hotair--2020-11-02--Britain going back into lockdown. Will people comply?

Great Britain is the next European country to be pushed back into a full pandemic lockdown according to Prime Minister Boris Johnson .
With new COVID cases on the rise , he ’ s apparently decided that having people out and about , getting on with their lives in something approaching a normal fashion was too dangerous to accept the risks .
To say that some of his citizens were a bit put off by the idea is probably an understatement .
But before the ink was dry on the initial proclamation , Johnson came back and said that four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown could wind up lasting even longer .
( Associated Press ) A new national lockdown in England may have to last longer than the planned four weeks if coronavirus infection rates don ’ t fall quickly enough , a senior government minister said Sunday .
The lockdown announced Saturday by Prime Minister Boris Johnson is to run from Thursday until Dec. 2 .
Johnson says it ’ s needed to stop hospitals from becoming overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients within weeks .
Cabinet minister Michael Gove said it was the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would end on time , but that could not be guaranteed .
To be clear , this isn ’ t a situation that ’ s unique to the United Kingdom .
Germany is also going back to imposing severe restrictions on bars , restaurants and public gatherings .
And most European governments have a lot more power to lock down their citizens as few of them have constitutions offering the levels of freedom that Americans ( supposedly ) enjoy .
In his original announcement , BoJo talked about the need for Britons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature.
” He went on to say that the current infection and death rates were rising “ faster than the worst-case scenario of our scientific advisers.
” To be fair to Johnson , the virus situation over there is indeed looking pretty grim .
With 25,000 new cases per day on average , 2,000 new hospitalizations and 200 deaths , the Brits are seeing levels of infection that will soon surpass the worst of the initial surge in the spring .
Their latest official estimates are projecting the daily hospitalization rate to reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing changes .
At that point , they will have exceeded their ICU bed capacity by a considerable margin , and daily deaths are projected to surpass 800 .
The question now is how well the Brits will tolerate these orders .
Back in the spring , there was widespread compliance with the first lockdown mandates .
But by last month , there were numerous reports of “ pandemic fatigue ” across the country .
Johnson was accused of botching the response to the pandemic and the wide support he enjoyed following his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in England have been openly defying restrictions on movement and gatherings , leading to a need for the government to arrest some of those acting in defiance of the orders .
If BoJo doesn ’ t find a way to get this situation under control he ’ s going to have a rebellion on his hands .
Great Britain just finished going through a spate of elections and votes of no-confidence in a shorter period of time than nearly any other era in modern history .
There were high hopes that the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and divisiveness that Brexit seemed to spawn and the government would have the chance to stabilize for at least five years .
But as with much of the rest of the world , the pandemic has had a way of destabilizing everything .
If he ’ s not careful , Boris Johnson may wind up being the next political casualty of COVID-19 even after surviving a bout of the disease himself .

Great Britain is the next European country to be pushed back into a full pandemic lockdown according to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. With new COVID cases on the rise, he’s apparently decided that having people out and about, getting on with their lives in something approaching a normal fashion was too dangerous to accept the risks. To say that some of his citizens were a bit put off by the idea is probably an understatement. But before the ink was dry on the initial proclamation, Johnson came back and said that four weeks might not be enough. The lockdown could wind up lasting even longer. (Associated Press)
A new national lockdown in England may have to last longer than the planned four weeks if coronavirus infection rates don’t fall quickly enough, a senior government minister said Sunday. The lockdown announced Saturday by Prime Minister Boris Johnson is to run from Thursday until Dec. 2. Johnson says it’s needed to stop hospitals from becoming overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients within weeks. Cabinet minister Michael Gove said it was the government’s “fervent hope” that the lockdown would end on time, but that could not be guaranteed.
To be clear, this isn’t a situation that’s unique to the United Kingdom. Germany is also going back to imposing severe restrictions on bars, restaurants and public gatherings. And most European governments have a lot more power to lock down their citizens as few of them have constitutions offering the levels of freedom that Americans (supposedly) enjoy.
In his original announcement, BoJo talked about the need for Britons to “be humble in the face of nature.” He went on to say that the current infection and death rates were rising “faster than the worst-case scenario of our scientific advisers.”
To be fair to Johnson, the virus situation over there is indeed looking pretty grim. With 25,000 new cases per day on average, 2,000 new hospitalizations and 200 deaths, the Brits are seeing levels of infection that will soon surpass the worst of the initial surge in the spring. Their latest official estimates are projecting the daily hospitalization rate to reach 3,000 within a couple of weeks if nothing changes. At that point, they will have exceeded their ICU bed capacity by a considerable margin, and daily deaths are projected to surpass 800.
The question now is how well the Brits will tolerate these orders. Back in the spring, there was widespread compliance with the first lockdown mandates. But by last month, there were numerous reports of “pandemic fatigue” across the country. Johnson was accused of botching the response to the pandemic and the wide support he enjoyed following his election has been steadily eroding. Many in England have been openly defying restrictions on movement and gatherings, leading to a need for the government to arrest some of those acting in defiance of the orders.
If BoJo doesn’t find a way to get this situation under control he’s going to have a rebellion on his hands. Great Britain just finished going through a spate of elections and votes of no-confidence in a shorter period of time than nearly any other era in modern history. There were high hopes that the last election might settle down all the unrest and divisiveness that Brexit seemed to spawn and the government would have the chance to stabilize for at least five years. But as with much of the rest of the world, the pandemic has had a way of destabilizing everything. If he’s not careful, Boris Johnson may wind up being the next political casualty of COVID-19 even after surviving a bout of the disease himself.


hotair--2020-11-02--Texas police: Sure looks like the Biden-bus incident was caused by a Biden supporter

This story exploded over the weekend , with Texas Democrats claiming that supporters of Donald Trump ran into the car of a Biden volunteer .
It was a kind of “ come and see the violence inherent in the Trumpist system ” moment , at least at first .
And it still might be , but a more careful look at the video that sparked the argument actually looks quite a bit different if one looks carefully at it .
The police in Texas thinks it looks different , too : This runs on a continuous loop , so watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pickup truck is in its own lane at that point , and it ’ s the Biden volunteer that appears to have initiated the contact .
Here ’ s the image that comes just before the videographer exclaims “ S*** , look at this !
” That ’ s what the police see too , although there ’ s not much context otherwise : San Marcos police said the Biden-Harris bus requested a police escort , but due to excessive traffic officers were not able to catch the bus before it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said it has researched the crash and watched online video .
It said the “ at-fault vehicle ” may be the Biden-Harris staffer ’ s car , while the “ victim ” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles .
“ The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck , ” a statement from SMPD reads .
“ Calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either driver at this time , additional investigation would be required to fully ascertain who was at fault.
” There ’ s a reason why neither driver would want to go to the police .
Even if the Biden staffer/volunteer sideswiped the truck first , the truck responded in kind .
Both actions could be considered assault , even if the initial contact might have mitigated the follow-up .
Neither driver ’ s insurance policy would cover this if police saw this video and chalked it up to mutual road rage .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them might face charges .
There ’ s still a lot of context missing here , though , including whether this was actually the first contact between the two cars , and whether there were any other contacts made .
It does seem that the Trump supporters went out on the road to make their presence known to the bus and its followers , including maybe getting in its way : Another video from the same “ Resist Programming ” account shows that the bus may have been part of the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see who ’ s driving out of their lane in this part of the confrontation : The Biden-Harris bus crosses into the truck driver ’ s lane more than once in this sequence , not the other way around .
The truck speeds up to get in front of the bus after the bus ’ attempt at intimidation , which appears to be the only time in this sequence that the truck got out of its own lane .
However , we still don ’ t know what happened before and after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump supporters start these fights ?
Did the Biden supporters start them ?
It ’ s impossible to tell without a full-scale investigation , but from the videos we do have , there ’ s evidence that everyone involved behaved poorly .
It should have been enough for Trump supporters to trail behind the caravan without pulling stunts like this , and whoever drove the bus should be fired .
Everyone put other lives at risk in this highway confrontation .
When “ owning the libs ” crosses over into Blood On The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too far .
In the end , Patterico gets it right : This is a story of two sides behaving badly , and two sides driving unreasonably , leading to a thankfully minor collision on a Texas highway .
However , it is being falsely portrayed by Big Media as a situation where evil Trump fans deliberately tried to run some poor innocent Biden supporters off the road .
That narrative is false , based on the evidence available to date .
I will first lay out the Big Media narrative , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the available video evidence of which I am aware .
I will say at the outset — just as I said when I first discussed this with people yesterday — that additional information can always change my conclusion .
In fact , I have learned additional information since yesterday morning that solidifies a suspicion I had that the Trump fan acted unreasonably to a degree .
However , I continue to believe that the Biden staffers likely bear primary responsibility for the collision , although it is impossible to know this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the local police agree with me that the Biden vehicle was likely the at-fault vehicle .
Be sure to read it all .
Whether you like Biden/Harris or Trump/Pence , both campaigns have the right to make their case to the voters .
No one has the right to “ run them out of Texas , ” especially on busy highways where people just want to go about their business .
Neither does a caravan have ownership rights to the highway simply by dint of their political intentions either .
Safely coexisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be no problem at all , but neither side here apparently put safety first .

