hotair--2020-12-02--Trump teases "I'll see you in four years" to guests at White House reception

The White House holiday receptions are scheduled as normal this year , despite the coronavirus pandemic guidelines .
Instead of canceling them , the White House has modified the events to best provide personal safety to guests and staff .
Tuesday evening a White House reception was held and President Trump teased his guest that if his re-election isn ’ t successful now , he ’ ll see everyone in four years .
Stories of Trump ’ s desire for a second term have been reported to include another run for president in 2024 .
As a one-term president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him from pursuing another run .
Just hours after Attorney General Barr said that the DOJ has not found any evidence of widespread fraud that would change the results of the election , Trump was telling his guests that the election was rigged and nothing will change his mind about that conclusion .
“ It ’ s been an amazing four years , ” Trump told the room , filled with many people not wearing masks despite public health officials ’ guidance amid the Covid-19 pandemic .
“ We are trying to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll see you in four years.
” He also asked if people were watching the “ fraud hearings ” with his legal team — referring to the events his attorney Rudy Giuliani has held with state legislatures in an attempt to challenge the results of the election .
“ Honestly , this is a disgrace , ” Trump told the room .
He told them , “ I call it a rigged election , and I always will.
” It isn ’ t Trump ’ s nature to stop fighting .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plenty of examples of improper behavior and other shenanigans in several states but not enough to make him the winner of the presidential election .
I don ’ t think I ’ ve ever seen an election night where election workers just stopped counting ballots , for example .
And , it looks fishy that big bundles of ballots are suddenly found and all of them go to Biden in places where Trump was ahead .
Those are examples of stories being reported .
I won ’ t be surprised if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He doesn ’ t have to do that , technically speaking , and he ’ s not one to feel beholden to regular procedures .
The transition is proceeding forward without a formal concession .
Will Trump attend Biden ’ s inauguration ?
My inclination is to believe that he will not .
He ’ ll likely skip it , which will cause a stir among traditionalists while probably giving Team Biden a reason to breathe a sigh of relief .
They know that Trump ’ s presence would overshadow Sleepy Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does run again in 2024 , he knows that his most loyal supporters will want to see Trump holding firm in his denial of any personal concessions to Biden .
So far Trump isn ’ t saying one way or the other if he ’ ll attend the inauguration .
Still , one person familiar with the situation said they believe Trump ’ s advisers will strongly encourage him to attend the January 20 inauguration , even if he doesn ’ t concede the election , because it would better preserve his potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides to run again in 2024 — if he doesn ’ t appear like a sore loser .
Trump told reporters last week that he ’ d already decided what he was doing on Inauguration Day .
“ I ’ ll be honest , I know the answer , but I just don ’ t want to say it yet , ” he said .
But aides viewed that as more of a way to put off the question , and did not take it to mean a decision had been made .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own big event on Inauguration Day .
This seems more in line with Trump ’ s way of doing things .
He ’ s a pro at organizing events that take the spotlight off of others .
He repeatedly did it during the campaign .
Trump held numerous rallies in airplane hangars and those events were covered by the media ( though not always by CNN and MSNBC ) and increased enthusiasm for supporters .
Frankly , I kind of hope he does it .
The inauguration this year is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic anyway .
It likely won ’ t be any more exciting than the Democrat convention last summer was , an event on which the inauguration committee may pattern their plans .
That sounds pretty boring in comparison to a Trump rally , doesn ’ t it ?

The White House holiday receptions are scheduled as normal this year, despite the coronavirus pandemic guidelines. Instead of canceling them, the White House has modified the events to best provide personal safety to guests and staff. Tuesday evening a White House reception was held and President Trump teased his guest that if his re-election isn’t successful now, he’ll see everyone in four years.
Stories of Trump’s desire for a second term have been reported to include another run for president in 2024. As a one-term president, there isn’t anything to stop him from pursuing another run. Just hours after Attorney General Barr said that the DOJ has not found any evidence of widespread fraud that would change the results of the election, Trump was telling his guests that the election was rigged and nothing will change his mind about that conclusion.
“It’s been an amazing four years,” Trump told the room, filled with many people not wearing masks despite public health officials’ guidance amid the Covid-19 pandemic. “We are trying to do another four years. Otherwise, I’ll see you in four years.” “But they don’t like that.” He also asked if people were watching the “fraud hearings” with his legal team — referring to the events his attorney Rudy Giuliani has held with state legislatures in an attempt to challenge the results of the election. “Honestly, this is a disgrace,” Trump told the room.
He told them, “I call it a rigged election, and I always will.” It isn’t Trump’s nature to stop fighting. He feels wronged and there are, allegedly, plenty of examples of improper behavior and other shenanigans in several states but not enough to make him the winner of the presidential election. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an election night where election workers just stopped counting ballots, for example. And, it looks fishy that big bundles of ballots are suddenly found and all of them go to Biden in places where Trump was ahead. Those are examples of stories being reported. I won’t be surprised if he never officially concedes the election to Biden. He doesn’t have to do that, technically speaking, and he’s not one to feel beholden to regular procedures. The transition is proceeding forward without a formal concession.
Will Trump attend Biden’s inauguration? My inclination is to believe that he will not. He’ll likely skip it, which will cause a stir among traditionalists while probably giving Team Biden a reason to breathe a sigh of relief. They know that Trump’s presence would overshadow Sleepy Joe on his big day. If he does run again in 2024, he knows that his most loyal supporters will want to see Trump holding firm in his denial of any personal concessions to Biden. So far Trump isn’t saying one way or the other if he’ll attend the inauguration.
Still, one person familiar with the situation said they believe Trump’s advisers will strongly encourage him to attend the January 20 inauguration, even if he doesn’t concede the election, because it would better preserve his potential influence going forward — including if he decides to run again in 2024 — if he doesn’t appear like a sore loser.
Trump told reporters last week that he’d already decided what he was doing on Inauguration Day. “I’ll be honest, I know the answer, but I just don’t want to say it yet,” he said. But aides viewed that as more of a way to put off the question, and did not take it to mean a decision had been made.
There are rumors that Trump is planning his own big event on Inauguration Day. This seems more in line with Trump’s way of doing things. He’s a pro at organizing events that take the spotlight off of others. He repeatedly did it during the campaign. Trump held numerous rallies in airplane hangars and those events were covered by the media (though not always by CNN and MSNBC) and increased enthusiasm for supporters. Frankly, I kind of hope he does it. The inauguration this year is going to have to be scaled back due to the pandemic anyway. It likely won’t be any more exciting than the Democrat convention last summer was, an event on which the inauguration committee may pattern their plans. That sounds pretty boring in comparison to a Trump rally, doesn’t it?


hotair--2020-12-02--Biden advisor: We're keeping Chris Wray on as FBI director -- unless Trump fires him first

