hotair--2020-09-21--Trump: Expect the SCOTUS nomination at the end of the week

Well , why not ?
It ’ s not as if Donald Trump hasn ’ t prepared for this moment .
Trump not only compiled and published a list of nominees during his campaign , he re-upped and added to the list just a couple of weeks ago to put pressure on Joe Biden to do the same .
The only thing Trump needs to do is to call his nominees for a quick phone interview and prepare the press release .
But when will Trump announce his choice ?
Kayleigh McEnany said earlier today that it will “ very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , McEnany also used that to put pressure on Biden to again name his likely SCOTUS picks , too .
On Saturday ’ s Fox & Friends , McEnany offered praise for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and then chided Biden over his lack of transparency : KAYLEIGH MCENANY , WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY : Well look the former Vice President and all due respect , instead of telling the current president what to do , he needs to tell voters where he stands .
We don ’ t know who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t know what kind of justices he would nominate .
We know very squarely ; this president ’ s been very transparent , putting forward two lists as to exactly — not just what his justices would look like but what their names would be .
This is paramount importance to the American voters .
This is now a linchpin issue of this election .
And Joe Biden , where do you stand ?
What do your justices look like ?
Do they believe in the Constitution ?
Do they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe in the plain words of a statute ?
He needs to answer those questions before telling President Trump exactly how to move forward .
Put up or shut up , in other words , but it ’ s not quite that easy .
For one thing , Ruth Bader Ginsburg hasn ’ t even had a funeral yet , and likely won ’ t for a few days .
There are already plans to have her lie in repose at the Supreme Court , as is customary when a justice passes away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
After that , her funeral and burial would take place at Arlington , which means that we ’ re looking at the end of the week before all of the due respect gets paid to Ginsburg .
If Trump steps on that to name an appointee , there might be a political cost for a distasteful distraction from the official mourning over Ginsburg ’ s death .
That ’ s exactly why Trump didn ’ t let McEnany ’ s comment stand for long : A wise choice , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not like Trump and Senate Republicans have a large amount of time on their hands before November .
Trump told Fox that “ we have a lot of time , ” but that ’ s not really true .
A few commentators noted that previous jurists had been nominated , vetted , and confirmed within fewer days than we have left before November 3 , but none of those took place in the weeks before an election .
Senators will have a limited legislative calendar as they go home to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to for the process to work .
The Senate Judiciary Committee process alone will be a big problem : First , it conducts an investigation into the nominee ’ s background .
This process can take 30 to 45 days , but it ’ s easy to imagine it going a lot faster .
Second , the committee holds a public hearing , in which the nominee is questioned and may give testimony about everything from her judicial philosophy to her stand on abortion .
This may give voters a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris , who also serves on the Judiciary Committee , display her prosecutorial skills during questioning of the nominee .
Finally , the committee will report its recommendation to the full Senate as either favorable , negative , or no recommendation .
… Once the public hearings have concluded , if the Democrats want to buy time , they can delay the committee vote for a week .
But after that , it ’ s on to the main floor of the Senate .
After that , Democrats can ’ t stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they can insist on the full 30 hours of debate .
Mitch McConnell can hold the session open continuously to get it done in a day and a half , as long as he can keep a constant quorum in the chamber , but that ’ s still a day and a half after any other dilatory tactics Democrats attempt in the meantime .
And all of this assumes that Trump and McConnell can keep at least 50 Senate Republicans on board throughout this process .
At best , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is likely why McEnany jumped the gun this morning by promising an almost immediate announcement .
Waiting until the end of the week narrows the window , but it ’ s a tactical patience that ’ s required to give cover to the handful of Senate Republicans who might quaver if this process starts looking disrespectful of Ginsburg .

Well, why not? It’s not as if Donald Trump hasn’t prepared for this moment. Trump not only compiled and published a list of nominees during his campaign, he re-upped and added to the list just a couple of weeks ago to put pressure on Joe Biden to do the same. The only thing Trump needs to do is to call his nominees for a quick phone interview and prepare the press release.