This story exploded over the weekend, with Texas Democrats claiming that supporters of Donald Trump ran into the car of a Biden volunteer. It was a kind of “come and see the violence inherent in the Trumpist system” moment, at least at first. And it still might be, but a more careful look at the video that sparked the argument actually looks quite a bit different if one looks carefully at it.
The police in Texas thinks it looks different, too:
Here is a video of the Texas MAGA trump supporter trucks harassing the Biden-Kamala bus and ramming a Biden volunteer.
This was a convoy of over 100 trump supporters doing this all day
WTF SHARE PLEASE pic.twitter.com/mv3xb8tFF2 — Formerly Known as ALT-immigration 🛂 (@ALT_uscis) October 31, 2020
This runs on a continuous loop, so watch it verrrry closely at the five-second mark. The pickup truck is in its own lane at that point, and it’s the Biden volunteer that appears to have initiated the contact. Here’s the image that comes just before the videographer exclaims “S***, look at this!”
That’s what the police see too, although there’s not much context otherwise:
San Marcos police said the Biden-Harris bus requested a police escort, but due to excessive traffic officers were not able to catch the bus before it left the jurisdiction. The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles. “The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck,” a statement from SMPD reads. “Calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck. Since SMPD has not spoken to either driver at this time, additional investigation would be required to fully ascertain who was at fault.”
There’s a reason why neither driver would want to go to the police. Even if the Biden staffer/volunteer sideswiped the truck first, the truck responded in kind. Both actions could be considered assault, even if the initial contact might have mitigated the follow-up. Neither driver’s insurance policy would cover this if police saw this video and chalked it up to mutual road rage. There’s a pretty good chance both of them might face charges.
There’s still a lot of context missing here, though, including whether this was actually the first contact between the two cars, and whether there were any other contacts made. It does seem that the Trump supporters went out on the road to make their presence known to the bus and its followers, including maybe getting in its way:
A Trump supporter posted a video of their pickup truck dangerously close and harassing Joe Biden’s campaign bus on a Texas Highway with the tag #OperationBlockTheBus pic.twitter.com/dghyc9PQix — Resist Programming 🛰 (@RzstProgramming) November 1, 2020
Another video from the same “Resist Programming” account shows that the bus may have been part of the problem too. Watch this verrrry carefully again to see who’s driving out of their lane in this part of the confrontation:
🎥: Second Video Randi Ceh posted a different video of her vehicle driving dangerously close to the Biden bus. You can see the window of the pickup truck roll down and someone later yells, “jackass.” pic.twitter.com/pslypgjZXS — Resist Programming 🛰 (@RzstProgramming) November 1, 2020
The Biden-Harris bus crosses into the truck driver’s lane more than once in this sequence, not the other way around. The truck speeds up to get in front of the bus after the bus’ attempt at intimidation, which appears to be the only time in this sequence that the truck got out of its own lane.
However, we still don’t know what happened before and after this video, either. Did the Trump supporters start these fights? Did the Biden supporters start them? It’s impossible to tell without a full-scale investigation, but from the videos we do have, there’s evidence that everyone involved behaved poorly. It should have been enough for Trump supporters to trail behind the caravan without pulling stunts like this, and whoever drove the bus should be fired. Everyone put other lives at risk in this highway confrontation. When “owning the libs” crosses over into Blood On The Windscreen territory, it’s gone too far.
In the end, Patterico gets it right:
This is a story of two sides behaving badly, and two sides driving unreasonably, leading to a thankfully minor collision on a Texas highway. However, it is being falsely portrayed by Big Media as a situation where evil Trump fans deliberately tried to run some poor innocent Biden supporters off the road. That narrative is false, based on the evidence available to date. I will first lay out the Big Media narrative, and then painstakingly explain what happened, with all of the available video evidence of which I am aware. I will say at the outset — just as I said when I first discussed this with people yesterday — that additional information can always change my conclusion. In fact, I have learned additional information since yesterday morning that solidifies a suspicion I had that the Trump fan acted unreasonably to a degree. However, I continue to believe that the Biden staffers likely bear primary responsibility for the collision, although it is impossible to know this with certainty. As we will see, the local police agree with me that the Biden vehicle was likely the at-fault vehicle.
Be sure to read it all. Whether you like Biden/Harris or Trump/Pence, both campaigns have the right to make their case to the voters. No one has the right to “run them out of Texas,” especially on busy highways where people just want to go about their business. Neither does a caravan have ownership rights to the highway simply by dint of their political intentions either. Safely coexisting in that public space as a demonstration/counter-demonstration would be no problem at all, but neither side here apparently put safety first.


hotair--2020-11-02--NY Times: How China blocked a search for the origin of the coronavirus with the World Health Organiz

NY Times: How China blocked a search for the origin of the coronavirus with the World Health Organization's help

The NY Times has been doing a series of articles on the pandemic and today they published one about the search for the origin of the virus .
What the piece makes clear is that China has been obstructing all efforts to find the source of the virus , keeping the World Health Organization at arm ’ s length even as WHO leaders praised China ’ s response and transparency .
The big picture here is that we still don ’ t know where the virus originated and , as the Times points out , the idea that it originated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing : The question of where Covid-19 began is especially intriguing because the initial theory , centered on illegal wildlife sales at the Wuhan market , is now in doubt .
There is powerful evidence that the new coronavirus passed naturally from an animal into humans .
Scientists have found a virus in bats that is a close relative , and they suspect that it may have infected another animal species before it reached people .
But though they agree that many cases were linked to the market in Wuhan , many scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak began .
The virus definitely spread at the market but China sent people in to close and clean the market a day before it sent in biologists to take samples .
The result is that they found some traces of the virus at the market but couldn ’ t identify a source .
China has never released the data it collected from animals at the market though Dr. Gao , from the Chinese equivalent of the CDC , has said those tests revealed nothing .
It seems likely China won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead end and , implicitly , a failure on their part .
In any case , the evidence that the virus started somewhere else is pretty strong : One of the reasons we don ’ t know where it started and spread is because WHO has consistently buckled under Chinese pressure .
Dr. Tedros , who leads WHO , decided not to declare an emergency on Jan. 23 after lobbying from China : Dr. Tedros finally declared a health emergency on Jan. 30 .
What had the extra week of time bought WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists were allowed to travel to China but they were explicitly not allowed to investigate the origin of the virus .
In fact , China didn ’ t even want to let them into Wuhan at first but eventually allowed them to visit two hospitals there .
After this trip , the Times reports it took 3 days of negotiating with China to write a report about what the researchers had seen .
Every word of the report was scrutinized by China : Very little has changed since that first February trip to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July but they were not allowed to enter Wuhan and could only talk to people over the phone .
China then told WHO that if it wanted to examine the origins of the virus it should start looking in Europe : The World Health Organization has now negotiated a new agreement with China regarding the investigation into the origin of the virus .
Guess who is completely in charge of that investigation : An executive summary of the documents , obtained by The Times , shows that the health organization ’ s virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One will look for the first patients by reviewing hospital records and interviewing people who were treated for the virus in December .
The team will also investigate what wildlife was sold at the Wuhan market and follow the supply chain , according to the summary .
The W.H.O .
has agreed this phase will be led by Chinese scientists , with outsiders reviewing their work remotely .
Naturally , the Times has nothing positive to say about the Trump administration , but it ’ s clear from reading the piece that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s willingness under Dr. Tedros to praise China in nearly every circumstance , including when such praise was neither accurate nor warranted .
What good is a World Health Organization if it constantly bows to Chinese pressure and can ’ t pursue one of the most fundamental questions about the pandemic , i.e .
how did the virus originate ?

