, the NY Times showed it as a Democratic win. Now it’s back to being too close to call:
The NY Times just un-called NJ-7. Tom Kean Jr. is rapidly closing the gap on the incumbent. pic.twitter.com/8c9i2BXMBz — Kyle Sammin (@KyleSammin) November 12, 2020
The incumbent Democrat is still leading by about 6,200 votes with 92% of the vote counted. It looks like this is going to be another close one. And there are still several more potential GOP pickups that haven’t been called yet.


hotair--2020-11-12--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Election news, winner/loser views, AOC's skew, COVID blues, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
What ’ s the latest from Georgia and Arizona ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run again in 2024 , start a new media company , or both ?
• Who were the winners and losers from the 2020 election ?
Proven Media Solutions ’ Dustin Siggins joins us for a conference discussion in the second hour for a piece he ’ ll be writing at O ’ Dwyer ’ s later .
Assuming that Zoom works properly , that is … The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. What’s the latest from Georgia and Arizona? Is Dominion the new Diebold? Will Trump run again in 2024, start a new media company, or both?
Who were the winners and losers from the 2020 election? Proven Media Solutions’ Dustin Siggins joins us for a conference discussion in the second hour for a piece he’ll be writing at O’Dwyer’s later. Assuming that Zoom works properly, that is …
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-11-12--Trump has reached the "Diebold rigged the voting machines" phase of his voter-fraud pitch

Yesterday I said we were still in the “ respectable ” phase one of Trump ’ s attempt to overturn the election , where he pursues traditional remedies like demanding recounts and bringing voter-fraud claims to court .
That ’ s what any candidate would do when they think they ’ ve been cheated — or rather , in his case , when they want fans to think they ’ ve been cheated .
Phase one may be wrapping up now .
Several Trump-friendly mainstream commentators have chimed in over the past 24 hours to nudge readers towards accepting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-friendly ” doesn ’ t mean “ hardcore MAGA , ” just establishment conservatives whose commentary over the past few years has been generally favorable to POTUS . )
John wrote last night about Karl Rove ’ s op-ed arguing that there ’ s no realistic path to legal victory , but there was also Henry Olsen yesterday in WaPo noting that the telltale signs of electoral fraud aren ’ t present in this case .
There was Byron York this morning in the Examiner insisting that Trump lost because he was treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years , not because of shenanigans in the vote count .
And there was NRO editor Rich Lowry warning the president and his team that it would be “ completely insane ” to ask state legislatures to invalidate the result of the vote in their states and award their electors to Trump if the legal challenges fail .
Phase one is wrapping up for the simple reason that we ’ re nine days into this court fight and Team Trump still isn ’ t within a thousand miles of producing a fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election in doubt .
It ’ s put up or shut up time , as Ed noted earlier .
It ’ ll go on for a few more days , until the decisive states — Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , Arizona , Georgia — move towards certifying their results , at which point Trump and the GOP will come to a crossroads .
Either he can start backing down and let the transition machinery begin to turn ( e.g.
, GSA releasing transition funds to Biden ’ s campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders with Biden ) or he can ratchet things up by suing to block certification of the results and/or by asking states like Pennsylvania to ignore their results and hand him their electors .
That ’ s phase two , the “ desperation ” phase .
That ’ s where things get dangerous .
Biden has convinced Democrats to ignore this “ I was cheated !
” charade during phase one because everyone staying cool is good for the country and , after all , the transition process hasn ’ t been *very* @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupted inasmuch as the White House isn ’ t cooperating with him on transitioning but we ’ re still more than two months from Inauguration Day .
No harm done — yet — and meanwhile the electoral process at the state level is playing out as normal .
That changes if Trump manages to block certification .
That ’ s when Biden ’ s lawyers are unleashed and when the word “ coup ” will start being used in earnest , not by Biden himself ( who ’ s trying to lower the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and other commentators .
Demonstrations will begin ; if they get violent , Trump will start chattering about the Insurrection Act .
That ’ s also where the GOP establishment will come under maximum pressure to break with him .
They “ humored ” him by standing with him during the “ respectable ” phase but that phase will be firmly over by then .
Are they prepared to stand with him during the “ desperation ” phase too , as he tries to pull off an autogolpe ?
Judging from this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more desperate and irresponsible , not less , as circumstances go against him , which is true to form .
McConnell ’ s going to have to make a decision soon .
There may have been more destructive tweets that Trump has sent over the past four years but none leap to mind .