Remember that by law FBI directors serve a 10-year term provided that the president doesn ’ t cut that term short by firing them .
Which … happened once before in recent memory .
And , if you believe the pre-election reporting , is highly likely to happen again soon .
Imagine , though : If Trump surprises everyone by leaving Wray in place , Wray could stick around long enough to greet him when he returns to the White House in 2025 .
I ’ m not surprised that Biden is inclined to keep him on .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bears repeating that Biden ran as a guy who would restore pre-Trump norms of government to the White House .
Before Trump , FBI directors didn ’ t get fired .
In particular , FBI directors weren ’ t booted like other cabinet personnel routinely are when a new president takes office .
The point of a 10-year term is to insulate the director ( somewhat ) from partisan shifts in control of the White House and to encourage stability at the agency .
If Biden dumped Wray in order to appoint a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be flouting those principles .
So he ’ s stuck with him .
…unless Trump frees his hand by nuking Wray first .
The [ Biden ] official , who was not authorized to speak publicly , said Mr. Biden ’ s team was “ not removing the F.B.I .
director unless Trump fired him ” — signaling a return to pre-Trump norms of continuity at a core domestic law enforcement agency that is supposed to operate without political meddling… Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Wray , a Republican who served in President George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succeed Mr. Comey .
But the president soured on Mr. Wray soon after he assumed the job , complaining that he wasn ’ t moving fast enough to rid the bureau of officials installed by Mr. Comey .
The president ’ s anger at Mr. Wray has grown since then , reaching new heights during the summer , when he wanted to dismiss Mr. Wray once documents related to the case of the former national security adviser , Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , were declassified by other officials .
Mr. Trump believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the Russia investigation .
Trump has a dilemma here .
If he ’ s aiming to spite Biden , and I ’ m sure he is because that ’ s how he rolls , is he better off firing Wray or leaving him in place ?
Leaving him be means Biden would be saddled with an FBI chief chosen by Trump himself , although that ’ s not much of a burden since Wray has never been a Trump loyalist .
If anything , he ’ ll be ecstatic to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other hand , if Trump fires Wray , Biden ’ s all set up to choose an FBI chief to his own liking .
Trump would practically be doing him a favor .
There ’ s a third possibility .
Trump could fire Wray and then move quickly to replace him with an ardent Trumpist , knowing that Joe “ Norms ” Biden would be reluctant to fire a new FBI chief who ’ s just a month or two into the job .
That would really stick it to the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which “ ardent Trumpist ” is sufficiently qualified to be director of the FBI such that they could expect to survive a confirmation vote in a 52/48 Senate ?
Would Romney , Murkowski , and Collins even entertain the idea of confirming a new Trump nominee to a 10-year term with six weeks left in his presidency ?
I think the president ’ s stuck choosing between leaving Wray alone or gifting Biden with a free choice for FBI .
In fact , I wonder if the Biden advisor who told the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to use reverse psychology on Trump .
Surely that person knows that the Biden seal of approval for Wray is apt to make Trump feel even more antagonistic towards his FBI chief .
They ’ re probably trying to bait Trump into firing him so that they can choose their own director .
I bet he obliges .
Allegedly Wray ’ s foremost protector inside the federal government is Bill Barr , which is another bad omen for him .
Barr ’ s on the sh*t list now too , after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piling extreme pressure on Attorney General Bill Barr to release a report that Trump believes could hurt perceived Obama-era enemies — and view Barr ’ s designation of John Durham as special counsel as a stall tactic , sources familiar with the conversations tell Axios… Within Trump ’ s orbit , sources told Axios , Tuesday ’ s revelation was seen as a smokescreen to forestall the release of the so-called Durham report , which senior administration officials believe is already complete — and which Barr had ruled out issuing before the election… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the scenes and mused privately about replacing Barr with somebody who will expedite the process .
But it ’ s unclear whether he will follow through with that , per sources familiar with the conversations .
Barr ’ s public declaration yesterday that the DOJ ’ s found no evidence of widespread voter fraud ( so far ! )
may end up being the kiss of death .
The president ’ s media allies and cronies , always so influential in shaping his opinions , were scathing in their criticism of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wondered whether Barr is “ a warrior with the Constitution or if he ’ s just a bureaucrat.
” The always conspiratorial Lou Dobbs went so far as to suggest that Barr had been “ compromised.
” Cruelest of all , Roger Stone — whose sentence Barr tried to reduce before it was commuted — sniffed that “ Bill Barr ’ s job is to block for the ‘ deep state.
’ ” Instead of asking whether Wray will be fired , we should probably be asking whether he or Barr will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you with Kayleigh McEnany from today ’ s White House briefing .
She ’ s asked at the very end of the clip if the president still has confidence in Barr .
Her answer is … noncommittal .

Remember that by law FBI directors serve a 10-year term provided that the president doesn’t cut that term short by firing them. Which … happened once before in recent memory. And, if you believe the pre-election reporting, is highly likely to happen again soon.
Imagine, though: If Trump surprises everyone by leaving Wray in place, Wray could stick around long enough to greet him when he returns to the White House in 2025.
I’m not surprised that Biden is inclined to keep him on. It’s been said ad nauseam but it bears repeating that Biden ran as a guy who would restore pre-Trump norms of government to the White House. Before Trump, FBI directors didn’t get fired. In particular, FBI directors weren’t booted like other cabinet personnel routinely are when a new president takes office. The point of a 10-year term is to insulate the director (somewhat) from partisan shifts in control of the White House and to encourage stability at the agency. If Biden dumped Wray in order to appoint a handpicked FBI chief, he’d be flouting those principles. So he’s stuck with him.
…unless Trump frees his hand by nuking Wray first.
The [Biden] official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Biden’s team was “not removing the F.B.I. director unless Trump fired him” — signaling a return to pre-Trump norms of continuity at a core domestic law enforcement agency that is supposed to operate without political meddling… Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Wray, a Republican who served in President George W. Bush’s administration, to succeed Mr. Comey. But the president soured on Mr. Wray soon after he assumed the job, complaining that he wasn’t moving fast enough to rid the bureau of officials installed by Mr. Comey. The president’s anger at Mr. Wray has grown since then, reaching new heights during the summer, when he wanted to dismiss Mr. Wray once documents related to the case of the former national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, were declassified by other officials. Mr. Trump believed that Mr. Wray had delayed declassifying documents related to the Russia investigation.
Trump has a dilemma here. If he’s aiming to spite Biden, and I’m sure he is because that’s how he rolls, is he better off firing Wray or leaving him in place? Leaving him be means Biden would be saddled with an FBI chief chosen by Trump himself, although that’s not much of a burden since Wray has never been a Trump loyalist. If anything, he’ll be ecstatic to find himself working for Biden instead. On the other hand, if Trump fires Wray, Biden’s all set up to choose an FBI chief to his own liking. Trump would practically be doing him a favor.
There’s a third possibility. Trump could fire Wray and then move quickly to replace him with an ardent Trumpist, knowing that Joe “Norms” Biden would be reluctant to fire a new FBI chief who’s just a month or two into the job. That would really stick it to the Democrat! Just one problem, though. Which “ardent Trumpist” is sufficiently qualified to be director of the FBI such that they could expect to survive a confirmation vote in a 52/48 Senate? Would Romney, Murkowski, and Collins even entertain the idea of confirming a new Trump nominee to a 10-year term with six weeks left in his presidency?
I think the president’s stuck choosing between leaving Wray alone or gifting Biden with a free choice for FBI. In fact, I wonder if the Biden advisor who told the Times that Biden would keep Wray on was trying to use reverse psychology on Trump. Surely that person knows that the Biden seal of approval for Wray is apt to make Trump feel even more antagonistic towards his FBI chief. They’re probably trying to bait Trump into firing him so that they can choose their own director. I bet he obliges.
Allegedly Wray’s foremost protector inside the federal government is Bill Barr, which is another bad omen for him. Barr’s on the sh*t list now too, after all:
President Trump and his allies are piling extreme pressure on Attorney General Bill Barr to release a report that Trump believes could hurt perceived Obama-era enemies — and view Barr’s designation of John Durham as special counsel as a stall tactic, sources familiar with the conversations tell Axios… Within Trump’s orbit, sources told Axios, Tuesday’s revelation was seen as a smokescreen to forestall the release of the so-called Durham report, which senior administration officials believe is already complete — and which Barr had ruled out issuing before the election… Trump has been ranting about the delay behind the scenes and mused privately about replacing Barr with somebody who will expedite the process. But it’s unclear whether he will follow through with that, per sources familiar with the conversations.
Barr’s public declaration yesterday that the DOJ’s found no evidence of widespread voter fraud (so far!) may end up being the kiss of death. The president’s media allies and cronies, always so influential in shaping his opinions, were scathing in their criticism of him last night. Greg Kelly of Newsmax wondered whether Barr is “a warrior with the Constitution or if he’s just a bureaucrat.” The always conspiratorial Lou Dobbs went so far as to suggest that Barr had been “compromised.” Cruelest of all, Roger Stone — whose sentence Barr tried to reduce before it was commuted — sniffed that “Bill Barr’s job is to block for the ‘deep state.’” Instead of asking whether Wray will be fired, we should probably be asking whether he or Barr will be fired first.
I’ll leave you with Kayleigh McEnany from today’s White House briefing. She’s asked at the very end of the clip if the president still has confidence in Barr. Her answer is … noncommittal.


hotair--2020-12-02--California reported 20,759 coronavirus cases today, a new daily record

During the first wave of the coronavirus here in California the number of daily cases peaked in July at just under 13,000 .
Today , the state ’ s coronavirus dashboard shows the number of cases reported in the last 24 hours was 20,759 .
That ’ s a new record and there ’ s reason to think the number will continue climbing .
Because California has such a large population it ’ s still doing better on a per capita basis than a lot of states but maybe not for much longer .
In short , the numbers look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test positivity rate sat at 5.6 % one week ago .
On Tuesday , that number skyrocketed to 6.5 % .
Over the past 24 hours , it rose nearly a half percent to 6.9 % .
In a state as large as California , that half percent alone could mean as many as 200,000 more infections… On Tuesday , the California Covid-19 dashboard indicated that , while the state had actually seen a decrease in infected ICU patients , the line tracing the number of hospitalizations was nearly straight up , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalized with the virus .
The percentage of hospitalized COVID patients who require treatment in an ICU has been steady at 12 percent , so if hospitalizations spike , ICU beds will fill up and at present they are already more than halfway full .
Los Angeles County has contributed significantly to the numbers statewide .
The positivity rate in LA County is now at 12 percent .
The County ’ s health director called the increases “ terrifying.
” The county reported another 5,987 coronavirus cases on Wednesday , one day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The county also reported 40 additional deaths and more than 2,400 people currently hospitalized .
“ We ’ re seeing terrifying increases in numbers in L.A. County that can only be turned around if everyone – businesses and individuals – carefully use the tools we have to slow the spread , ” said county health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer .
On Monday , Gov .
Newsom warned that the state would take “ drastic ” action if things didn ’ t improve quickly .
Specifically he warned another sat-at-home order was being considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting for the state to act .
A new lockdown order took effect Monday which bans most gatherings with the exception of outdoor church services or outdoor protests .
For the first time since early October , most gatherings among people from different households in L.A. County are again officially prohibited , with the exception of outdoor religious gatherings and outdoor political protests .
This supersedes the previous rule that allowed for only small , outdoor gatherings of 15 or fewer people from up to three different households , for a duration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retail stores are limited to 35 % of capacity ; for grocery stores , that was a reduction from the current cap of 50 % capacity .
Nonessential retail stores , malls , libraries and personal care establishments such as hair salons , barbershops , nail salons , piercing shops , tanning services and massage therapy are limited to 20 % of capacity ; previously , they operated at 25 % of capacity .
Basically schools and outdoor activities are unaffected but everything else is heavily restricted .
Restaurants can only offer take-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Santa Clara County , which was one of the first counties in the country to impose a lockdown order in the spring .
I don ’ t think Gov .
Newsom will wait much longer to put a statewide order in place .
The record number of new cases today and the fact that they could be higher tomorrow means he ’ ll probably put something in place starting this weekend .
Of course it would really help California Democrats ’ case that this surge needs to be taken seriously if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something entirely different .
If we ’ re going into another lockdown you better be prepared to lead by example .
Why does that seem to be so hard for Democrats ?
Here ’ s a local news report on the surge of cases in LA County :