The NY Times has been doing a series of articles on the pandemic and today they published one about the search for the origin of the virus. What the piece makes clear is that China has been obstructing all efforts to find the source of the virus, keeping the World Health Organization at arm’s length even as WHO leaders praised China’s response and transparency.
Nine months and more than 1.1 million deaths later, there is still no transparent, independent investigation into the source of the virus. Notoriously allergic to outside scrutiny, China has impeded the effort, while leaders of the World Health Organization, if privately frustrated, have largely ceded control, even as the Trump administration has fumed.
The big picture here is that we still don’t know where the virus originated and, as the Times points out, the idea that it originated at the Wuhan market is not very convincing:
The question of where Covid-19 began is especially intriguing because the initial theory, centered on illegal wildlife sales at the Wuhan market, is now in doubt. There is powerful evidence that the new coronavirus passed naturally from an animal into humans. Scientists have found a virus in bats that is a close relative, and they suspect that it may have infected another animal species before it reached people. But though they agree that many cases were linked to the market in Wuhan, many scientists no longer believe it is where the outbreak began.
The virus definitely spread at the market but China sent people in to close and clean the market a day before it sent in biologists to take samples. The result is that they found some traces of the virus at the market but couldn’t identify a source. China has never released the data it collected from animals at the market though Dr. Gao, from the Chinese equivalent of the CDC, has said those tests revealed nothing. It seems likely China won’t release the data because it shows a dead end and, implicitly, a failure on their part. In any case, the evidence that the virus started somewhere else is pretty strong:
In late January, Dr. Gao co-wrote one of the earliest epidemiological studies about the virus. The study highlights the market’s links to the outbreak. But a close look at the data reveals something significant: Four of the first five coronavirus patients had no clear links to the market. They had apparently been infected elsewhere.
One of the reasons we don’t know where it started and spread is because WHO has consistently buckled under Chinese pressure. Dr. Tedros, who leads WHO, decided not to declare an emergency on Jan. 23 after lobbying from China:
What was not publicly known, though, was that the committee’s Jan. 23 decision followed intense lobbying, notably by China, according to diplomats and health officials. Committee members are international experts largely insulated from influence. But in Geneva, China’s ambassador made it clear that his country would view an emergency declaration as a vote of no confidence.
Dr. Tedros finally declared a health emergency on Jan. 30. What had the extra week of time bought WHO? Two weeks later a group of scientists were allowed to travel to China but they were explicitly not allowed to investigate the origin of the virus. In fact, China didn’t even want to let them into Wuhan at first but eventually allowed them to visit two hospitals there. After this trip, the Times reports it took 3 days of negotiating with China to write a report about what the researchers had seen. Every word of the report was scrutinized by China:
On the origins of the virus, the experts mostly shifted the onus to China, asking the government to prioritize a “rigorous investigation.” But they also assured people that numerous investigations were underway. “It was an absolute whitewash,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University. “But the answer was, that was the best they could negotiate with Xi Jinping.”
Very little has changed since that first February trip to China. WHO sent two experts in July but they were not allowed to enter Wuhan and could only talk to people over the phone. China then told WHO that if it wanted to examine the origins of the virus it should start looking in Europe:
Chinese officials then said that the organization should start investigating in Europe, pointing to reports that the virus had been discovered in sewage systems there last year.
The World Health Organization has now negotiated a new agreement with China regarding the investigation into the origin of the virus. Guess who is completely in charge of that investigation:
An executive summary of the documents, obtained by The Times, shows that the health organization’s virus origin studies will unfold in two phases. One will look for the first patients by reviewing hospital records and interviewing people who were treated for the virus in December. The team will also investigate what wildlife was sold at the Wuhan market and follow the supply chain, according to the summary. The W.H.O. has agreed this phase will be led by Chinese scientists, with outsiders reviewing their work remotely.
Naturally, the Times has nothing positive to say about the Trump administration, but it’s clear from reading the piece that Trump was essentially correct about WHO’s willingness under Dr. Tedros to praise China in nearly every circumstance, including when such praise was neither accurate nor warranted. What good is a World Health Organization if it constantly bows to Chinese pressure and can’t pursue one of the most fundamental questions about the pandemic, i.e. how did the virus originate?


hotair--2020-11-02--"Sounds just like Karl Marx": Kamala Harris pitches equity over equality

Which can government actually provide and enforce — equality or equity ?
And for which should we strive ?
Kamala Harris ’ closing-argument animated video argues that nothing but end-stage equity is her aim , which prompted critics to accuse Harris of espousing “ Marxism ” : So there ’ s a big difference between equality and equity .
Equality suggests , ‘ oh , everyone should get the same amount.
’ The problem with that [ is ] not everybody ’ s starting out from the same place .
So if we ’ re all getting the same amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I started out over here — we could get the same amount , but you ’ re still going to be that far back behind me .
It ’ s about giving people the resources and support they need , so that everyone can be on equal footing , and then compete on equal footing .
Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place .
There ’ s plenty to criticize here , starting off with the base assumption that equality means “ everyone should get the same amount.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any form of polity except that which uses nothing but top-down distribution ; it is “ equity , ” but only in theory .
We have seen exclusively top-down distribution models in practice , and the result has never been equality or equity .
The ruling class — that which controls the distribution — ends up at the top of the mountain , living in dachas with access to whatever they need .
Everyone else gets the equality of serfdom .
Equality has never promised that “ everybody gets the same amount , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans : All of these are fair points , but let ’ s not lose sight of what Harris intends with this ham-handed final play .
She may have gotten the concept of equality wrong in her introduction , but her actual argument is for equality of opportunity — and it speaks to a real concern among black voters .
There is a chronic issue disparity in wealth accumulation between white , black , and Hispanic families , and it is part of the perception that Harris evokes with this mountain graphic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery and Jim Crow , and Harris is exploiting the despair felt in black communities over the “ head start ” whites have in competing economically .
It ’ s this issue that continues to fuel the reparations movement , and this hints that Harris and Joe Biden might jump on that bandwagon in the next four years .
In 2017 , the Federal Reserve acknowledged the wealth-accumulation disparity .
However , it found very different reasons for the problem : In addition to the differences in the levels and types of wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial variation by race/ethnicity in many of the factors that are associated with the accumulation of wealth.4 Among the potential reasons that wealth is relatively high among white households , for example , is that they tend to be older , more highly educated , more likely to have received an inheritance , and less likely to be a single parent than their black and Hispanic counterparts ( table 2 ) .
Wealth generally increases with age and plateaus or modestly decreases from near-retirement age onward , reflecting life-cycle earnings and saving behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are headed by someone 55 or older , compared with 38 percent of black households and approximately one-fourth for Hispanic households .
Wealth is also correlated with family structure because of higher levels of saving among families with more earners or lower living expenses .
Black households stand out for being the least likely to have a married or partnered head–just 37 percent–compared with more than 54 percent for each of the other three groups .
White households are the least likely to be headed by a single parent ( 8 percent ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 27 percent among black families .
Black families are less likely to be dual-earner households than the other groups of families .
White and other heads of households are much more likely to have obtained a college degree or some advanced level of higher education ( 39 percent and 36 percent , respectively ) .
In contrast , only 23 percent of black heads of households and 17 percent of Hispanic heads of households have a college degree or higher level of education .
Furthermore , the proportion of families that consist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least a college degree also varies by group : 18 percent of white families , 5 percent of black families , 6 percent of Hispanic families , and 16 percent of other families .
These differences across groups in educational attainment appear to persist across generations as well .
For 31 percent of white families , one or both parents of the head had at least a bachelor ’ s degree , compared with 19 percent of black families and 14 percent of Hispanic families .
The Fed also found that one perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact : That ’ s bound to be true when white families are better arranged to accumulate wealth .
However , it ’ s also true that white families had a better shot at accumulating it during the Jim Crow years too , at least in those places with Jim Crow-esque restrictions on economic engagement targeting blacks .
Hence we get the mountain analogy and the different starting ground between the black and white characters in it .
The data suggests that the real solution is cultural rather than legal or political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any solutions — only pandering to the despair of the perceived situation .
But it ’ s effective pandering .
Whether or not one agrees with this message , and whether or not one agrees on the solutions to it , Harris understands her audience .
This isn ’ t about an esoteric fight over the definition of equality , equity , or even Marxism .
This is about signaling to a specific audience and saying , “ We ’ re with you.
” The fact that Harris feels the need to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be a bit worried about Donald Trump ’ s latest rap-world endorsements .