He ’ s a rhetorical arsonist by nature and so , watching his court options sputter to a halt , his instinct is to start setting fires and hope that his enemies get burned .
As for the OAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations involving Edison Research — which of course is baffled as to how it got roped into this : Various righty commentators on Twitter , some of them usually well disposed to Trump , compared his tweet to the left claiming after the 2004 election that Diebold ’ s voting machines had been rigged to tilt Ohio to Bush , providing his margin of victory in the electoral college over Kerry .
But the Dominion stuff is even more insane for the simple reason that no single state can hand Trump the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a multistate conspiracy involving the Dominion software to get the president to 270 .
Chris Krebs is the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , an agency established by Trump two years ago to protect critical infrastructure , like elections , from cyberattacks .
Krebs dismissed the conspiracy theories about Dominion and “ Hammer and Scorecard ” days ago : Krebs is expecting to be fired soon despite having rendered the public a service by protecting the country and providing accurate information .
He committed an unpardonable sin by insisting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie told by the president .
We get the government we deserve .
Alec Dent and the New York Times also have worthy pieces debunking the Dominion conspiracy theory .
Many of the claims about Dominion can be traced to its alleged role in vote-counting errors in Antrim County , Michigan , and several counties in Georgia .
Antrim County revealed it had inadvertently misreported a number of votes in unofficial results , with state GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox claiming that the error was due to “ tabulating software glitched and caused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan ’ s secretary of state announced that it was not a software issue , but “ user human error ” that led to the misreporting , and clarified that “ the correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves .
Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed , it would have been identified during the county canvass.
” In Georgia , local officials in Morgan and Spalding counties said an update caused some tabulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vote counting .
No allegations of a miscount arose .
Gwinnett County , Georgia , also experienced delays in uploading the results of the election , though Dominion stated that the issue “ does not relate to system software and has had no impact on the accuracy of vote totals or tabulation.
” Remember that Georgia is doing a hand recount .
If there ’ s software chicanery afoot , we ’ ll know soon , won ’ t we ?
And remember too that the story of the election is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — even in the presidential race , considering how bad the polling looked for Trump .
If Democrats had the power to change vote totals , it ’ s completely inexplicable that they would have allowed Republicans to overperform downballot and for Trump to lose only narrowly in places like Arizona and Georgia .
They had all the cover they needed from the polls to “ rig ” a blue-tsunami election in which the GOP is wiped out everywhere .
As it is , they ended up with Biden hanging on and Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority that ’ ll render Biden largely powerless as president .
In that sense , because the “ I was cheated !
” conspiracy is so ludicrous , it ’ s the ultimate loyalty test for Trump .
He ’ s asking followers to reject a very clear reality and substitute one that ’ s more flattering to him .
It ’ s practically an oath of allegiance .
I doubt he even cares if his fans sincerely believe the specifics of the Dominion thing .
What ’ s important is that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point this afternoon that if Trump fans really believe Trumpism is the wave of the future and an electoral powerhouse in the making , manufacturing outlandish theories to support a power grab by their hero is a weird way to show it .
If “ Trumpism ” means something more than “ slavish worship of Trump ” then last week ’ s election results aren ’ t bad .
The new president is a senescent moderate Democrat ; he ’ s blocked by a Republican Senate ( in all likelihood ) ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Republican control in 2022 .
Nothing crazy ’ s going to happen in government between now and then .
It ’ s a perfect moment to build on populist gains , take that message to voters , and maybe win back total control of government in 2024 with a president who ’ s not going to stick his foot in his mouth 16 times a day .
If “ Trumpism ” doesn ’ t mean something more than “ slavish worship of Trump , ” then sure , go all in on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preserve his ego .
Guess we ’ ll see .
By the way , I think I speak for everyone on all sides when I saw that we ’ re tired of hearing Trump aides whisper to the media that everyone inside the White House knows it ’ s all over .
If it ’ s over , let Trump say so .
If he doesn ’ t say so then it ’ s not over in the important sense of beginning the transition , now is it ?
According to WaPo , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the results overturned and Trump himself has taken to talking about running again in 2024 : This denial of reality would be tremendously embarrassing but not sinister *if* Trump could be counted on temperamentally not to pursue a “ desperation ” phase of this strategy .
But he can ’ t .
Lawsuits to try to block certification of the results may be coming .
If he loses , what then ?
Like Charlie Sykes says , loyalty oaths are forever .