But when will Trump announce his choice? Kayleigh McEnany said earlier today that it will “very likely” come by tomorrow:
Big week ahead. McEnany said this morning pick will “very likely” come before Wednesday https://t.co/A5oRCwfFuu — Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 21, 2020
Of course, McEnany also used that to put pressure on Biden to again name his likely SCOTUS picks, too. On Saturday’s Fox & Friends, McEnany offered praise for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and then chided Biden over his lack of transparency:
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well look the former Vice President and all due respect, instead of telling the current president what to do, he needs to tell voters where he stands. We don’t know who is on his Supreme Court list. We don’t know what kind of justices he would nominate. We know very squarely; this president’s been very transparent, putting forward two lists as to exactly — not just what his justices would look like but what their names would be. This is paramount importance to the American voters. This is now a linchpin issue of this election. And Joe Biden, where do you stand? What do your justices look like? Do they believe in the Constitution? Do they abide by the Constitution? Do they believe in the plain words of a statute? He needs to answer those questions before telling President Trump exactly how to move forward.
Put up or shut up, in other words, but it’s not quite that easy. For one thing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg hasn’t even had a funeral yet, and likely won’t for a few days. There are already plans to have her lie in repose at the Supreme Court, as is customary when a justice passes away, and that would be for two days. After that, her funeral and burial would take place at Arlington, which means that we’re looking at the end of the week before all of the due respect gets paid to Ginsburg. If Trump steps on that to name an appointee, there might be a political cost for a distasteful distraction from the official mourning over Ginsburg’s death.
That’s exactly why Trump didn’t let McEnany’s comment stand for long:
Trump on Fox. Says he will likely announce his nominee "on Friday or Saturday." Says they "should wait until services are over" for Ginsburg" — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) September 21, 2020
A wise choice, but not one that lacks its own complications. It’s not like Trump and Senate Republicans have a large amount of time on their hands before November. Trump told Fox that “we have a lot of time,” but that’s not really true. A few commentators noted that previous jurists had been nominated, vetted, and confirmed within fewer days than we have left before November 3, but none of those took place in the weeks before an election. Senators will have a limited legislative calendar as they go home to campaign, and that means much less time to for the process to work.
The Senate Judiciary Committee process alone will be a big problem:
First, it conducts an investigation into the nominee’s background. This process can take 30 to 45 days, but it’s easy to imagine it going a lot faster. Second, the committee holds a public hearing, in which the nominee is questioned and may give testimony about everything from her judicial philosophy to her stand on abortion. This may give voters a chance to see the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, display her prosecutorial skills during questioning of the nominee. Finally, the committee will report its recommendation to the full Senate as either favorable, negative, or no recommendation. … Once the public hearings have concluded, if the Democrats want to buy time, they can delay the committee vote for a week. But after that, it’s on to the main floor of the Senate.
After that, Democrats can’t stop the process to a floor vote, but they can insist on the full 30 hours of debate. Mitch McConnell can hold the session open continuously to get it done in a day and a half, as long as he can keep a constant quorum in the chamber, but that’s still a day and a half after any other dilatory tactics Democrats attempt in the meantime. And all of this assumes that Trump and McConnell can keep at least 50 Senate Republicans on board throughout this process.
At best, it’s going to be a tight squeeze, which is likely why McEnany jumped the gun this morning by promising an almost immediate announcement. Waiting until the end of the week narrows the window, but it’s a tactical patience that’s required to give cover to the handful of Senate Republicans who might quaver if this process starts looking disrespectful of Ginsburg.


hotair--2020-09-21--Trump ricin poisoning suspect arrested at Canadian border

On Saturday , we learned that someone had sent a letter containing the deadly poison ricin to the White House , addressed to President Trump .
While the toxic envelope never made it anywhere near Trump , it still sent law enforcement scurrying to find the culprit who was suspected of having sent it from Canada .
At the time , I speculated that we would find out who cooked up this attempted assassination , even if it took a few days or weeks .
It turns out that the trail wasn ’ t all that hard to follow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had arrested a suspect who was allegedly trying to make her way into the United States from Canada at a border crossing near Buffalo , New York .