Which can government actually provide and enforce — equality or equity? And for which should we strive? Kamala Harris’ closing-argument animated video argues that nothing but end-stage equity is her aim, which prompted critics to accuse Harris of espousing “Marxism”:
There’s a big difference between equality and equity. pic.twitter.com/n3XfQyjLNe — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) November 1, 2020
So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, ‘oh, everyone should get the same amount.’ The problem with that [is] not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here — we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.
There’s plenty to criticize here, starting off with the base assumption that equality means “everyone should get the same amount.” That’s not equality in any form of polity except that which uses nothing but top-down distribution; it is “equity,” but only in theory. We have seen exclusively top-down distribution models in practice, and the result has never been equality or equity. The ruling class — that which controls the distribution — ends up at the top of the mountain, living in dachas with access to whatever they need. Everyone else gets the equality of serfdom.
Equality has never promised that “everybody gets the same amount,” which what prompted these criticisms from Republicans:
Sounds just like Karl Marx. A century of history has shown where that path leads. We all embrace equal opportunity, but government-enforced equality of outcomes is Marxism. https://t.co/76GRFhl34X — Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) November 1, 2020
Full blown Marxist https://t.co/FJNAzC1sAt — Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) November 2, 2020
Rep. Dan Crenshaw offered the most substantive Twitter review:
The false promise of the left, in 1 minute. Start out with a well-intentioned point on equality of opportunity, only to end it with the true Marxist intent: equity in outcomes. They leave out the part where equity must be enforced with unequal -and tyrannical- treatment. https://t.co/Hflv16okCo — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) November 2, 2020
All of these are fair points, but let’s not lose sight of what Harris intends with this ham-handed final play. She may have gotten the concept of equality wrong in her introduction, but her actual argument is for equality of opportunity — and it speaks to a real concern among black voters. There is a chronic issue disparity in wealth accumulation between white, black, and Hispanic families, and it is part of the perception that Harris evokes with this mountain graphic. It is perceived as the hangover of slavery and Jim Crow, and Harris is exploiting the despair felt in black communities over the “head start” whites have in competing economically. It’s this issue that continues to fuel the reparations movement, and this hints that Harris and Joe Biden might jump on that bandwagon in the next four years.
In 2017, the Federal Reserve acknowledged the wealth-accumulation disparity. However, it found very different reasons for the problem:
In addition to the differences in the levels and types of wealth previously described, the data also indicate substantial variation by race/ethnicity in many of the factors that are associated with the accumulation of wealth.4 Among the potential reasons that wealth is relatively high among white households, for example, is that they tend to be older, more highly educated, more likely to have received an inheritance, and less likely to be a single parent than their black and Hispanic counterparts (table 2). Wealth generally increases with age and plateaus or modestly decreases from near-retirement age onward, reflecting life-cycle earnings and saving behavior. Just over half of white households are headed by someone 55 or older, compared with 38 percent of black households and approximately one-fourth for Hispanic households. Wealth is also correlated with family structure because of higher levels of saving among families with more earners or lower living expenses. Black households stand out for being the least likely to have a married or partnered head–just 37 percent–compared with more than 54 percent for each of the other three groups. White households are the least likely to be headed by a single parent (8 percent), compared with 16 percent among Hispanics and 27 percent among black families. Black families are less likely to be dual-earner households than the other groups of families. White and other heads of households are much more likely to have obtained a college degree or some advanced level of higher education (39 percent and 36 percent, respectively). In contrast, only 23 percent of black heads of households and 17 percent of Hispanic heads of households have a college degree or higher level of education. Furthermore, the proportion of families that consist of two spouses who both have at least a college degree also varies by group: 18 percent of white families, 5 percent of black families, 6 percent of Hispanic families, and 16 percent of other families. These differences across groups in educational attainment appear to persist across generations as well. For 31 percent of white families, one or both parents of the head had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 19 percent of black families and 14 percent of Hispanic families.
The Fed also found that one perception of “white privilege” is based in fact:
White families stand out as the most likely to have received an inheritance or other major gift–26 percent of white families have received an inheritance, compared with less than 10 percent of black families and Hispanic families. Most white households (71 percent) report being able to get $3,000 from family or friends in a financial emergency, compared with less than half of Hispanic and black households (49 percent and 43 percent, respectively).
That’s bound to be true when white families are better arranged to accumulate wealth. However, it’s also true that white families had a better shot at accumulating it during the Jim Crow years too, at least in those places with Jim Crow-esque restrictions on economic engagement targeting blacks. Hence we get the mountain analogy and the different starting ground between the black and white characters in it. The data suggests that the real solution is cultural rather than legal or political, but Harris doesn’t offer any solutions — only pandering to the despair of the perceived situation.
But it’s effective pandering. Whether or not one agrees with this message, and whether or not one agrees on the solutions to it, Harris understands her audience. This isn’t about an esoteric fight over the definition of equality, equity, or even Marxism. This is about signaling to a specific audience and saying, “We’re with you.” The fact that Harris feels the need to send up this signal suggests that Team Biden might be a bit worried about Donald Trump’s latest rap-world endorsements.


hotair--2020-11-02--Trump's closing argument: I might fire Fauci after the election

A phenomenal note on which to end the race .
I ’ ve said a few times lately that Trump has run a terrible campaign , consistently choosing positions that appeal to his base while irritating the independents and suburbanites whom he needs to win back .
His campaign message , when you cut through the noise , is really nothing more or less than “ I got ta be me.
” This is the cherry on that sundae .
I ’ d need to think a bit to come up with an idea that ’ s surer to appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump while annoying everyone who ’ s still on the fence about him than firing Fauci , especially at a moment when COVID cases in the U.S. are the highest they ’ ve ever been .
Maybe … promising to put Jeanine Pirro in charge of the Justice Department ?
Rumors are swirling that that ’ s on the table after Election Day too .
I guessed 10 days ago that Fauci would end up joining Chris Wray , Mark Esper , and Gina Haspel on the chopping block after the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether there ’ ll be regulatory roadblocks that stop him is unclear to me ( Fauci ’ s a career civil servant , not a political appointee ) , but the president and his team are doing what they can to remove those roadblocks before the big purge .
Tim Miller shares this gossip too , for what it ’ s worth : “ In case you thought this might have just been a flight of fancy on stage , according to one reporter I spoke to recently , Steve Bannon has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired should Trump win re-election.
” The smart thing to do would be to keep Fauci on if only to retain some leverage over him .
He ’ ll be an influential figure in media this winter whether he ’ s on the federal payroll or not .
If he ’ s fired , he ’ s free to speak to any outlet he wants and won ’ t need to pull his punches at the president and Scott Atlas .
Although , speaking of which , this WaPo interview with Fauci from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much more critical than usual he was of the administration and its more underwhelming figures , like Atlas .
He ’ s still pulling his punches here , but less so than usual : “ We ’ re in for a whole lot of hurt .
It ’ s not a good situation , ” Anthony S. Fauci , the country ’ s leading infectious-disease expert , said in a wide-ranging interview late Friday .
“ All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home indoors .
You could not possibly be positioned more poorly.
” … .
“ I have real problems with that guy , ” Fauci said of Atlas .
“ He ’ s a smart guy who ’ s talking about things that I believe he doesn ’ t have any real insight or knowledge or experience in .
He keeps talking about things that when you dissect it out and parse it out , it doesn ’ t make any sense.
” Fauci said he actually appreciated chief of staff Mark Meadows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration was not going to control the pandemic .
“ I tip my hat to him for admitting the strategy , ” he said .
“ He is straightforward in telling you what ’ s on his mind .
I commend him for that.
” … “ He insists he ’ s not somebody who ’ s pushing for herd immunity , ” Fauci said of Atlas .
“ He says , ‘ That ’ s not what I mean.
’ [ But ] everything he says — when you put them together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geared toward the concept of ‘ it doesn ’ t make any difference if people get infected .
It ’ s a waste of time .
Masks don ’ t work .
Who cares , ’ and the only thing you need to do is protect the vulnerable , like people in the nursing homes , ” Fauci said .
“ You could not possibly be positioned more poorly ” is a bracing summary from the government ’ s leading infectious-disease expert on how his boss has handled the pandemic three days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another four years in office .
( He also favorably compared the Biden campaign ’ s socially distanced rallies to Team Trump ’ s “ pack ’ em in ” approach . )
I think Fauci was speaking there out of pure exasperation that the White House isn ’ t even pretending to care anymore that the crisis is deepening here .
They ’ ve fully entered the Trump “ we ’ re turning a corner ” bubble , which is out-and-out Orwellian disinformation are cases , hospitalizations , and deaths rise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re literally going to try to talk people into believing that things are getting better when all available evidence is that they ’ re getting worse .
I have a hot take , though , which I half-believe , that Fauci deliberately took a few harder shots at Atlas and the White House this week hoping/expecting that it would bait Trump into ranting about him on the trail in the final days of the race , knowing full well how that would play with swing voters .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that would be some clever three-dimensional chess aimed at helping Biden .
The White House was plenty pissed off at him , in any event : “ It ’ s unacceptable and breaking with all norms for Dr. Fauci , a senior member of the President ’ s Coronavirus Taskforce and someone who has praised President ( Donald ) Trump ’ s actions throughout this pandemic , to choose three days before an election to play politics , ” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in a statement to CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Task Force , Dr. Fauci has a duty to express concerns or push for a change in strategy , but he ’ s not done that , instead choosing to criticize the President in the media and make his political leanings known by praising the President ’ s opponent — exactly what the American people have come to expect from The Swamp , ” Deere said .
Win or lose tomorrow , Trump gains nothing by firing Fauci .
If he wins , having Fauci on the team and still ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critic on the sidelines .
It ’ ll also preserve some public trust in the administration ’ s COVID response that otherwise would be lost with Fauci ’ s departure , especially once the big vaccine rollout begins .
If Trump loses , firing Fauci won ’ t achieve anything except to give him a little vacation for a few months before Biden inevitably hires him back and puts him in charge of the federal response again in January .
And Fauci will use that vacation to do endless CNN hits where he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t listen to a word Trump and Atlas are saying .
They ’ re douchebags who are getting people killed.
” The only thing firing Fauci would do for Trump is grant him the petty vindictive satisfaction of punishing someone whom the public esteems more than him for disagreeing with him .
So he ’ s definitely going to do it .
I ’ ll leave you with this summary from a new study conducted by economists at Stanford .