If sticking with Trump is all about keeping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs on January 5 then there ’ s no off-ramp for McConnell from this nightmare unless Trump takes it first .
Without him conceding or saying something concession-like ( “ I was cheated but I accept that Biden will be president on January 20 ” ) , the Senate GOP won ’ t contradict him before that date — but there ’ s also no earthly way that Democrats will keep their cool if this standoff drags on for two more months .
Which means , in theory , that the Republican establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump set fires during the “ desperation ” phase and not do anything meaningful to try to put them out .
They ’ d rather see the country burn if it gives them a slightly better chance to rule over the ashes .
We get the government we deserve .

Yesterday I said we were still in the “respectable” phase one of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, where he pursues traditional remedies like demanding recounts and bringing voter-fraud claims to court. That’s what any candidate would do when they think they’ve been cheated — or rather, in his case, when they want fans to think they’ve been cheated.
Phase one may be wrapping up now. Several Trump-friendly mainstream commentators have chimed in over the past 24 hours to nudge readers towards accepting the fact that Biden won. (“Trump-friendly” doesn’t mean “hardcore MAGA,” just establishment conservatives whose commentary over the past few years has been generally favorable to POTUS.) John wrote last night about Karl Rove’s op-ed arguing that there’s no realistic path to legal victory, but there was also Henry Olsen yesterday in WaPo noting that the telltale signs of electoral fraud aren’t present in this case. There was Byron York this morning in the Examiner insisting that Trump lost because he was treated unfairly by the media over the past four years, not because of shenanigans in the vote count. And there was NRO editor Rich Lowry warning the president and his team that it would be “completely insane” to ask state legislatures to invalidate the result of the vote in their states and award their electors to Trump if the legal challenges fail.
Phase one is wrapping up for the simple reason that we’re nine days into this court fight and Team Trump still isn’t within a thousand miles of producing a fraud claim compelling enough to put the outcome of the election in doubt. It’s put up or shut up time, as Ed noted earlier. It’ll go on for a few more days, until the decisive states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia — move towards certifying their results, at which point Trump and the GOP will come to a crossroads. Either he can start backing down and let the transition machinery begin to turn (e.g., GSA releasing transition funds to Biden’s campaign, the State Department sharing messages from foreign leaders with Biden) or he can ratchet things up by suing to block certification of the results and/or by asking states like Pennsylvania to ignore their results and hand him their electors. That’s phase two, the “desperation” phase.
That’s where things get dangerous. Biden has convinced Democrats to ignore this “I was cheated!” charade during phase one because everyone staying cool is good for the country and, after all, the transition process hasn’t been *very* disrupted yet. It’s been disrupted inasmuch as the White House isn’t cooperating with him on transitioning but we’re still more than two months from Inauguration Day. No harm done — yet — and meanwhile the electoral process at the state level is playing out as normal. That changes if Trump manages to block certification. That’s when Biden’s lawyers are unleashed and when the word “coup” will start being used in earnest, not by Biden himself (who’s trying to lower the rising temperature) but by plenty of Democrats and other commentators. Demonstrations will begin; if they get violent, Trump will start chattering about the Insurrection Act. That’s also where the GOP establishment will come under maximum pressure to break with him. They “humored” him by standing with him during the “respectable” phase but that phase will be firmly over by then. Are they prepared to stand with him during the “desperation” phase too, as he tries to pull off an autogolpe?
Judging from this tweet he’s going to get more desperate and irresponsible, not less, as circumstances go against him, which is true to form. McConnell’s going to have to make a decision soon.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326926226888544256
There may have been more destructive tweets that Trump has sent over the past four years but none leap to mind. He’s a rhetorical arsonist by nature and so, watching his court options sputter to a halt, his instinct is to start setting fires and hope that his enemies get burned. As for the OAN segment he referenced, it also made allegations involving Edison Research — which of course is baffled as to how it got roped into this:
"Edison Research has no evidence of any voting irregularities and any claims that you see like this did not come from us." 2/2https://t.co/eSyOKDryg6 pic.twitter.com/0BLpvs1ejv — Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 12, 2020
Various righty commentators on Twitter, some of them usually well disposed to Trump, compared his tweet to the left claiming after the 2004 election that Diebold’s voting machines had been rigged to tilt Ohio to Bush, providing his margin of victory in the electoral college over Kerry. But the Dominion stuff is even more insane for the simple reason that no single state can hand Trump the election this time. We’d need a multistate conspiracy involving the Dominion software to get the president to 270.
