hotair--2020-11-16--Politico: Don't get your hopes up in Georgia, Democrats; <span class='red'>Update: Rove rides into G

Politico: Don't get your hopes up in Georgia, Democrats; Update: Rove rides into Georgia

Just in case Democrats didn ’ t pay attention to a similar warning from the Washington Post last week , Politico echoes it today .
Democrats had the good fortune to tie up both Senate seats from Georgia into a runoff , thanks to a record election turnout and a clear impulse against Donald Trump pushing against David Perdue ’ s chances of winning his race outright .
Don ’ t expect that to continue , James Arkin reports , especially since both Democratic challengers are starting out “ behind the eight-ball ” : To repeat Biden ’ s feat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 5 , with control of the Senate on the line , the Democratic Party will have to defy a long track record of failure in overtime elections .
They ’ ll need to overcome the entire weight of the Republican Party descending on the state — from organizers and operatives to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars .
One of their Senate candidates , Jon Ossoff , would have to make up the nearly 90,000 votes he ran behind the GOP incumbent on Nov. 3 .
And Democrats will have to manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot to motivate their voters — while Republicans energize their base with warnings that electing Ossoff and Democrat Raphael Warnock would allow liberalism — or even socialism — to run amok in Washington .
“ We are the firewall , not just for the U.S. Senate , but the future of our country , ” Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler , who is facing Warnock in the special election , told a crowd of about 100 people packed into a restaurant last week to hear from her and Republican Sen. David Perdue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to a runoff , in 2008 , Republican Saxby Chambliss crushed Democrat Jim Martin by 15 percentage points — just a month after he only edged Martin by 3 points in the Obama-fueled November election .
It ’ s not just about historical trends either , though .
Arkin hints at that with Ossoff ’ s underperformance of Biden and Trump ’ s presidency off the table in the runoff .
That underperformance goes even more than just Trump hangover , however .
Democrats poured $ 32.3 million into Ossoff ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 11 million and outspending him by $ 13 million .
The result ?
Ossoff fell 86,000 votes short despite Joe Biden winning the state .
Their runoff pitch might make the problem worse : It ’ s not that different , however .
Republicans got more votes than Democrats in both Senate races this year , even though Warnock ended up with a plurality lead .
Democrats didn ’ t pick up a single House seat in Georgia either .
As far as out-organizing Republicans , Ossoff had the resources and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election while riding Biden ’ s coattails .
Now , however , Ossoff has to deal with Warnock ’ s impact on both races .
And while Georgia might be shifting a bit politically , it ’ s not shifting into Fidel Castro apologism , and Warnock ’ s not helping by dodging questions about his political action in the past : TAPPER : Let me ask you about one of those attacks , because Senator Loeffler keeps mentioning on the campaign an incident from 1995 when you were a youth pastor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech by Fidel Castro .
Now , you have said you had nothing to do with that invitation .
But just to clarify for our viewers , did you attend the speech ?
And do you understand why there are so many people who view Castro as a murderous tyrant and not someone to be celebrated ?
WARNOCK : I will tell you what I understand .
I understand why Kelly Loeffler is trying to change the subject .
I was a youth pastor .
I had nothing to do with that program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the program .
I have never met the Cuban dictator .
And so I ’ m not connected to him .
I will tell you whose names are on the ballot , Raphael Warnock and Kelly Loeffler .
This race is not about anybody else .
And so , while she tries to tie me to these personalities that I don ’ t know , and seeks the endorsement of a fifth century warmonger named Attila the Hun , I will be focused on health care in Georgia .
TAPPER : But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view any celebration of Fidel Castro as celebrating something ugly and tyrannical ?
You mentioned it .
Yes , I think you just called him a tyrant .
He ’ s — he was a murderous thug .
And I think — I get that this is a distraction , but do you understand why people would be appalled by anyone celebrating Fidel Castro ?
WARNOCK : Well , absolutely .
And I never have .
What I ’ m putting forward in this race is American values .
Note well that Warnock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s speech at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1995 , where he served as a preacher .
His multiple sermons on socialism and Marxism have now begun to emerge too , which makes Warnock look less like an “ American values ” candidate and more like a handy straw man for Chuck Schumer and hard-Left progressives .
The GOP has been waiting for Warnock as a runoff candidate , and they will try very hard to to hang Warnock around Ossoff ’ s neck , too .
And Ossoff is clearly not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break this runoff into two separate questions .
Update : He ’ s baaaaa-aaaaaaaack .
And so apparently is a united GOP effort : Senate Republicans have tapped Karl Rove to oversee their fundraising program for the Georgia runoff elections , according to a person familiar with the effort .
The former George W. Bush adviser will serve as national finance chair for the Georgia Battleground Fund , a joint fundraising account formed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that will benefit Republican Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue .
The Jan. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party controls the Senate next year .
… An array of high-profile Republicans are joining Rove in the fundraising effort .
Former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie , former Vice President Dan Quayle and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley will serve as honorary co-chairs .
Haley is also seen as a likely 2024 presidential contender .
Nick Ayers , a veteran of Georgia politics who formerly served as Pence ’ s chief of staff , and longtime Republican fundraisers Jeff Miller and Jack Oliver will be national co-chairs .
The list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Haley Barbour and former Georgia GOP chair Alec Poitevint .
That ’ s a pretty good vanguard of Republican unity in the face of a Biden administration .
We ’ ll see how long it lasts , but for now it ’ s precisely the approach necessary to keep focus on salvaging the Senate .

Just in case Democrats didn’t pay attention to a similar warning from the Washington Post last week, Politico echoes it today. Democrats had the good fortune to tie up both Senate seats from Georgia into a runoff, thanks to a record election turnout and a clear impulse against Donald Trump pushing against David Perdue’s chances of winning his race outright. Don’t expect that to continue, James Arkin reports, especially since both Democratic challengers are starting out “behind the eight-ball”:
To repeat Biden’s feat in a pair of Senate runoffs on Jan. 5, with control of the Senate on the line, the Democratic Party will have to defy a long track record of failure in overtime elections. They’ll need to overcome the entire weight of the Republican Party descending on the state — from organizers and operatives to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. One of their Senate candidates, Jon Ossoff, would have to make up the nearly 90,000 votes he ran behind the GOP incumbent on Nov. 3. And Democrats will have to manage all of that without Donald Trump on the ballot to motivate their voters — while Republicans energize their base with warnings that electing Ossoff and Democrat Raphael Warnock would allow liberalism — or even socialism — to run amok in Washington. “We are the firewall, not just for the U.S. Senate, but the future of our country,” Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who is facing Warnock in the special election, told a crowd of about 100 people packed into a restaurant last week to hear from her and Republican Sen. David Perdue. The last time a Georgia Senate race went to a runoff, in 2008, Republican Saxby Chambliss crushed Democrat Jim Martin by 15 percentage points — just a month after he only edged Martin by 3 points in the Obama-fueled November election.
It’s not just about historical trends either, though. Arkin hints at that with Ossoff’s underperformance of Biden and Trump’s presidency off the table in the runoff. That underperformance goes even more than just Trump hangover, however. Democrats poured $32.3 million into Ossoff’s campaign this cycle, outraising Perdue by $11 million and outspending him by $13 million. The result? Ossoff fell 86,000 votes short despite Joe Biden winning the state.
Their runoff pitch might make the problem worse:
Ossoff, Warnock and their allies are well aware of their party’s history of losses. They think they can defy it by out-organizing Republicans and reminding their voters that they have the chance to deliver a Democratic Senate. “This is a very different state than 2008,” Warnock said during a press conference last week.
It’s not that different, however. Republicans got more votes than Democrats in both Senate races this year, even though Warnock ended up with a plurality lead. Democrats didn’t pick up a single House seat in Georgia either. As far as out-organizing Republicans, Ossoff had the resources and the opportunities to do that in the general election while riding Biden’s coattails.
Now, however, Ossoff has to deal with Warnock’s impact on both races. And while Georgia might be shifting a bit politically, it’s not shifting into Fidel Castro apologism, and Warnock’s not helping by dodging questions about his political action in the past:
Eeeks… Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock won't say if he attended the 1995 "lovefest" for murderous dictator Fidel Castro. Pressed by @jaketapper on @CNNSotu, Warnock refuses to say if he was at an event where the crowd chanted "Fidel! Fidel! Fidel!"pic.twitter.com/JfDpbTayOk https://t.co/h3XU9pMduv — Nathan Brand (@NathanBrandWA) November 15, 2020
TAPPER: Let me ask you about one of those attacks, because Senator Loeffler keeps mentioning on the campaign an incident from 1995 when you were a youth pastor at a New York church which hosted a speech by Fidel Castro. Now, you have said you had nothing to do with that invitation. But just to clarify for our viewers, did you attend the speech? And do you understand why there are so many people who view Castro as a murderous tyrant and not someone to be celebrated? WARNOCK: I will tell you what I understand. I understand why Kelly Loeffler is trying to change the subject. I was a youth pastor. I had nothing to do with that program. I did not make any decisions regarding the program. I have never met the Cuban dictator. And so I’m not connected to him. I will tell you whose names are on the ballot, Raphael Warnock and Kelly Loeffler. This race is not about anybody else. And so, while she tries to tie me to these personalities that I don’t know, and seeks the endorsement of a fifth century warmonger named Attila the Hun, I will be focused on health care in Georgia. TAPPER: But do you understand why so many people view any celebration of Fidel Castro as celebrating something ugly and tyrannical? You mentioned it. Yes, I think you just called him a tyrant. He’s — he was a murderous thug. And I think — I get that this is a distraction, but do you understand why people would be appalled by anyone celebrating Fidel Castro? WARNOCK: Well, absolutely. And I never have. What I’m putting forward in this race is American values.
Note well that Warnock never answers the question about attending Castro’s speech at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1995, where he served as a preacher. His multiple sermons on socialism and Marxism have now begun to emerge too, which makes Warnock look less like an “American values” candidate and more like a handy straw man for Chuck Schumer and hard-Left progressives. The GOP has been waiting for Warnock as a runoff candidate, and they will try very hard to to hang Warnock around Ossoff’s neck, too. And Ossoff is clearly not the kind of skilled campaigner that can break this runoff into two separate questions.
Update: He’s baaaaa-aaaaaaaack. And so apparently is a united GOP effort:
Senate Republicans have tapped Karl Rove to oversee their fundraising program for the Georgia runoff elections, according to a person familiar with the effort. The former George W. Bush adviser will serve as national finance chair for the Georgia Battleground Fund, a joint fundraising account formed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that will benefit Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The Jan. 5 runoffs in Georgia will determine which party controls the Senate next year. … An array of high-profile Republicans are joining Rove in the fundraising effort. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Vice President Dan Quayle and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley will serve as honorary co-chairs. Haley is also seen as a likely 2024 presidential contender. Nick Ayers, a veteran of Georgia politics who formerly served as Pence’s chief of staff, and longtime Republican fundraisers Jeff Miller and Jack Oliver will be national co-chairs. The list of national co-chairs also includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Georgia GOP chair Alec Poitevint.
That’s a pretty good vanguard of Republican unity in the face of a Biden administration. We’ll see how long it lasts, but for now it’s precisely the approach necessary to keep focus on salvaging the Senate.