During the first wave of the coronavirus here in California the number of daily cases peaked in July at just under 13,000. Today, the state’s coronavirus dashboard shows the number of cases reported in the last 24 hours was 20,759. That’s a new record and there’s reason to think the number will continue climbing.
Because California has such a large population it’s still doing better on a per capita basis than a lot of states but maybe not for much longer. In short, the numbers look pretty bad right now:
The 14-day test positivity rate sat at 5.6% one week ago. On Tuesday, that number skyrocketed to 6.5%. Over the past 24 hours, it rose nearly a half percent to 6.9%. In a state as large as California, that half percent alone could mean as many as 200,000 more infections… On Tuesday, the California Covid-19 dashboard indicated that, while the state had actually seen a decrease in infected ICU patients, the line tracing the number of hospitalizations was nearly straight up, with the state reporting a record 9,365 people hospitalized with the virus.
The percentage of hospitalized COVID patients who require treatment in an ICU has been steady at 12 percent, so if hospitalizations spike, ICU beds will fill up and at present they are already more than halfway full. Los Angeles County has contributed significantly to the numbers statewide. The positivity rate in LA County is now at 12 percent. The County’s health director called the increases “terrifying.”
The county reported another 5,987 coronavirus cases on Wednesday, one day after reporting a record-high 7,593 new cases. The county also reported 40 additional deaths and more than 2,400 people currently hospitalized. “We’re seeing terrifying increases in numbers in L.A. County that can only be turned around if everyone – businesses and individuals – carefully use the tools we have to slow the spread,” said county health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer.
On Monday, Gov. Newsom warned that the state would take “drastic” action if things didn’t improve quickly. Specifically he warned another sat-at-home order was being considered. But some counties aren’t waiting for the state to act. A new lockdown order took effect Monday which bans most gatherings with the exception of outdoor church services or outdoor protests.
For the first time since early October, most gatherings among people from different households in L.A. County are again officially prohibited, with the exception of outdoor religious gatherings and outdoor political protests. This supersedes the previous rule that allowed for only small, outdoor gatherings of 15 or fewer people from up to three different households, for a duration of no more than two hours. Essential retail stores are limited to 35% of capacity; for grocery stores, that was a reduction from the current cap of 50% capacity. Nonessential retail stores, malls, libraries and personal care establishments such as hair salons, barbershops, nail salons, piercing shops, tanning services and massage therapy are limited to 20% of capacity; previously, they operated at 25% of capacity.
Basically schools and outdoor activities are unaffected but everything else is heavily restricted. Restaurants can only offer take-out. Similar restrictions were put in place in Santa Clara County, which was one of the first counties in the country to impose a lockdown order in the spring.
I don’t think Gov. Newsom will wait much longer to put a statewide order in place. The record number of new cases today and the fact that they could be higher tomorrow means he’ll probably put something in place starting this weekend.
Of course it would really help California Democrats’ case that this surge needs to be taken seriously if they would stop saying one thing and doing something entirely different. If we’re going into another lockdown you better be prepared to lead by example. Why does that seem to be so hard for Democrats?
Here’s a local news report on the surge of cases in LA County:


hotair--2020-12-02--Trump posts 46-minute speech alleging voter fraud in the election

When I first glanced at his tweet this afternoon , with its vague title and unusual formality , and saw that he was standing at a podium with the presidential seal , I thought , “ Is he about to take Mike Flynn ’ s advice and try to declare martial law ?
” Then I hit play and heard him say “ this may be the most important speech I ’ ve ever made ” and thought , “ Oh my God , he really is.
” He did not end up doing it and I feel sheepish now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he won ’ t declare martial law until after the electoral college affirms Biden ’ s win .
What does this mean ?
Who ’ s the “ we ” who supposedly told Biden not to campaign ?
And when did Trump decide that Biden ’ s reluctance to leave his basement was evidence of a conspiracy to rig the election ?
For months he and the GOP insinuated that the reason Biden was afraid to appear in public was fear of revealing his deepening dementia to the world .
Remember the mockery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 9 a.m. ?
Remember all the videos the RNC posted to YouTube of Sleepy Joe seeming sleepy at times during campaign appearances ?
Trump is now retconning Biden ’ s low profile to suit his theories of voter fraud even though it doesn ’ t make sense on its own terms .
If a candidate knew that the fix was in on Election Day , why wouldn ’ t he behave completely normally by continuing to campaign in order to create plausible deniability of knowledge of the plot ?
The reason Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple .
He wanted to make the election a referendum on Trump and , by staying out of sight , he did .
He gambled that if he asked Americans to make an up-or-down choice on whether to give the president four more years , with the Democratic alternative all but completely removed from the calculus , more would vote down than up .
And that ’ s what happened .
Here ’ s another quote from the longer video below that makes me wonder if he even understands how the Dominion machines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate a paper ballot .
I think he ’ s under the impression that their system is purely electronic so that all one need do is hack into them and start switching Trump votes to Biden votes in the database to alter the count .
That ’ s not how it works .
I myself voted on a system similar to Dominion ’ s and ended up with a paper product .
First I checked in , where I was handed a blank paper ballot .
Then I went to the voting machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I made my selections on a touchscreen , then hit “ print.
” The previously blank ballot came back out with my selections printed on it , which I then checked for accuracy .
Finally , I went to a second machine and slid the paper ballot in , where it was scanned and stored .
The result is that there ’ s an electronic record ( via the scan ) *and* a paper record of my vote and everyone else ’ s .
When Georgia conducted its hand recount , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots generated by the Dominion machines .
They matched up almost exactly to the electronic records , proving that no one had tampered with the electronic data .
And because each voter ’ s presence was registered via the initial check-in , the state could compare the number of check-ins to the number of votes to make sure no one stuffed the ballot machine with paper ballots surreptitiously .
We ’ re almost a full month on from Election Day and the president seems not to understand how the machines at the center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why not ?
Is he also unaware of the fact that he won 81 percent of the counties that used Dominion voting machines in key swing states on November 3 ?
That was actually slightly better than he did among counties that didn ’ t use Dominion .
What a strange conspiracy .
Maybe this is what today ’ s address is really about ?
Here ’ s the 46-minute version .
Needless to say , it ’ s strange that his heretofore loyal Attorney General has been unable to substantiate any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he lays out .
Exit question via the Times : Why was this released today when it was recorded last week ?
Did his staff manage to talk him out of posting it initially ?