Chris Krebs is the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency established by Trump two years ago to protect critical infrastructure, like elections, from cyberattacks. Krebs dismissed the conspiracy theories about Dominion and “Hammer and Scorecard” days ago:
To be crystal clear on ⬇, I’m specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It’s just that – nonsense. This is not a real thing, don’t fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy — Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020
Krebs is expecting to be fired soon despite having rendered the public a service by protecting the country and providing accurate information. He committed an unpardonable sin by insisting on telling a truth that contradicted a self-serving lie told by the president. We get the government we deserve.
Alec Dent and the New York Times also have worthy pieces debunking the Dominion conspiracy theory.
Many of the claims about Dominion can be traced to its alleged role in vote-counting errors in Antrim County, Michigan, and several counties in Georgia. Antrim County revealed it had inadvertently misreported a number of votes in unofficial results, with state GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox claiming that the error was due to “tabulating software glitched and caused a miscalculation of the votes.” However, Michigan’s secretary of state announced that it was not a software issue, but “user human error” that led to the misreporting, and clarified that “the correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves. Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, it would have been identified during the county canvass.” In Georgia, local officials in Morgan and Spalding counties said an update caused some tabulating machines to crash, which delayed voting and vote counting. No allegations of a miscount arose. Gwinnett County, Georgia, also experienced delays in uploading the results of the election, though Dominion stated that the issue “does not relate to system software and has had no impact on the accuracy of vote totals or tabulation.”
Remember that Georgia is doing a hand recount. If there’s software chicanery afoot, we’ll know soon, won’t we? And remember too that the story of the election is how surprisingly well Republicans performed at every level — even in the presidential race, considering how bad the polling looked for Trump. If Democrats had the power to change vote totals, it’s completely inexplicable that they would have allowed Republicans to overperform downballot and for Trump to lose only narrowly in places like Arizona and Georgia. They had all the cover they needed from the polls to “rig” a blue-tsunami election in which the GOP is wiped out everywhere. As it is, they ended up with Biden hanging on and Republicans on the brink of winning a Senate majority that’ll render Biden largely powerless as president.
In that sense, because the “I was cheated!” conspiracy is so ludicrous, it’s the ultimate loyalty test for Trump. He’s asking followers to reject a very clear reality and substitute one that’s more flattering to him. It’s practically an oath of allegiance. I doubt he even cares if his fans sincerely believe the specifics of the Dominion thing. What’s important is that they take the oath.
Ross Douthat made the point this afternoon that if Trump fans really believe Trumpism is the wave of the future and an electoral powerhouse in the making, manufacturing outlandish theories to support a power grab by their hero is a weird way to show it.
The promise of Against-the-Dead-Consensus arguments on the right is that they aspire to build a *majoritarian* populism, not just sustain a defensive coalition propped up by a Senate edge. The voter-fraud fixation belongs to a we-can't-win-majorities mentality, not a winning one. — Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) November 12, 2020
"We need lawsuits that identify the 187 illegal votes cast by black Detroiters and Philadelphians in an election that was actually decided by swings of tens of thousands of white voters in the suburbs" just seems like the wrong project for aspiring multi-ethnic populists. — Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) November 12, 2020
If “Trumpism” means something more than “slavish worship of Trump” then last week’s election results aren’t bad. The new president is a senescent moderate Democrat; he’s blocked by a Republican Senate (in all likelihood); and the House looks set to flip to Republican control in 2022. Nothing crazy’s going to happen in government between now and then. It’s a perfect moment to build on populist gains, take that message to voters, and maybe win back total control of government in 2024 with a president who’s not going to stick his foot in his mouth 16 times a day.
If “Trumpism” doesn’t mean something more than “slavish worship of Trump,” then sure, go all in on the great Dominion conspiracy. Anything to preserve his ego. Guess we’ll see.
By the way, I think I speak for everyone on all sides when I saw that we’re tired of hearing Trump aides whisper to the media that everyone inside the White House knows it’s all over. If it’s over, let Trump say so. If he doesn’t say so then it’s not over in the important sense of beginning the transition, now is it?