hotair--2020-11-16--Trump campaign rejects claim they dropped key portion of PA lawsuit

This morning we looked at a report from the Washington Post stating that the Trump campaign had backed off from one of its major claims in the lawsuit currently unfolding in Pennsylvania .
It dealt with the hundreds of thousands of ballots allegedly processed without any witness oversight from the state GOP .
I discussed the possible implications such a move could have for the campaign in terms of keeping any hope alive of having the state called for Trump instead of Joe Biden .
A bit later in the day , we received a message from the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WaPo article was incorrect .
They claim that they were simply “ streamlining ” the lawsuit , but the allegations regarding the 682,479 ballots in question are still very much part of it .
Here ’ s a portion of their response .
On Sunday night , the Washington Post ran a complete mischaracterization of the Trump campaign ’ s litigation in Pennsylvania , erroneously claiming the campaign had dropped the claim of nearly 700,000 ballots processed illegally and in secret .
The campaign did no such thing .
In fact , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case , the campaign strategically decided to restructure its lawsuit to rely on claims of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
The claim that 682,479 ballots were improperly processed and counted is still very much part of the suit .
Paragraph 4 of the amended filing reads : “ Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties alone received and processed 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots without review by the political parties and candidates .
These are unprecedented numbers in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in an open and transparent process to give credibility to Pennsylvania ’ s brand-new voting system , the processes were hidden during the receipt , review , opening , and tabulation of those 682,479 votes.
” See also paragraphs 132-150 .
While the basis for the assertion may have changed a bit , focusing more on the Equal Protection Clause , it ’ s true that their filing still contains the original references to the nearly 700,000 ballots .
So if the court agrees to go further down that path , things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign ’ s prospects as they appeared last night .
With that said , the original concerns I raised earlier today are still lingering out there .
Let ’ s start with the idea that this huge volume of mail-in ballots was received and entered into the original count without the state GOP having the ability to monitor the process .
( For the record , the State Attorney General denies this assertion . )
Even if that ’ s true , that ’ s not a clear indication that the ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other fashion improperly entered .
Wouldn ’ t the court be more likely to , at best , call for the ballots to be pulled back and examined ?
They ’ re not simply going to toss them all , right ?
If the ballots were properly filled out by the voters and submitted prior to the deadline , it ’ s not the voters ’ fault that the state didn ’ t follow the correct process when entering and recording them .
It just strikes me as highly unlikely that the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-quarters of a million votes in a closely contested state on that basis .
As I mentioned this morning , I think the best we could hope for is an order to recanvass the entire batch with the proper observers on hand .
But even if that happens , Biden took the lion ’ s share of the mail-in vote because Democrats were far more willing to embrace the mass mail-in voting scheme idea than Republicans .
A recanvass might not do anything but further solidify the lead that the media has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interest of clarity , however , we should make a point of noting that the Washington Post story clearly got a key element of their reporting wrong .
The paragraphs dealing with the votes that were counted “ in secret ” are still in the filing .
And they will remain a bone of contention until the court system finishes dealing with these challenges .

This morning we looked at a report from the Washington Post stating that the Trump campaign had backed off from one of its major claims in the lawsuit currently unfolding in Pennsylvania. It dealt with the hundreds of thousands of ballots allegedly processed without any witness oversight from the state GOP. I discussed the possible implications such a move could have for the campaign in terms of keeping any hope alive of having the state called for Trump instead of Joe Biden.
A bit later in the day, we received a message from the Trump campaign claiming that the central premise of the WaPo article was incorrect. They claim that they were simply “streamlining” the lawsuit, but the allegations regarding the 682,479 ballots in question are still very much part of it. Here’s a portion of their response.
On Sunday night, the Washington Post ran a complete mischaracterization of the Trump campaign’s litigation in Pennsylvania, erroneously claiming the campaign had dropped the claim of nearly 700,000 ballots processed illegally and in secret. The campaign did no such thing. In fact, because of a Friday ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case, the campaign strategically decided to restructure its lawsuit to rely on claims of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The claim that 682,479 ballots were improperly processed and counted is still very much part of the suit. Paragraph 4 of the amended filing reads: “Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties alone received and processed 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots without review by the political parties and candidates. These are unprecedented numbers in Pennsylvania’s elections history. Rather than engaging in an open and transparent process to give credibility to Pennsylvania’s brand-new voting system, the processes were hidden during the receipt, review, opening, and tabulation of those 682,479 votes.” See also paragraphs 132-150.
While the basis for the assertion may have changed a bit, focusing more on the Equal Protection Clause, it’s true that their filing still contains the original references to the nearly 700,000 ballots. So if the court agrees to go further down that path, things may not be quite as dark for the campaign’s prospects as they appeared last night.
With that said, the original concerns I raised earlier today are still lingering out there. Let’s start with the idea that this huge volume of mail-in ballots was received and entered into the original count without the state GOP having the ability to monitor the process. (For the record, the State Attorney General denies this assertion.) Even if that’s true, that’s not a clear indication that the ballots were fraudulent, spoiled or in some other fashion improperly entered. Wouldn’t the court be more likely to, at best, call for the ballots to be pulled back and examined? They’re not simply going to toss them all, right?
If the ballots were properly filled out by the voters and submitted prior to the deadline, it’s not the voters’ fault that the state didn’t follow the correct process when entering and recording them. It just strikes me as highly unlikely that the court would wipe out the better part of three-quarters of a million votes in a closely contested state on that basis. As I mentioned this morning, I think the best we could hope for is an order to recanvass the entire batch with the proper observers on hand.
But even if that happens, Biden took the lion’s share of the mail-in vote because Democrats were far more willing to embrace the mass mail-in voting scheme idea than Republicans. A recanvass might not do anything but further solidify the lead that the media has been claiming Biden has all along.
In the interest of clarity, however, we should make a point of noting that the Washington Post story clearly got a key element of their reporting wrong. The paragraphs dealing with the votes that were counted “in secret” are still in the filing. And they will remain a bone of contention until the court system finishes dealing with these challenges.


hotair--2020-11-16--California's rejection of affirmative action shows 'Identity politics only go so far'

California ’ s proposition 16 would have removed a section from the state ’ s constitution which forbids discrimination on the grounds of race , gender , etc .
The progressive left pushed to pass prop .
16 because they wanted to pursue new affirmative action programs in the state .
But as the NY Times points out , it didn ’ t work as planned : The state political and cultural establishment worked as one to pass this ballot measure .
The governor , a senator , members of Congress , university presidents and civil rights leaders called it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day , the proposition failed by a wide margin , 57 percent to 43 percent , and Latino and Asian-American voters played a key role in defeating it .
It turns out that demography is not destiny as many Democrats have long assumed .
And minority groups don ’ t always agree with white progressives about how they should vote .
That divide between expectations and reality was especially clear when it came to prop .
16 .
Asian-Americans largely rejected it , sensing that it would eventually result in policies aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asians at California ’ s colleges .
But Latinos also rejected it : “ There ’ s more texture to California blue politics than you might think , ” said Lanhee Chen , a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University and policy director for Mitt Romney ’ s 2012 presidential run .
“ Identity politics only go so far .
There is a sense on affirmative action that people resent being categorized by progressives.
” Latinos , too , appear sharply divided .
Prominent Latino nonprofit and civil rights organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 14 of California ’ s majority-Latino counties voted it down .
Minority voters still came out from Democrats in Pennsylvania and Arizona in numbers that helped Biden win , but in plenty of other places the old argument that demographic changes would had Democrats a permanent majority is looking shaky .
John Judis is a liberal writer and scholar who in 2002 co-wrote “ The Emerging Democratic Majority , ” which became a seminal text for those who saw the Democratic Party as a political tide rising .
He has since backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People of color ’ is a term that ’ s been adopted by the cultural left as a way of arguing that if these groups proportionately voted Democratic in the past , they will do so in the future , ” Mr. Judis said .
“ I don ’ t see how you can make the argument.
” The idea that minority voters can be counted on to vote as a bloc for progressives was always wrong-headed .
Identity politics tries to pigeonhole people based upon their background or skin color but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resent that .
The harder Democrats push this far left agenda , the more they are going to see people opting out .
That really shouldn ’ t be a shock to anyone no living in a woke bubble .
But as one commenter replied to this NY Times story : “ It tells you something that ‘ people are individuals ’ is news .
”

