hotair--2020-03-06--White House keeps insisting coronavirus is "relatively contained" for some reason

The virus is “ relatively contained ” at this point in the same way that a fire in your home is “ relatively contained ” at a moment when only the living-room drapes are on fire .
Someday someone will explain to me why an economist is out in front of the cameras making happy talk about the outbreak of a virus no one ’ s ever seen before .
If I were Trump , I ’ d fire Kudlow for this .
Trump ’ s not going to fire him because Kudlow ’ s conveying exactly the message he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Save the Dow .
Worry about hard truths involving the spread of disease later .
But investors aren ’ t stupid .
They have lots of information about the virus beyond White House spin .
We had a Fed rate cut this week , a blockbuster jobs report , and the president ’ s top economic advisor on TV offering morale boosters and the Dow still gained less than 400 points since it opened Monday .
If not for a rally in the final hour of trading today , it would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The feds are throwing everything they can at it but it ’ s not working because people know this thing is out of control even if the White House won ’ t admit it .
They can read .
Here ’ s Trump with his own contribution to the bogus “ containment ” narrative .
Time magazine has a worthy piece today about the administration ’ s coronavirus strategy .
They ’ re a one-trick pony , and their one trick worked — for awhile .
They stopped travel to China after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what Trump means here when he says “ We stopped it.
” They did at the very least slow down the virus ’ s entry into the United States ; combined with China ’ s massive lockdown to contain the disease inside its borders , that bought the U.S. crucial time to prepare mass testing for the absolutely inevitable arrival of the disease here .
Trump may have convinced himself that strong border enforcement , his pet issue , might prevent COVID-19 from ever crossing the Pacific .
It was never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay it .
And that should have been greatly useful to the CDC .
To borrow the analogy from up top , you ’ re obviously far better prepared to put out a fire in your home if you ’ re standing right there with an extinguisher once it breaks out .
But there was a problem : The CDC ’ s fire extinguisher didn ’ t work .
They botched the test kits , for complicated scientific reasons .
The cinders have now ignited the drapes .
And the fire extinguisher , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just isn ’ t big enough to stifle a fire that size .
But the United States has lagged far behind the rest of the world in testing for the new coronavirus .
As a result , outbreaks here are likely to be more numerous and more difficult to control than they would have been otherwise .
I research infectious disease and how to fight it , so I know how important it is to detect outbreaks early .
The covid-19 outbreak is the largest acute infectious-disease emergency most of us have experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go undetected here for too long… Estimates suggest that about 1 in 50 people known to be infected die , so multiply the number of deaths by 50 to estimate the total cases .
But that is not enough .
It takes people quite a few weeks to die of covid-19 , so when there ’ s a death , we have to go back to when that person was infected and ask how the outbreak grew since then .
Current estimates are that it takes about a week for the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s considerable uncertainty around the exact number .
But if for each death , there were 49 other infections in the community when the patient who died became infected , then one week later , those cases would have grown to 98 ; after two weeks , to 196 .
If the patient dies three weeks after contracting covid-19 , by that time , we would expect about 392 cases .
That means for each dead body , a community already has hundreds of other cases , infected and infectious .
Two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 .
Today they ’ re reporting 4,636 .
The author quoted above went on to say , “ I know of people right now , some of them front-line health-care workers ( a group at particular risk for covid-19 ) , who are sick and struggling to get tested.
” A nurse in California put out a statement yesterday claiming that she ’ s sick , in quarantine , and still can ’ t get CDC approval to be tested because she was wearing protective gear while treating a coronavirus patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the disease .
Why would the CDC deny a test under those circumstances ?
Obviously it ’ s because testing capacity is still so low that they need to ration tests for the most questionable cases until production increases .
Something similar allegedly happened to a Seattle resident , in the heart of the hot zone , who had coronavirus symptoms but couldn ’ t get tested because his lung X-rays looked normal .
There aren ’ t enough tests to go around to waste one on someone like that .
Hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks , he was told .
Two writers at the Atlantic called around to see if they could nail down exactly how many Americans in our nation of 330 million have been tested since we supposedly “ closed it down ” and “ stopped it.
” Through interviews with dozens of public-health officials and a survey of local data from across the country , The Atlantic could only verify that 1,895 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States , about 10 percent of whom have tested positive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the coronavirus has ramped up significantly over the past few days , local officials can still test only several thousand people a day , not the tens or hundreds of thousands indicated by the White House ’ s promises… The figures we gathered suggest that the American response to the coronavirus and the disease it causes , COVID-19 , has been shockingly sluggish , especially compared with that of other developed countries .
The CDC confirmed eight days ago that the virus was in community transmission in the United States—that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor were in contact with others who had .
In South Korea , more than 66,650 people were tested within a week of its first case of community transmission , and it quickly became able to test 10,000 people a day .
The United Kingdom , which has only 115 positive cases , has so far tested 18,083 people for the virus .
There ’ s no putting out the fire now .
Our best strategy at this point is just to keep as many people as we can as far away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing ” by avoiding unnecessary crowds .
A historian who studies pandemics revealed today that “ school closing turned out to be one of the most effective firewalls against the spread of the pandemic ” in the research he ’ s done , provided that the shutdowns occur “ before , not after , the outbreak becomes widespread here.
” Social distancing , in other words .
Here ’ s what it can do , in a graph : It won ’ t necessarily halt the disease ’ s spread but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that everyone who needs a hospital bed can have one .
The difference between the treatment you get in an ICU and in a high-school gym that ’ s been repurposed with cots because the hospital can ’ t house any more patients is apt to be significant , needless to say .
And yet Seattle public schools announced yesterday that they … won ’ t be shutting down at this time .
Even though the WHO has begun beating the drum that this is the moment to “ pull out all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spread .
To sum all of this up in easy to understand terms , the general vibe right now is that moment in “ Ghostbusters ” when the EPA shuts down the grid .
The people who know how this stuff works are side-eyeing each other and slowly backing away , aware of what ’ s coming even if the idiot from the federal government doesn ’ t .
Trump is at the CDC this afternoon for a goodwill visit , which must grate on him given the extent to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core duty of preventing epidemics .
( He temporarily canceled the visit this morning because of a scare there involving an employee whom they thought might have COVID-19 . )
He can ’ t fire them ; he ’ s stuck with the team he ’ s got , however ineffectual .
He could , though , at least cut the happy-talk crap and face reality squarely .
Apparently he said this during his visit : Yes , eventually that ’ ll be true .
But not now .
And not when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ containing the disease ’ s spread , thanks to his friends at the CDC .
He said this too , because not even an infectious outbreak that ’ s killed thousands already worldwide should be allowed to interrupt a grudge : Here he is last night trying to put a happy face on the fact that the U.S. economy is destined to have far fewer foreign visitors because of coronavirus than it normally does , which will doubtless brutalize industries that rely on tourism .
His theory is that Americans will fill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of traveling abroad .
In reality , airlines are already seeing sharp drop-offs in *domestic* travel for the obvious reason that people don ’ t want to visit airports at a moment when we ’ re supposed to be staying away from each other .
So , I don ’ t know .
Just back away from the grid and run .