And yes… the suspect is a woman .
( NBC News ) A woman suspected of sending a letter containing the deadly poison ricin to the White House was arrested trying to enter the United States from Canada , two federal law enforcement officials said Sunday .
An FBI spokesperson confirmed the arrest and said the agency is continuing to investigate the suspicious letter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman was taken into custody while traveling across Peace Bridge , which connects Fort Erie , Ontario , and Buffalo , New York .
Another federal law enforcement official said the suspect was detained by Customs and Border Protection agents .
Additional information about the arrest and the suspect was not immediately available .
Authorities aren ’ t releasing much information about the suspect yet beyond her gender and the location where she was taken into custody .
CBS News offered up a few more details this morning , including the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was taken into custody .
Also , she allegedly also sent similar poison letters to an unspecified number of federal prisons , but the intended recipients were not disclosed .
If she ’ s made any statements at this point they aren ’ t being offered to the media .
Thus far we don ’ t know if this woman is just some deranged Canadian citizen or if she ’ s an American Trump-hater who traveled to the Great White North to mail the letters in hopes of throwing law enforcement off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , her plot clearly didn ’ t work out very well , assuming authorities have the right person in custody .
Perhaps the most interesting feature of her story thus far could be the fact that she had a handgun on her when she was arrested .
It could just be a coincidence , of course .
Both Canada and the United States are home to plenty of gun owners and many people take them along when they travel .
But the timing of this encounter seems a bit suspicious , doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interception of the letter ( s ) was made public on Saturday .
Barely 24 hours later , the alleged perpetrator was found trying to cross into America while carrying a firearm .
Is it possible that she learned of the failure of her poison letter plot and decided to head directly to Washington to finish off Trump herself in a more personal fashion ?
If anything , that was probably a dumber plan than mailing the ricin to the President .
Getting close enough to the POTUS to get off an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to a sniper rifle ) is a tremendous challenge , what with all of the security that surrounds him at all times .
The moment she visibly produced a firearm within shouting distance of Trump she probably would have been driven into the ground , if not simply shot down .
While the immediate danger may have been removed ( assuming this woman is , in fact , guilty ) , this should serve as a reminder of Donald Trump ’ s need for security .
There are too many enraged leftists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree with the President ’ s policies .
They harbor a visceral hatred of the man and there are obviously some who would risk everything for a chance to take him out rather than face the prospect of another four years of him being in office .
When I originally wrote about this story , I linked to one of the first “ breaking news ” tweets that I saw announcing the discovery of the letter .
If you scroll down through the first replies to that tweet , you will find any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt on the President ’ s life .
For most , it may just be hyperbole , but this mystery woman from Canada shows that there are some who are ready to unleash more than just words .

On Saturday, we learned that someone had sent a letter containing the deadly poison ricin to the White House, addressed to President Trump. While the toxic envelope never made it anywhere near Trump, it still sent law enforcement scurrying to find the culprit who was suspected of having sent it from Canada. At the time, I speculated that we would find out who cooked up this attempted assassination, even if it took a few days or weeks. It turns out that the trail wasn’t all that hard to follow, however. By last night, authorities had arrested a suspect who was allegedly trying to make her way into the United States from Canada at a border crossing near Buffalo, New York. And yes… the suspect is a woman. (NBC News)
A woman suspected of sending a letter containing the deadly poison ricin to the White House was arrested trying to enter the United States from Canada, two federal law enforcement officials said Sunday. An FBI spokesperson confirmed the arrest and said the agency is continuing to investigate the suspicious letter. A federal law enforcement official said the woman was taken into custody while traveling across Peace Bridge, which connects Fort Erie, Ontario, and Buffalo, New York. Another federal law enforcement official said the suspect was detained by Customs and Border Protection agents. Additional information about the arrest and the suspect was not immediately available.
Authorities aren’t releasing much information about the suspect yet beyond her gender and the location where she was taken into custody. CBS News offered up a few more details this morning, including the fact that she was carrying a gun when she was taken into custody. Also, she allegedly also sent similar poison letters to an unspecified number of federal prisons, but the intended recipients were not disclosed. If she’s made any statements at this point they aren’t being offered to the media.