California’s proposition 16 would have removed a section from the state’s constitution which forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, etc. The progressive left pushed to pass prop. 16 because they wanted to pursue new affirmative action programs in the state. But as the NY Times points out, it didn’t work as planned:
The state political and cultural establishment worked as one to pass this ballot measure. The governor, a senator, members of Congress, university presidents and civil rights leaders called it a righting of old wrongs… Yet on Election Day, the proposition failed by a wide margin, 57 percent to 43 percent, and Latino and Asian-American voters played a key role in defeating it.
It turns out that demography is not destiny as many Democrats have long assumed. And minority groups don’t always agree with white progressives about how they should vote. That divide between expectations and reality was especially clear when it came to prop. 16. Asian-Americans largely rejected it, sensing that it would eventually result in policies aimed at reducing the high admission rates of Asians at California’s colleges. But Latinos also rejected it:
“There’s more texture to California blue politics than you might think,” said Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University and policy director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential run. “Identity politics only go so far. There is a sense on affirmative action that people resent being categorized by progressives.” Latinos, too, appear sharply divided. Prominent Latino nonprofit and civil rights organizations endorsed the affirmative action proposition even as all 14 of California’s majority-Latino counties voted it down.
Minority voters still came out from Democrats in Pennsylvania and Arizona in numbers that helped Biden win, but in plenty of other places the old argument that demographic changes would had Democrats a permanent majority is looking shaky.
John Judis is a liberal writer and scholar who in 2002 co-wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” which became a seminal text for those who saw the Democratic Party as a political tide rising. He has since backed off that a touch. “‘People of color’ is a term that’s been adopted by the cultural left as a way of arguing that if these groups proportionately voted Democratic in the past, they will do so in the future,” Mr. Judis said. “I don’t see how you can make the argument.”
The idea that minority voters can be counted on to vote as a bloc for progressives was always wrong-headed. Identity politics tries to pigeonhole people based upon their background or skin color but it turns out a lot of minority voters resent that. The harder Democrats push this far left agenda, the more they are going to see people opting out. That really shouldn’t be a shock to anyone no living in a woke bubble. But as one commenter replied to this NY Times story: “It tells you something that ‘people are individuals’ is news.”


hotair--2020-11-16--Fauci: We should probably wear masks and social distance even after being vaccinated

Buddy , we can ’ t get everyone to wear masks and social distance now , when there ’ s no vaccine , no highly effective treatment , and upwards of 200,000 people per day are testing positive .
We ’ re staring at an eventual death toll on par with World War II and our wretched leaders won ’ t even pretend to take it seriously : Even in some of the reddest states in America , leaders are shifting from a “ personal responsibility ” approach to an “ enforced compliance ” approach to controlling the virus because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take personal responsibility : More restrictive public health measures are likely imminent in Wyoming as COVID-19 cases , hospitalizations and deaths continue to soar statewide , Gov .
Mark Gordon confirmed in a press briefing Friday… “ We ’ ve relied on people to be responsible and they ’ re being irresponsible , ” he said .
“ If I can ’ t rely on you , we ’ re going to have to do something else.
” … The state ’ s hospitals are already stressed .
Gordon said some have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have space in their emergency rooms , though he did not say what hospitals have had to take that step .
For most of the country , the prospect of being able to whip off their masks next spring and gather again at social events is the only thing keeping them sane through this nightmare .
To be told now that the safe move is COVID protocols forever is so dispiriting that I worry it ’ s going to convince some to throw caution to the wind and have that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to eschew .
How about we compromise ?
If you ’ re Fauci ’ s age then sure , wearing a mask when you ’ re indoors in a crowded space during winter “ COVID season ” next week is a shrewd extra bit of protection in case you ’ re among the unlucky five percent who get sick even after being vaccinated .
But for the rest of us , this has to end at some point — and there ’ s no reason why it shouldn ’ t , assuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wild .
None of the people in their trial who got infected after receiving the vaccine developed a severe case of the disease .
That ’ s what we ’ re aiming for , I thought , not zero infections but a new reality in which infection is unlikely and non-debilitating even when it does happen .
If the outcome we get from all of this is a world were COVID is far less prevalent than the flu and scarcely more dangerous then that smells like success .
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid flu infections , do we ?
The rest of Fauci ’ s message yesterday was more palatable .
He acknowledged that a national lockdown isn ’ t going to happen , as did Biden COVID advisor Vivek Murthy in a separate interview .
“ The key here is applying these restrictions judiciously and precisely , ” said Murthy , comparing social-distancing rules to a dial that gets turned up or down in different hot spots depending on what ’ s needed .
A national lockdown would be a measure of “ last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moncef Slaoui , the head of Operation Warp Speed , was right when he said on Friday that up to 20 million Americans might be vaccinated during December , it ’ s possible that the vaccines will have eased the pandemic sufficiently by the time Biden takes office on January 20 to make lockdowns less urgent as a measure for controlling infections .
Even if “ only ” 10 percent of the population has been vaccinated by that point , that could make a big dent depending on who that 10 percent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be superspreaders based on the nature of their work and it should have an outsized effect on chains of transmission .
Speaking of Slaoui , he also told the Financial Times this weekend that it ’ s time to start letting Operation Warp Speed ’ s personnel work with Biden ’ s transition team : Mr. Slaoui said : “ I hope nothing interferes with [ Operation Warp Speed ] .
It is a matter of life and death for thousands of people .
The operation has always been about making vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for the world.
” Asked whether that meant allowing the project to make contact with Mr. Biden ’ s team , he replied : “ I would assume , yes.
” However , Mr. Moncef noted that he could not reach out to the Biden team without a green light from the White House .
“ It ’ s not for us to decide , frankly , ” he said .
Fauci made the same point , saying of Biden ’ s team , “ Of course it would be better if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having health officials complain publicly about the delayed transition will bring political pressure on Trump like nothing else can to start recognizing the reality of the election outcome .
He can gag his garden-variety political appointees , but people like Slaoui and Robert O ’ Brien who have portfolios dealing with life and death want Team Joe to hit the ground running for obvious reasons .
It would be a humanitarian disaster as well as a political catastrophe that would haunt Trump in 2024 if he ended up slowing down the vaccine rollout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing to let Biden ’ s people get up to speed .
It ’ s not the immorality of it that would stop him from doing it — he ’ s perfectly capable of trying to punish the country for having preferred the other guy to him — but enough Republican pols will start complaining that he ’ ll end up relenting .
I ’ d expect cooperation on COVID and the vaccine to be the first thing the two administrations partner on .
I ’ ll leave you with this , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what she ’ s seeing in South Dakota went viral over the weekend and landed her this interview .
Some people think this is a must-watch indictment of COVID denialism in middle America , others think this sounds way “ too good to check ” and that she ’ s making things up , or exaggerating , to make a political point .
I ’ d guess the truth lies in between .