The virus is “relatively contained” at this point in the same way that a fire in your home is “relatively contained” at a moment when only the living-room drapes are on fire.
Someday someone will explain to me why an economist is out in front of the cameras making happy talk about the outbreak of a virus no one’s ever seen before. If I were Trump, I’d fire Kudlow for this.
Kudlow: Buy on the dip, on COVID-19 "this is contained", "relatively contained." pic.twitter.com/iF4Nheem4i — Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 6, 2020
Trump’s not going to fire him because Kudlow’s conveying exactly the message he wants him to convey. Reassure investors. Save the Dow. Worry about hard truths involving the spread of disease later. But investors aren’t stupid. They have lots of information about the virus beyond White House spin. We had a Fed rate cut this week, a blockbuster jobs report, and the president’s top economic advisor on TV offering morale boosters and the Dow still gained less than 400 points since it opened Monday. If not for a rally in the final hour of trading today, it would have finished down over the past five days. The feds are throwing everything they can at it but it’s not working because people know this thing is out of control even if the White House won’t admit it. They can read.
Here’s Trump with his own contribution to the bogus “containment” narrative.
Trump on the virus: “We closed it down. We stopped it.” His lies and incompetence are going to get many killed.
https://t.co/IWTc3ZLsk2 — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) March 6, 2020
Time magazine has a worthy piece today about the administration’s coronavirus strategy. They’re a one-trick pony, and their one trick worked — for awhile. They stopped travel to China after the initial outbreak in Wuhan. That’s what Trump means here when he says “We stopped it.” They did at the very least slow down the virus’s entry into the United States; combined with China’s massive lockdown to contain the disease inside its borders, that bought the U.S. crucial time to prepare mass testing for the absolutely inevitable arrival of the disease here. Trump may have convinced himself that strong border enforcement, his pet issue, might prevent COVID-19 from ever crossing the Pacific. It was never going to prevent it but it did delay it.
And that should have been greatly useful to the CDC. To borrow the analogy from up top, you’re obviously far better prepared to put out a fire in your home if you’re standing right there with an extinguisher once it breaks out. But there was a problem: The CDC’s fire extinguisher didn’t work. They botched the test kits, for complicated scientific reasons. The cinders have now ignited the drapes. And the fire extinguisher, once it’s finally working, just isn’t big enough to stifle a fire that size.
We’re facing a catastrophe.
But the United States has lagged far behind the rest of the world in testing for the new coronavirus. As a result, outbreaks here are likely to be more numerous and more difficult to control than they would have been otherwise. I research infectious disease and how to fight it, so I know how important it is to detect outbreaks early. The covid-19 outbreak is the largest acute infectious-disease emergency most of us have experienced. And we may have let it go undetected here for too long… Estimates suggest that about 1 in 50 people known to be infected die, so multiply the number of deaths by 50 to estimate the total cases. But that is not enough. It takes people quite a few weeks to die of covid-19, so when there’s a death, we have to go back to when that person was infected and ask how the outbreak grew since then. Current estimates are that it takes about a week for the number of cases to double, though there’s considerable uncertainty around the exact number. But if for each death, there were 49 other infections in the community when the patient who died became infected, then one week later, those cases would have grown to 98; after two weeks, to 196. If the patient dies three weeks after contracting covid-19, by that time, we would expect about 392 cases. That means for each dead body, a community already has hundreds of other cases, infected and infectious.
Two weeks ago, Italy was reporting 17 cases of COVID-19. Today they’re reporting 4,636.
The author quoted above went on to say, “I know of people right now, some of them front-line health-care workers (a group at particular risk for covid-19), who are sick and struggling to get tested.” A nurse in California put out a statement yesterday claiming that she’s sick, in quarantine, and still can’t get CDC approval to be tested because she was wearing protective gear while treating a coronavirus patient and therefore “shouldn’t” have the disease. Why would the CDC deny a test under those circumstances? Obviously it’s because testing capacity is still so low that they need to ration tests for the most questionable cases until production increases. Something similar allegedly happened to a Seattle resident, in the heart of the hot zone, who had coronavirus symptoms but couldn’t get tested because his lung X-rays looked normal. There aren’t enough tests to go around to waste one on someone like that. Hopefully widespread testing will begin within the next few weeks, he was told.
Two writers at the Atlantic called around to see if they could nail down exactly how many Americans in our nation of 330 million have been tested since we supposedly “closed it down” and “stopped it.”
Through interviews with dozens of public-health officials and a survey of local data from across the country, The Atlantic could only verify that 1,895 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States, about 10 percent of whom have tested positive. And while the American capacity to test for the coronavirus has ramped up significantly over the past few days, local officials can still test only several thousand people a day, not the tens or hundreds of thousands indicated by the White House’s promises… The figures we gathered suggest that the American response to the coronavirus and the disease it causes, COVID-19, has been shockingly sluggish, especially compared with that of other developed countries. The CDC confirmed eight days ago that the virus was in community transmission in the United States—that it was infecting Americans who had neither traveled abroad nor were in contact with others who had. In South Korea, more than 66,650 people were tested within a week of its first case of community transmission, and it quickly became able to test 10,000 people a day. The United Kingdom, which has only 115 positive cases, has so far tested 18,083 people for the virus.
There’s no putting out the fire now. Our best strategy at this point is just to keep as many people as we can as far away from it as possible, i.e. “social distancing” by avoiding unnecessary crowds. A historian who studies pandemics revealed today that “school closing turned out to be one of the most effective firewalls against the spread of the pandemic” in the research he’s done, provided that the shutdowns occur “before, not after, the outbreak becomes widespread here.” Social distancing, in other words. Here’s what it can do, in a graph:
1. A very short thread on the power of data graphics and scientific communication. Roughly a week ago, some very smart person* sat down, drew this graph, and saved lives. (*It's 2 AM. Without an economist subscription, I can't quickly discover whom. Maybe someone can help.) pic.twitter.com/eU71Eu60eS — Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) March 6, 2020
It won’t necessarily halt the disease’s spread but it’ll slow it down enough potentially so that everyone who needs a hospital bed can have one. The difference between the treatment you get in an ICU and in a high-school gym that’s been repurposed with cots because the hospital can’t house any more patients is apt to be significant, needless to say. And yet Seattle public schools announced yesterday that they … won’t be shutting down at this time. Even though the WHO has begun beating the drum that this is the moment to “pull out all the stops” to arrest the disease’s spread.
To sum all of this up in easy to understand terms, the general vibe right now is that moment in “Ghostbusters” when the EPA shuts down the grid. The people who know how this stuff works are side-eyeing each other and slowly backing away, aware of what’s coming even if the idiot from the federal government doesn’t.
Trump is at the CDC this afternoon for a goodwill visit, which must grate on him given the extent to which they’ve grossly failed at their core duty of preventing epidemics. (He temporarily canceled the visit this morning because of a scare there involving an employee whom they thought might have COVID-19.) He can’t fire them; he’s stuck with the team he’s got, however ineffectual. He could, though, at least cut the happy-talk crap and face reality squarely. Apparently he said this during his visit:
Trump on coronavirus testing: "Anybody who wants a test, gets a test. And they're beautiful." — David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) March 6, 2020
Yes, eventually that’ll be true. But not now. And not when it could have made a major difference to containing the disease’s spread, thanks to his friends at the CDC. He said this too, because not even an infectious outbreak that’s killed thousands already worldwide should be allowed to interrupt a grudge:
Trump on Inslee: "I told Mike not to be complimentary of that Gov because that Gov is a snake…Let me just tell you we have a lot of problems with the Gov and the Gov of WA, that's where you have many of your problems, OK? So Mike may be happy with him but I'm not OK?" — Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) March 6, 2020
Here he is last night trying to put a happy face on the fact that the U.S. economy is destined to have far fewer foreign visitors because of coronavirus than it normally does, which will doubtless brutalize industries that rely on tourism. His theory is that Americans will fill that gap by touring the U.S. themselves instead of traveling abroad. In reality, airlines are already seeing sharp drop-offs in *domestic* travel for the obvious reason that people don’t want to visit airports at a moment when we’re supposed to be staying away from each other. So, I don’t know. Just back away from the grid and run.