Thus far we don’t know if this woman is just some deranged Canadian citizen or if she’s an American Trump-hater who traveled to the Great White North to mail the letters in hopes of throwing law enforcement off the scent. If the latter was the case, her plot clearly didn’t work out very well, assuming authorities have the right person in custody.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of her story thus far could be the fact that she had a handgun on her when she was arrested. It could just be a coincidence, of course. Both Canada and the United States are home to plenty of gun owners and many people take them along when they travel. But the timing of this encounter seems a bit suspicious, doesn’t it? The news of the interception of the letter(s) was made public on Saturday. Barely 24 hours later, the alleged perpetrator was found trying to cross into America while carrying a firearm. Is it possible that she learned of the failure of her poison letter plot and decided to head directly to Washington to finish off Trump herself in a more personal fashion?
If anything, that was probably a dumber plan than mailing the ricin to the President. Getting close enough to the POTUS to get off an accurate shot with a handgun (as opposed to a sniper rifle) is a tremendous challenge, what with all of the security that surrounds him at all times. The moment she visibly produced a firearm within shouting distance of Trump she probably would have been driven into the ground, if not simply shot down.
While the immediate danger may have been removed (assuming this woman is, in fact, guilty), this should serve as a reminder of Donald Trump’s need for security. There are too many enraged leftists out there who don’t simply disagree with the President’s policies. They harbor a visceral hatred of the man and there are obviously some who would risk everything for a chance to take him out rather than face the prospect of another four years of him being in office. When I originally wrote about this story, I linked to one of the first “breaking news” tweets that I saw announcing the discovery of the letter. If you scroll down through the first replies to that tweet, you will find any number of caustic responses cheering on the attempt on the President’s life. For most, it may just be hyperbole, but this mystery woman from Canada shows that there are some who are ready to unleash more than just words.


hotair--2020-09-22--Trump's ricin attacker, an illegal alien, has an interesting history

Yesterday , we learned that the woman accused of sending a letter containing ricin powder to the White House and unnamed prison officials had been arrested at the Canadian border .
The FBI is currently in charge of the case , working in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies in both countries and they ’ re still being very tight-lipped in terms of details .
That ’ s understandable , of course , at least until they ’ re confident that they know the full scope of the threat and have time to identify any possible accomplices .
But some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant information about the attacker in the meantime , while still not disclosing her name .
ABC News is reporting that the still-unnamed woman is definitely a Canadian citizen , not an American .
And this wasn ’ t her first run-in with the law .
She was detained in Texas and deported by the CBP in 2019 after overstaying her visa .
This incident appears to provide a connection to the other targets of her attempted poisoning attack aside from the White House .
A Canadian woman who was arrested this weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the White House , had been deported back to Canada from South Texas after overstaying her visa in 2019 , according to a report in The New York Times .
And Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra on Monday afternoon said that “ envelopes ” of ricin were mailed to him and three others in South Texas associated with the case , but resulted in no injuries .
Border Report reached out to Guerra but he did not comment and tweeted this is an “ active federal investigation.
” Art Flores , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Border Report on Monday afternoon that an envelope was mailed to Mission Police Chief Robert Dominguez last week , on Thursday or Friday , “ and has been confiscated by the FBI.
” Nobody was injured , Flores said .
Now we ’ re beginning to see what may turn out to be a possible motive for the woman ’ s attacks .
Shortly after her arrest , we were told that the additional ricin letters had been sent to unnamed prison officials .
That didn ’ t make much sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the officials in question have been identified , the picture becomes a bit clearer .
The prison/jail officials who were targeted in Texas were all somehow involved in the woman ’ s detention and eventual deportation last year .
Sheriff Eddie Guerra of Hidalgo County , Texas was one such recipient , a fact he confirmed on Twitter yesterday .
It doesn ’ t require much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that this woman is angry over having been deported so she launched her poison pen attacks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the CBP and have her booted out of the country .
Sure , that ’ s still pretty crazy , but at least it would qualify as a motive .