Trump is "very aware there is not a path to victory," but he believes the 72 million who voted for him "deserve a fight" so he's battling as a form of "theater" for them, a top White House aide tells me. — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) November 12, 2020
According to WaPo, there’s no White House strategy to get the results overturned and Trump himself has taken to talking about running again in 2024:
Asked about Trump’s ultimate plan, one senior administration official chuckled and said, “You’re giving everybody way too much credit right now.”… “If the party doesn’t fight on the recount, the grass roots is going to leave the party,” said one senior Republican involved in the discussions. “That’s the choice they have. That’s why they are doing it. It’s less about the president than it is his voters.”… Inside the president’s orbit, many aides find themselves grappling with a dual reality — pretending, and some perhaps believing, that Trump has a shot at holding the White House while they also look for their next opportunity, said one senior administration official who spent part of Tuesday and Wednesday searching for a job. Two administration officials added that many in the West Wing are updating their résumés, talking to headhunters and looking for work. But they are also living in fear, with senior Trump adviser Johnny McEntee promising to terminate anyone who gets caught seeking employment, officials said.
This denial of reality would be tremendously embarrassing but not sinister *if* Trump could be counted on temperamentally not to pursue a “desperation” phase of this strategy. But he can’t. Lawsuits to try to block certification of the results may be coming. If he loses, what then? Like Charlie Sykes says, loyalty oaths are forever.
Refusing to recognize Joe Biden as president-elect has become a litmus test of that loyalty. So, if Trump intends to retain his grip on the GOP, at what point will it be okay to acknowledge that reality? When we get a final unofficial count of 100% of the votes?
(2/4) — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) November 12, 2020
Or will it be January 6, when the votes are tallied before a Joint Session of Congress and legislators have a final chance to challenge the votes and force a vote by both houses? (4/4) — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) November 12, 2020
If sticking with Trump is all about keeping up Republican voters’ morale for the Georgia runoffs on January 5 then there’s no off-ramp for McConnell from this nightmare unless Trump takes it first. Without him conceding or saying something concession-like (“I was cheated but I accept that Biden will be president on January 20”), the Senate GOP won’t contradict him before that date — but there’s also no earthly way that Democrats will keep their cool if this standoff drags on for two more months. Which means, in theory, that the Republican establishment is going to sit by and watch Trump set fires during the “desperation” phase and not do anything meaningful to try to put them out. They’d rather see the country burn if it gives them a slightly better chance to rule over the ashes. We get the government we deserve.


hotair--2020-11-12--Appeals Court rules Harvard does not discriminate in admissions, Supreme Court could be next

A little more than a year ago a federal court judge ruled there was , “ no persuasive documentary evidence of any racial animus or conscious prejudice against Asian Americans ” when it came to admissions .
That result was appealed and today the First Circuit Court of Appeals once again sided with Harvard : Two judges from the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court was correct in ruling that Harvard ’ s limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity “ is consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again finds that Harvard ’ s admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent , and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard ’ s efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community , ” Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane said .
“ As we have said time and time again , now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity.
” But the group that brought the lawsuit says this will now be appealed to the Supreme Court : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Edward Blum , president of Students for Fair Admissions , a conservative legal action group representing a number of Asian-American students who brought the case after being rejected by Harvard .
“ This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court , where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.
” The case is among several attacking affirmative action that are expected to go forward in the courts even after the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race-based admissions policies , leaves office .
They include litigation brought by Mr. Blum ’ s group against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas .
Given the court ’ s conservative bent it seems possible they could choose to take this up but the NY Times quotes a law professor who says the 100+ page Appeals Court decision seems to have been written with that possibility in mind : Derek W. Black , a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina , said it was clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ramifications of the case and the likelihood that it will end up before the Supreme Court .
“ In an extremely methodical and careful decision , ” he said , the court had “ cut through all the rhetoric of those attacking Harvard ’ s affirmative action plan to find that there is no there there .
Harvard , in short , has run its admissions by the book.
” If you want to peruse the lengthy opinion yourself it ’ s here .
I read through most of it and my understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law Harvard can have a race conscious admissions process so long as the consideration of race is not “ mechanical ” ( meaning you automatically get points for being a minority ) and so long as there is no “ workable ” race-neutral alternative admissions process which would achieve the same admissions goals , including greater diversity .
In Harvard ’ s case , the court found that race-neutral alternative Harvard had considered resulted in fewer white and black students but also other impacts including lower test scores .
The Appeals Court concludes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best workable alternative which gives “ tips ” to minority applicants to increase their chances but still doesn ’ t guarantee admissions by race .
Again , I ’ m not an attorney and it ’ s hard to summarize 104 pages into a couple paragraphs .
As for discrimination against Asian students , here ’ s a bit of the conclusion on that point : We repeat that the statistical model using the personal rating showed no discrimination against Asian Americans .