When I first glanced at his tweet this afternoon, with its vague title and unusual formality, and saw that he was standing at a podium with the presidential seal, I thought, “Is he about to take Mike Flynn’s advice and try to declare martial law?”
Then I hit play and heard him say “this may be the most important speech I’ve ever made” and thought, “Oh my God, he really is.”
He did not end up doing it and I feel sheepish now that I thought he might. Obviously he won’t declare martial law until after the electoral college affirms Biden’s win.
Watch the two-minute Twitter preview:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334240039639937026
What does this mean?
“My opponent was told to stay away from the election. Don’t campaign. We don’t need you. We’ve got it. This election is done,” Trump said to the camera. “In fact, they were acting like they already knew what the outcome was going to be. They had it covered and perhaps they did, very sadly for our country. It was all very, very strange.”
Who’s the “we” who supposedly told Biden not to campaign? And when did Trump decide that Biden’s reluctance to leave his basement was evidence of a conspiracy to rig the election? For months he and the GOP insinuated that the reason Biden was afraid to appear in public was fear of revealing his deepening dementia to the world. Remember the mockery over him “calling a lid” at 9 a.m.? Remember all the videos the RNC posted to YouTube of Sleepy Joe seeming sleepy at times during campaign appearances? Trump is now retconning Biden’s low profile to suit his theories of voter fraud even though it doesn’t make sense on its own terms. If a candidate knew that the fix was in on Election Day, why wouldn’t he behave completely normally by continuing to campaign in order to create plausible deniability of knowledge of the plot?
The reason Biden didn’t campaign much was always simple. He wanted to make the election a referendum on Trump and, by staying out of sight, he did. He gambled that if he asked Americans to make an up-or-down choice on whether to give the president four more years, with the Democratic alternative all but completely removed from the calculus, more would vote down than up. And that’s what happened.
Here’s another quote from the longer video below that makes me wonder if he even understands how the Dominion machines work:
More Trump: "We have a company that is very suspect. It's name is Dominion. With a turn of a dial or the change of a chip you can press a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is this. We have to go to paper." pic.twitter.com/GIMQuqXwNx — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) December 2, 2020
Dominion’s machines *do* generate a paper ballot. I think he’s under the impression that their system is purely electronic so that all one need do is hack into them and start switching Trump votes to Biden votes in the database to alter the count. That’s not how it works. I myself voted on a system similar to Dominion’s and ended up with a paper product. First I checked in, where I was handed a blank paper ballot. Then I went to the voting machine and slid that ballot into the machine. I made my selections on a touchscreen, then hit “print.” The previously blank ballot came back out with my selections printed on it, which I then checked for accuracy. Finally, I went to a second machine and slid the paper ballot in, where it was scanned and stored. The result is that there’s an electronic record (via the scan) *and* a paper record of my vote and everyone else’s. When Georgia conducted its hand recount, the ballots it was counting were the paper ballots generated by the Dominion machines. They matched up almost exactly to the electronic records, proving that no one had tampered with the electronic data.
And because each voter’s presence was registered via the initial check-in, the state could compare the number of check-ins to the number of votes to make sure no one stuffed the ballot machine with paper ballots surreptitiously.
We’re almost a full month on from Election Day and the president seems not to understand how the machines at the center of his voter-fraud conspiracy theory actually operate. Why not? Is he also unaware of the fact that he won 81 percent of the counties that used Dominion voting machines in key swing states on November 3? That was actually slightly better than he did among counties that didn’t use Dominion. What a strange conspiracy.
Maybe this is what today’s address is really about?
The driver behind Trump's latest pardon talk is a fear he'll be prosecuted once he's out of office. In his recorded address, he says, "I hear that the same people who failed to get me in Washington have sent every piece of information to NY so that they can try to get me there." — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) December 2, 2020
Here’s the 46-minute version. Needless to say, it’s strange that his heretofore loyal Attorney General has been unable to substantiate any of the claims of systemic voter fraud that he lays out. Exit question via the Times: Why was this released today when it was recorded last week? Did his staff manage to talk him out of posting it initially?


hotair--2020-12-02--House Democrats focus on votes on 'cannabis and cats' instead of coronavirus relief

Several provisions from legislation passed earlier to address coronavirus relief are set to expire at the end of December .
Lawmakers in both parties want to pass additional coronavirus relief , though they don ’ t seem to be putting pressure on Speaker of the House Pelosi to get back to the negotiating table and work out legislation with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
So , this week , absent any major legislation being ready for votes , the House is taking up decriminalizing marijuana and a ban on breeding and private ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is focusing on negotiating a government funding deal as it has a deadline of December 11 to pass a bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown .
It has not yet been determined whether bipartisan consensus can be reached to enact any additional COVID-19 relief before the year ’ s end .
Appropriators are hoping to reach agreement as soon as this week on an omnibus measure with new fiscal 2021 spending policy to avoid the need for another continuing resolution extending fiscal 2020 provisions .
The leaders of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week on how to divvy up about $ 1.4 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2021 that is allowed under a two-year budget deal .
Setting spending allocations for the 12 appropriations bills is just the first step in negotiating an omnibus package , and appropriators still have to work through several policy differences between the House and Senate spending bills .
In other words , Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want a bill that is big enough to include bail-outs for cities and states burdened with large debt ( mostly Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell are taking a hard pass on that .
Rank and file members of the House are encouraging Pelosi to take a smaller package and work on getting more later .
Now that the election is over , perhaps Pelosi will stop preening and delaying negotiations to deny the Trump administration ’ s ability to get a deal going .
Democrats in House leadership pushed back a vote on legalizing marijuana until after the November 3 election .
They know that even if it passes in the House , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation .
If Democrats win the two Georgia run-offs , calculations by supporters will change .
The measure is not on track to become law this year because it lacks support in the Republican-controlled Senate , and some analysts also are downbeat on its prospects next year , when the 117th Congress convenes .
“ We subscribe to the view that pressure will build on Congress to address cannabis especially as more states act to legalize it for recreational and/or medical use ; however , we do not expect this pressure to result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said analysts at Height Capital Markets in a note on Tuesday .
“ We will revise our odds should Democrats win the Georgia runoff elections and gain control of the Senate.
” Height ’ s team said Republicans “ enjoy a distinct advantage in the Georgia Senate runoff elections and are likely to maintain control of the Senate , ” and that contributes to their view that during the 117th Congress the “ odds of cannabis legislation becoming law ” stand at “ less than 25 % .
” The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Expungement ( MORE ) Act .
A vote is expected on Thursday or Friday .
It will likely pass in the House as there is little likelihood it would pass in the Senate .
There is little change that those voting in favor of it would reap repercussions from constituents opposed to legalizing marijuana .
Rep. Steve Scalise , the House Republican Whip , voiced his irritation on the House priorities this week .
The MORE Act is a 2019 proposed piece of U.S. federal legislation that would deschedule cannabis from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social justice reforms related to cannabis , including the expungement of prior convictions .
Rep. Ilhan Omar is all for it .
The Big Cat Public Safety Act is scheduled for a vote Thursday .
It revises requirements governing the trade of big cats ( species of lion , tiger , leopard , cheetah , jaguar , or cougar , or any hybrids ) .
Specifically , it revises restrictions on the possession and exhibition of big cats , including restricting direct contact between the public and big cats .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know what is going on here .
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy sums this week up well – “ cannabis and cats ” .

Several provisions from legislation passed earlier to address coronavirus relief are set to expire at the end of December. Lawmakers in both parties want to pass additional coronavirus relief, though they don’t seem to be putting pressure on Speaker of the House Pelosi to get back to the negotiating table and work out legislation with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. So, this week, absent any major legislation being ready for votes, the House is taking up decriminalizing marijuana and a ban on breeding and private ownership of big cats. Priorities.
Congress is focusing on negotiating a government funding deal as it has a deadline of December 11 to pass a bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. It has not yet been determined whether bipartisan consensus can be reached to enact any additional COVID-19 relief before the year’s end.
Appropriators are hoping to reach agreement as soon as this week on an omnibus measure with new fiscal 2021 spending policy to avoid the need for another continuing resolution extending fiscal 2020 provisions. The leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations committees reached agreement last week on how to divvy up about $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2021 that is allowed under a two-year budget deal. Setting spending allocations for the 12 appropriations bills is just the first step in negotiating an omnibus package, and appropriators still have to work through several policy differences between the House and Senate spending bills.
In other words, Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want a bill that is big enough to include bail-outs for cities and states burdened with large debt (mostly Democrat areas) and Republicans Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell are taking a hard pass on that. Rank and file members of the House are encouraging Pelosi to take a smaller package and work on getting more later. Now that the election is over, perhaps Pelosi will stop preening and delaying negotiations to deny the Trump administration’s ability to get a deal going.
We need COVID relief now. Republicans fail to grasp the severity of the crisis and their proposals are inadequate. It’s time for Democrats to accept this reality, instead of complaining about it. Let’s make hard compromises that help people now and fight for more next year. https://t.co/nYtr10f4cN — U.S. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (@RepStephMurphy) November 30, 2020
Democrats in House leadership pushed back a vote on legalizing marijuana until after the November 3 election. They know that even if it passes in the House, there is no way a Republican-controlled Senate will pass the legislation. If Democrats win the two Georgia run-offs, calculations by supporters will change.
The measure is not on track to become law this year because it lacks support in the Republican-controlled Senate, and some analysts also are downbeat on its prospects next year, when the 117th Congress convenes. “We subscribe to the view that pressure will build on Congress to address cannabis especially as more states act to legalize it for recreational and/or medical use; however, we do not expect this pressure to result in federal legislation during the 117th Congress,” said analysts at Height Capital Markets in a note on Tuesday. “We will revise our odds should Democrats win the Georgia runoff elections and gain control of the Senate.” Height’s team said Republicans “enjoy a distinct advantage in the Georgia Senate runoff elections and are likely to maintain control of the Senate,” and that contributes to their view that during the 117th Congress the “odds of cannabis legislation becoming law” stand at “less than 25%.”
The bill is known as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. A vote is expected on Thursday or Friday. It will likely pass in the House as there is little likelihood it would pass in the Senate. There is little change that those voting in favor of it would reap repercussions from constituents opposed to legalizing marijuana.
Rep. Steve Scalise, the House Republican Whip, voiced his irritation on the House priorities this week.
Let me get this straight: Nancy Pelosi is blocking a bill to deliver unused Paycheck Protection Program funds to workers and small businesses. But she managed to find time for a vote on pot legislation this week. RT to tell Dems to quit blocking aid for Americans in need NOW! — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) November 30, 2020
The MORE Act is a 2019 proposed piece of U.S. federal legislation that would deschedule cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and enact various criminal and social justice reforms related to cannabis, including the expungement of prior convictions. Rep. Ilhan Omar is all for it.
This week, the House will be voting on legislation to federally decriminalize marijuana and expunge records nationwide. This is a long overdue step to provide restorative justice to those devastated by the war on drugs. — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) November 30, 2020
The Big Cat Public Safety Act is scheduled for a vote Thursday. It revises requirements governing the trade of big cats ( species of lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar, or any hybrids). Specifically, it revises restrictions on the possession and exhibition of big cats, including restricting direct contact between the public and big cats. If you watched The Tiger King on Netflix, you know what is going on here.
Carole Baskin, the owner of Big Cat Rescue in Tampa, Florida, who was featured in the series, has lobbied for passage of legislation for years. Her rescue website says the bill would “address two of the biggest sources of abuse of big cats by ending owning big cats as pets and stopping exploitative roadside zoos from offering cub petting and photo ops.”
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy sums this week up well – “cannabis and cats”.