hotair--2020-03-06--Endgame: Biden 54, Sanders 38 in new national poll

Take it from a guy who , like , six days ago thought there was near-zero chance of Biden winning the nomination : There ’ s near-zero chance of Biden losing the nomination .
In fact , I think the odds at this point are greater that Bernie is out of the race on the evening of March 17th than that Bernie ends up as nominee .
Not much greater , maybe , but it ’ s more likely that he quits than that he mounts a sustained months-long resurgence .
And if that happens , it would mean Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American political history .
Looking back at the polling in South Carolina , not until February 25 — four days before the big vote — did he get an encouraging poll , when PPP suddenly found him ahead by 15 .
Before then his lead had dipped to low single digits .
I thought , and many others thought , that Berniementum was about to lift Sanders to a shocking upset there and end Biden ’ s political career .
But then the next round of polling showed Biden ahead consistently by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crushing expectations on Election Day with a nearly 30-point victory .
The final polling average had him winning by 15.4 .
Think about that .
From his first encouraging poll in ages , on February 25 , to his national wipeout of Sanders on Super Tuesday was one week .
One hundred and sixty-eight hours or so .
If he wallops Bernie again over the next two weeks and builds an insurmountable delegate lead , he ’ ll have gone from embarrassing failure to runaway presumptive nominee in 21 days .
Today Morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a two-way national poll , comfortably in majority territory with a 54/38 lead .
So much for Warren voters coming to Bernie ’ s rescue .
It ’ s not the topline number that ’ s the real killer , though , it ’ s this one : That ’ s Joementum in a single graph .
You can ’ t be “ the electable candidate ” while you ’ re losing election after election .
The faith of Democrats was shaken .
South Carolina restored it in one fell swoop .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested to see if there ’ s a Joementum effect the next time Gallup conducts this particular poll too : Note the results in 2012 .
The fact that one party is more enthusiastic about the current election over previous elections than the other party doesn ’ t guarantee victory .
Still , Republican enthusiasm has never been higher at this stage of the race than it is right now .
After looking closely at the dates there and remembering that South Carolina didn ’ t vote until February 29 , my question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the growing probability of nominating Bernie at the time and will now shoot up after Biden ’ s taken control of the race or if it won ’ t budge regardless of who ’ s leading .
I ’ d expect a Biden effect , if not necessarily one large enough to erase the GOP ’ s lead .
Either way , it ’ s interesting that Democratic enthusiasm is now a shade lower than it was at this stage in 2004 , when opposition to Bush and the Iraq war had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want to beat Trump — but their fervor isn ’ t at some historic level .
I ’ m also curious to see if there ’ s a Biden effect downballot .
This new PPP poll isn ’ t encouraging for the GOP : New PPP polls find Sara Gideon leading Susan Collins 47-43 in the Maine Senate race and Mark Kelly leading Martha McSally 47-42 in the Arizona Senate race .
Additionally a PPP poll for a private client last week found Cal Cunningham leading Thom Tillis 46-41 in the North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last polled the Colorado Senate race John Hickenlooper led Cory Gardner 51-38 .
This makes four Republican held US Senate seats where PPP has found Democratic challengers with at least a 4 point lead .
The Maine result is most interesting .
When PPP first polled the Gideon-Collins match up for a private client last spring , Collins led by 18 points at 51-33 .
The reason for the 22 point shift since then is that in the wake of opposing impeachment , Collins has lost most of the crossover Democratic support she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the years .
Last April Collins had a 32 % approval rating with Hillary Clinton voters , and trailed Gideon only 59-28 with them head to head .
Now she has just a 9 % approval rating with Clinton voters , and trails Gideon 81-10 with them head to head .
Democrats will need to flip five seats to gain a majority in the Senate this fall .
They ’ ve got a solid shot at four , per this data , and they just added a top-flight challenger in Steve Bullock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s surge will encourage some swing voters to tilt Democratic in the belief that Dems suddenly stand a much better chance of reclaiming total control of government than they did a few weeks ago .
As for Bernie , it would be very , very hard for him to quit the race early when he was so close to achieving escape velocity after the first few primaries .
He didn ’ t quit in 2016 once Hillary had become uncatchable ; his fans will want him to press on with his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Biden coronation , and because this is also surely Sanders ’ s last run for president .
But there are differences between this year and 2016 .
Democrats aren ’ t favored in this election , as they were then .
They ’ re facing an incumbent who ’ ll be tough to beat , especially if the economy recovers from a coronavirus slowdown before November .
They also view Trump as a special threat to basic principles of American government , not just some Republican who needs to be defeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure on them to unite quickly will be tremendous .
Bernie has also spoken kindly of Biden recently , describing him as a decent guy .
And , importantly , there were no major establishment thumbs on the scale on Tuesday night to help explain Biden ’ s explosive surge .
He hasn ’ t outraised Bernie ; he didn ’ t benefit from any Bloomberg attack-ad campaign against Sanders ; Obama hasn ’ t endorsed anyone ; there are no superdelegate shenanigans complicating the equation right now .
Black voters launched Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to an embittering “ they stole the election !
” narrative for progressives was Buttigieg and Klobuchar swinging behind Biden at the last moment , but strategic endorsements by failed candidate are par for the course in primaries .
There is , in other words , no obvious reason for lefties to resent the Biden comeback as some sort of dirty trick .
They resent Biden himself , of course , for his record and for being an old-guard establishmentarian but nothing ’ s happened lately to feed the sense that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and his fans to resist bowing to political reality .
That ’ s why I think another week or two of dominating Biden victories might convince Bernie to either suspend his campaign or to quasi-suspend by announcing that he won ’ t “ actively contest ” the nomination anymore or whatever beyond March 17 .

Take it from a guy who, like, six days ago thought there was near-zero chance of Biden winning the nomination: There’s near-zero chance of Biden losing the nomination.
In fact, I think the odds at this point are greater that Bernie is out of the race on the evening of March 17th than that Bernie ends up as nominee. Not much greater, maybe, but it’s more likely that he quits than that he mounts a sustained months-long resurgence. And if that happens, it would mean Biden had pulled off arguably the greatest turnaround in American political history. Looking back at the polling in South Carolina, not until February 25 — four days before the big vote — did he get an encouraging poll, when PPP suddenly found him ahead by 15. Before then his lead had dipped to low single digits. I thought, and many others thought, that Berniementum was about to lift Sanders to a shocking upset there and end Biden’s political career. But then the next round of polling showed Biden ahead consistently by double digits, and he ended up crushing expectations on Election Day with a nearly 30-point victory. The final polling average had him winning by 15.4.
Think about that. From his first encouraging poll in ages, on February 25, to his national wipeout of Sanders on Super Tuesday was one week. One hundred and sixty-eight hours or so. If he wallops Bernie again over the next two weeks and builds an insurmountable delegate lead, he’ll have gone from embarrassing failure to runaway presumptive nominee in 21 days.
Today Morning Consult finds him 16 points ahead in a two-way national poll, comfortably in majority territory with a 54/38 lead. So much for Warren voters coming to Bernie’s rescue. It’s not the topline number that’s the real killer, though, it’s this one:
That’s Joementum in a single graph. You can’t be “the electable candidate” while you’re losing election after election. The faith of Democrats was shaken. South Carolina restored it in one fell swoop. He never looked back.
I’m interested to see if there’s a Joementum effect the next time Gallup conducts this particular poll too:
Note the results in 2012. The fact that one party is more enthusiastic about the current election over previous elections than the other party doesn’t guarantee victory. Still, Republican enthusiasm has never been higher at this stage of the race than it is right now. After looking closely at the dates there and remembering that South Carolina didn’t vote until February 29, my question is whether Democratic enthusiasm was being suppressed by the growing probability of nominating Bernie at the time and will now shoot up after Biden’s taken control of the race or if it won’t budge regardless of who’s leading. I’d expect a Biden effect, if not necessarily one large enough to erase the GOP’s lead. Either way, it’s interesting that Democratic enthusiasm is now a shade lower than it was at this stage in 2004, when opposition to Bush and the Iraq war had galvanized the left. Clearly, they really want to beat Trump — but their fervor isn’t at some historic level.
I’m also curious to see if there’s a Biden effect downballot. This new PPP poll isn’t encouraging for the GOP:
New PPP polls find Sara Gideon leading Susan Collins 47-43 in the Maine Senate race and Mark Kelly leading Martha McSally 47-42 in the Arizona Senate race. Additionally a PPP poll for a private client last week found Cal Cunningham leading Thom Tillis 46-41 in the North Carolina Senate race, and when PPP last polled the Colorado Senate race John Hickenlooper led Cory Gardner 51-38. This makes four Republican held US Senate seats where PPP has found Democratic challengers with at least a 4 point lead. The Maine result is most interesting. When PPP first polled the Gideon-Collins match up for a private client last spring, Collins led by 18 points at 51-33. The reason for the 22 point shift since then is that in the wake of opposing impeachment, Collins has lost most of the crossover Democratic support she’s relied on for her success over the years. Last April Collins had a 32% approval rating with Hillary Clinton voters, and trailed Gideon only 59-28 with them head to head. Now she has just a 9% approval rating with Clinton voters, and trails Gideon 81-10 with them head to head.
Democrats will need to flip five seats to gain a majority in the Senate this fall. They’ve got a solid shot at four, per this data, and they just added a top-flight challenger in Steve Bullock in Montana. I wonder if Biden’s surge will encourage some swing voters to tilt Democratic in the belief that Dems suddenly stand a much better chance of reclaiming total control of government than they did a few weeks ago.
As for Bernie, it would be very, very hard for him to quit the race early when he was so close to achieving escape velocity after the first few primaries. He didn’t quit in 2016 once Hillary had become uncatchable; his fans will want him to press on with his “revolution” in defiance of the establishment’s Biden coronation, and because this is also surely Sanders’s last run for president. But there are differences between this year and 2016. Democrats aren’t favored in this election, as they were then. They’re facing an incumbent who’ll be tough to beat, especially if the economy recovers from a coronavirus slowdown before November. They also view Trump as a special threat to basic principles of American government, not just some Republican who needs to be defeated in order to protect Medicare. The pressure on them to unite quickly will be tremendous. Bernie has also spoken kindly of Biden recently, describing him as a decent guy. And, importantly, there were no major establishment thumbs on the scale on Tuesday night to help explain Biden’s explosive surge. He hasn’t outraised Bernie; he didn’t benefit from any Bloomberg attack-ad campaign against Sanders; Obama hasn’t endorsed anyone; there are no superdelegate shenanigans complicating the equation right now. Black voters launched Joe, not the superdelegates. The closest thing to an embittering “they stole the election!” narrative for progressives was Buttigieg and Klobuchar swinging behind Biden at the last moment, but strategic endorsements by failed candidate are par for the course in primaries.
There is, in other words, no obvious reason for lefties to resent the Biden comeback as some sort of dirty trick. They resent Biden himself, of course, for his record and for being an old-guard establishmentarian but nothing’s happened lately to feed the sense that Sanders has been cheated somehow that might impel him and his fans to resist bowing to political reality. That’s why I think another week or two of dominating Biden victories might convince Bernie to either suspend his campaign or to quasi-suspend by announcing that he won’t “actively contest” the nomination anymore or whatever beyond March 17.