Buddy, we can’t get everyone to wear masks and social distance now, when there’s no vaccine, no highly effective treatment, and upwards of 200,000 people per day are testing positive. We’re staring at an eventual death toll on par with World War II and our wretched leaders won’t even pretend to take it seriously:
The Republican new member dinner -scheduled for tonight at 6:30pm in Stat Hall – looks like this at 7:20pm. Appx 45 tables set for two (with reserved tables for some) replaced the four-top tables on Friday’s Dem new member dinner. GOP Members now on the floor. pic.twitter.com/RyxK1x9pJy — Kristin Wilson (@kristin__wilson) November 16, 2020
Even in some of the reddest states in America, leaders are shifting from a “personal responsibility” approach to an “enforced compliance” approach to controlling the virus because, well, people just won’t take personal responsibility:
More restrictive public health measures are likely imminent in Wyoming as COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths continue to soar statewide, Gov. Mark Gordon confirmed in a press briefing Friday… “We’ve relied on people to be responsible and they’re being irresponsible,” he said. “If I can’t rely on you, we’re going to have to do something else.”… The state’s hospitals are already stressed. Gordon said some have had to set up tents because they don’t have space in their emergency rooms, though he did not say what hospitals have had to take that step.
For most of the country, the prospect of being able to whip off their masks next spring and gather again at social events is the only thing keeping them sane through this nightmare. To be told now that the safe move is COVID protocols forever is so dispiriting that I worry it’s going to convince some to throw caution to the wind and have that big extended-family Thanksgiving dinner they were otherwise planning to eschew.
Fauci says Americans shouldn’t stop wearing masks, social distancing even after they’re vaccinated against Covid-19 pic.twitter.com/75E3QtQ5z7 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2020
How about we compromise? If you’re Fauci’s age then sure, wearing a mask when you’re indoors in a crowded space during winter “COVID season” next week is a shrewd extra bit of protection in case you’re among the unlucky five percent who get sick even after being vaccinated. But for the rest of us, this has to end at some point — and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t, assuming Moderna’s findings are borne out in the wild. None of the people in their trial who got infected after receiving the vaccine developed a severe case of the disease. That’s what we’re aiming for, I thought, not zero infections but a new reality in which infection is unlikely and non-debilitating even when it does happen. If the outcome we get from all of this is a world were COVID is far less prevalent than the flu and scarcely more dangerous then that smells like success.
We don’t mask up and social distance to avoid flu infections, do we?
The rest of Fauci’s message yesterday was more palatable. He acknowledged that a national lockdown isn’t going to happen, as did Biden COVID advisor Vivek Murthy in a separate interview. “The key here is applying these restrictions judiciously and precisely,” said Murthy, comparing social-distancing rules to a dial that gets turned up or down in different hot spots depending on what’s needed. A national lockdown would be a measure of “last resort,” he said. If Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, was right when he said on Friday that up to 20 million Americans might be vaccinated during December, it’s possible that the vaccines will have eased the pandemic sufficiently by the time Biden takes office on January 20 to make lockdowns less urgent as a measure for controlling infections. Even if “only” 10 percent of the population has been vaccinated by that point, that could make a big dent depending on who that 10 percent is. Vaccinate people who are more likely to be superspreaders based on the nature of their work and it should have an outsized effect on chains of transmission.
Speaking of Slaoui, he also told the Financial Times this weekend that it’s time to start letting Operation Warp Speed’s personnel work with Biden’s transition team:
Mr. Slaoui said: “I hope nothing interferes with [Operation Warp Speed]. It is a matter of life and death for thousands of people. The operation has always been about making vaccines and therapeutics available faster for the country and for the world.” Asked whether that meant allowing the project to make contact with Mr. Biden’s team, he replied: “I would assume, yes.” However, Mr. Moncef noted that he could not reach out to the Biden team without a green light from the White House. “It’s not for us to decide, frankly,” he said.
Fauci made the same point, saying of Biden’s team, “Of course it would be better if we could start working with them.” Having health officials complain publicly about the delayed transition will bring political pressure on Trump like nothing else can to start recognizing the reality of the election outcome. He can gag his garden-variety political appointees, but people like Slaoui and Robert O’Brien who have portfolios dealing with life and death want Team Joe to hit the ground running for obvious reasons. It would be a humanitarian disaster as well as a political catastrophe that would haunt Trump in 2024 if he ended up slowing down the vaccine rollout because his ego is too bruised from losing to let Biden’s people get up to speed. It’s not the immorality of it that would stop him from doing it — he’s perfectly capable of trying to punish the country for having preferred the other guy to him — but enough Republican pols will start complaining that he’ll end up relenting. I’d expect cooperation on COVID and the vaccine to be the first thing the two administrations partner on.
I’ll leave you with this, from a nurse whose observations on Twitter about what she’s seeing in South Dakota went viral over the weekend and landed her this interview. Some people think this is a must-watch indictment of COVID denialism in middle America, others think this sounds way “too good to check” and that she’s making things up, or exaggerating, to make a political point. I’d guess the truth lies in between.


hotair--2020-11-16--Hmmm: "Obviously things look" like Biden won, says Trump nat-sec advisor

Is Robert O ’ Brien “ breaking with his boss ” in this interview with Steve Clemons , as MSNBC frames it ?
Is Donald Trump ’ s national security adviser “ trying to do some reputation retcon , ” as the Daily Beast ’ s Noah Schachtman claims ?
YMMV , but O ’ Brien does appear to be the highest-ranking Trump administration official to describe the election results as “ obviously ” pointing to a transition to a Joe Biden administration : Speaking to the Global Security Forum hosted in part by Qatar , Robert O ’ Brien @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recent peace deals that Bahrain , Sudan and the United Arab Emirates struck with Israel as “ a great legacy for the president to have as he leaves office.
” While caveating that Trump did have outstanding court challenges , O ’ Brien ’ s comments signaled some of the firmest statements yet from a senior administration official acknowledging Biden ’ s win in the Nov. 3 vote .
“ If the Biden-Harris ticket is determined to be the winner — obviously things look that way now — we ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Council .
There ’ s no question about it , ” O ’ Brien said .
“ They ’ re going to have very professional folks coming in to take these positions.
” He added : “ We ’ ve passed the baton and had peaceful , successful transitions even in the most contentious periods.
” This stands in contrast to other members of Trump ’ s team .
Mike Pompeo joked last week that they would successfully transition to a second Trump term .
Peter Navarro made the claim less humorously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already begun its second-term planning .
Others may have been more quiet about describing the election results , but none has gone as far as O ’ Brien has that “ obviously things look that way now ” in terms of a Biden win .
The highest-ranking official still claims otherwise , of course : And Trump is going after Republicans who take a firmer opposing position : What makes O ’ Brien ’ s position more interesting — besides his boss ’ denial of the “ obviously ” disfavorable results — is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tune last week .
Allahpundit points me to this Schachtman report from Thursday that Biden was getting the He Who Shall Not Be Named treatment in O ’ Brien ’ s office : President Donald Trump continues to refuse to cede the election .
His national security adviser , Robert O ’ Brien , is enabling the mayhem , four senior officials told The Daily Beast .
O ’ Brien—once viewed as a potential check on Trump ’ s erratic national security demands—endorsed the installation of a pair of Trumpists at the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense secretary O ’ Brien has long opposed was fired by tweet .
One official claimed that O ’ Brien has been supportive of a peaceful transfer of power , joking in a Monday event about Trump ’ s loss and directing his staff to begin drafting transition materials .
But three other officials told The Daily Beast that O ’ Brien has emerged as one of Trump ’ s biggest enablers at a decisive moment , supporting the president ’ s bid to retain power even though it is being waged through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials familiar with the matter noted that O ’ Brien has also pushed national security officials to publicly embrace the absurd Trump message that the election has not been certified and that there are still legal battles playing out across the country that could turn in the president ’ s favor .
“ If you even mention Biden ’ s name… that ’ s a no-go , you ’ d be fired , ” one national security official said .
“ Everyone is scared of even talking about the chance of working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schachtman ’ s reputation-retcon comment this morning .
Assuming that the earlier report was accurate , O ’ Brien ’ s done a fairly significant 180 on the election results in a short period of time .
Is that because of a desire for reputation retconning , or is it the result of the failure of multiple attempts to challenge the election results in court — including the failure to substantiate any of the larger claims Trump has made on social media ?
O ’ Brien ’ s comments today aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful in keeping perspective .
The big question now will be whether Trump fires O ’ Brien , or at least goes after him on Twitter .
If not , perhaps other admin officials will start tipping their hats to the reality that “ obviously things look that way now.
” Update : Flipped the headline and the subheadline .

Is Robert O’Brien “breaking with his boss” in this interview with Steve Clemons, as MSNBC frames it? Is Donald Trump’s national security adviser “trying to do some reputation retcon,” as the Daily Beast’s Noah Schachtman claims? YMMV, but O’Brien does appear to be the highest-ranking Trump administration official to describe the election results as “obviously” pointing to a transition to a Joe Biden administration:
NEW: NSA O'Brien says, "If the Biden-Harris ticket is determined to be the winner, and … obviously things look that way now, we'll have a very professional transition from the National Security Council." pic.twitter.com/jZnVIrroDc — MSNBC (@MSNBC) November 16, 2020
Speaking to the Global Security Forum hosted in part by Qatar, Robert O’Brien several times mentioned the transition and referred to recent peace deals that Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates struck with Israel as “a great legacy for the president to have as he leaves office.” While caveating that Trump did have outstanding court challenges, O’Brien’s comments signaled some of the firmest statements yet from a senior administration official acknowledging Biden’s win in the Nov. 3 vote. “If the Biden-Harris ticket is determined to be the winner — obviously things look that way now — we’ll have a very professional transition from the National Security Council. There’s no question about it,” O’Brien said. “They’re going to have very professional folks coming in to take these positions.” He added: “We’ve passed the baton and had peaceful, successful transitions even in the most contentious periods.”
This stands in contrast to other members of Trump’s team. Mike Pompeo joked last week that they would successfully transition to a second Trump term. Peter Navarro made the claim less humorously, insisting that the White House had already begun its second-term planning. Others may have been more quiet about describing the election results, but none has gone as far as O’Brien has that “obviously things look that way now” in terms of a Biden win.
The highest-ranking official still claims otherwise, of course:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328334945148952576
And Trump is going after Republicans who take a firmer opposing position:
LATEST: Pres. Trump is targeting Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Twitter after the governor acknowledged Joe Biden as the president-elect over the weekend and urged Trump to work with the transition. https://t.co/BcfcxZhwG4 pic.twitter.com/1ITwlIKrhq — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) November 16, 2020
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328349382023000064
What makes O’Brien’s position more interesting — besides his boss’ denial of the “obviously” disfavorable results — is that he was reportedly singing a different tune last week. Allahpundit points me to this Schachtman report from Thursday that Biden was getting the He Who Shall Not Be Named treatment in O’Brien’s office:
President Donald Trump continues to refuse to cede the election. His national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, is enabling the mayhem, four senior officials told The Daily Beast. O’Brien—once viewed as a potential check on Trump’s erratic national security demands—endorsed the installation of a pair of Trumpists at the Pentagon’s highest levels, while a defense secretary O’Brien has long opposed was fired by tweet. One official claimed that O’Brien has been supportive of a peaceful transfer of power, joking in a Monday event about Trump’s loss and directing his staff to begin drafting transition materials. But three other officials told The Daily Beast that O’Brien has emerged as one of Trump’s biggest enablers at a decisive moment, supporting the president’s bid to retain power even though it is being waged through a nationwide disinformation campaign. … Other officials familiar with the matter noted that O’Brien has also pushed national security officials to publicly embrace the absurd Trump message that the election has not been certified and that there are still legal battles playing out across the country that could turn in the president’s favor. “If you even mention Biden’s name… that’s a no-go, you’d be fired,” one national security official said. “Everyone is scared of even talking about the chance of working with the [Biden] transition.”
Hence Schachtman’s reputation-retcon comment this morning. Assuming that the earlier report was accurate, O’Brien’s done a fairly significant 180 on the election results in a short period of time. Is that because of a desire for reputation retconning, or is it the result of the failure of multiple attempts to challenge the election results in court — including the failure to substantiate any of the larger claims Trump has made on social media?
O’Brien’s comments today aren’t definitive, but they’re certainly helpful in keeping perspective. The big question now will be whether Trump fires O’Brien, or at least goes after him on Twitter. If not, perhaps other admin officials will start tipping their hats to the reality that “obviously things look that way now.”
Update: Flipped the headline and the subheadline.