A phenomenal note on which to end the race. I’ve said a few times lately that Trump has run a terrible campaign, consistently choosing positions that appeal to his base while irritating the independents and suburbanites whom he needs to win back. His campaign message, when you cut through the noise, is really nothing more or less than “I gotta be me.” This is the cherry on that sundae.
Wow — a “Fire Fauci!” chant at the Trump rally “Let me wait until a little after the election,” Trump replies pic.twitter.com/bRHLqzzcRF — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 2, 2020
A data point from NBC’s final national poll, published yesterday:
I’d need to think a bit to come up with an idea that’s surer to appeal to people who are already voting for Trump while annoying everyone who’s still on the fence about him than firing Fauci, especially at a moment when COVID cases in the U.S. are the highest they’ve ever been. Maybe … promising to put Jeanine Pirro in charge of the Justice Department? Rumors are swirling that that’s on the table after Election Day too.
“This would be a less than propitious development” pic.twitter.com/iLgOS9SQ6n — Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) November 2, 2020
I guessed 10 days ago that Fauci would end up joining Chris Wray, Mark Esper, and Gina Haspel on the chopping block after the election. Whether Trump can do that easily or whether there’ll be regulatory roadblocks that stop him is unclear to me (Fauci’s a career civil servant, not a political appointee), but the president and his team are doing what they can to remove those roadblocks before the big purge. Tim Miller shares this gossip too, for what it’s worth: “In case you thought this might have just been a flight of fancy on stage, according to one reporter I spoke to recently, Steve Bannon has been saying that Fauci is likely to be fired should Trump win re-election.”
The smart thing to do would be to keep Fauci on if only to retain some leverage over him. He’ll be an influential figure in media this winter whether he’s on the federal payroll or not. If he’s fired, he’s free to speak to any outlet he wants and won’t need to pull his punches at the president and Scott Atlas. Although, speaking of which, this WaPo interview with Fauci from a few days ago surprised me for how much more critical than usual he was of the administration and its more underwhelming figures, like Atlas. He’s still pulling his punches here, but less so than usual:
“We’re in for a whole lot of hurt. It’s not a good situation,” Anthony S. Fauci, the country’s leading infectious-disease expert, said in a wide-ranging interview late Friday. “All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season, with people congregating at home indoors. You could not possibly be positioned more poorly.”…. “I have real problems with that guy,” Fauci said of Atlas. “He’s a smart guy who’s talking about things that I believe he doesn’t have any real insight or knowledge or experience in. He keeps talking about things that when you dissect it out and parse it out, it doesn’t make any sense.” Fauci said he actually appreciated chief of staff Mark Meadows saying last weekend on CNN that the administration was not going to control the pandemic. “I tip my hat to him for admitting the strategy,” he said. “He is straightforward in telling you what’s on his mind. I commend him for that.”… “He insists he’s not somebody who’s pushing for herd immunity,” Fauci said of Atlas. “He says, ‘That’s not what I mean.’ [But] everything he says — when you put them together and stitch them together — everything is geared toward the concept of ‘it doesn’t make any difference if people get infected. It’s a waste of time. Masks don’t work. Who cares,’ and the only thing you need to do is protect the vulnerable, like people in the nursing homes,” Fauci said.
“You could not possibly be positioned more poorly” is a bracing summary from the government’s leading infectious-disease expert on how his boss has handled the pandemic three days before the country decides whether to give him another four years in office. (He also favorably compared the Biden campaign’s socially distanced rallies to Team Trump’s “pack ’em in” approach.) I think Fauci was speaking there out of pure exasperation that the White House isn’t even pretending to care anymore that the crisis is deepening here. They’ve fully entered the Trump “we’re turning a corner” bubble, which is out-and-out Orwellian disinformation are cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise. They’re out of solutions so they’re literally going to try to talk people into believing that things are getting better when all available evidence is that they’re getting worse.
I have a hot take, though, which I half-believe, that Fauci deliberately took a few harder shots at Atlas and the White House this week hoping/expecting that it would bait Trump into ranting about him on the trail in the final days of the race, knowing full well how that would play with swing voters. I don’t think he’s that Machiavellian, but that would be some clever three-dimensional chess aimed at helping Biden. The White House was plenty pissed off at him, in any event:
“It’s unacceptable and breaking with all norms for Dr. Fauci, a senior member of the President’s Coronavirus Taskforce and someone who has praised President (Donald) Trump’s actions throughout this pandemic, to choose three days before an election to play politics,” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in a statement to CNN on Saturday evening… “As a member of the Task Force, Dr. Fauci has a duty to express concerns or push for a change in strategy, but he’s not done that, instead choosing to criticize the President in the media and make his political leanings known by praising the President’s opponent — exactly what the American people have come to expect from The Swamp,” Deere said.
Win or lose tomorrow, Trump gains nothing by firing Fauci. If he wins, having Fauci on the team and still (mostly) muzzled will keep a formidable critic on the sidelines. It’ll also preserve some public trust in the administration’s COVID response that otherwise would be lost with Fauci’s departure, especially once the big vaccine rollout begins. If Trump loses, firing Fauci won’t achieve anything except to give him a little vacation for a few months before Biden inevitably hires him back and puts him in charge of the federal response again in January. And Fauci will use that vacation to do endless CNN hits where he tells the public, “Don’t listen to a word Trump and Atlas are saying. They’re douchebags who are getting people killed.”
The only thing firing Fauci would do for Trump is grant him the petty vindictive satisfaction of punishing someone whom the public esteems more than him for disagreeing with him. So he’s definitely going to do it.
I’ll leave you with this summary from a new study conducted by economists at Stanford.


hotair--2020-11-02--SNL pre-election show endorses Biden: “Gain an hour and lose a president”

The final Saturday Night Live show to air before Election Day had a specific goal .
The show that aired on Halloween night was enough to scare anyone other than Biden voters with the level of derangement on exhibit from members of the cast as well as its guest host .
Actor Jim Carrey portrays Joe Biden this season and he delivered the message loud and clear – its time for a new president .
It is no surprise that Carrey used some of his time on stage to get out the vote for Joe Biden .
If you follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is severely crippled by Trump Derangement Syndrome .
It wasn ’ t even a surprise that the show revolved around the presidential election , given the fact that Election Day was just three days away .
In 2016 the show went all-in for Hillary .
Cast member Kate McKinnon played Hillary Clinton and addressed the audience in 2016 with a more nuanced message than was on display last Saturday night .
She said , “ We can ’ t tell you who to vote for , but on Tuesday , we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of country we wan na live in.
” The cast ramped up its message this year .
Jim Carrey , in the cold open , set the tone .
After reading a parody of Edgar Allan Poe ’ s “ The Raven , ” he ended with “ This daylight savings time , let ’ s gain an hour and lose a president !
” Message received .
The audience , Biden ’ s base , applauded Carrey .
During the skit , Kate McKinnon appears as Hillary ( the Raven ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slams Biden for mispronouncing her name .
“ I wanted to take your minds off the election by reading a scary story , ” Carrey ’ s Biden began .
“ Once upon a midnight dreary , while Trump retweeted QAnon theories.
” That , if you can believe it , was the funniest rhyme of the sketch .
“ Still I will win , ‘ cause I ’ m a baller , ” Carrey said , failing to make the Joe Cool gag work yet again .
“ Just ask my running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thinks Joe Biden is a baller .
Guest host John Mulaney ( his fourth time to host ) received blowback on social media after his opening monologue .
He mocked the choice voters have – two old men – and that nothing will change no matter who is elected .
He insulted his grandmother , too , because old people shouldn ’ t be voting .
Trump and his supporters are the new Nazis , Grandma .
During the Weekend Update skit , Michael Che slammed rappers for supporting Trump while failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , and Colin Jost accused Trump of mass murder due to the coronavirus .
Remember when SNL used to be funny and everyone could laugh at its lame jokes ?
Celebrity endorsements didn ’ t help Hillary in 2016 .
American voters know that Hollywood is a liberal place .
This year it is impossible to ignore the aggressive campaign to get Americans out to vote coming from the entertainment industry .
Reminders to get out and vote are abundant .
Local television markets are running multiple reminders daily , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ‘ I voted ’ stickers or of them dropping off a ballot .
Mariah Carey announced her vote for the Biden-Harris ticket .
Lizzo performed as she dropped off her ballot .
So did Katy Perry .
Lady Gaga is keeping it real , or something .
Gaga has made several videos in support of Biden .
She received blowback for mocking rednecks in swing states , apparently her vision of Trump supporters .
She says she ’ s “ voting for America ” .
No , she ’ s not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She did a video with multiple costume changes , including bringing back the meat dress .
The guest host for next week ’ s SNL show is Dave Chappelle .
There is a chance he will be more entertaining since his brand is to criticize both sides of the aisle with his jokes .
And , you know , he ’ s actually a funny man who doesn ’ t take himself so seriously .