hotair--2020-12-02--Iowa Democrat Rita Hart will challenge 6-vote loss by appealing directly to the House of Representat

Iowa Democrat Rita Hart will challenge 6-vote loss by appealing directly to the House of Representatives

The closest race in the country , a race which the Republican candidate won by a razor thin margin , is now going to be decided by Democrats in the U.S. House .
On Monday Iowa certified the vote for all state races including the incredibly close race in the 2nd district .
The vote totals show that Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks defeated Democrat Rita Hart by just six votes .
It ’ s the closest House race in the country since 1984 and the closest in Iowa in more than 100 years .
Once the vote was certified , Rita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to concede the loss and move on .
The second was to contest the outcome in Iowa ’ s courts .
The deadline for a court challenge was close of business today .
The third option was to appeal directly to the U.S. House itself which has the power to investigate and determine who will ultimately get the seat .
Today , Rita Hart chose door number three : The statement from Hart ’ s spokesperson reads in part , “ With a margin this small , it is critical that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowans ’ ballots that were legally cast are counted.
” Hart ’ s reasoning for skipping over Iowa ’ s courts is that there ’ s not enough time for the courts to go through all of the ballots she wants examined again .
Hart ’ s campaign said that quick timeline would not allow enough time to review the ballots , including thousands of unexamined undervotes and overvotes and others that were not counted for a variety of reasons .
Instead , the campaign said that Hart would file an election contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contested Elections Act in the coming weeks .
Such a filing , due within 30 days after Monday ’ s certification , will trigger a proceeding in front of the House Committee on Administration that would allow Hart to offer testimony and evidence .
The Democratic-controlled House could also direct the committee to conduct its own investigation and recount , a process that in the past has included reviewing election records and examining disputed ballots .
The House Committee on Administration is chaired by California Rep. Zoe Lofgren .
Looking over this list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last time this happened was in 1984 when a Republican challenger was certified the winner of a close race in Indiana , but the Democratic House refused to seat him and conducted its own investigation which concluded the Democrat had won by 4 votes .
Here ’ s a description of what happened from Wikipedia : President Reagan carried the district 61 % to 38 % .
Buoyed by these strong coattails , [ Republican Rick ] McIntyre trailed [ Democrat Frank ] McCloskey by only 72 votes after the initial vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precincts of one county , however , resulted in an overcounting of McCloskey votes , and Indiana ’ s Secretary of State ( a Republican ) quickly certified McIntyre as the winner by 34 votes , without checking other counties , even though a recount in another county showed McCloskey with an overall lead of 72 votes .
After a recount , McIntyre was up by 418 votes , but more than 4,800 ballots were not recounted for technical reasons .
The Democratic-controlled House refused to seat either McIntyre or McCloskey and conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , consisting of two Democrats and one Republican , hired auditors from the U.S. General Accounting Office to do the counting .
The recount dragged on for nearly four months , and McCloskey survived three Republican-sponsored floor votes to seat McIntyre .
The task force instructed the auditors to ignore many of the “ technicalities ” that resulted in Indiana officials throwing out ballots .
In the end , the House seated McCloskey on May 1 , 1985 after declaring him the winner by just four votes ( 116,645 to 116,641 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ along partisan lines and in response every Republican House member momentarily marched out of the chamber in symbolic protest .
So that ’ s probably what we can expect here as well .
The House , led by Pelosi and Lofgren will announce that all of the technicalities about undervotes and overvotes don ’ t matter and will spend months recounting in hopes that they can put Hart in the lead .
Then there will be a narrow party line vote to seat her as the winner .
I hope Republicans in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The closest race in the country, a race which the Republican candidate won by a razor thin margin, is now going to be decided by Democrats in the U.S. House.
On Monday Iowa certified the vote for all state races including the incredibly close race in the 2nd district. The vote totals show that Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks defeated Democrat Rita Hart by just six votes. It’s the closest House race in the country since 1984 and the closest in Iowa in more than 100 years.
Once the vote was certified, Rita Hart had three options. The first was to concede the loss and move on. The second was to contest the outcome in Iowa’s courts. The deadline for a court challenge was close of business today. The third option was to appeal directly to the U.S. House itself which has the power to investigate and determine who will ultimately get the seat. Today, Rita Hart chose door number three:
We all watched #IA02 close from 47 votes to 6, but there are still ballots that haven't been counted. The only way to ensure all Iowans' votes are counted is a full examination of this election by the U.S. House that will consider every ballot cast. pic.twitter.com/NVksSnT6gd — Rita Hart (@RitaHartIA) December 2, 2020
The statement from Hart’s spokesperson reads in part, “With a margin this small, it is critical that we take this next step to ensure that Iowans’ ballots that were legally cast are counted.” Hart’s reasoning for skipping over Iowa’s courts is that there’s not enough time for the courts to go through all of the ballots she wants examined again.
Hart’s campaign said that quick timeline would not allow enough time to review the ballots, including thousands of unexamined undervotes and overvotes and others that were not counted for a variety of reasons. Instead, the campaign said that Hart would file an election contest with the U.S. House under the Federal Contested Elections Act in the coming weeks. Such a filing, due within 30 days after Monday’s certification, will trigger a proceeding in front of the House Committee on Administration that would allow Hart to offer testimony and evidence. The Democratic-controlled House could also direct the committee to conduct its own investigation and recount, a process that in the past has included reviewing election records and examining disputed ballots.
The House Committee on Administration is chaired by California Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
Looking over this list of close elections, it looks like the last time this happened was in 1984 when a Republican challenger was certified the winner of a close race in Indiana, but the Democratic House refused to seat him and conducted its own investigation which concluded the Democrat had won by 4 votes. Here’s a description of what happened from Wikipedia:
President Reagan carried the district 61% to 38%. Buoyed by these strong coattails, [Republican Rick] McIntyre trailed [Democrat Frank] McCloskey by only 72 votes after the initial vote count. A tabulation error in two precincts of one county, however, resulted in an overcounting of McCloskey votes, and Indiana’s Secretary of State (a Republican) quickly certified McIntyre as the winner by 34 votes, without checking other counties, even though a recount in another county showed McCloskey with an overall lead of 72 votes. After a recount, McIntyre was up by 418 votes, but more than 4,800 ballots were not recounted for technical reasons. The Democratic-controlled House refused to seat either McIntyre or McCloskey and conducted their own recount. A task force, consisting of two Democrats and one Republican, hired auditors from the U.S. General Accounting Office to do the counting. The recount dragged on for nearly four months, and McCloskey survived three Republican-sponsored floor votes to seat McIntyre. The task force instructed the auditors to ignore many of the “technicalities” that resulted in Indiana officials throwing out ballots. In the end, the House seated McCloskey on May 1, 1985 after declaring him the winner by just four votes (116,645 to 116,641). The vote, 230–195, was largely along partisan lines and in response every Republican House member momentarily marched out of the chamber in symbolic protest.
So that’s probably what we can expect here as well. The House, led by Pelosi and Lofgren will announce that all of the technicalities about undervotes and overvotes don’t matter and will spend months recounting in hopes that they can put Hart in the lead. Then there will be a narrow party line vote to seat her as the winner. I hope Republicans in the House are ready to fight this.


hotair--2020-12-02--Sidney Powell: Georgians should make it known that they won't vote until their vote is secure