hotair--2020-03-06--In the midst of the American Dirt backlash, Oprah ditches her next book selection

As you may recall , there was a huge backlash to Oprah selection of the novel American Dirt for her book club .
The situation became so intense that the publisher canceled the author ’ s book tour citing safety concerns .
For her part , Oprah didn ’ t do what the critics wanted her to do , which was pull the book as a selection for her book club .
Instead , she held a two hour long , televised discussion featuring some of the book ’ s critics .
The Associated Press said the critics put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose the novel “ American Dirt ” for her book club , she imagined engaging in an impassioned television dialog about the narrative , which follows a Mexican mother and her son fleeing to the United States .
Instead , Winfrey ended up organizing a show that put the book , author Jeanine Cummins and Winfrey herself on trial .
After critics complained about the novel ’ s portrayal of Latinos , she turned the forum into a debate about the marginalization of Latino voices , the lack of diversity in publishing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell a given story… After introducing Cummins , Winfrey was openly sympathetic but directly raised the many issues of recent months .
The author was visibly tense — her expression grim and unchanging , her hands and fingers entwined — as Winfrey read from social media postings that called Cummins “ clueless ” and her novel a “ whitewash ” of a human rights crisis .
It sounds less like a trial and more like a struggle session .
Oprah acknowledged that in the past she hasn ’ t really thought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , only about whether she liked it .
But she admitted that , going forward , she would avoid wading into similar controversy which takes up a tremendous amount of energy : It has not been a concern of mine , or of interest to me , who is publishing the book .
… .
“ Oh , I chose three Random House books in a row , ” or “ I chose the Harper ’ s ( HarperCollins ) book and then I chose another Harper ’ s book.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I just really go on “ Do I like the book ?
” and “ What is the book ?
” And , now , I will pay more attention to that .
I will also pay more attention to who is writing it .
This has actually caused me to pause about who ’ s writing it : Am I going to have to spend the next two months defending the writer , defending the writer ’ s right to write the book , or can we actually talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play it safer , but I ’ m not going to wade into water if I don ’ t have to .
I don ’ t have to wade into water and drown if I don ’ t have to , because , you know , this has taken up a lot of my energy , a lot of her ( Cummins ’ ) energy , and it ’ s taken the attention away from the real reason I want people to read books .
Who wants to spend time defending themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid irritating them in the first place .
And it seems Oprah is taking her own advice to heart because yesterday the next selection for the book club was canceled after some similar criticism : Winfrey had originally chosen “ My Dark Vanessa ” by Kate Elizabeth Russell as the March selection for “ Oprah ’ s Book Club , ” but the decision has been taken to ditch the forthcoming novel , Variety has confirmed .
“ Ultimately we did not end up moving forward with it as a book club selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ Oprah ’ s Book Club ” spokesperson .
“ My Dark Vanessa ” centers around a fifteen-year-old girl who becomes entangled in an affair with Jacob Strane , her magnetic and guileful forty-two-year-old English teacher .
The novel has been subject to criticism online , notably from author Wendy Ortiz , whose 2014 memoir “ Excavation ” had a similar plot to Russell ’ s novel , only with a Latinx character at the heart of it .
“ can ’ t wait until February when a white woman ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like ‘ Excavation ’ is lauded , ” Ortiz tweeted earlier this year .
Both books have since been reviewed , and no plagiarism found , while Russell has also admitted that “ My Dark Vanessa ” is based partly on her own experiences .
So there wasn ’ t any plagiarism but Oprah ditched the book anyway .
I don ’ t think it ’ s much of a stretch to say she is hoping to avoid a fight with someone named “ Ortiz ” that could lead to her spending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Latino author ’ s fury .
The accusations don ’ t have to be true at this point they just have to be potentially exhausting to deal with .
Why drown yourself in controversy when it ’ s so much easier to placate the critics ?
As for Cummins , the author of American Dirt , she has also changed her future plans : In a pre-publication interview with the AP , Cummins had said she was working on a novel set , at least in part , in Puerto Rico .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m not a glutton for punishment , ” she said , explaining that her greatest concern is in keeping her literary “ voice ” and “ making sure that the experience of this moment doesn ’ t make me second-guess or subvert the stories that move my heart.
” All of which sounds like a win for identity politics and a loss for the idea that authors and artists can tell any story and reach any audience .

As you may recall, there was a huge backlash to Oprah selection of the novel American Dirt for her book club. The situation became so intense that the publisher canceled the author’s book tour citing safety concerns. For her part, Oprah didn’t do what the critics wanted her to do, which was pull the book as a selection for her book club. Instead, she held a two hour long, televised discussion featuring some of the book’s critics. The Associated Press said the critics put the novel on trial:
When Oprah Winfrey chose the novel “American Dirt” for her book club, she imagined engaging in an impassioned television dialog about the narrative, which follows a Mexican mother and her son fleeing to the United States. Instead, Winfrey ended up organizing a show that put the book, author Jeanine Cummins and Winfrey herself on trial. After critics complained about the novel’s portrayal of Latinos, she turned the forum into a debate about the marginalization of Latino voices, the lack of diversity in publishing and the question of who is best suited to tell a given story… After introducing Cummins, Winfrey was openly sympathetic but directly raised the many issues of recent months. The author was visibly tense — her expression grim and unchanging, her hands and fingers entwined — as Winfrey read from social media postings that called Cummins “clueless” and her novel a “whitewash” of a human rights crisis.
It sounds less like a trial and more like a struggle session. Oprah acknowledged that in the past she hasn’t really thought about who published the book or who wrote it, only about whether she liked it. But she admitted that, going forward, she would avoid wading into similar controversy which takes up a tremendous amount of energy:
It has not been a concern of mine, or of interest to me, who is publishing the book. …. “Oh, I chose three Random House books in a row,” or “I chose the Harper’s (HarperCollins) book and then I chose another Harper’s book.” That has never been the (focus). I just really go on “Do I like the book?” and “What is the book?” And, now, I will pay more attention to that. I will also pay more attention to who is writing it. This has actually caused me to pause about who’s writing it: Am I going to have to spend the next two months defending the writer, defending the writer’s right to write the book, or can we actually talk about the story? I’m not going to play it safer, but I’m not going to wade into water if I don’t have to. I don’t have to wade into water and drown if I don’t have to, because, you know, this has taken up a lot of my energy, a lot of her (Cummins’) energy, and it’s taken the attention away from the real reason I want people to read books.
Who wants to spend time defending themselves against SJW critics? Better to simply avoid irritating them in the first place. And it seems Oprah is taking her own advice to heart because yesterday the next selection for the book club was canceled after some similar criticism:
Winfrey had originally chosen “My Dark Vanessa” by Kate Elizabeth Russell as the March selection for “Oprah’s Book Club,” but the decision has been taken to ditch the forthcoming novel, Variety has confirmed. “Ultimately we did not end up moving forward with it as a book club selection,” read a brief statement from an “Oprah’s Book Club” spokesperson. “My Dark Vanessa” centers around a fifteen-year-old girl who becomes entangled in an affair with Jacob Strane, her magnetic and guileful forty-two-year-old English teacher. The novel has been subject to criticism online, notably from author Wendy Ortiz, whose 2014 memoir “Excavation” had a similar plot to Russell’s novel, only with a Latinx character at the heart of it. “can’t wait until February when a white woman’s book of fiction that sounds very much like ‘Excavation’ is lauded,” Ortiz tweeted earlier this year. Both books have since been reviewed, and no plagiarism found, while Russell has also admitted that “My Dark Vanessa” is based partly on her own experiences.
So there wasn’t any plagiarism but Oprah ditched the book anyway. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say she is hoping to avoid a fight with someone named “Ortiz” that could lead to her spending the next month defending another white author from a Latino author’s fury. The accusations don’t have to be true at this point they just have to be potentially exhausting to deal with. Why drown yourself in controversy when it’s so much easier to placate the critics?
As for Cummins, the author of American Dirt, she has also changed her future plans:
In a pre-publication interview with the AP, Cummins had said she was working on a novel set, at least in part, in Puerto Rico. She now expresses doubt about that book. “I’m not a glutton for punishment,” she said, explaining that her greatest concern is in keeping her literary “voice” and “making sure that the experience of this moment doesn’t make me second-guess or subvert the stories that move my heart.”
All of which sounds like a win for identity politics and a loss for the idea that authors and artists can tell any story and reach any audience.


hotair--2020-03-06--Trump: "There's something going on" with Biden, right?