The final Saturday Night Live show to air before Election Day had a specific goal. The show that aired on Halloween night was enough to scare anyone other than Biden voters with the level of derangement on exhibit from members of the cast as well as its guest host. Actor Jim Carrey portrays Joe Biden this season and he delivered the message loud and clear – its time for a new president.
It is no surprise that Carrey used some of his time on stage to get out the vote for Joe Biden. If you follow him on social media, you know he is severely crippled by Trump Derangement Syndrome. It wasn’t even a surprise that the show revolved around the presidential election, given the fact that Election Day was just three days away. In 2016 the show went all-in for Hillary. Cast member Kate McKinnon played Hillary Clinton and addressed the audience in 2016 with a more nuanced message than was on display last Saturday night. She said, “We can’t tell you who to vote for, but on Tuesday, we all get a chance to choose what kind of country we wanna live in.”
The cast ramped up its message this year. Jim Carrey, in the cold open, set the tone. After reading a parody of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven,” he ended with “This daylight savings time, let’s gain an hour and lose a president!” Message received. The audience, Biden’s base, applauded Carrey. During the skit, Kate McKinnon appears as Hillary (the Raven) and Maya Rudolph is Kamala Harris, who slams Biden for mispronouncing her name.
“I wanted to take your minds off the election by reading a scary story,” Carrey’s Biden began. “Once upon a midnight dreary, while Trump retweeted QAnon theories.” That, if you can believe it, was the funniest rhyme of the sketch. The rest were belabored groaners. “Still I will win, ‘cause I’m a baller,” Carrey said, failing to make the Joe Cool gag work yet again. “Just ask my running mate, Kamal-er.”
Yeah, no one thinks Joe Biden is a baller.
Guest host John Mulaney (his fourth time to host) received blowback on social media after his opening monologue. He mocked the choice voters have – two old men – and that nothing will change no matter who is elected. He insulted his grandmother, too, because old people shouldn’t be voting. Trump and his supporters are the new Nazis, Grandma.
In the opening monologue, this week’s host John Mulaney joked that his 94-year-old grandma shouldn’t be allowed to vote. He knows that sounds ageist: “That would be like calling yourself the Greatest Generation. ‘Oh, we fought the Nazis!’ Well, we’re trying to fight the new Nazis if you’d get out of the way and stop voting for people you saw in between coin collector commercials!”
On @nbcsnl John Mullaney busts on old voters:
That would be like calling yourself the Greatest Generation. "Oh, we fought the Nazis!" Well, we're trying to fight the new Nazis if you'd get out of the way and stop voting for people you saw in between coin collector commercials!" pic.twitter.com/LxCWh7s3QC — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) November 1, 2020
During the Weekend Update skit, Michael Che slammed rappers for supporting Trump while failing to mention Obama flaunting his support from them, and Colin Jost accused Trump of mass murder due to the coronavirus. Remember when SNL used to be funny and everyone could laugh at its lame jokes?
Celebrity endorsements didn’t help Hillary in 2016. American voters know that Hollywood is a liberal place. This year it is impossible to ignore the aggressive campaign to get Americans out to vote coming from the entertainment industry. Reminders to get out and vote are abundant. Local television markets are running multiple reminders daily, too. Popular this year are photos of celebrities with ‘I voted’ stickers or of them dropping off a ballot. Mariah Carey announced her vote for the Biden-Harris ticket. Lizzo performed as she dropped off her ballot. So did Katy Perry. Lady Gaga is keeping it real, or something.
Gaga has made several videos in support of Biden. She received blowback for mocking rednecks in swing states, apparently her vision of Trump supporters. She says she’s “voting for America”. No, she’s not. She’s voting for Joe Biden.
She did a video with multiple costume changes, including bringing back the meat dress.
The guest host for next week’s SNL show is Dave Chappelle. There is a chance he will be more entertaining since his brand is to criticize both sides of the aisle with his jokes. And, you know, he’s actually a funny man who doesn’t take himself so seriously.


hotair--2020-11-02--Hunter Biden: Not good at the whole "password thing"

The Hunter Biden laptop story has turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving .
Well , at least for those of you who have managed to hear about it despite the ongoing media blackout .
The story that came out this weekend , however , didn ’ t really have much to do with corrupt , pay-to-play schemes or influence peddling .
It involves a revelation from the FBI indicating that they didn ’ t need to call in any sort of cryptology mastermind to gain access to the data contained in the device .
The younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the default ( PASSWORD ) or use his birthday , but his final choice wasn ’ t much better .
( NY Post ) It didn ’ t take much for investigators to crack Hunter Biden ’ s infamous abandoned laptop , according to a report , because the password was “ Hunter02.
” The MacBook Pro ’ s hard drive — subject of a series of New York Post stories and under investigation by the FBI — had the lax and lazy password despite containing a trove of e-mails and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential contender Joe Biden , the Daily Mail on Sunday reported .
The former vice president ’ s son had ample reason to be more careful securing the device , the existence of which was first reported in The Post , the outlet noted .
Assuming that “ 02 ” is his lucky number or holds some special significance for him , the password was at least one that he could easily remember .
There was also no secondary encryption or double authentication protecting the device .
There were more goodies on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He had the contact information for nearly every member of Barack Obama ’ s cabinet , including their private cellphone numbers .
On top of that , anyone hacking into his files would have also reportedly found the digits for Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin , the singer for Coldplay .
I suppose I can sympathize with Biden on this score , at least to an extent .
For a long time , I found passwords to just be a pain in the backside , particularly the ones for employer accounts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of months .
I used to use the names of pets or other personal details that anyone who knew much about me could probably figure out pretty quickly .
Over the past few years , though , after seeing all of the damage that hackers can do , I ’ ve taken to keeping my passwords on a piece of paper and using longer strings of random numbers , letters and punctuation .
I suppose it provides me with a false sense of security .
So what does the future hold for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI is still in the process of investigating the contents , but the election is basically all over but the shouting at this point .
The liberal mainstream media has succeeded in keeping the story from most of the voters in the nation and sought to discredit the story on the rare occasions when anyone did dare to breathe a word about it .
But if Joe Biden does manage to win the presidency tomorrow ( or whenever the heck we ’ re finally done counting and wading through legal challenges ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role to play .
What if the FBI actually does dig up something significantly damaging not just about Hunter Biden , but his father as well ?
That could provide the excuse that Democrats would need to gently shove Uncle Joe out the door even sooner than he might have gone otherwise , offering the opportunity to install the Historic First Female And Minority President In The History Of Our Nation , Kamala Harris .
Wait… I just got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach .
I should probably go @ @ @ @ @ @

The Hunter Biden laptop story has turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving. Well, at least for those of you who have managed to hear about it despite the ongoing media blackout. The story that came out this weekend, however, didn’t really have much to do with corrupt, pay-to-play schemes or influence peddling. It involves a revelation from the FBI indicating that they didn’t need to call in any sort of cryptology mastermind to gain access to the data contained in the device. The younger Biden didn’t leave the password as the default (PASSWORD) or use his birthday, but his final choice wasn’t much better. (NY Post)
It didn’t take much for investigators to crack Hunter Biden’s infamous abandoned laptop, according to a report, because the password was “Hunter02.” The MacBook Pro’s hard drive — subject of a series of New York Post stories and under investigation by the FBI — had the lax and lazy password despite containing a trove of e-mails and other data relating to his father, Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden, the Daily Mail on Sunday reported. The former vice president’s son had ample reason to be more careful securing the device, the existence of which was first reported in The Post, the outlet noted.
Assuming that “02” is his lucky number or holds some special significance for him, the password was at least one that he could easily remember. There was also no secondary encryption or double authentication protecting the device.
There were more goodies on the hard drive than just the now-infamous emails. He had the contact information for nearly every member of Barack Obama’s cabinet, including their private cellphone numbers. On top of that, anyone hacking into his files would have also reportedly found the digits for Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin, the singer for Coldplay.
I suppose I can sympathize with Biden on this score, at least to an extent. For a long time, I found passwords to just be a pain in the backside, particularly the ones for employer accounts that you’re forced to change every couple of months. I used to use the names of pets or other personal details that anyone who knew much about me could probably figure out pretty quickly. Over the past few years, though, after seeing all of the damage that hackers can do, I’ve taken to keeping my passwords on a piece of paper and using longer strings of random numbers, letters and punctuation. I suppose it provides me with a false sense of security.
So what does the future hold for Hunter Biden’s laptop? The FBI is still in the process of investigating the contents, but the election is basically all over but the shouting at this point. The liberal mainstream media has succeeded in keeping the story from most of the voters in the nation and sought to discredit the story on the rare occasions when anyone did dare to breathe a word about it.
But if Joe Biden does manage to win the presidency tomorrow (or whenever the heck we’re finally done counting and wading through legal challenges), that laptop could still have an important role to play. What if the FBI actually does dig up something significantly damaging not just about Hunter Biden, but his father as well? That could provide the excuse that Democrats would need to gently shove Uncle Joe out the door even sooner than he might have gone otherwise, offering the opportunity to install the Historic First Female And Minority President In The History Of Our Nation, Kamala Harris.
Wait… I just got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I should probably go lie down for a bit.