Rather , it shows that Asian American identity has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on admissions probability of -.08 % .
This means that , on average , the model shows that an Asian American student has a .08 % lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student and that this effect is statistically insignificantly different from zero .
SFFA relies on one aspect of the statistical analysis presented .
SFFA ’ s preferred model without the personal rating shows a statistically significant overall average marginal effect of -0.34 % .
This means that , on average , the model shows that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student and that this effect is statistically significantly different from zero .
But because the average marginal effect is calculated using all applicants to Harvard , including many applicants whom Harvard is unlikely to admit , this number does not establish that being Asian American matters for the small subset of applicants who have a realistic chance of being admitted to Harvard .
The statistically significant negative overall average marginal effect of Asian American identity in SFFA ’ preferred model is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the personal rating is included in the model , it is almost undetectable on a year-by-year basis even within SFFA ’ s preferred model .
The average marginal effect of Asian American identity in the model excluding the personal rating is only statistically significantly negative in one of the six years analyzed.4 We may eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees with the Appeals Court ’ s conclusions .

A little more than a year ago a federal court judge ruled there was, “no persuasive documentary evidence of any racial animus or conscious prejudice against Asian Americans” when it came to admissions. That result was appealed and today the First Circuit Court of Appeals once again sided with Harvard:
Two judges from the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court was correct in ruling that Harvard’s limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity “is consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent.” “Today’s decision once again finds that Harvard’s admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard’s efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community,” Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane said. “As we have said time and time again, now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity.”
But the group that brought the lawsuit says this will now be appealed to the Supreme Court:
“Our hope is not lost,” said Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative legal action group representing a number of Asian-American students who brought the case after being rejected by Harvard. “This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.” The case is among several attacking affirmative action that are expected to go forward in the courts even after the Trump administration, which has backed efforts to end race-based admissions policies, leaves office. They include litigation brought by Mr. Blum’s group against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas.
Given the court’s conservative bent it seems possible they could choose to take this up but the NY Times quotes a law professor who says the 100+ page Appeals Court decision seems to have been written with that possibility in mind:
Derek W. Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina, said it was clear that the appeals court understood that the national ramifications of the case and the likelihood that it will end up before the Supreme Court. “In an extremely methodical and careful decision,” he said, the court had “cut through all the rhetoric of those attacking Harvard’s affirmative action plan to find that there is no there there. Harvard, in short, has run its admissions by the book.”
If you want to peruse the lengthy opinion yourself it’s here. I read through most of it and my understanding as a non-attorney is that under current law Harvard can have a race conscious admissions process so long as the consideration of race is not “mechanical” (meaning you automatically get points for being a minority) and so long as there is no “workable” race-neutral alternative admissions process which would achieve the same admissions goals, including greater diversity.
In Harvard’s case, the court found that race-neutral alternative Harvard had considered resulted in fewer white and black students but also other impacts including lower test scores. The Appeals Court concludes Harvard’s existing policy is essentially the best workable alternative which gives “tips” to minority applicants to increase their chances but still doesn’t guarantee admissions by race. Again, I’m not an attorney and it’s hard to summarize 104 pages into a couple paragraphs.
As for discrimination against Asian students, here’s a bit of the conclusion on that point:
We repeat that the statistical model using the personal rating showed no discrimination against Asian Americans. Rather, it shows that Asian American identity has a statistically insignificant overall average marginal effect43 on admissions probability of -.08%. This means that, on average, the model shows that an Asian American student has a .08% lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student and that this effect is statistically insignificantly different from zero. SFFA relies on one aspect of the statistical analysis presented. SFFA’s preferred model without the personal rating shows a statistically significant overall average marginal effect of -0.34%. This means that, on average, the model shows that an Asian American student has a .34% lower chance of admission to Harvard than a similarly situated white student and that this effect is statistically significantly different from zero. But because the average marginal effect is calculated using all applicants to Harvard, including many applicants whom Harvard is unlikely to admit, this number does not establish that being Asian
American matters for the small subset of applicants who have a realistic chance of being admitted to Harvard. The statistically significant negative overall average marginal effect of Asian American identity in SFFA’ preferred model is also not robust.44 In addition to disappearing entirely when the personal rating is included in the model, it is almost undetectable on a year-by-year basis even within SFFA’s preferred model. The average marginal effect of Asian American identity in the model excluding the personal rating is only statistically significantly negative in one of the six years analyzed.4
We may eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees with the Appeals Court’s conclusions.