Get ready for lots of hand-wringing over the suggestion that a leading American political figure is impaired , along with lots of sudden-onset amnesia about how much of it we ’ ve heard over the past four years or so already .
In this case , though , Donald Trump used it as a comic jab more than an argument against Joe Biden .
Trump described for last night ’ s Fox News ’ town hall his surprise at Biden ’ s remarkable comeback against Bernie Sanders , whom Trump had assumed would be his opponent in November .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m all set for Bernie .
Communist — I had everything down .
He ’ s a communist .
I was all set .
Then we have this crazy thing that happened , right , on Tuesday , which he thought was Thursday.
” “ But he also said 150 million people were killed with guns and he was running for the United States Senate … There ’ s something going on there , ” Trump warned .
The crowd laughed as Trump recalled some of Biden ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more the president could have mentioned .
Trump said , “ in a certain way Bernie would be tougher because he ’ s got a base.
” But , after Super Tuesday , the president concluded , “ I think it ’ s going to be very hard for him to come back.
” That ’ s pretty mild , especially for Trump , who routinely goes after Biden ’ s gaffes on the campaign trail and refers to him as “ Sleepy Joe ” at other times .
( Trump also calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter . )
Bear in mind , however , that the media has endlessly speculated on Trump ’ s mental and psychiatric condition , right up to an embarrassing amount of time and effort reporting in 2017 on supposed efforts from within the government to get Mike Pence behind a 25th Amendment removal effort .
Although he was talking about this in another context , Trump explained that he has no intention of taking those kinds of attacks without returning them in kind .
“ I wouldn ’ t be sitting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump observed : Whether one likes that argument or not , and whether one likes Trump or not , it ’ s almost impossible to deny that he ’ s correct .
Voters are not interested in cooperation and gentility ; voters want a “ he/she fights !
” hero on their behalf .
How we got here might be a worthy ( and lengthy ) discussion , but here we most certainly are , which is why Amy Klobuchar is barely getting mentioned in the Politics Are Misogynist hyperbole but Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this case , the jab at Biden ’ s faculties is just a joke .
It probably won ’ t be for long , because Biden keeps providing examples of not being quite as sharp in mind that will escalate interest into his capabilities .
Expect to see more of the same 2017 nonsense from partisan shrinks conducting long-distance diagnoses of Trump to counterbalance it — nonsense like this from Yahoo News , for instance .

Get ready for lots of hand-wringing over the suggestion that a leading American political figure is impaired, along with lots of sudden-onset amnesia about how much of it we’ve heard over the past four years or so already. In this case, though, Donald Trump used it as a comic jab more than an argument against Joe Biden. Trump described for last night’s Fox News’ town hall his surprise at Biden’s remarkable comeback against Bernie Sanders, whom Trump had assumed would be his opponent in November.
“So mentally,” Trump explained, “I’m all set for Bernie. Communist — I had everything down. He’s a communist. I was all set. Then we have this crazy thing that happened, right, on Tuesday, which he thought was Thursday.”
“But he also said 150 million people were killed with guns and he was running for the United States Senate … There’s something going on there,” Trump warned. The crowd laughed as Trump recalled some of Biden’s most recent gaffes, but there were several more the president could have mentioned. Trump said, “in a certain way Bernie would be tougher because he’s got a base.” But, after Super Tuesday, the president concluded, “I think it’s going to be very hard for him to come back.”
That’s pretty mild, especially for Trump, who routinely goes after Biden’s gaffes on the campaign trail and refers to him as “Sleepy Joe” at other times. (Trump also calls Sanders “Crazy Bernie,” for that matter.) Bear in mind, however, that the media has endlessly speculated on Trump’s mental and psychiatric condition, right up to an embarrassing amount of time and effort reporting in 2017 on supposed efforts from within the government to get Mike Pence behind a 25th Amendment removal effort.
Although he was talking about this in another context, Trump explained that he has no intention of taking those kinds of attacks without returning them in kind. “I wouldn’t be sitting up here if I turned my cheek,” Trump observed:
Americans want their president to fight for them.@realDonaldTrump is that fighter. Great Town Hall event tonight. pic.twitter.com/jZjQFkaxuL — Brad Parscale (@parscale) March 6, 2020
Whether one likes that argument or not, and whether one likes Trump or not, it’s almost impossible to deny that he’s correct. Voters are not interested in cooperation and gentility; voters want a “he/she fights!” hero on their behalf. How we got here might be a worthy (and lengthy) discussion, but here we most certainly are, which is why Amy Klobuchar is barely getting mentioned in the Politics Are Misogynist hyperbole but Elizabeth Warren has become its poster child.
In this case, the jab at Biden’s faculties is just a joke. It probably won’t be for long, because Biden keeps providing examples of not being quite as sharp in mind that will escalate interest into his capabilities. Expect to see more of the same 2017 nonsense from partisan shrinks conducting long-distance diagnoses of Trump to counterbalance it — nonsense like this from Yahoo News, for instance.


hotair--2020-03-06--Trump campaign sues CNN for libel over opinion piece alleging Russian help is 'on the table' in 2020

Trump campaign sues CNN for libel over opinion piece alleging Russian help is 'on the table' in 2020 (Update)

Fox News is reporting the Trump re-election campaign has sued CNN for libel over an opinion piece which claimed the campaign decided to leave the option of seeking Russian ’ s help “ on the table ” in the 2020 election : “ The complaint alleges CNN was aware of the falsity at the time it published them but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign while misleading its own readers in the process… the campaign filed this lawsuit against CNN and the preceding suits against The New York Times and The Washington Post to hold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also to establish the truth , ” Senior Legal Adviser to Donald J. Trump for President , Inc. Jenna Ellis told Fox News… The complaint said that Trump ’ s legal team sent CNN a request to retract and apologize last month but CNN executives refused .
The Trump campaign now seeks “ millions of dollars ” through litigation… Larry Noble ’ s CNN story , headlined “ Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime .
Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featured a disclaimer that Noble is a CNN contributor but the commentary is solely his own view .
However , the piece states that Trump ’ s campaign “ assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia ’ s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table ” as a fact and was still on CNN ’ s website as of Friday afternoon .
The lawsuit specifically cites this line which is the penultimate graph of the article : “ The Trump campaign assessed the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.
” The lawsuit states , “ The Defamatory Article does not cite to any facts or reasoning in support of this claim .
The Defamatory Article is false.
” The lawsuit also argues that the author should have known this claim was false because the campaign had “ repeatedly and openly disclaimed any intention to seek Russian involvement in the 2020 election.
” This is the third lawsuit the campaign has filed against a major media company .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar lawsuit against the Washington Post : The lawsuit , filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington , centers on two opinion articles from a Post blog called The Plum Line that accused the 2016 Trump election campaign of inviting help from foreign governments .
The Post ’ s opinion section operates separately from its newsroom .
In one post , published on June 13 , Greg Sargent wrote that Robert S. Mueller III , the special counsel , had “ concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged , tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Russia ’ s efforts .
In a post on June 20 , Paul Waldman wrote : “ Who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign , now that he has invited them to offer their assistance ?
” The word “ invited ” in the article was hyperlinked to a transcript of an ABC News interview with Mr. Trump , in which he said he would consider accepting information from a foreign government about a political opponent .
And last month the campaign also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opinion article published in 2019 : The lawsuit concerns an essay published by the Opinion section of The Times in March 2019 .
The article , headlined “ The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo , ” was written by Max Frankel , who served as executive editor of The Times from 1986 to 1994… In the essay , Mr. Frankel wrote about communications between Mr. Trump ’ s inner circle and Russian emissaries in the lead-up to the 2016 election .
He concluded that , rather than any “ detailed electoral collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials “ had an overarching deal ” : “ the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.
” The Trump lawsuit argues that this conclusion “ is false ” and that The Times published the essay “ knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers.
” The suit also accuses The Times , without evidence , of harboring “ extreme bias against and animosity toward ” Mr. Trump ’ s re-election campaign .
I ’ m not an attorney so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has a case here .
I do think the evidence of collusion in 2016 is basically all coming from the discredited Steele dossier .
And the claim that Trump is leaving collusion on the table in 2020 is a big allegation that really ought to be backed up by something .
It will be interesting to see what happens with all of these lawsuits .
Update : No response from CNN but here ’ s the reaction from Brian Stelter .