hotair--2020-11-16--Report: Trump allies were (are?) looking to buy Newsmax

Anything that gets him to stop committing rhetorical arson about phantom voter fraud and focus on life after the presidency sounds good to me .
Although , if there really is a scheme afoot to buy Newsmax and convert it into a full-fledged Trump propaganda channel , it ’ s strange that the World ’ s Greatest Negotiator has already begun trying to convince Fox News viewers to make the switch .
All he ’ s doing with that is bidding up the selling price , helping Newsmax build up a viewer base .
According to this WSJ report about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its primetime audience increase by 156 percent during election week and its 7 p.m. show drew more than a million viewers , far more than it ever has before .
Fox isn ’ t going to go bankrupt , but a meaningful portion of its audience seems willing to hold a grudge over the network ’ s early call of Arizona for Biden and its projection that he ’ s won the presidency .
Which means this seems like another case of Trump ’ s spite ultimately damaging his own interests .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s been acquired by your allies , not before .
But he couldn ’ t resist lashing out at Fox .
The Newsmax pursuit is being led by private-equity deal-making pioneer and Trump supporter Thomas Hicks .
The family ’ s private-equity outfit , Hicks Equity Partners , is looking to raise at least $ 200 million for its efforts in right-leaning media and has spoken with wealthy conservative families about the deal , people familiar with the matter say .
One of Mr. Hicks ’ s sons , Thomas Hicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is unlikely to participate in any deal while he holds an RNC post , said a person close to the Hicks family… An acquisition of Newsmax , which is based in West Palm Beach , Fla. , would be part of a larger plan to assemble a network of channels aimed at conservatives , according to a pitch that was made to investors .
Another channel would provide family-friendly entertainment programming .
The Hicks group has identified a team of executives who would help manage the network if the deal were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter said .
An interesting footnote : The Hicks group reportedly talked to Megyn Kelly about possibly coming aboard when it considered buying OAN earlier this year .
That ’ s what a fledgling competitor to Fox needs , a brand name to signal to viewers that the network intends to compete at the varsity level .
Trump is the ultimate brand name , although in a way he ’ s the opposite of Kelly .
Kelly would bring news credibility to a network , suggesting that it ’ s going to function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV would be the opposite , a place where nothing gets reported if it happens to damage the president ’ s interests .
It ’ d be out-and-out propaganda .
Chris Ruddy , the owner of Newsmax ( and a Trump ally himself ) , says he ’ s not selling : It ’ d be silly for Ruddy to sell at a moment when conservative mainstream media is more unsettled than it ’ s been in years .
*Maybe* the recent audience defection from Fox News to Newsmax will stick .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to make a deal with Newsmax to do exclusive commentary on a daily or weekly basis .
His only other alternative to Fox is OAN , but OAN has always seemed especially fringy .
Newsmax is more established and , importantly , it has some traction right now with right-wing viewers .
Trump could always start his own network , be it on television or via a streaming platform , but I doubt he wants to be bothered with the logistics of building and overseeing a new channel .
He craves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of the camera , not behind it like Roger Ailes .
Ruddy can give him a soapbox at any hour of the day or night that he wants , the minute he ’ s out of office .
So why would Ruddy sell ?
He ’ s two months away from what may be a gamechanging development in the world of righty media .
His focus right now , I ’ d assume , is how to finance an exclusive deal with Trump , not whether to cash out .
The Guardian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ existential crisis ” that Fox is suddenly facing .
That ’ s waaaay overselling the threat to FNC from Newsmax and OAN , but even if it ’ s not existential , it is a crisis .
Partisan media has two functions : Tell the truth and serve the cause .
In the best of times , those two functions coincide .
But sometimes they don ’ t , and that ’ s when an outlet either decides to clearly prioritize one over the other or it takes on a bizarre split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both simultaneously , which is what ’ s happened to Fox as Trump goes about insisting that the election was rigged .
The news side and the opinion side at FNC have always been at odds to some degree but Trump ’ s “ I was cheated !
” nonsense is unprecedented in how squarely it pits them against each other .
For the news guys like Eric Shawn , who feel duty-bound to tell the truth , there ’ s no way to let that claim pass without fact-checking it : For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve the cause , there ’ s no choice but to support Trump ’ s alternate reality in which the outcome of the election is in grave doubt .
Three days after the election , for instance , Hannity was calling for a “ do-over ” in Pennsylvania on the theory that we could never trust a result so hopelessly tainted by irregularities .
I can ’ t remember a case — certainly not with the stakes this high — when the news side and the opinion side at Fox were each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the other ’ s .
And because Trump has now made denying the reality of Biden ’ s victory an absolute loyalty test , there ’ s no elegant way for Hannity , Tucker , and Ingraham to admit eventually that the news side is right .
Because Trump won ’ t concede , they can ’ t concede .
And so Fox marches on , trying to hold onto viewers who demand propaganda that the election was stolen while also trying to hold onto its reputation as a serious news outlet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how this turns out for them .
Update : It should go without saying , but in case it needs to be said , Fox remains a freaky ratings juggernaut despite the rising number of viewers for Newsmax .
Not only are they crushing their direct competitors in primetime , they were actually the highest-rated network on television in primetime since Memorial Day .
Not the highest-rated news network or the highest-rated cable network .
The highest-rated network , period .
Whether that ’ ll continue now that the election is over , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is another matter .
But as I say , FNC isn ’ t going bankrupt anytime soon .