But the $ 64,000 question is how she decided to not just go after the Sheriff ’ s Department , but also tack the President of the United States onto her distribution list for good measure .
If she ’ d only gone after the Hidalgo County Sheriff ’ s Office , it ’ s unlikely that anyone outside of Texas would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But as soon as you up your game to include an assassination plot against the leader fo the free world , the plot moves up to the highest level immediately .
This is still purely speculation at this point , but it ’ s possible that the woman was angry at Donald Trump over… what ?
His immigration policies ?
Th media loves to talk about how Trump supposedly “ hates immigrants ” and has been ramping up deportation efforts .
It ’ s not impossible that this woman blames the President for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seeking revenge over that .
But that sounds like a pretty severe escalation of hostilities over something as trivial as being sent back home to Canada .
Unfortunately for her , she ’ s now moved herself into the big league and will probably be looking at some punishment that involves far more than a free bus ride to Toronto .

Yesterday, we learned that the woman accused of sending a letter containing ricin powder to the White House and unnamed prison officials had been arrested at the Canadian border. The FBI is currently in charge of the case, working in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies in both countries and they’re still being very tight-lipped in terms of details. That’s understandable, of course, at least until they’re confident that they know the full scope of the threat and have time to identify any possible accomplices. But some reporters have managed to track down some significant information about the attacker in the meantime, while still not disclosing her name.
ABC News is reporting that the still-unnamed woman is definitely a Canadian citizen, not an American. And this wasn’t her first run-in with the law. She was detained in Texas and deported by the CBP in 2019 after overstaying her visa. This incident appears to provide a connection to the other targets of her attempted poisoning attack aside from the White House.
A Canadian woman who was arrested this weekend on charges of mailing the poison ricin to the White House, had been deported back to Canada from South Texas after overstaying her visa in 2019, according to a report in The New York Times. And Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra on Monday afternoon said that “envelopes” of ricin were mailed to him and three others in South Texas associated with the case, but resulted in no injuries. Border Report reached out to Guerra but he did not comment and tweeted this is an “active federal investigation.” Art Flores, an investigator with the Mission Police Department, told Border Report on Monday afternoon that an envelope was mailed to Mission Police Chief Robert Dominguez last week, on Thursday or Friday, “and has been confiscated by the FBI.” Nobody was injured, Flores said.
Now we’re beginning to see what may turn out to be a possible motive for the woman’s attacks. Shortly after her arrest, we were told that the additional ricin letters had been sent to unnamed prison officials. That didn’t make much sense to me at first, but now that some of the officials in question have been identified, the picture becomes a bit clearer. The prison/jail officials who were targeted in Texas were all somehow involved in the woman’s detention and eventual deportation last year.
Sheriff Eddie Guerra of Hidalgo County, Texas was one such recipient, a fact he confirmed on Twitter yesterday.
MEDIA
I can confirm that envelopes, containing the deadly toxin ricin, was mailed to me and three of my detention staff. At this time due to a active federal investigation I cannot make any further comments but a media release will be sent out tomorrow. No injuries were sustained — Sheriff Eddie Guerra (@SheriffGuerra) September 21, 2020
It doesn’t require much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that this woman is angry over having been deported so she launched her poison pen attacks on the people who helped turn her over to the CBP and have her booted out of the country. Sure, that’s still pretty crazy, but at least it would qualify as a motive.
But the $64,000 question is how she decided to not just go after the Sheriff’s Department, but also tack the President of the United States onto her distribution list for good measure. If she’d only gone after the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office, it’s unlikely that anyone outside of Texas would be hearing much about this story. But as soon as you up your game to include an assassination plot against the leader fo the free world, the plot moves up to the highest level immediately.
This is still purely speculation at this point, but it’s possible that the woman was angry at Donald Trump over… what? His immigration policies? The media loves to talk about how Trump supposedly “hates immigrants” and has been ramping up deportation efforts. It’s not impossible that this woman blames the President for her failure to renew her visa and was seeking revenge over that. But that sounds like a pretty severe escalation of hostilities over something as trivial as being sent back home to Canada. Unfortunately for her, she’s now moved herself into the big league and will probably be looking at some punishment that involves far more than a free bus ride to Toronto.