Here ’ s one more conspiracy theory for the hopper : What if Sidney Powell is actually a Democratic plant working undercover to help Chuck Schumer win a Senate majority ?
I can ’ t find video of that quote but numerous other reporters watching today ’ s press conference/rally with Lin Wood — since when do lawyers have “ rallies ” ?
— are reporting it that same way .
Apparently Powell went on to say that she thinks Georgians should boycott elections “ regardless of party ” until this Kraken business is ironed out , but of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state who ’ ll pay her any mind .
If she ends up depressing turnout , it ’ ll be among one party exclusively .
And in a state where Trump lost by just 12,000 votes , that ’ s potentially decisive .
Wood also encouraged Georgians not to vote amid leading the “ rally ” crowd in chants of “ lock him up ” about Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp : “ Giving away the Senate majority in order to own the libs , ” says NRO ’ s Ed Whelan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I like this idea : A party beholden to conspiracy theorists is unfit to govern .
If Powell or Flynn or whoever wants to pied-piper some of those conspiracy theorists away , dividing the Republican base , that ’ s probably good for the country long-term .
Although , ironically , if it happens , panicky establishment Republicans will suddenly become desperate for Trump to run again after all .
He may be the only figure in the party who can keep the fringy and non-fringy elements of the GOP together .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from now when he shows up in Georgia and tries to walk a line between Brian Kemp on the one hand and Powell and Wood on the other .
The vote was rigged and Kemp did nothing , Trump will say !
But also you should turn out and vote in the next Kemp-run election on January 5 !
That makes no sense , but it ’ s the message with which Trump has saddled himself by how he ’ s handled the past month .
A poll out today finds Georgia voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , 46/42 .
Interestingly , Republicans are also more enthusiastic to vote than the opposition with 84 percent saying they ’ re likely to turn out versus 80 percent of Democrats saying so .
Numbers like that make you wonder how many righties *really* believe the election was stolen and how many are echoing Trump ’ s conspiracy theories as a form of tribal loyalty , not unlike a “ gang tattoo.
” There ’ s no arguing with Powell ’ s and Wood ’ s logic that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s voting system is rigged .
To turn out anyway under those circumstances necessarily requires believing on some level in the integrity of the process .
The recount of the Georgia presidential election is ongoing , by the way .
Guess what .
“ We have seen no substantial changes to the results from any county so far .
And that ’ s what we expected , and I think that ’ s what most other people have also , ” Raffensperger said at a press conference from the south stairs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 110 counties have finished their work on the recount as of Wednesday morning and he anticipates that all 159 counties in the state will finish their recount by a midnight deadline .
Recount results will begin to be posted online starting Wednesday afternoon .
If you can spare 10 minutes , watch Erick Erickson ’ s commentary on the conspiracy theories about voting in Georgia .
Erickson ’ s a longtime radio host and blogger but in his earlier career he was an elections lawyer in Georgia .
As he explains , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are particularly kooky given all the precautions taken to ensure the integrity of the vote — isolation from the Internet , a paper trail in the form of paper ballots , independent check-in systems to keep count of the number of voters so that the ballot machines can ’ t be “ stuffed , ” on and on .
Erickson ’ s worried about the GOP blowing the runoffs because Trump , Powell , and Wood keep trying to sour them on voting .
Given how tight the final margins are likely to @ @ @ @ @ @

Here’s one more conspiracy theory for the hopper: What if Sidney Powell is actually a Democratic plant working undercover to help Chuck Schumer win a Senate majority?
"There should not be a runoff," says Sidney Powell. "I think I would encourage all Georgians to make it known that you will not vote at all until your vote is secure." Crowd cheers. How is this a winning strategy for January 5th? pic.twitter.com/q5O3OYPrKu — j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) December 2, 2020
I can’t find video of that quote but numerous other reporters watching today’s press conference/rally with Lin Wood — since when do lawyers have “rallies”? — are reporting it that same way. Apparently Powell went on to say that she thinks Georgians should boycott elections “regardless of party” until this Kraken business is ironed out, but of course there’s not a Democrat in the state who’ll pay her any mind. If she ends up depressing turnout, it’ll be among one party exclusively.
And in a state where Trump lost by just 12,000 votes, that’s potentially decisive.
Wood also encouraged Georgians not to vote amid leading the “rally” crowd in chants of “lock him up” about Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp:
Here's Lin Wood telling Georgia Republicans NOT to vote for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue next month. "They have not earned your vote. Don't you give it to them. Why would you go back and vote in another rigged election for god's sake! Fix it! You gotta fix it!" pic.twitter.com/Uvj1QIpqFL — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) December 2, 2020
“Giving away the Senate majority in order to own the libs,” says NRO’s Ed Whelan. Gotta say, though, I like this idea:
I am watching the "Stop the Steal" rally and have started drafting a tweet about 20 times…but mere words cannot convey what is happening. Example: Lin Wood just announced that Sidney Powell and Major Mike Flynn should run as a presidential ticket in 2024. — Jen Jordan (@senatorjen) December 2, 2020
A party beholden to conspiracy theorists is unfit to govern. If Powell or Flynn or whoever wants to pied-piper some of those conspiracy theorists away, dividing the Republican base, that’s probably good for the country long-term. Although, ironically, if it happens, panicky establishment Republicans will suddenly become desperate for Trump to run again after all. He may be the only figure in the party who can keep the fringy and non-fringy elements of the GOP together. His first big test will come three days from now when he shows up in Georgia and tries to walk a line between Brian Kemp on the one hand and Powell and Wood on the other. The vote was rigged and Kemp did nothing, Trump will say! But also you should turn out and vote in the next Kemp-run election on January 5! That makes no sense, but it’s the message with which Trump has saddled himself by how he’s handled the past month.
A poll out today finds Georgia voters narrowly prefer to see the GOP control the Senate, 46/42. Interestingly, Republicans are also more enthusiastic to vote than the opposition with 84 percent saying they’re likely to turn out versus 80 percent of Democrats saying so. Numbers like that make you wonder how many righties *really* believe the election was stolen and how many are echoing Trump’s conspiracy theories as a form of tribal loyalty, not unlike a “gang tattoo.” There’s no arguing with Powell’s and Wood’s logic that it’s foolish to vote if you think Georgia’s voting system is rigged. To turn out anyway under those circumstances necessarily requires believing on some level in the integrity of the process.
The recount of the Georgia presidential election is ongoing, by the way. Guess what.
“We have seen no substantial changes to the results from any county so far. And that’s what we expected, and I think that’s what most other people have also,” Raffensperger said at a press conference from the south stairs of the Georgia Capitol. He also said 110 counties have finished their work on the recount as of Wednesday morning and he anticipates that all 159 counties in the state will finish their recount by a midnight deadline. Recount results will begin to be posted online starting Wednesday afternoon.
If you can spare 10 minutes, watch Erick Erickson’s commentary on the conspiracy theories about voting in Georgia. Erickson’s a longtime radio host and blogger but in his earlier career he was an elections lawyer in Georgia. As he explains, the theories of chicanery involving Dominion Voting Systems are particularly kooky given all the precautions taken to ensure the integrity of the vote — isolation from the Internet, a paper trail in the form of paper ballots, independent check-in systems to keep count of the number of voters so that the ballot machines can’t be “stuffed,” on and on. Erickson’s worried about the GOP blowing the runoffs because Trump, Powell, and Wood keep trying to sour them on voting. Given how tight the final margins are likely to be, he should be.


hotair--2020-12-02--Hmmm: Pelosi, Schumer sorta-kinda endorse centrists' $908B COVID-19 relief plan

Did Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer just drop their COVID-19 relief demand from $ 2.5 trillion to $ 908 billion ?
Not really , no , but they did signal that they ’ re finally open to some negotiation well south of that range .
The media reports that the two Democrats had endorsed the centrist-coalition proposal released yesterday overstated the buy-in that they expressed : Contra ABC , Pelosi and Schumer did not “ support ” the proposal itself as an end product .
They support it as “ the basis for immediate , bipartisan , bicameral negotiations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use it as the road map to discussions .
It ’ s a cinch that both Democrats will insist on more spending in the back-and-forth to come , assuming it does come .
One area in which more spending will almost certainly be demanded is a second round of stimulus checks .
As I wrote yesterday , it ’ s absurd to push a relief bill without direct stimulus as a component .
For one thing , all sides agree on the need for it , and for another , selling spending like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is political malpractice : This is the problem with centrists , or more accurately , with lawmakers that fall in love with either numbers or dealmaking .
Voters whose livelihoods have been curtailed or eliminated altogether want that direct relief .
A package that ignores them while putting cash into the hands of “ hard-hit transit agencies ” will be a political disaster , something that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump are smart enough to know .
It ’ s also pennywise and pound foolish .
The second round of stimulus would cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not chump change , but it shouldn ’ t be a dealbreaker .
It would put the overall package cost at $ 1.4 trillion , which is just about the middle ground between the two sides now .
Furthermore , there ’ s significant justification for this kind of stimulus/relief .
Savings levels and disposable income have been dropping for months , and in a consumer-activity-oriented economy , that spells disaster .
A second round of direct stimulus is warranted to give consumers a bit more confidence heading into a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars to donuts that Congress doesn ’ t pass anything without some direct stimulus for voters .
And this is actually good news , even if it ’ s not an “ endorsement.
” Pelosi and Schumer have now signaled that they will come down significantly from their earlier demands , which has been the biggest obstacle to the passage of a Phase 4 relief bill .
Republicans need to wrap this up as quickly as possible to get funding in place for vaccine distribution , and everyone can go home for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their pocket after all .