Fox News is reporting the Trump re-election campaign has sued CNN for libel over an opinion piece which claimed the campaign decided to leave the option of seeking Russian’s help “on the table” in the 2020 election:
“The complaint alleges CNN was aware of the falsity at the time it published them but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign while misleading its own readers in the process… the campaign filed this lawsuit against CNN and the preceding suits against The New York Times and The Washington Post to hold the publishers accountable for their reckless false reporting and also to establish the truth,” Senior Legal Adviser to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Jenna Ellis told Fox News… The complaint said that Trump’s legal team sent CNN a request to retract and apologize last month but CNN executives refused. The Trump campaign now seeks “millions of dollars” through litigation… Larry Noble’s CNN story, headlined “Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it,” was labeled as an opinion piece and featured a disclaimer that Noble is a CNN contributor but the commentary is solely his own view. However, the piece states that Trump’s campaign “assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table” as a fact and was still on CNN’s website as of Friday afternoon.
The lawsuit specifically cites this line which is the penultimate graph of the article: “The Trump campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.” The lawsuit states, “The Defamatory Article does not cite to any facts or reasoning in support of this claim. The Defamatory Article is false.” The lawsuit also argues that the author should have known this claim was false because the campaign had “repeatedly and openly disclaimed any intention to seek Russian involvement in the 2020 election.”
This is the third lawsuit the campaign has filed against a major media company. Earlier this week the campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the Washington Post:
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, centers on two opinion articles from a Post blog called The Plum Line that accused the 2016 Trump election campaign of inviting help from foreign governments. The Post’s opinion section operates separately from its newsroom. In one post, published on June 13, Greg Sargent wrote that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had “concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged, tried to conspire with, and happily profited off” Russia’s efforts. In a post on June 20, Paul Waldman wrote: “Who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?” The word “invited” in the article was hyperlinked to a transcript of an ABC News interview with Mr. Trump, in which he said he would consider accepting information from a foreign government about a political opponent.
And last month the campaign also sued the NY Times for libel over an opinion article published in 2019:
The lawsuit concerns an essay published by the Opinion section of The Times in March 2019. The article, headlined “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo,” was written by Max Frankel, who served as executive editor of The Times from 1986 to 1994… In the essay, Mr. Frankel wrote about communications between Mr. Trump’s inner circle and Russian emissaries in the lead-up to the 2016 election. He concluded that, rather than any “detailed electoral collusion,” the Trump campaign and Russian officials “had an overarching deal”: “the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.” The Trump lawsuit argues that this conclusion “is false” and that The Times published the essay “knowing it would misinform and mislead its own readers.” The suit also accuses The Times, without evidence, of harboring “extreme bias against and animosity toward” Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.
I’m not an attorney so I won’t pretend to know if Trump has a case here. I do think the evidence of collusion in 2016 is basically all coming from the discredited Steele dossier. And the claim that Trump is leaving collusion on the table in 2020 is a big allegation that really ought to be backed up by something. It will be interesting to see what happens with all of these lawsuits.
Update: No response from CNN but here’s the reaction from Brian Stelter.


hotair--2020-03-06--Inside a small-town polling place for an entire Super Tuesday

It ’ s one of those scenes most everyone takes for granted but shouldn ’ t — a makeshift polling station set up for the day inside a school gym , a neighbor ’ s garage , fire station , veteran ’ s club or , in this case , a church activity center .
You walk in , wait briefly , sign the book , take a ballot to a fold-up cardboard voting booth , slip it in the box and be gone , duty done .
And sacred privilege exercised .
No voter intimidation .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1964 , when the awe of that first moment prompted private tears in the booth .
And I ’ ve spent more than my share of hours standing 100 feet away accosting voters for quotes on their choices .
But I was curious about the inner workings , as a reporter who ’ s covered politics one way or another since working the riotous 1968 Democratic National Convention across the street from the natural perfume of the Chicago stockyards in August .
So , this Super Tuesday I volunteered to actually work inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity center of a Southern California mountain community with around 720 registered voters .
It was a fun day , actually .
Inspiring at times .
And a very long one , 6 a.m. until 9 p.m. , including set-up and take-down .
There were five of us , three women , two men , all qualified for Senior discounts .
By day ’ s end , we were pretty good friends and cracking jokes from the morning .
The first voter arrived early because she had a 60-mile commute to a hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all of us were asked to witness that the ballot box was empty before it was locked for the day .
During the day we had four dogs , three wheelchairs and not one user of the expensive handicapped voting machine .
My job was not exactly strenuous — point voters to an open booth , remind them to fill in the circle completely , reclaim their pens , steer their ballots into the slot without touching the paper , thank them and hand out “ I Voted ” stickers , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents brought their children to witness the important event .
So , of course , each youngster got a sticker as Official Practice Voters .
( So did the dogs , but don ’ t tell anyone . )
It was quintessential small town and casual — a lot of denim , boots and flannel .
Poll workers knew most voters .
They chatted .
A large tree recently fell , destroying Mel ’ s brand-new trailer .
And they bantered .
In the first hour we had seven voters , two taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary ballot system is hopelessly complicated with a half-dozen different primary ballots for various parties but many sought to cross-over to a Democratic ballot with more candidates .
By mid-morning we were up to 44 .
By lunch , 63 .
The longest line was five .
Two local individuals donated breakfasts , lunches and dinners .
By 2 p.m. , it was 110 , plus a multitude of mail-in ballots hand-delivered because , they said , the mail can ’ t be trusted .
“ I ’ m a Republican , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I register independent because the IRS investigates Republicans.
” Beverly said she had not missed one election once since 1961 .
The day ’ s oldest voter was 94 , cast his first ballot for Franklin Roosevelt and helped engineer the triggering mechanism on the first atom bomb .
We held their canes while some voted .
An elderly Oriental woman sent a son back to fetch her sticker .
Before leaving , maybe two dozen voters announced to all the poll workers , “ Thank you for your service.
” One woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballpoint pen she ’ d walked off with .
One suspicious man demanded to know why his ballot did not contain the names of Nancy Pelosi , whose district is some 300 miles away , and Chuck Schumer , a New York senator .
Anyone inside by closing time gets to vote .
The last voter finished his ballot at 8:09 .
The men dismantled tables , booths and signs for the next morning ’ s Bible study while the women counted the actual number of ballots , not the results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport to the county seat for official tabulating .
Results : 337 voters , 210 in-person and 127 mail-in envelopes .
Did I mention it was a very long day ?

It’s one of those scenes most everyone takes for granted but shouldn’t — a makeshift polling station set up for the day inside a school gym, a neighbor’s garage, fire station, veteran’s club or, in this case, a church activity center.
You walk in, wait briefly, sign the book, take a ballot to a fold-up cardboard voting booth, slip it in the box and be gone, duty done. And sacred privilege exercised. No voter intimidation.
I’ve voted in pretty much every election since 1964, when the awe of that first moment prompted private tears in the booth. And I’ve spent more than my share of hours standing 100 feet away accosting voters for quotes on their choices.
But I was curious about the inner workings, as a reporter who’s covered politics one way or another since working the riotous 1968 Democratic National Convention across the street from the natural perfume of the Chicago stockyards in August.
So, this Super Tuesday I volunteered to actually work inside a tiny polling station in the church activity center of a Southern California mountain community with around 720 registered voters.
It was a fun day, actually. Inspiring at times. And a very long one, 6 a.m. until 9 p.m., including set-up and take-down. There were five of us, three women, two men, all qualified for Senior discounts. By day’s end, we were pretty good friends and cracking jokes from the morning.
The first voter arrived early because she had a 60-mile commute to a hospital ICU. At 7 a.m. sharp she and all of us were asked to witness that the ballot box was empty before it was locked for the day. During the day we had four dogs, three wheelchairs and not one user of the expensive handicapped voting machine. Three people arrived to vote wearing rubber gloves.
My job was not exactly strenuous — point voters to an open booth, remind them to fill in the circle completely, reclaim their pens, steer their ballots into the slot without touching the paper, thank them and hand out “I Voted” stickers, which were surprisingly popular.
Perhaps a dozen parents brought their children to witness the important event. So, of course, each youngster got a sticker as Official Practice Voters. (So did the dogs, but don’t tell anyone.)
It was quintessential small town and casual — a lot of denim, boots and flannel. Poll workers knew most voters. They chatted. A large tree recently fell, destroying Mel’s brand-new trailer. And they bantered.
“I’m a Republican,” bellowed Randy, the plumber. “Can I vote here?”
“Not if you’re a plumber!”
In the first hour we had seven voters, two taking Republican ballots. This being California, the primary ballot system is hopelessly complicated with a half-dozen different primary ballots for various parties but many sought to cross-over to a Democratic ballot with more candidates.
By mid-morning we were up to 44. By lunch, 63. The longest line was five. Two local individuals donated breakfasts, lunches and dinners. By 2 p.m., it was 110, plus a multitude of mail-in ballots hand-delivered because, they said, the mail can’t be trusted.
“I’m a Republican,” said one man, “but I register independent because the IRS investigates Republicans.”
Beverly said she had not missed one election once since 1961. The day’s oldest voter was 94, cast his first ballot for Franklin Roosevelt and helped engineer the triggering mechanism on the first atom bomb.
We held their canes while some voted. An elderly Oriental woman sent a son back to fetch her sticker. Before leaving, maybe two dozen voters announced to all the poll workers, “Thank you for your service.” One woman reappeared 10 minutes after voting to return the ballpoint pen she’d walked off with.
One suspicious man demanded to know why his ballot did not contain the names of Nancy Pelosi, whose district is some 300 miles away, and Chuck Schumer, a New York senator.
Anyone inside by closing time gets to vote. The last voter finished his ballot at 8:09.
The men dismantled tables, booths and signs for the next morning’s Bible study while the women counted the actual number of ballots, not the results. The papers were soon picked up for transport to the county seat for official tabulating. Results: 337 voters, 210 in-person and 127 mail-in envelopes.
Did I mention it was a very long day?