Anything that gets him to stop committing rhetorical arson about phantom voter fraud and focus on life after the presidency sounds good to me.
Although, if there really is a scheme afoot to buy Newsmax and convert it into a full-fledged Trump propaganda channel, it’s strange that the World’s Greatest Negotiator has already begun trying to convince Fox News viewers to make the switch. All he’s doing with that is bidding up the selling price, helping Newsmax build up a viewer base. According to this WSJ report about a potential sale, the network saw its primetime audience increase by 156 percent during election week and its 7 p.m. show drew more than a million viewers, far more than it ever has before. Fox isn’t going to go bankrupt, but a meaningful portion of its audience seems willing to hold a grudge over the network’s early call of Arizona for Biden and its projection that he’s won the presidency.
Which means this seems like another case of Trump’s spite ultimately damaging his own interests. The moment to start hyping Newsmax is after it’s been acquired by your allies, not before. But he couldn’t resist lashing out at Fox.
The Newsmax pursuit is being led by private-equity deal-making pioneer and Trump supporter Thomas Hicks. The family’s private-equity outfit, Hicks Equity Partners, is looking to raise at least $200 million for its efforts in right-leaning media and has spoken with wealthy conservative families about the deal, people familiar with the matter say. One of Mr. Hicks’s sons, Thomas Hicks Jr., co-chairs the Republican National Committee. He is unlikely to participate in any deal while he holds an RNC post, said a person close to the Hicks family… An acquisition of Newsmax, which is based in West Palm Beach, Fla., would be part of a larger plan to assemble a network of channels aimed at conservatives, according to a pitch that was made to investors. Another channel would provide family-friendly entertainment programming. The Hicks group has identified a team of executives who would help manage the network if the deal were completed, the people familiar with the matter said.
An interesting footnote: The Hicks group reportedly talked to Megyn Kelly about possibly coming aboard when it considered buying OAN earlier this year. That’s what a fledgling competitor to Fox needs, a brand name to signal to viewers that the network intends to compete at the varsity level. Trump is the ultimate brand name, although in a way he’s the opposite of Kelly. Kelly would bring news credibility to a network, suggesting that it’s going to function as a semi-serious journalistic outfit. Trump TV would be the opposite, a place where nothing gets reported if it happens to damage the president’s interests. It’d be out-and-out propaganda.
Chris Ruddy, the owner of Newsmax (and a Trump ally himself), says he’s not selling:
“Newsmax would never become ‘Trump TV,’” Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax, told Variety in an interview Sunday evening. “We have always seen ourselves as an independent news agency, and we want to continue with that mission. But we are open — [Trump] is going to be a political and media force after he leaves the White House, and we would be open to talking to him about a weekly show.” The executive also said “we are not actively selling” the company at this time, though he notes he has had expressions of interest from “investors, investment banks and strategic players” in the recent past.
It’d be silly for Ruddy to sell at a moment when conservative mainstream media is more unsettled than it’s been in years. *Maybe* the recent audience defection from Fox News to Newsmax will stick. And if it does, *maybe* Trump will be willing to make a deal with Newsmax to do exclusive commentary on a daily or weekly basis. His only other alternative to Fox is OAN, but OAN has always seemed especially fringy. Newsmax is more established and, importantly, it has some traction right now with right-wing viewers. Trump could always start his own network, be it on television or via a streaming platform, but I doubt he wants to be bothered with the logistics of building and overseeing a new channel. He craves attention; he wants to be in front of the camera, not behind it like Roger Ailes. Ruddy can give him a soapbox at any hour of the day or night that he wants, the minute he’s out of office.
So why would Ruddy sell? He’s two months away from what may be a gamechanging development in the world of righty media. His focus right now, I’d assume, is how to finance an exclusive deal with Trump, not whether to cash out.
The Guardian has a useful read today on the “existential crisis” that Fox is suddenly facing. That’s waaaay overselling the threat to FNC from Newsmax and OAN, but even if it’s not existential, it is a crisis. Partisan media has two functions: Tell the truth and serve the cause. In the best of times, those two functions coincide. But sometimes they don’t, and that’s when an outlet either decides to clearly prioritize one over the other or it takes on a bizarre split personality in which it tries to do both simultaneously, which is what’s happened to Fox as Trump goes about insisting that the election was rigged. The news side and the opinion side at FNC have always been at odds to some degree but Trump’s “I was cheated!” nonsense is unprecedented in how squarely it pits them against each other. For the news guys like Eric Shawn, who feel duty-bound to tell the truth, there’s no way to let that claim pass without fact-checking it:
Must watch! After Maria Bartiromo devoted her entire show this morning to promoting Trump's Dominion conspiracy, Fox News anchor Eric Shawn debunks it and other voter fraud claims, declaring that "such baseless and false claims are an insult" to election officials and workers. pic.twitter.com/ksM2hGIJqn — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) November 15, 2020
For the opinion guys, who feel duty-bound to serve the cause, there’s no choice but to support Trump’s alternate reality in which the outcome of the election is in grave doubt. Three days after the election, for instance, Hannity was calling for a “do-over” in Pennsylvania on the theory that we could never trust a result so hopelessly tainted by irregularities. I can’t remember a case — certainly not with the stakes this high — when the news side and the opinion side at Fox were each dug in on information that directly conflicts with the other’s. And because Trump has now made denying the reality of Biden’s victory an absolute loyalty test, there’s no elegant way for Hannity, Tucker, and Ingraham to admit eventually that the news side is right. Because Trump won’t concede, they can’t concede. And so Fox marches on, trying to hold onto viewers who demand propaganda that the election was stolen while also trying to hold onto its reputation as a serious news outlet. Can’t wait to see how this turns out for them.
Update: It should go without saying, but in case it needs to be said, Fox remains a freaky ratings juggernaut despite the rising number of viewers for Newsmax. Not only are they crushing their direct competitors in primetime, they were actually the highest-rated network on television in primetime since Memorial Day. Not the highest-rated news network or the highest-rated cable network. The highest-rated network, period. Whether that’ll continue now that the election is over, especially if Trump throws in with Newsmax, is another matter. But as I say, FNC isn’t going bankrupt anytime soon.


hotair--2020-11-16--College Dean rants about "ignorant" and "anti-Christian" Biden voters, demands they unfriend him on

College Dean rants about "ignorant" and "anti-Christian" Biden voters, demands they unfriend him on Facebook

Conservatives are accustomed to stories about liberal college professors going off on rants about President Trump and his supporters .
In an unusual twist , a Virginia Wesleyan University professor is under fire for delivering a rant of his own on Facebook .
He exercised his First Amendment right to free speech on his personal Facebook page , exploding against any Biden voters that may be following him on social media .
That ’ s the twist – a college professor voted for Trump and is angry about the election results , apparently , so he is taking it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friended him on Facebook .
This is the stuff that the intolerant left does on social media , rarely conservatives .
Nonetheless , Professor Paul Ewell wants Biden voters to know he wants nothing to do with them .
He wants Facebook friends to unfriend him if they voted for Joe Biden .
Ewell isn ’ t just some random professor .
Paul Ewell joined the full-time staff of the university in 2008 .
He is a professor of management , business and economics , director of the school ’ s MBA program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campus .
The university has historically been associated with the Methodist denomination .
VWU is a small , private liberal arts and sciences university located in Virginia Beach .
He blasted Biden voters as “ ignorant , anti-American and anti-Christian ” .
‘ Please , please help me with something .
If you voted for Joe Biden , please unfriend me .
Or , reply that you are a Democrat and I will unfriend you .
If you were ignorant , anti-American , and anti-Christian enough to vote for Biden , I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social friend on social media .
I wouldn ’ t hang out with you in real life , I don ’ t want to hang out with you virtually either .
You have corrupted the election .
You have corrupted our youth .
You have corrupted our country .
I have standards and you don ’ t meet them .
Please remove yourself.
” He has since taken down the post and made his Facebook account a private one .
Given the university ’ s association with a religious denomination and today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be surprised to learn that blowback was swift .
The university quickly distanced itself from the professor/dean ’ s screed as screenshots of the Facebook post circulated .
Commenters on Facebook expect Ewell to be canceled now .
Universities are not exactly bastions of free-thinking these days .
While we may not agree that this was the best use of Ewell ’ s First Amendment rights , especially given his professional career , he is , nonetheless , entitled to express himself and choose with whom he is friends on his own Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always make rational decisions .
He evidently realizes he used poor judgment because he has removed the post and turned his Facebook account into a private one .
‘ How is Professor Ewell supposed to gain the trust of his students when they now know he considers most of them anti-American and anti-Christian ?
’ asked Ben Abrahamse .
‘ Simply put , if this is your staff , then inclusiveness is not what you practice .
This was not a political statement .
It was a statement based in hate and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added Hayden Christopher Jones .
‘ He leads your business school for God ’ s sake !
He needs to go , ’ wrote Scott Nassl .
Almost a thousand similar comments peppered the University ’ s Facebook page on Sunday night with the majority questioning how such a.
’ high-ranking , high-profile member ’ of the university ’ s administration could remain in his post calling his original post ‘ unacceptable ’ and ’ embarrassing.
’ The university is dealing with this situation internally .
Ewell ’ s supporters say the professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics in class .
The university ’ s social media policy cautions faculty members about posting personal opinions .
The handbook says they should “ keep in mind nothing is truly private in social media .
Consider your comments , photos or shared content carefully before posting .
If it ’ s something you wouldn ’ t want shared or re-posted for a broad audience , it is best not to share it in the first place.
” President Trump tweeted out his support of the professor/dean yesterday .
It ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social media .
It ’ s an unexpected twist to a story that usually goes the other way , with liberal professors losing their minds .
It ’ s isn ’ t good from either side , especially in university communities .
We need to get back to college campuses being places that encourage and teach students to learn to reason for themselves .
The fact that most campuses only allow one point of view is destructive to our political system in general but to budding future policymakers and politicians in particular @