Did Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer just drop their COVID-19 relief demand from $2.5 trillion to $908 billion? Not really, no, but they did signal that they’re finally open to some negotiation well south of that range. The media reports that the two Democrats had endorsed the centrist-coalition proposal released yesterday overstated the buy-in that they expressed:
NEW: Pelosi, Schumer express support for compromise COVID-19 relief bill proposed yesterday: "We and others will offer improvements, but the need to act is immediate and we believe that with good-faith negotiations we could come to an agreement." https://t.co/DVuKErWwLp pic.twitter.com/pqyGAUBBFH — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 2, 2020
Contra ABC, Pelosi and Schumer did not “support” the proposal itself as an end product. They support it as “the basis for immediate, bipartisan, bicameral negotiations.” In other words, they want to use it as the road map to discussions. It’s a cinch that both Democrats will insist on more spending in the back-and-forth to come, assuming it does come.
One area in which more spending will almost certainly be demanded is a second round of stimulus checks. As I wrote yesterday, it’s absurd to push a relief bill without direct stimulus as a component. For one thing, all sides agree on the need for it, and for another, selling spending like this without giving direct aid to voters is political malpractice:
This is the problem with centrists, or more accurately, with lawmakers that fall in love with either numbers or dealmaking. Voters whose livelihoods have been curtailed or eliminated altogether want that direct relief. A package that ignores them while putting cash into the hands of “hard-hit transit agencies” will be a political disaster, something that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump are smart enough to know. It’s also pennywise and pound foolish. The second round of stimulus would cost around $500 billion, so it’s not chump change, but it shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. It would put the overall package cost at $1.4 trillion, which is just about the middle ground between the two sides now. Furthermore, there’s significant justification for this kind of stimulus/relief. Savings levels and disposable income have been dropping for months, and in a consumer-activity-oriented economy, that spells disaster. A second round of direct stimulus is warranted to give consumers a bit more confidence heading into a new round of COVID-19 commerce restrictions.
Bet dollars to donuts that Congress doesn’t pass anything without some direct stimulus for voters.
And this is actually good news, even if it’s not an “endorsement.” Pelosi and Schumer have now signaled that they will come down significantly from their earlier demands, which has been the biggest obstacle to the passage of a Phase 4 relief bill. Republicans need to wrap this up as quickly as possible to get funding in place for vaccine distribution, and everyone can go home for the Christmas holiday with a small win in their pocket after all.


hotair--2020-12-02--Mike Flynn: How about some "limited" martial law and a military-run election do-over?

Another perfectly normal day in the majestic pageant of America ’ s peaceful transfer of power .
This doesn ’ t reach the level of actual treason , a federal crime with a very specific definition , but Ken White is right to call it “ breathtakingly morally treasonous to American values.
” There ’ s no way to prove it but my strong suspicion is that the people who are applauding the loudest for Flynn ’ s tweet today are also the people who had the most George Washington and Constitution iconography on their walls at home during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that Flynn was once accused of considering the rendition of Turkish dissident Fethullah Gulen from the United States to Turkey , which would have delivered him into the murderous hands of Erdogan .
A guy who ’ d end America as we know it by calling out the military because his buddy lost an election logically should have no problem handing someone over to another one of his buddies who wants to kill that person .
Follow the link in his tweet and it ’ ll take you here , where you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators , courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment , you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law , and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections , for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote .
A vote that assures a fair election in every jurisdiction and reflects the true will of the people .
Federal candidates only .
Paper ballots .
No computers .
Hand-counted with both parties watching every vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove residence .
Conducted safely with everyone wearing masks and six feet apart , just like we did in Ohio .
Only then can the winning candidate be accepted as legitimate by a true majority of We the People who must give our consent to be justly governed !
Unfortunately we are at a point where we can only trust our military to do this because our corrupt political class and courts have proven their inability to act fairly and within the law .
You must also act , like Lincoln did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one-sided propaganda designed and proven to influence the election outcome , and end the unlawful censorship of Big Tech , to restore the confidence of the American People in our electoral process or we can not continue as a nation .
Failure to do so could result in massive violence and destruction on a level not seen since the Civil War .
Limited Martial Law is clearly a better option than Civil War !
The piece begins with a reminder that Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors and political critics during the Civil War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Flynn has in mind in that second paragraph .
I say this in all sincerity : I ’ m surprised that Trump hasn ’ t retweeted Flynn today or tweeted out a link to the “ We The People ” page with some sly comment attached like “ Interesting idea !
” It ’ s an uncharacteristic show of restraint , especially now that his cronies have begun to turn up the heat on what they ’ ll support to keep him in power .
Did his advisors meet with him at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , listen , don ’ t tweet anything about needing the military to resolve this election dispute , okay ?
” Even if they had , why would Trump heed them ?
Here ’ s an interesting point in the same vein as my point about Washington and tea partiers : How many people who had panic attacks over Obama and “ Jade Helm ” in 2015 have signed the Mike Flynn petition demanding a choice between martial law and civil war ?
Say this much for Flynn : He ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever among Trump critics over who ’ s worse , the devout cronies like Giuliani who went to the mat for the president or the Republicans in Congress who knew better but bit their tongues out of ambition and self-interest .
Mike Flynn was willing to show his cards on his willingness to commit “ moral treason ” against America .
Why can ’ t Ron Johnson do the same ?
Next we covered the election results .
I said I was both frustrated and gravely concerned about how the GOP is continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity of the election .
Senator Johnson said that he knew and accepted the fact that Joe Biden had won .
I asked why he wouldn ’ t say so at a moment when Trump was taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of our democracy .
Senator Johnson replied that the institutions of our democracy are strong enough to withstand what is going on .
This response shocked me , since it suggested that the truth was ultimately unimportant and that Sen. Johnson viewed what the president was doing as someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gon na politely disagree with RonJohn that it ’ s fine to stand by silently while a hapless coup attempt takes place just because it ’ s hapless , as even a hapless attempt would have stood a good chance of succeeding if circumstances were slightly different .
Jonathan Last posed a hypothetical in his newsletter this morning : If Trump had won the popular vote by a few million votes this time but Biden had won the electoral college with narrow margins in key swing states — a reversal of 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden would have certainly been inaugurated on January 20 the way Trump was four years ago ?
Republican officials like Brian Kemp and Doug Ducey deserve credit for having resisted Trump ’ s efforts to pressure them but the scale of Biden ’ s victory made that comparatively easy for them .
He won the popular vote comfortably and won several more states than he needed to clinch 270 electoral votes .
Had Ducey or Kemp tried to block certification of their states ’ results , they would have ignited a ferocious uproar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from becoming president .
He has 270 even without Georgia and Arizona , after all .
But what if he didn ’ t ?
What if his margin of victory depended on those two states and , on top of that , Trump had received more votes nationwide ?
Who ’ s willing to bet everything they own that , with a better chance of actually stopping Biden ’ s win , Republican officials from Ducey and Kemp to members of Congress to Trump himself wouldn ’ t have gone all-in on trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hapless coup attempt is nothing to get worked up about is like believing that a friend ’ s failed attempt to murder you isn ’ t worth getting worked about .
You survived , right ?
The problem is , now that you ’ ve seen your “ friend ” for who he is , you ’ ll never look at him the same way again .
I ’ ll leave you with this .
A distinguished officer deserves better than to have to field questions about what the military might do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of him , but this is the position in which we ’ ve placed ourselves .
Trump didn ’ t put us here .
We chose it .