UPDATE: (Jazz) Just this morning, the suspect in the ricin attack has been identified. CTV News in Canada reports that 53-year-old Pascale Ferrier of Quebec is the woman currently in custody in Buffalo. She’s originally from France but obtained Canadian citizenship in 2015. She lists her occupation as a computer programmer. And it’s been confirmed that she was briefly incarcerated in the Texas jail where she sent the other ricin letters.
Quebec resident Pascale Ferrier has been identified as the suspect alleged to have sent letters containing the poisonous substance ricin to the White House and different locations in Texas, including a police department, CTV News has confirmed. A team that specializes in biohazards swarmed a Montreal-area condo Monday morning, evacuating several units as they looked for evidence connected to the ricin-laced letter sent to U.S. President Donald Trump. The letters were intercepted before reaching their destination, and the exact number is “in flux,” officials say.
A mugshot is worth a thousand words, so here is Ms. Ferrier’s. (Click for full-size image.)
I’m sure we’ll learn more in the coming days, but it still sounds as if she had a beef with everyone she perceived to be involved with her incarceration in Texas on illegal immigration and gun charges.


hotair--2020-09-21--Barrasso: Go ahead with SCOTUS confirmaton now, Democrats will blow up Senate anyway

Senator John Barrasso isn ’ t one of the Senate ’ s bomb-throwers .
He rarely makes headlines .
One thing is certain , though – he is ready to put another conservative on the Supreme Court .
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell works to secure enough Republican yeas on moving forward with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s successor , count Barrasso in .
Barrasso , Chairman of the Senate GOP Conference , says Trump may as well go ahead and make his nomination so the process moves forward now because if the Democrats take back control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up anyway .
He also addressed the Biden Rule .
I wrote about the Biden Rule last weekend and how Joe Biden has flip-flopped on the issue .
He was for it before he was against it before he was for it , and so forth .
Senate GOP Conference Chairman John Barrasso called on President Trump and his Senate colleagues to summarily move forward on a nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , warning that whether or not they do so , Sen. Charles Schumer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blow up the Senate ” if they take power in 2021 .
Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, noted on “ Fox News @ Night ” that when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , balked at scheduling a hearing for President Obama ’ s 2016 SCOTUS nominee , D.C .
Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland , it was on account of “ the Biden Rule.
” Senator Barrasso made his remarks Sunday on FNC during the “ Fox News @ Night ” special .
Before Barrasso , Democrat Senator Ben Cardin spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barrasso called him out for not having the nerve to state what the Democrat agenda will be if they take back the Senate .
Their agenda has been exposed because of Ginsburg ’ s death but it has been floated since the Kavanaugh hearings .
They plan to end the filibuster in the Senate and to move forward on stacking the Supreme Court .
Conservative voters should take them at their word and vote accordingly .
“ The one question Senator [ Benjamin ] Cardin [ , D-Md.
, ] wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] was what ’ s Chuck Schumer going to do .
Let me be clear – he continued – if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate and have the House , they will change the rules and they will blow up the Senate.
” “ They have an entire war room working on this and they will expand the number of members of Supreme Court regardless of what the Republicans and President Trump do , ” the Wyoming Republican added .
There is no reason to doubt what the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The message from Chuck Schumer and other Democrats is that nothing is off the table if Trump and McConnell move forward .
They will retaliate against President Trump and the Senate Majority Leader if they do their constitutional duty .
Barrasso points out that Democrats also want to “ stack the Senate ” by making Washington , D.C. a state , thus bring along two more Democrat senators .
Cardin and other Democrats are trying to make the case that historically speaking , the seat should not be filled .
Democrats love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as an example to push their ideology .
Invoking Lincoln ’ s name , however , doesn ’ t make their arguments correct .
McConnell has pointed out to his colleagues that Democratic President Grover Cleveland was the last commander in chief to nominate a jurist during a state of divided government in an election year .
That was in 1888 .
This year , the president and the Senate majority are held by the same party .