Conservatives are accustomed to stories about liberal college professors going off on rants about President Trump and his supporters. In an unusual twist, a Virginia Wesleyan University professor is under fire for delivering a rant of his own on Facebook. He exercised his First Amendment right to free speech on his personal Facebook page, exploding against any Biden voters that may be following him on social media.
That’s the twist – a college professor voted for Trump and is angry about the election results, apparently, so he is taking it out on any Biden voters who may have friended him on Facebook. This is the stuff that the intolerant left does on social media, rarely conservatives. Nonetheless, Professor Paul Ewell wants Biden voters to know he wants nothing to do with them. He wants Facebook friends to unfriend him if they voted for Joe Biden.
Ewell isn’t just some random professor. Paul Ewell joined the full-time staff of the university in 2008. He is a professor of management, business and economics, director of the school’s MBA program, and dean of the VWU Global Campus. The university has historically been associated with the Methodist denomination. VWU is a small, private liberal arts and sciences university located in Virginia Beach. He blasted Biden voters as “ignorant, anti-American and anti-Christian”.
‘Please, please help me with something. If you voted for Joe Biden, please unfriend me. Or, reply that you are a Democrat and I will unfriend you. If you were ignorant, anti-American, and anti-Christian enough to vote for Biden, I really don’t want to be your social friend on social media. I wouldn’t hang out with you in real life, I don’t want to hang out with you virtually either. You have corrupted the election. You have corrupted our youth. You have corrupted our country. I have standards and you don’t meet them. Please remove yourself.”
He has since taken down the post and made his Facebook account a private one. Given the university’s association with a religious denomination and today’s political atmosphere, you will not be surprised to learn that blowback was swift. The university quickly distanced itself from the professor/dean’s screed as screenshots of the Facebook post circulated.
‘The University is aware of a recent comment made on social media by a member of the campus community. These views and opinions are expressly the individual’s own. Civic engagement and religious freedom are at the core of the University’s values, and we remain an inclusive and caring community that empowers meaningful relationships through listening, understanding, and communication.’
Commenters on Facebook expect Ewell to be canceled now. Universities are not exactly bastions of free-thinking these days. While we may not agree that this was the best use of Ewell’s First Amendment rights, especially given his professional career, he is, nonetheless, entitled to express himself and choose with whom he is friends on his own Facebook page. Angry people don’t always make rational decisions. He evidently realizes he used poor judgment because he has removed the post and turned his Facebook account into a private one.
‘How is Professor Ewell supposed to gain the trust of his students when they now know he considers most of them anti-American and anti-Christian?’ asked Ben Abrahamse. ‘Simply put, if this is your staff, then inclusiveness is not what you practice. This was not a political statement. It was a statement based in hate and it is hatred for the students,’ added Hayden Christopher Jones. ‘He leads your business school for God’s sake! He needs to go,’ wrote Scott Nassl. Almost a thousand similar comments peppered the University’s Facebook page on Sunday night with the majority questioning how such a.’high-ranking, high-profile member’ of the university’s administration could remain in his post calling his original post ‘unacceptable’ and ’embarrassing.’
The university is dealing with this situation internally.
Alumni are threatening to withhold donations. Parents are reconsidering enrolling their kids. Students are pondering a protest. Stephanie Smaglo, a VWU spokeswoman, said that while the university “cannot speak to personnel matters, this incident is being addressed through our internal processes and policies.” Smaglo, in emails to the newspaper, said the university confirmed that “the faculty member who made the original post has issued an apology on Facebook.”
Ewell’s supporters say the professor made it a habit to not discuss politics in class. The university’s social media policy cautions faculty members about posting personal opinions. The handbook says they should “keep in mind nothing is truly private in social media. Consider your comments, photos or shared content carefully before posting. If it’s something you wouldn’t want shared or re-posted for a broad audience, it is best not to share it in the first place.”
President Trump tweeted out his support of the professor/dean yesterday.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327988661418340353
It’s really unusual for a conservative professor to snap on social media. It’s an unexpected twist to a story that usually goes the other way, with liberal professors losing their minds. It’s isn’t good from either side, especially in university communities. We need to get back to college campuses being places that encourage and teach students to learn to reason for themselves. The fact that most campuses only allow one point of view is destructive to our political system in general but to budding future policymakers and politicians in particular.


hotair--2020-11-16--NY Post: How much research funding did Biden's cancer charity provide?

It ’ s a trick question , the New York Post admitted on Saturday .
According to newly available tax filings , Joe Biden ’ s cancer charity spent nearly two-thirds of its income on salaries , including a salary for its president that exceeds what Biden will make in office next year .
Despite raising almost $ 5 million in two years , the Biden Cancer Initiative spent exactly zero dollars on grants : The charity took in $ 4,809,619 in contributions in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 , and spent $ 3,070,301 on payroll in those two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gregory Simon , raked in $ 429,850 in fiscal 2018 ( July 1 , 2018 to June 30 , 2019 ) , according to the charity ’ s most recent federal tax filings .
Simon , a former Pfizer executive and longtime health care lobbyist who headed up the White House ’ s cancer task force in the Obama administration , saw his salary nearly double from the $ 224,539 he made in fiscal 2017 , tax filings show .
Danielle Carnival , former chief of staff for Obama ’ s cancer initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who took home $ 258,207 in 2018 .
The charity spent $ 56,738 on conferences and $ 59,356 on travel that year .
The following year , the travel expenditure swelled to $ 97,149 , and the non-profit spent $ 742,953 on conferences , tax filings show .
That ’ s a lot of talking for not much doing .
The Daily Mail took a look at the filings , too , and came up with the same numbers : First reported by The New York Post , tax filings viewed by DailyMail.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 4,809,619 in contributions , but spent $ 3,070,301 on salaries .
… But it appeared no grants were given out during its first two years of operation .
… The statement ’ s total functional expenses reached $ 2,996,404 .
If the Biden Cancer Initiative didn ’ t raise money for cancer research , what exactly was its purpose ?
The BCI told the NY Post that its focus was to find ways to “ accelerate treatment for all , regardless of their economic or cultural backgrounds.
” How did spending close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conferences accomplish that mission , and how was that a better method than actual grants to non-profits serving the poor and disadvantaged ?
This appears to have been nothing more than a big PR operation to burnish the Biden image while the former VP prepared for a presidential run .
They loaded the board with “ celebrity cancer survivors ” to generate attention , but then did nothing but pay staff and attend conferences — a form of quasi-campaigning that Hillary Clinton perfected through the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-ranking campaign staffers .
Hopefully , none of the BCI ’ s donors thought they were funding anything more than Biden ’ s quasi-campaign .
As long as they knew that they were funding and enabling an old campaign-finance dodge , then there ’ s no hint of fraud here , at least in the legal sense .
In any other sense , a charity that spends two-thirds of its income on salaries and most of the remaining third on travel and conferences wouldn ’ t be considered as anything else other than @ @

It’s a trick question, the New York Post admitted on Saturday. According to newly available tax filings, Joe Biden’s cancer charity spent nearly two-thirds of its income on salaries, including a salary for its president that exceeds what Biden will make in office next year. Despite raising almost $5 million in two years, the Biden Cancer Initiative spent exactly zero dollars on grants:
The charity took in $4,809,619 in contributions in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and spent $3,070,301 on payroll in those two years. The group’s president, Gregory Simon, raked in $429,850 in fiscal 2018 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019), according to the charity’s most recent federal tax filings. Simon, a former Pfizer executive and longtime health care lobbyist who headed up the White House’s cancer task force in the Obama administration, saw his salary nearly double from the $224,539 he made in fiscal 2017, tax filings show. Danielle Carnival, former chief of staff for Obama’s cancer initiative, the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, who took home $258,207 in 2018. The charity spent $56,738 on conferences and $59,356 on travel that year. The following year, the travel expenditure swelled to $97,149, and the non-profit spent $742,953 on conferences, tax filings show.
That’s a lot of talking for not much doing. The Daily Mail took a look at the filings, too, and came up with the same numbers:
First reported by The New York Post, tax filings viewed by DailyMail.com showed that The Biden Cancer Initiative amassed $4,809,619 in contributions, but spent $3,070,301 on salaries. … But it appeared no grants were given out during its first two years of operation. … The statement’s total functional expenses reached $2,996,404.
If the Biden Cancer Initiative didn’t raise money for cancer research, what exactly was its purpose? The BCI told the NY Post that its focus was to find ways to “accelerate treatment for all, regardless of their economic or cultural backgrounds.” How did spending close to a million dollars on travel and conferences accomplish that mission, and how was that a better method than actual grants to non-profits serving the poor and disadvantaged?
This appears to have been nothing more than a big PR operation to burnish the Biden image while the former VP prepared for a presidential run. They loaded the board with “celebrity cancer survivors” to generate attention, but then did nothing but pay staff and attend conferences — a form of quasi-campaigning that Hillary Clinton perfected through the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. The only thing missing was salaries for future high-ranking campaign staffers.
Hopefully, none of the BCI’s donors thought they were funding anything more than Biden’s quasi-campaign. As long as they knew that they were funding and enabling an old campaign-finance dodge, then there’s no hint of fraud here, at least in the legal sense. In any other sense, a charity that spends two-thirds of its income on salaries and most of the remaining third on travel and conferences wouldn’t be considered as anything else other than corrupt.


hotair--2020-11-16--Pelosi, Hoyer supposedly telling members not to join Team Biden

Is this a sign of more unrest and divisiveness inside the Democratic Party or just some practical defensive maneuvers on display ?
The latest rumor-mill fodder on the Hill this week is that both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are quietly putting out some cautionary warnings to the members of their caucus .
Don ’ t go sniffing around and looking for a spot in Joe Biden ’ s cabinet or anywhere else in his administration .
Of course , this might appear at first glance as some sort of revolt against the presumptive next president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s probably not .
The New York Post has the latest gossip on the subject .
Confronted with a shrunken majority , House leaders are discouraging fellow Democrats from taking jobs with the incoming Biden administration — out of concern that Republicans could take back the chamber in the 2022 mid-term elections , sources told The Post on Sunday .
Insiders variously accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Ca ) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-Md . )
of urging Dems to stay put to preserve their fragile majority .
“ Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the time to leave , ’ ” a Democratic Party official who ’ s been briefed by Democratic congressional reps said .
Another “ House insider ” told the Post that Hoyer is saying the same thing .
Only the Majority Leader allegedly went one step further , sending word directly to Joe Biden not to “ poach ” any of their members for his administration .
These claims are all coming from anonymous sources who wouldn ’ t go on the record , so take that as you will .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncommon for some members who have an ax to grind to go to the press on background to voice their displeasure with the party leadership if they don ’ t want to be publicly exposed for doing so .
You can picture that sort of thing being likely at the moment .
Getting a cabinet position really ramps up a congressional member ’ s name recognition and pads their resume , particularly if they have national political ambitions themselves .
And the transitional period following a presidential election is the time when everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s worth , Pelosi ’ s spokesman responded by saying that these stories are “ completely false.
” But what would you expect them to say ?
It ’ s a touchy subject .
It ’ s equally understandable if both Pelosi and Hoyer are telling everyone to “ stay put.
” The current AP map of the House shows that with 422 races called so far , the Democrats have lost six seats while the Republicans have picked up 7 .
There are at least five other races where absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates holding onto a lead .
Those include two seats each in California in New York .
The latter category includes NY-22 , where Claudia Tenney is closing in on possibly defeating Democratic incumbent Anthony Brindisi .
Tenney ’ s lead of more than 22,000 votes has been slashed to a little more than 10,000 as the absentee ballots have been counted .
There are roughly 20,000 left to count , so she ’ s not out of the woods yet , but it would be another major score for the GOP if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same situation in the House that we previously discussed as playing out in the Senate .
Many in Pelosi ’ s socialist base would like to see either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders ( if not both ) wind up with cabinet seats .
But they ’ re both from states with Republican governors who would be in a position to at least temporarily appoint their successors , potentially driving them even further away from a majority in the upper chamber .
If I had to place a bet , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already had similar conversations with members of his caucus and probably Joe Biden as well .
If not , he probably shouldn ’ t be the minority leader .