hotair--2020-11-02--NBC/WSJ poll: Biden up five in battleground states

There ’ s more heat than light in this drill-down of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning , but the heat ’ s worth checking out anyway .
Allahpundit noted the national result yesterday , which had Joe Biden up ten points in the overall sample of 1,000 registered voters conducted between Thursday and Saturday .
National polling is relatively meaningless , however .
What about the battlegrounds ?
NBC/WSJ surveyed 800 more registered voters in twelve states , and found a closer race : In the 12-most competitive battlegrounds — Arizona , Florida , Georgia , Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Biden is ahead of Trump by a combined 5 points , 51 percent to 46 percent , according to a survey of 800 additional registered voters in those states interviewed Sunday by NBC/WSJ pollsters .
Biden ’ s lead in these states was 6 points in our Oct. 29-31 NBC News/WSJ poll , 51 percent to 45 percent , although that movement is within the margin of error .
Important context , however : Trump won these same states by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to 47 percent .
There are reasons to take this poll with a grain of salt , but let ’ s stick with the numbers first .
According to the data , NBC/WSJ asked the same question of battleground voters three weeks ago ( 10/9-12 ) and showed Biden up by ten , 52/42 , which is well outside the margin of error .
If we can rely on this poll , at least for trending , it appears Trump has begun to surge in October — although that might not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balloting and early in-person voting that began in September .
Another data point isn ’ t so cheery .
The pollster asked what chances each candidate had of getting the respondents ’ votes .
For Biden , 43 % said “ no chance at all , ” while 49 % said the same thing about Trump .
That would suggest a very narrow path to victory for Trump at best even in these battleground states he already won .
That ’ s only a problem if one trusts this poll .
Perhaps it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes , but the sample size is a huge problem .
Eight hundred registered voters might be an acceptable size for any one of these states , but not for twelve states lumped together .
It comes to just under 67 voters per state interviewed by NBC/WSJ , which is an absurd number for any predictive value .
Plus , let ’ s note that this is not a likely-voter model , which would usually be more predictive , if pollsters could figure out who ’ s likely in a cycle such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wind , but even if it ’ s accurate , it might not be indicative .
The actual voters in this election might be different than the registered-voter model ; in fact , given the disparity of the ground game , you can pretty much bet that it will be .
That , plus the inherently higher failure rates of mail-in ballots , means that the end result will likely be much closer than this .

There’s more heat than light in this drill-down of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning, but the heat’s worth checking out anyway. Allahpundit noted the national result yesterday, which had Joe Biden up ten points in the overall sample of 1,000 registered voters conducted between Thursday and Saturday.
National polling is relatively meaningless, however. What about the battlegrounds? NBC/WSJ surveyed 800 more registered voters in twelve states, and found a closer race:
In the 12-most competitive battlegrounds — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Biden is ahead of Trump by a combined 5 points, 51 percent to 46 percent, according to a survey of 800 additional registered voters in those states interviewed Sunday by NBC/WSJ pollsters. Biden’s lead in these states was 6 points in our Oct. 29-31 NBC News/WSJ poll, 51 percent to 45 percent, although that movement is within the margin of error. Important context, however: Trump won these same states by a combined 2 points in 2016, 49 percent to 47 percent.
There are reasons to take this poll with a grain of salt, but let’s stick with the numbers first. According to the data, NBC/WSJ asked the same question of battleground voters three weeks ago (10/9-12) and showed Biden up by ten, 52/42, which is well outside the margin of error. If we can rely on this poll, at least for trending, it appears Trump has begun to surge in October — although that might not have been early enough, given the mail-in balloting and early in-person voting that began in September.
Another data point isn’t so cheery. The pollster asked what chances each candidate had of getting the respondents’ votes. For Biden, 43% said “no chance at all,” while 49% said the same thing about Trump. That would suggest a very narrow path to victory for Trump at best even in these battleground states he already won.
That’s only a problem if one trusts this poll. Perhaps it’s accurate as far as it goes, but the sample size is a huge problem. Eight hundred registered voters might be an acceptable size for any one of these states, but not for twelve states lumped together. It comes to just under 67 voters per state interviewed by NBC/WSJ, which is an absurd number for any predictive value. Plus, let’s note that this is not a likely-voter model, which would usually be more predictive, if pollsters could figure out who’s likely in a cycle such as this.
This is just another straw in the wind, but even if it’s accurate, it might not be indicative. The actual voters in this election might be different than the registered-voter model; in fact, given the disparity of the ground game, you can pretty much bet that it will be. That, plus the inherently higher failure rates of mail-in ballots, means that the end result will likely be much closer than this.


hotair--2020-11-02--American politics beyond Tuesday's election

Whichever major political party loses on Election Day likely faces a period of soul searching .
Let ’ s say Republicans lose .
Do they keep the populist nationalism path forged during President Donald Trump ’ s tenure , and advocated by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley , or return to the neoconservatism advocated by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and Bill Kristol ?
Is Texas Senator Ted Cruz correct in suggesting populism and libertarianism needs blending ?
Do smaller , weaker government advocates return ?
What if Democrats fail in their pursuit of the Senate and the White House ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ Independent ” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ?
Does the “ moderate ” progressivism of former Vice President Joe Biden survive ?
Will Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren figure out a way to push her brand of populism and heavy-handed government into the forefront ?
It ’ s been quite fascinating ( and horrific ) watching the transformation of both major parties over the last 25 years .
Neither party believes in individual liberty ( despite promises of Republicans ) , nor do they hold fast to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inability to do its job , whether by desire or design , only encourages the executive and its bureaucrats to gobble more and more policy decision making .
Polarization reigns supreme along with voter discontent .
“ The system is dysfunctional but not broke , ” Reason Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie told me weeks ago when asked if the two-party system is irreparable .
“ By that , I mean the Democrats and Republicans continue to act more and more alike despite rhetorical and ideological disagreements ( the size , scope , and spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will not change regardless of which party wins the White House and Congress in a month ) .
More important , even though record or near-level record of Americans refuse to identify as Democrat or Republican , the two parties have an absolute lock on elections and offices.
” Some of that is by design since the major parties are the ones who write ballot-access rules .
Why Democrats and Republicans automatically get on the ballot while Libertarian , Green , Constitution , and other minor parties struggle for ballot signatures is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not likely to change unless certain conditions change .
“ It would take a lot of money , sustained commitment and public appetite to break through , ” POLITICO contributing editor Bill Scher wrote to me after being asked about the current American political climate .
“ [ T ] he people currently dissatisfied with their two major party choices are not an ideologically uniform bunch , so they can ’ t easily band together .
The failure of Ross Perot ’ s Reform Party is a classic example .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with enough financial resources , to attract a disparate coalition and make a dent in the 1992 election .
But he couldn ’ t hold that coalition together.
” “ The way it tends to work is that there are two major parties whose ideology may change over time , ” The Libertarian Gillespie said .
“ Occasionally one of the parties will be replaced ( e.g .
the Whigs ) , but there are always only two parties vying for 90 percent or more of votes .
I ’ m excited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties changing what it stands for , but I don ’ t think there will more parties in the hunt.
” History is on Gillespie ’ s side .
Federalists and Anti-Federalists dominated the American political landscape after the Revolution but were replaced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ’ s Democratic-Republicans in the early 1800s .
The DRs died with John Quincy Adams with Andrew Jackson ’ s Democrat and Henry Clay ’ s Whig parties rising from the wreckage .
The Whigs collapsed before the Civil War and were replaced with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although he was elected in 1864 as a National Unionist .
The NU returned to the GOP after Andrew Johnson ’ s tenure in office .
“ [ I ] t ’ s not ludicrous to think that at some point , some factions [ of both parties ] will want to get out , ” he theorized .
“ As Republicans are the ones about to get a beating , perhaps certain factions will conclude the Republican Party is no longer worth saving and try to put it out of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , folks who will have access to money ) .
On the flip side , Democrats are about to be in a position to govern , and governing is messy .
The moderates will go in with the upper hand , but if they can ’ t deliver ( as they will need a small degree of Republican cooperation ) , the socialist-populists will get very restless .
If the far left can ’ t get their way , they may try to take a walk.
” There ’ s precedent in Scher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still end up the eventual winner .
Theodore Roosevelt left the Republicans for The Progressive Party in 1912 but returned to the fold by 1918 .
George Wallace broke away from the Democrats in 1964 to form his own American Independent Party .
That party eventually fell apart and Wallace returned to the Democratic Party .
It ’ s possible Americans witnessed two new parties emerge when Republicans and Democrats flipped ideologies by the late 1970s .
The GOP claimed adherence to a smaller , weaker government under Reagan while Democrats promoted larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government roots ( a cynic would suggest they never abandoned them ) in the 2000s with rising social and neoconservatism .
Voters temporarily revolted .
“ In the mid-2010s , it seemed possible , even likely that the GOP would move in a libertarian direction , de-emphasizing culture war issues and pushing fiscal responsibility and lower spending on everything , including and especially defense ( with entitlement reform starting to come into focus ) , ” Gillespie said pointing towards Kentucky Senator Rand Paul ’ s popularity and the Tea Party .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partly because Paul couldn ’ t decisively break with social cons and because Trump came along and pushed things in a nationalist-populist direction.
” Which returns us to the 2020 race and whatever direction both parties take in the postmortem .
“ The GOP has totally made peace with being a party of big spenders as long as it pays off their interest sections , ” Gillespie summarized .
“ The Democrats looked like they might lurch far left under Sanders/Warren .
Biden is considered centrist/moderate despite calling for a massive amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgets of the Trump years ( Joe wants $ 11 trillion in new spending over the next decade ! )
.
There ’ s still a chance that the Dems might veer super-progressive if he wins and takes the Senate but it ’ s even more likely if he loses and they fail to take the Senate.
” Gillespie , echoing comments from Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash in 2016/2017 , thinks a large faction of people incensed about supreme executive power on both sides eventually emerges may the parties completely re-align .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current state of American politics tends to suggest otherwise .
For now .
This does not mean smaller , weaker government advocates should end their quests .
People want to be free and left alone by the government , evidenced by certain protests against police brutality , coronavirus lockdowns , gay marriage bans , and gun control restrictions .
Free trade , justice reform , fewer wars ( why are we involved in Yemen ? )
, increased immigration , reduced government spending and regulation , and an end to government subsidies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocated .
Congress needs to do its job , follow the Constitution , and stop the centralization of power within leadership .
Courts shouldn ’ t be politicized .
The executive needs weakening .
Two questions remain .
Will the parties decide to truly ideologically diverge , not in rhetoric but action ?
If not , will one finally die and be replaced with something new ?