When the news broke of Ginsburg ’ s death , McConnell urged senators to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be hasty in voicing a commitment to vote or not vote before the election .
So far , only Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Murkowski of Alaska have voiced their opposition to moving forward before the election , though neither have specifically said they would be a no vote if a vote was taken .
To date , they sound like they would like it both ways .
Collins is in a tough re-election battle and Murkowski doesn ’ t even identify as a Republican anymore .
She ran as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Grassley , in the past , has made statements against voting on a Supreme Court nomination in an election year .
Over the weekend , three more senators came forward with siding with Leader McConnell .
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee ( who is retiring ) , Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri , and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio are yes votes .
On Sunday , Joe Biden delivered a rambling , at times odd 15-minute speech about his thoughts on the subject .
Of course he doesn ’ t want Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was all-in on Garland ’ s nomination .
Biden hasn ’ t even submitted his list of potential nominees if he wins the election , though Trump has done so .
He said he wasn ’ t speaking to Trump or McConnell but to the Republican senators making their decisions on supporting moving forward or not .
Biden laid it on thick for the handful of perhaps persuadable Republicans .
Biden , as usual , took no questions from reporters .
Democrats do not fully understand that any Republicans inclined to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings no longer feel that way .
Democrats were so over the top and hideous that there is no going back , certainly not in the foreseeable future .
Republican voters will hold them accountable in November .
In 2016 , Ginsburg breached protocol and told the Senate to do its job .
Something to remember the next time someone gets teary-eyed about her alleged last wish .

Senator John Barrasso isn’t one of the Senate’s bomb-throwers. He rarely makes headlines. One thing is certain, though – he is ready to put another conservative on the Supreme Court. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell works to secure enough Republican yeas on moving forward with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor, count Barrasso in.
Barrasso, Chairman of the Senate GOP Conference, says Trump may as well go ahead and make his nomination so the process moves forward now because if the Democrats take back control of the Senate, they plan to blow it up anyway. He also addressed the Biden Rule. I wrote about the Biden Rule last weekend and how Joe Biden has flip-flopped on the issue. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it, and so forth.
Senate GOP Conference Chairman John Barrasso called on President Trump and his Senate colleagues to summarily move forward on a nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warning that whether or not they do so, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and his Democratic caucus will “blow up the Senate” if they take power in 2021. Barrasso, R-Wyo., noted on “Fox News @ Night” that when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., balked at scheduling a hearing for President Obama’s 2016 SCOTUS nominee, D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick B. Garland, it was on account of “the Biden Rule.”
Senator Barrasso made his remarks Sunday on FNC during the “Fox News @ Night” special. Before Barrasso, Democrat Senator Ben Cardin spoke about the Democrats’ point of view. Barrasso called him out for not having the nerve to state what the Democrat agenda will be if they take back the Senate. Their agenda has been exposed because of Ginsburg’s death but it has been floated since the Kavanaugh hearings. They plan to end the filibuster in the Senate and to move forward on stacking the Supreme Court. Conservative voters should take them at their word and vote accordingly.
“The one question Senator [Benjamin] Cardin[, D-Md.,] wouldn’t answer [in the previous block] was what’s Chuck Schumer going to do. Let me be clear – he continued – if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate and have the House, they will change the rules and they will blow up the Senate.” “They have an entire war room working on this and they will expand the number of members of Supreme Court regardless of what the Republicans and President Trump do,” the Wyoming Republican added.
There is no reason to doubt what the Democrats will do, given the opportunity. The message from Chuck Schumer and other Democrats is that nothing is off the table if Trump and McConnell move forward. They will retaliate against President Trump and the Senate Majority Leader if they do their constitutional duty. Barrasso points out that Democrats also want to “stack the Senate” by making Washington, D.C. a state, thus bring along two more Democrat senators.
Cardin and other Democrats are trying to make the case that historically speaking, the seat should not be filled. Democrats love to use Lincoln, the first Republican president, as an example to push their ideology. Invoking Lincoln’s name, however, doesn’t make their arguments correct.