hotair--2020-03-06--Warren: Let's face it, I took out Mike Bloomberg

Words can not express how excited I am for the Elizabeth Warren/Mike Bloomberg kumbaya moment at the convention when all the 2020 candidates are invited up onstage to symbolically unify behind Joe Biden .
I ’ m picturing them with arms raised , hands joined , swaying to “ We Are the World.
” As Joe tries to sing along and garbles the lyrics badly .
After looking at the polling , I ’ m skeptical that Warren finished off Bloomberg at that debate before Nevada , when he finally made his debut as a candidate .
But it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as a candidate and may have had an “ emperor ’ s new clothes ” effect on his rise in the polls .
I think her claim is defensible , if not very persuasive .
Watch , then read on .
The Nevada debate happened on February 19 .
Here ’ s what the national polling looked like over the past 30 days .
( Bloomberg is the orange line . )
Bloomy was just south of 10 percent on February 3 .
Six days later , following Biden ’ s dismal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 percent .
Eight days and a terrible Biden performance in New Hampshire after that , he was above 15 percent and rising .
He touched 16.1 percent on February 19 , the day of the debate — and immediately began to slide .
Not dramatically : He lost a point or so , and had rebounded to 16.4 percent by the day of the South Carolina primary .
As late as Tuesday of this week , he was up to 18 percent .
But clearly the momentum he showed in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even briefly reversed itself before Joementum erupted in SC .
It seems highly likely that his poor debate performance is to blame for that , and Warren ’ s attack on him was the key ingredient in that poor performance .
But .
Bloomy was never on the ballot in South Carolina .
There ’ s no reason to think Biden wouldn ’ t have blown the doors off there even if Bloomberg had performed well at the Nevada debate .
And if I ’ m right that the main effect of Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in Democrats nationally that he really is the most electable candidate in the race then Bloomberg was probably doomed on Super Tuesday irrespective of the debate .
Bloomy was the “ break glass in case of emergency ” option for moderate Dems in the event that Biden collapsed in South Carolina and Bernie suddenly looked like a runaway nominee .
SC canceled the emergency .
Endgame for Mike .
But .
Just because Joe was destined to do well on Super Tuesday once he ran up the score on Super Tuesday doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do as well as he did .
Few of his victories three days ago were by landslide margins .
He squeaked through in several states where Bernie was expecting key wins , most notably Texas .
The difference between victory and a second-place finish for Biden there was five points .
Is it possible that Warren ’ s demolition of Bloomberg at the debate shook the faith of moderates sufficiently to have cost him five points among fencesitters that ended up going to Biden instead ?
Sure .
That seems possible .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives in the end ?
A moderate vote that was more evenly split between Biden and Bloomberg on Super Tuesday might have enabled several Bernie Sanders victories that ended up as defeats , again most notably in Texas .
By taking out Bloomy , Warren unwittingly contributed to resolving the protracted “ muddle in the middle ” that had enabled Bernie ’ s early victories in Iowa , New Hampshire , and Nevada .
Over on Earth 2 , Warren declined to attack Bloomberg at the Nevada debate ; he continued to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on Super Tuesday he captured 25 percent of the vote , enough to hold down Biden ’ s margins to the point where he was vulnerable to Sanders .
More than that , a stronger showing might have encouraged Bloomberg to hang around the race for awhile longer instead of quitting after Super Tuesday , drawing more votes from Biden in the big primaries to come in Michigan and elsewhere next week .
Warren ’ s evisceration of Mike may have ended up sinking Bernie .
Unintentionally , but still .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie decided not to run again this year , freeing Warren to consolidate the left early and then tack a bit towards the center on programs like Medicare for All and student-loan forgiveness in the interest of wooing centrists .
She ’ s the big winner on Super Tuesday there .
But here on Earth 1 , well : Those aren ’ t the new odds on whether Biden will win a plurality of delegates and face a contested convention .
Those are the odds on whether he ’ ll win a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 87 percent in FiveThirtyEight ’ s model .
You can read Nate Silver ’ s explanation here for why the model is suddenly so bullish on Joe — the upcoming primaries favor Biden demographically , Sanders suddenly doesn ’ t seem to have much regional strength anywhere , and there isn ’ t much time to make up a delegate deficit .
( More than 60 percent of delegates will have been awarded two weeks from now . )
A Bernie comeback needs to begin immediately , on unfavorable terrain , at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash on Biden and congressional Dems are almost literally high-fiving about not having to run with Sanders at the top of the ticket this fall .
Some Bernie advisors reportedly want him to roll out some more endorsements , but … which endorsements ?
Apart from Warren herself , how many Democratic politicians out there with enough sway to move a few votes towards Bernie prefer him to Biden ?
Not all Warren fans are eager to see her endorse Sanders either : In an interview , NOW President Toni Van Pelt urged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has a lot of leverage right now .
We do trust her to make the right decisions on how to proceed .
But we ’ d like her not to rush into this , ” Van Pelt told The Associated Press .
“ We think that our constituents , our members , will not necessarily think of Sanders as the best choice .
We wouldn ’ t have the Violence Against Women Act if it wasn ’ t for Biden ’ s leadership , ” she continued .
“ Sanders doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really , as far as we know , done next to nothing for women and for our issues.
” I think Bernie has to win Michigan next week and , ideally , at least three of the six states that are voting .
If he takes another beating a la Super Tuesday , with a wipeout in Florida looming the week after , Biden will be far north of 90 percent odds to win the nomination .
And Sanders will have a tough decision to make .