Whichever major political party loses on Election Day likely faces a period of soul searching.
Let’s say Republicans lose. Do they keep the populist nationalism path forged during President Donald Trump’s tenure, and advocated by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, or return to the neoconservatism advocated by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and Bill Kristol? Is Texas Senator Ted Cruz correct in suggesting populism and libertarianism needs blending? Do smaller, weaker government advocates return?
What if Democrats fail in their pursuit of the Senate and the White House? Is their future one featuring the democratic socialism of “Independent” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Does the “moderate” progressivism of former Vice President Joe Biden survive? Will Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren figure out a way to push her brand of populism and heavy-handed government into the forefront?
It’s been quite fascinating (and horrific) watching the transformation of both major parties over the last 25 years. Neither party believes in individual liberty (despite promises of Republicans), nor do they hold fast to smaller, weaker government. Congress’ inability to do its job, whether by desire or design, only encourages the executive and its bureaucrats to gobble more and more policy decision making. Polarization reigns supreme along with voter discontent.
“The system is dysfunctional but not broke,” Reason Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie told me weeks ago when asked if the two-party system is irreparable. “By that, I mean the Democrats and Republicans continue to act more and more alike despite rhetorical and ideological disagreements (the size, scope, and spending of government continues to increase geometrically and that will not change regardless of which party wins the White House and Congress in a month). More important, even though record or near-level record of Americans refuse to identify as Democrat or Republican, the two parties have an absolute lock on elections and offices.”
Some of that is by design since the major parties are the ones who write ballot-access rules. Why Democrats and Republicans automatically get on the ballot while Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and other minor parties struggle for ballot signatures is laughably frustrating. The game is rigged and not likely to change unless certain conditions change.
“It would take a lot of money, sustained commitment and public appetite to break through,” POLITICO contributing editor Bill Scher wrote to me after being asked about the current American political climate. “[T]he people currently dissatisfied with their two major party choices are not an ideologically uniform bunch, so they can’t easily band together. The failure of Ross Perot’s Reform Party is a classic example. He was enough of a cult of personality, with enough financial resources, to attract a disparate coalition and make a dent in the 1992 election. But he couldn’t hold that coalition together.”
Gillespie agreed.
“The way it tends to work is that there are two major parties whose ideology may change over time,” The Libertarian Gillespie said. “Occasionally one of the parties will be replaced (e.g. the Whigs), but there are always only two parties vying for 90 percent or more of votes. I’m excited by the prospect of one of the major parties changing what it stands for, but I don’t think there will more parties in the hunt.”
History is on Gillespie’s side. Federalists and Anti-Federalists dominated the American political landscape after the Revolution but were replaced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s Democratic-Republicans in the early 1800s. The DRs died with John Quincy Adams with Andrew Jackson’s Democrat and Henry Clay’s Whig parties rising from the wreckage. The Whigs collapsed before the Civil War and were replaced with the current Republican Party with Abraham Lincoln, although he was elected in 1864 as a National Unionist. The NU returned to the GOP after Andrew Johnson’s tenure in office.
Scher, a liberal, suggests Republicans and Democrats’ primary problem involves the so-called “big tent” solution.
“[I]t’s not ludicrous to think that at some point, some factions [of both parties] will want to get out,” he theorized. “As Republicans are the ones about to get a beating, perhaps certain factions will conclude the Republican Party is no longer worth saving and try to put it out of its misery (these are, in theory, folks who will have access to money). On the flip side, Democrats are about to be in a position to govern, and governing is messy. The moderates will go in with the upper hand, but if they can’t deliver (as they will need a small degree of Republican cooperation), the socialist-populists will get very restless. If the far left can’t get their way, they may try to take a walk.”
There’s precedent in Scher’s theory although the major parties still end up the eventual winner. Theodore Roosevelt left the Republicans for The Progressive Party in 1912 but returned to the fold by 1918. George Wallace broke away from the Democrats in 1964 to form his own American Independent Party. That party eventually fell apart and Wallace returned to the Democratic Party.
It’s possible Americans witnessed two new parties emerge when Republicans and Democrats flipped ideologies by the late 1970s. The GOP claimed adherence to a smaller, weaker government under Reagan while Democrats promoted larger government. Republicans returned to their Big Government roots (a cynic would suggest they never abandoned them) in the 2000s with rising social and neoconservatism. Voters temporarily revolted.
“In the mid-2010s, it seemed possible, even likely that the GOP would move in a libertarian direction, de-emphasizing culture war issues and pushing fiscal responsibility and lower spending on everything, including and especially defense (with entitlement reform starting to come into focus),” Gillespie said pointing towards Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s popularity and the Tea Party. “That didn’t pan out, partly because Paul couldn’t decisively break with social cons and because Trump came along and pushed things in a nationalist-populist direction.”
Which returns us to the 2020 race and whatever direction both parties take in the postmortem.
“The GOP has totally made peace with being a party of big spenders as long as it pays off their interest sections,” Gillespie summarized. “The Democrats looked like they might lurch far left under Sanders/Warren. Biden is considered centrist/moderate despite calling for a massive amount of new spending on top of the swollen budgets of the Trump years (Joe wants $11 trillion in new spending over the next decade!). There’s still a chance that the Dems might veer super-progressive if he wins and takes the Senate but it’s even more likely if he loses and they fail to take the Senate.”
Gillespie, echoing comments from Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash in 2016/2017, thinks a large faction of people incensed about supreme executive power on both sides eventually emerges may the parties completely re-align. It’s possible, however, the current state of American politics tends to suggest otherwise. For now.
This does not mean smaller, weaker government advocates should end their quests. People want to be free and left alone by the government, evidenced by certain protests against police brutality, coronavirus lockdowns, gay marriage bans, and gun control restrictions. Free trade, justice reform, fewer wars (why are we involved in Yemen?), increased immigration, reduced government spending and regulation, and an end to government subsidies are all worthy goals and need to be advocated. Congress needs to do its job, follow the Constitution, and stop the centralization of power within leadership. Courts shouldn’t be politicized. The executive needs weakening.
Two questions remain. Will the parties decide to truly ideologically diverge, not in rhetoric but action? If not, will one finally die and be replaced with something new?