Another perfectly normal day in the majestic pageant of America’s peaceful transfer of power.
This doesn’t reach the level of actual treason, a federal crime with a very specific definition, but Ken White is right to call it “breathtakingly morally treasonous to American values.” There’s no way to prove it but my strong suspicion is that the people who are applauding the loudest for Flynn’s tweet today are also the people who had the most George Washington and Constitution iconography on their walls at home during the tea-party era.
Reading it also reminded me that Flynn was once accused of considering the rendition of Turkish dissident Fethullah Gulen from the United States to Turkey, which would have delivered him into the murderous hands of Erdogan. A guy who’d end America as we know it by calling out the military because his buddy lost an election logically should have no problem handing someone over to another one of his buddies who wants to kill that person.
https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1333916403389370369
Follow the link in his tweet and it’ll take you here, where you’ll find this:
When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote. A vote that assures a fair election in every jurisdiction and reflects the true will of the people. Federal candidates only. Paper ballots. No computers. Hand-counted with both parties watching every vote. Only registered voters. Photo ID to prove residence. Conducted safely with everyone wearing masks and six feet apart, just like we did in Ohio. Only then can the winning candidate be accepted as legitimate by a true majority of We the People who must give our consent to be justly governed! Unfortunately we are at a point where we can only trust our military to do this because our corrupt political class and courts have proven their inability to act fairly and within the law. You must also act, like Lincoln did, to silence the destructive media’s one-sided propaganda designed and proven to influence the election outcome, and end the unlawful censorship of Big Tech, to restore the confidence of the American People in our electoral process or we cannot continue as a nation. Failure to do so could result in massive violence and destruction on a level not seen since the Civil War. Limited Martial Law is clearly a better option than Civil War!
The piece begins with a reminder that Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors and political critics during the Civil War, in case you’re wondering what Flynn has in mind in that second paragraph. I say this in all sincerity: I’m surprised that Trump hasn’t retweeted Flynn today or tweeted out a link to the “We The People” page with some sly comment attached like “Interesting idea!” It’s an uncharacteristic show of restraint, especially now that his cronies have begun to turn up the heat on what they’ll support to keep him in power.
Did his advisors meet with him at some point to say, “Uh, listen, don’t tweet anything about needing the military to resolve this election dispute, okay?” Even if they had, why would Trump heed them?
Here’s an interesting point in the same vein as my point about Washington and tea partiers:
It's really ironic how the conspiracy nuts who spent decades telling us how Clinton/Bush/Obama were going to suspend the constitution and declare martial law are… now unironically calling for Trump to do just that because they didn't like the results of the election. https://t.co/Kh1Ix3fU9F — Ben Harris (@btharris93) December 2, 2020
How many people who had panic attacks over Obama and “Jade Helm” in 2015 have signed the Mike Flynn petition demanding a choice between martial law and civil war?
Say this much for Flynn: He’s a true believer. The debate will rage forever among Trump critics over who’s worse, the devout cronies like Giuliani who went to the mat for the president or the Republicans in Congress who knew better but bit their tongues out of ambition and self-interest. Mike Flynn was willing to show his cards on his willingness to commit “moral treason” against America. Why can’t Ron Johnson do the same?
Next we covered the election results. I said I was both frustrated and gravely concerned about how the GOP is continuing to advance disproved conspiracy theories regarding the integrity of the election. Senator Johnson said that he knew and accepted the fact that Joe Biden had won. I asked why he wouldn’t say so at a moment when Trump was taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of our democracy. Senator Johnson replied that the institutions of our democracy are strong enough to withstand what is going on. This response shocked me, since it suggested that the truth was ultimately unimportant and that Sen. Johnson viewed what the president was doing as someone else’s problem.
I’m gonna politely disagree with RonJohn that it’s fine to stand by silently while a hapless coup attempt takes place just because it’s hapless, as even a hapless attempt would have stood a good chance of succeeding if circumstances were slightly different. Jonathan Last posed a hypothetical in his newsletter this morning: If Trump had won the popular vote by a few million votes this time but Biden had won the electoral college with narrow margins in key swing states — a reversal of 2016, in other words — does anyone think Biden would have certainly been inaugurated on January 20 the way Trump was four years ago? Republican officials like Brian Kemp and Doug Ducey deserve credit for having resisted Trump’s efforts to pressure them but the scale of Biden’s victory made that comparatively easy for them. He won the popular vote comfortably and won several more states than he needed to clinch 270 electoral votes. Had Ducey or Kemp tried to block certification of their states’ results, they would have ignited a ferocious uproar locally while also failing to stop Biden from becoming president. He has 270 even without Georgia and Arizona, after all.
But what if he didn’t? What if his margin of victory depended on those two states and, on top of that, Trump had received more votes nationwide? Who’s willing to bet everything they own that, with a better chance of actually stopping Biden’s win, Republican officials from Ducey and Kemp to members of Congress to Trump himself wouldn’t have gone all-in on trying to overturn the election?
Believing that a hapless coup attempt is nothing to get worked up about is like believing that a friend’s failed attempt to murder you isn’t worth getting worked about. You survived, right?
The problem is, now that you’ve seen your “friend” for who he is, you’ll never look at him the same way again.
I’ll leave you with this. A distinguished officer deserves better than to have to field questions about what the military might do if the president makes a treasonous request of him, but this is the position in which we’ve placed ourselves. Trump didn’t put us here. We chose it.


hotair--2020-12-02--Brad Parscale: If Trump had been 'publicly empathetic' about COVID-19 'he would have won'

The last time most of us saw Brad Parscale was in September when he was being arrested and knocked on his back at his home over a domestic incident .
His wife later pulled back those allegations and he claims the two of them “ have never been happier.
” Yesterday Parscale gave an interview to Fox News Martha MacCallum in which he talked about his role in the Trump campaign and what he thinks went wrong after he was sidelined several months ago .
Parscale walked a fine line in the interview , refusing to criticize Trump or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
In fact , he said several times in the interview that he things Trump still has a chance .
But when asked what he thinks went wrong , Parscale argued that he and Jared Kushner had a plan for the campaign but said when he was “ removed ” over the summer the campaign lost confidence in that plan .
Parscale didn ’ t blame anyone in particular and noted that those who took over for him were his own deputies who he had hired .
But he did blame “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing him not to trust the original plan .
One of most interesting moments of the interview came when MacCallum pressed Parscale on the president ’ s slide with suburban voters .
“ I think that goes to one thing , ” Parscale replied .
He continued , “ I think it was the decision , on COVID , to go for opening the economy vs. public empathy .
I think a young family with a young child who were scared to take them back to school wanted to see an empathetic president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I said this multiple times and he chose a different path .
And I don ’ t think there ’ s anything wrong with this .
I love him but we had a difference on this .
I thought we should have public empathy .
I think people were scared .
I watched people walk around me…walk around me because I got a mask on now .
They just don ’ t want to get COVID .
I could see how waitresses stand a little farther from the table .
People were scared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would have been publicly empathetic , he would have won .
By a landslide then .
I think he could have leaned into it instead of run away from it.
” Parscale went on to add that this was the biggest police mistake the campaign made and was really the one decision that kept the campaign from being “ perfect.
” “ This is one of the most empathetic men when you ’ re sitting next to him .
Cares about you , asks about your family , all that stuff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on stage and do that , ” he said .
It ’ ll be interesting to see how the Trump camp and Trump himself will respond to this .
My guess is they ’ re not going to be happy that , at least in that one segment of the interview , Parscale implied that a ) Trump lost and b ) Trump lost because he made a bad call about reopening vs. public empathy .
Is he right ?
I don ’ t think there ’ s any way to say for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain is that Democrats were convinced COVID was Trump ’ s weak point .
So much so that they , with the help of some bad polling , convinced themselves a blue wave was coming .
That didn ’ t happen obviously but it does make sense that COVID was the anchor around Trump ’ s ankle .
As Parscale said in this interview , if COVID hadn ’ t happened , 2020 would have been a GOP blowout .
I think that ’ s true .
So there ’ s no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor in this election .
Here ’ s a portion of the MacCallum interview .
The part about empathy over COVID comes near the end .

The last time most of us saw Brad Parscale was in September when he was being arrested and knocked on his back at his home over a domestic incident. His wife later pulled back those allegations and he claims the two of them “have never been happier.”
Yesterday Parscale gave an interview to Fox News Martha MacCallum in which he talked about his role in the Trump campaign and what he thinks went wrong after he was sidelined several months ago. Parscale walked a fine line in the interview, refusing to criticize Trump or to even say that Trump lost the 2020 election. In fact, he said several times in the interview that he things Trump still has a chance.
But when asked what he thinks went wrong, Parscale argued that he and Jared Kushner had a plan for the campaign but said when he was “removed” over the summer the campaign lost confidence in that plan. Parscale didn’t blame anyone in particular and noted that those who took over for him were his own deputies who he had hired. But he did blame “D-level” sycophants around the president for convincing him not to trust the original plan.
One of most interesting moments of the interview came when MacCallum pressed Parscale on the president’s slide with suburban voters. “I think that goes to one thing,” Parscale replied. He continued, “I think it was the decision, on COVID, to go for opening the economy vs. public empathy. I think a young family with a young child who were scared to take them back to school wanted to see an empathetic president and an empathetic Republican Party.
“I said this multiple times and he chose a different path. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. I love him but we had a difference on this. I thought we should have public empathy. I think people were scared. I watched people walk around me…walk around me because I got a mask on now. They just don’t want to get COVID. I could see how waitresses stand a little farther from the table. People were scared.
“And I think that if he would have been publicly empathetic, he would have won. By a landslide then. I think he could have leaned into it instead of run away from it.”
Parscale went on to add that this was the biggest police mistake the campaign made and was really the one decision that kept the campaign from being “perfect.” “This is one of the most empathetic men when you’re sitting next to him. Cares about you, asks about your family, all that stuff. All he had to do was get on stage and do that,” he said.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Trump camp and Trump himself will respond to this. My guess is they’re not going to be happy that, at least in that one segment of the interview, Parscale implied that a) Trump lost and b) Trump lost because he made a bad call about reopening vs. public empathy.
Is he right? I don’t think there’s any way to say for certain. What I do know for certain is that Democrats were convinced COVID was Trump’s weak point. So much so that they, with the help of some bad polling, convinced themselves a blue wave was coming. That didn’t happen obviously but it does make sense that COVID was the anchor around Trump’s ankle. As Parscale said in this interview, if COVID hadn’t happened, 2020 would have been a GOP blowout. I think that’s true. So there’s no doubt the handling of COVID was an important factor in this election.
Here’s a portion of the MacCallum interview. The part about empathy over COVID comes near the end.