Words cannot express how excited I am for the Elizabeth Warren/Mike Bloomberg kumbaya moment at the convention when all the 2020 candidates are invited up onstage to symbolically unify behind Joe Biden.
I’m picturing them with arms raised, hands joined, swaying to “We Are the World.” As Joe tries to sing along and garbles the lyrics badly.
After looking at the polling, I’m skeptical that Warren finished off Bloomberg at that debate before Nevada, when he finally made his debut as a candidate. But it was clearly his worst moment during his brief time as a candidate and may have had an “emperor’s new clothes” effect on his rise in the polls. I think her claim is defensible, if not very persuasive. Watch, then read on.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren takes credit for Mike Bloomberg ending his presidential campaign after their fiery exchange during his first debate. “In my view he was absolutely the riskiest candidate for Democrats on that stage.” pic.twitter.com/sD8AG7iL6a — MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 6, 2020
The Nevada debate happened on February 19. Here’s what the national polling looked like over the past 30 days. (Bloomberg is the orange line.)
Bloomy was just south of 10 percent on February 3. Six days later, following Biden’s dismal showing in Iowa, he was near 13 percent. Eight days and a terrible Biden performance in New Hampshire after that, he was above 15 percent and rising. He touched 16.1 percent on February 19, the day of the debate — and immediately began to slide. Not dramatically: He lost a point or so, and had rebounded to 16.4 percent by the day of the South Carolina primary. As late as Tuesday of this week, he was up to 18 percent. But clearly the momentum he showed in the first half of the month slowed down and even briefly reversed itself before Joementum erupted in SC. It seems highly likely that his poor debate performance is to blame for that, and Warren’s attack on him was the key ingredient in that poor performance.
But. Bloomy was never on the ballot in South Carolina. There’s no reason to think Biden wouldn’t have blown the doors off there even if Bloomberg had performed well at the Nevada debate. And if I’m right that the main effect of Joe’s SC landslide was to restore faith in Democrats nationally that he really is the most electable candidate in the race then Bloomberg was probably doomed on Super Tuesday irrespective of the debate. Bloomy was the “break glass in case of emergency” option for moderate Dems in the event that Biden collapsed in South Carolina and Bernie suddenly looked like a runaway nominee. SC canceled the emergency. Endgame for Mike.
But. Just because Joe was destined to do well on Super Tuesday once he ran up the score on Super Tuesday doesn’t mean he was destined to do as well as he did. Few of his victories three days ago were by landslide margins. He squeaked through in several states where Bernie was expecting key wins, most notably Texas. The difference between victory and a second-place finish for Biden there was five points. Is it possible that Warren’s demolition of Bloomberg at the debate shook the faith of moderates sufficiently to have cost him five points among fencesitters that ended up going to Biden instead? Sure. That seems possible.
But. Was that good or bad for progressives in the end? A moderate vote that was more evenly split between Biden and Bloomberg on Super Tuesday might have enabled several Bernie Sanders victories that ended up as defeats, again most notably in Texas. By taking out Bloomy, Warren unwittingly contributed to resolving the protracted “muddle in the middle” that had enabled Bernie’s early victories in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Over on Earth 2, Warren declined to attack Bloomberg at the Nevada debate; he continued to build some momentum over the following weeks; and on Super Tuesday he captured 25 percent of the vote, enough to hold down Biden’s margins to the point where he was vulnerable to Sanders. More than that, a stronger showing might have encouraged Bloomberg to hang around the race for awhile longer instead of quitting after Super Tuesday, drawing more votes from Biden in the big primaries to come in Michigan and elsewhere next week. Warren’s evisceration of Mike may have ended up sinking Bernie. Unintentionally, but still.
Of course, over on Earth 3, Bernie decided not to run again this year, freeing Warren to consolidate the left early and then tack a bit towards the center on programs like Medicare for All and student-loan forgiveness in the interest of wooing centrists. She’s the big winner on Super Tuesday there.
But here on Earth 1, well:
Those aren’t the new odds on whether Biden will win a plurality of delegates and face a contested convention. Those are the odds on whether he’ll win a clear majority. They’re up to 87 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s model. You can read Nate Silver’s explanation here for why the model is suddenly so bullish on Joe — the upcoming primaries favor Biden demographically, Sanders suddenly doesn’t seem to have much regional strength anywhere, and there isn’t much time to make up a delegate deficit. (More than 60 percent of delegates will have been awarded two weeks from now.) A Bernie comeback needs to begin immediately, on unfavorable terrain, at a moment when big donors are suddenly showering cash on Biden and congressional Dems are almost literally high-fiving about not having to run with Sanders at the top of the ticket this fall.
Some Bernie advisors reportedly want him to roll out some more endorsements, but … which endorsements? Apart from Warren herself, how many Democratic politicians out there with enough sway to move a few votes towards Bernie prefer him to Biden? Not all Warren fans are eager to see her endorse Sanders either:
In an interview, NOW President Toni Van Pelt urged Warren not to endorse Sanders. “She has a lot of leverage right now. We do trust her to make the right decisions on how to proceed. But we’d like her not to rush into this,” Van Pelt told The Associated Press. “We think that our constituents, our members, will not necessarily think of Sanders as the best choice. We wouldn’t have the Violence Against Women Act if it wasn’t for Biden’s leadership,” she continued. “Sanders doesn’t have a record. He’s really, as far as we know, done next to nothing for women and for our issues.”
I think Bernie has to win Michigan next week and, ideally, at least three of the six states that are voting. If he takes another beating a la Super Tuesday, with a wipeout in Florida looming the week after, Biden will be far north of 90 percent odds to win the nomination. And Sanders will have a tough decision to make.


hotair--2020-03-06--Historian: I warned the 1619 Project's author she was wrong about the Revolutionary War

One of the most contentious claims made in the NY Times 1619 Project is the claim that the impetus for the Revolutionary War was really an attempt to protect the institution of slavery .
In her lead essay , Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.
” But that isn ’ t remotely true .
Today we learn from Northwestern historian Leslie Harris that she pointed this out to the Times before publication but was ignored : On August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones , a reporter for the New York Times , repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker : that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America… Weeks before , I had received an email from a New York Times research editor .
Because I ’ m an historian of African American life and slavery , in New York , specifically , and the pre-Civil War era more generally , she wanted me to verify some statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she sent me this assertion : “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies , which had produced tremendous wealth .
At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire , which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.
” I vigorously disputed the claim .
Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution , the protection of slavery was not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to war… Despite my advice , the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway , in Hannah-Jones ’ introductory essay .
In addition , the paper ’ s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times , and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619 .
The author goes on to say she was very worried when she saw this had made it into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be used as a cudgel to discredit the entire project .
She then offers her own take on the Revolutionary War contrary to what the 1619 Project claimed : Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed : White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory , but white Northerners were much more conflicted , with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain , so colonists wouldn ’ t have needed to secede to protect it .
It ’ s true that in 1772 , the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales , but it had no impact on Britain ’ s Caribbean colonies , where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died , or in the North American Colonies .
It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition .
Far from being fought to preserve slavery , the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies .
That assessment is in line with what Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote in a detailed piece for the Atlantic earlier this year .
Wilentz wrote that Nikole Hannah-Jones assertions about the motives for the Revolutionary War were “ as inaccurate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
” Having conceded the point , Leslie Harris writes as if the false claim about the Revolution War is a relatively minor point , one which is being unfairly used to tarnish the Project as a whole .
“ The United States was not , in fact , founded to protect slavery—but the Times is right that slavery was central to its story , ” she writes .
Well , except for the whole Revolutionary War part of the story when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t central .
What ’ s very odd is that Leslie Jones doesn ’ t seem interested in why Nikole Hannah-Jones ignored her vigorously argued advice .
Doesn ’ t that concern her ?
I think the reason is pretty obvious and I suspect it has occurred to Harris so the fact that she doesn ’ t mention it seems revealing .
The whole point of the 1619 Project was to pull the center of gravity in our discussion of American history away from 1776 , away from the Declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Project argues that the real story of America began not in 1776 but in 1619 with slavery .
But you obviously can ’ t proclaim 1619 the real founding of America ’ s unbroken legacy of slavery and then skip over the Revolutionary War .
In order to make the new over-arching narrative work you need to make the War another example of the hidden hand of white supremacy .
And that ’ s exactly what Hannah-Jones did .
She ignored Harris ’ strongly argued advice because she needed it to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to Harris ’ piece .
She is equally concerned that the critics of the Project ( including Sean Wilentz ) are an older generation of historians who have downplayed the importance of slavery in their past work .
In fact , she is more concerned about their “ worldview ” than she is about the errors in the 1619 Project .
She concludes : Again , I think Harris is ignoring the very clear evidence ( based on her own interaction with the NY Times ) that the 1619 Project is itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t a mistake but a willful attempt to shoehorn facts that didn ’ t fit into the service of a faulty narrative .

One of the most contentious claims made in the NY Times 1619 Project is the claim that the impetus for the Revolutionary War was really an attempt to protect the institution of slavery. In her lead essay, Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” But that isn’t remotely true. Today we learn from Northwestern historian Leslie Harris that she pointed this out to the Times before publication but was ignored:
On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America… Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.” I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war… Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.
The author goes on to say she was very worried when she saw this had made it into the published essay because she feared it would be used as a cudgel to discredit the entire project. She then offers her own take on the Revolutionary War contrary to what the 1619 Project claimed:
Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies. More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition. Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies.
That assessment is in line with what Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote in a detailed piece for the Atlantic earlier this year. Wilentz wrote that Nikole Hannah-Jones assertions about the motives for the Revolutionary War were “as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.”
Having conceded the point, Leslie Harris writes as if the false claim about the Revolution War is a relatively minor point, one which is being unfairly used to tarnish the Project as a whole. “The United States was not, in fact, founded to protect slavery—but the Times is right that slavery was central to its story,” she writes. Well, except for the whole Revolutionary War part of the story when, as she has just admitted, it wasn’t central.
What’s very odd is that Leslie Jones doesn’t seem interested in why Nikole Hannah-Jones ignored her vigorously argued advice. Doesn’t that concern her? I think the reason is pretty obvious and I suspect it has occurred to Harris so the fact that she doesn’t mention it seems revealing.
The whole point of the 1619 Project was to pull the center of gravity in our discussion of American history away from 1776, away from the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. The Project argues that the real story of America began not in 1776 but in 1619 with slavery. But you obviously can’t proclaim 1619 the real founding of America’s unbroken legacy of slavery and then skip over the Revolutionary War. In order to make the new over-arching narrative work you need to make the War another example of the hidden hand of white supremacy. And that’s exactly what Hannah-Jones did. She ignored Harris’ strongly argued advice because she needed it to be true.
There’s a lot more to Harris’ piece. She is equally concerned that the critics of the Project (including Sean Wilentz) are an older generation of historians who have downplayed the importance of slavery in their past work. In fact, she is more concerned about their “worldview” than she is about the errors in the 1619 Project. She concludes:
It is easy to correct facts; it is much harder to correct a worldview that consistently ignores and distorts the role of African Americans and race in our history in order to present white people as all powerful and solely in possession to the keys of equality, freedom and democracy. At least that is the corrective history toward which the 1619 Project is moving, if imperfectly.
Again, I think Harris is ignoring the very clear evidence (based on her own interaction with the NY Times) that the 1619 Project is itself a “worldview.” What she describes wasn’t a mistake but a willful attempt to shoehorn facts that didn’t fit into the service of a faulty narrative.