Is this a sign of more unrest and divisiveness inside the Democratic Party or just some practical defensive maneuvers on display? The latest rumor-mill fodder on the Hill this week is that both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are quietly putting out some cautionary warnings to the members of their caucus. Don’t go sniffing around and looking for a spot in Joe Biden’s cabinet or anywhere else in his administration. Of course, this might appear at first glance as some sort of revolt against the presumptive next president, but in reality, it’s probably not. The New York Post has the latest gossip on the subject.
Confronted with a shrunken majority, House leaders are discouraging fellow Democrats from taking jobs with the incoming Biden administration — out of concern that Republicans could take back the chamber in the 2022 mid-term elections, sources told The Post on Sunday. Insiders variously accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) of urging Dems to stay put to preserve their fragile majority. “Nancy is telling House members, ‘Now is not the time to leave,’” a Democratic Party official who’s been briefed by Democratic congressional reps said.
Another “House insider” told the Post that Hoyer is saying the same thing. Only the Majority Leader allegedly went one step further, sending word directly to Joe Biden not to “poach” any of their members for his administration.
These claims are all coming from anonymous sources who wouldn’t go on the record, so take that as you will. But it’s not at all uncommon for some members who have an ax to grind to go to the press on background to voice their displeasure with the party leadership if they don’t want to be publicly exposed for doing so. You can picture that sort of thing being likely at the moment. Getting a cabinet position really ramps up a congressional member’s name recognition and pads their resume, particularly if they have national political ambitions themselves. And the transitional period following a presidential election is the time when everyone starts jockeying for position.
For what it’s worth, Pelosi’s spokesman responded by saying that these stories are “completely false.” But what would you expect them to say? It’s a touchy subject.
It’s equally understandable if both Pelosi and Hoyer are telling everyone to “stay put.” The current AP map of the House shows that with 422 races called so far, the Democrats have lost six seats while the Republicans have picked up 7. There are at least five other races where absentee ballots are still being counted with Republican candidates holding onto a lead. Those include two seats each in California in New York. The latter category includes NY-22, where Claudia Tenney is closing in on possibly defeating Democratic incumbent Anthony Brindisi. Tenney’s lead of more than 22,000 votes has been slashed to a little more than 10,000 as the absentee ballots have been counted. There are roughly 20,000 left to count, so she’s not out of the woods yet, but it would be another major score for the GOP if she pulls this off.
This leads to the same situation in the House that we previously discussed as playing out in the Senate. Many in Pelosi’s socialist base would like to see either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (if not both) wind up with cabinet seats. But they’re both from states with Republican governors who would be in a position to at least temporarily appoint their successors, potentially driving them even further away from a majority in the upper chamber.
If I had to place a bet, I’d wager that Chuck Schumer has already had similar conversations with members of his caucus and probably Joe Biden as well. If not, he probably shouldn’t be the minority leader.


hotair--2020-11-16--After all the talk, the "gender gap" didn't change in 2020

Now that there ’ s been time to dig through all of the data from this year ’ s presidential race , analysts are teasing out all of the little factoids that campaign strategists agonize over every four years .
One of the most obvious misses by the pollsters was the fact that the anticipated “ blue wave ” almost entirely failed to appear .
This result should be obvious from the Democrats ’ losses in the House and their failure to authoritatively take the Senate majority .
But another prediction made on a regular basis also landed with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 was going to be “ the year of the women , ” and they would decisively break for Biden while abandoning Donald Trump in droves .
The numbers are in , however , and the picture they paint is almost a duplicate of 2016 .
Female voters did break in Biden ’ s favor while the male vote went to Trump , but the ladies went for Biden as almost the exact same percentage as they did for Hillary Clinton .
The “ Women for Trump ” vote was real and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years ago .
( Associated Press ) Trump had a modest advantage among white women , and a much wider share of white women without college degrees , according to AP VoteCast , a survey of more than 110,000 voters .
And despite expectations that the much-analyzed gender gap would expand , it remained essentially the same from previous elections , including 2016… AP VoteCast showed a 9 percentage point difference between men and women in support for Biden and Harris : 55 % of women and 46 % of men .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ midterms , when VoteCast found a 10-point gender gap , with 58 % of women and 48 % of men backing Democrats in congressional races .
Contrary to some expectations , “ this was a very average gender gap , ” says Susan J. Carroll , professor of political science and women ’ s and gender studies at Rutgers .
In other words , Biden saw a 1 % gain among women voters as compared to how Democrats did in the 2018 midterms and the 2016 presidential race , as well as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s inside the margin of error for any set of predictions .
But it looks like that tiny percentage was just enough to take several swing states that Trump narrowly carried four years ago and flip them back into the blue column by similar slim margins .
It was another very close race in the states and counties that mattered the most in terms of the electoral college , but the final numbers ( if they are to be believed ) fell the other way this time .
One reason I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing the final numbers may be for many people is the other statistic pointed out in the AP ’ s analysis .
It was highlighted this morning in a tweet from Kaya Jones .
I wouldn ’ t jump out on a limb and go so far as to say Trump won the popular vote , but the performance of Republicans further down on the ballot – particularly Republican women – was impressive .
The voters sent a lof of GOP women to Washington this year and made overall gains in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gavel .
So if that ’ s the case , how did Trump lose ?
Well , ticket-splitting does happen in real life , but that sounds like an awful lot of split tickets , doesn ’ t it ?
In any event , the counting continues .
Believe it or not , we still have some House races that haven ’ t been called yet and the Republicans may yet flip a few more seats from Blue to Red .
Stay tuned .

Now that there’s been time to dig through all of the data from this year’s presidential race, analysts are teasing out all of the little factoids that campaign strategists agonize over every four years. One of the most obvious misses by the pollsters was the fact that the anticipated “blue wave” almost entirely failed to appear. This result should be obvious from the Democrats’ losses in the House and their failure to authoritatively take the Senate majority.
But another prediction made on a regular basis also landed with a thud. We were told repeatedly that 2020 was going to be “the year of the women,” and they would decisively break for Biden while abandoning Donald Trump in droves. The numbers are in, however, and the picture they paint is almost a duplicate of 2016. Female voters did break in Biden’s favor while the male vote went to Trump, but the ladies went for Biden as almost the exact same percentage as they did for Hillary Clinton. The “Women for Trump” vote was real and they held the line just as they did four years ago. (Associated Press)
Trump had a modest advantage among white women, and a much wider share of white women without college degrees, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 110,000 voters. And despite expectations that the much-analyzed gender gap would expand, it remained essentially the same from previous elections, including 2016… AP VoteCast showed a 9 percentage point difference between men and women in support for Biden and Harris: 55% of women and 46% of men. That was essentially unchanged from the 2018 midterms, when VoteCast found a 10-point gender gap, with 58% of women and 48% of men backing Democrats in congressional races. Contrary to some expectations, “this was a very average gender gap,” says Susan J. Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers.
In other words, Biden saw a 1% gain among women voters as compared to how Democrats did in the 2018 midterms and the 2016 presidential race, as well as a 2% gain among men. That’s inside the margin of error for any set of predictions. But it looks like that tiny percentage was just enough to take several swing states that Trump narrowly carried four years ago and flip them back into the blue column by similar slim margins. It was another very close race in the states and counties that mattered the most in terms of the electoral college, but the final numbers (if they are to be believed) fell the other way this time.
One reason I’d still put a caveat on how convincing the final numbers may be for many people is the other statistic pointed out in the AP’s analysis. It was highlighted this morning in a tweet from Kaya Jones.
Like I said…. No one votes all RED down ballot and then jumps to vote for a BLUE President. This is the live House map 2020. I’ll go a step further and say I actually think Trump not own the electoral vote he also won the popular!
I stand by my prediction. #RedTsunami 😎🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/9jl1baNPeD — Kaya Jones (@KayaJones) November 16, 2020
I wouldn’t jump out on a limb and go so far as to say Trump won the popular vote, but the performance of Republicans further down on the ballot – particularly Republican women – was impressive. The voters sent a lof of GOP women to Washington this year and made overall gains in the House that almost robbed Nancy Pelosi of her gavel. So if that’s the case, how did Trump lose? Well, ticket-splitting does happen in real life, but that sounds like an awful lot of split tickets, doesn’t it?
In any event, the counting continues. Believe it or not, we still have some House races that haven’t been called yet and the Republicans may yet flip a few more seats from Blue to Red. Stay tuned.