During the prior interview, Cardin noted, however, that the last time a Supreme Court vacancy occurred this close to a presidential election was 156 years ago. That year, Chief Justice Roger Taney of Maryland – who led the court during the infamous Dred Scott decision – died with 27 days to go before President Lincoln’s reelection bid in 1864. Lincoln, once having won reelection, nominated his former Treasury secretary, ex-Sen. Salmon P. Chase, R-Ohio, who was confirmed as the next chief justice.
McConnell has pointed out to his colleagues that Democratic President Grover Cleveland was the last commander in chief to nominate a jurist during a state of divided government in an election year. That was in 1888. This year, the president and the Senate majority are held by the same party.
When the news broke of Ginsburg’s death, McConnell urged senators to “keep their powder dry” and not be hasty in voicing a commitment to vote or not vote before the election. So far, only Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Murkowski of Alaska have voiced their opposition to moving forward before the election, though neither have specifically said they would be a no vote if a vote was taken. To date, they sound like they would like it both ways. Collins is in a tough re-election battle and Murkowski doesn’t even identify as a Republican anymore. She ran as an Independent for her last re-election campaign. Senator Grassley, in the past, has made statements against voting on a Supreme Court nomination in an election year.
Over the weekend, three more senators came forward with siding with Leader McConnell. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (who is retiring), Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio are yes votes.
On Sunday, McConnell (R-Ky.) won the support of Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and was viewed as a potential swing vote as McConnell seeks to confirm Ginsburg‘s replacement as soon as possible. “No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year,” Alexander said in a statement. “The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it.” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, also backed the majority leader over the weekend, as did Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a moderate.
On Sunday, Joe Biden delivered a rambling, at times odd 15-minute speech about his thoughts on the subject. Of course he doesn’t want Trump to move forward, though in 2016 he was all-in on Garland’s nomination. Biden hasn’t even submitted his list of potential nominees if he wins the election, though Trump has done so. He said he wasn’t speaking to Trump or McConnell but to the Republican senators making their decisions on supporting moving forward or not. Biden laid it on thick for the handful of perhaps persuadable Republicans. Biden, as usual, took no questions from reporters.
“Please follow your conscience,” Biden said in a speech in Philadelphia. “Don’t vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Don’t go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We can‘t ignore the cherished system of checks and balances.”
Democrats do not fully understand that any Republicans inclined to go along to get along before the Kavanaugh hearings no longer feel that way. Democrats were so over the top and hideous that there is no going back, certainly not in the foreseeable future. Republican voters will hold them accountable in November. In 2016, Ginsburg breached protocol and told the Senate to do its job. Something to remember the next time someone gets teary-eyed about her alleged last wish.


hotair--2020-09-22--Hollywood lays an(other) egg: Emmys hit record low ratings for third year in a row

What does this mean ?
The Associated Press reported the cratering of viewership for the Emmys — the most prestigious television-show awards in Hollywood — as an example of a “ boutique event.
” The AP also generously allows that the competition was exceptionally tough this year , but … .
The Nielsen company said 6.1 million people watched the Emmys on Sunday night , down from 6.9 million in 2019 and the third straight year of record low viewership .
The Emmys faced competition from both NFL football and the NBA Western Conference finals .
The coronavirus pandemic eliminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a red carpet , although host Jimmy Kimmel gamely tried to make do in a mostly empty auditorium with actors accepting awards remotely .
Still , it illustrated how the Emmy Awards are becoming a boutique event .
Last year was the first time viewership slipped under 10 million people .
As recently as 2013 , the Emmys had 17.6 million viewers .
Needless to say , if the same broadcasters who vie for these awards had shows with this kind of “ boutique ” viewership , none of them would last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The competition argument doesn ’ t hold much water , either .
The Emmys routinely have sports competition on Sunday nights — late-season baseball or early-season NFL games , at least .
The sports leagues aren ’ t exactly growing their audiences either , so the viewers aren ’ t exactly enamored of live-action events — or at least some live-action events .
By the way , this cratering is a bit more recent than the AP report lets on .
Deadline worked off of more preliminary numbers , but the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of disinterest regardless .
Four years ago , when ABC last aired the Emmys against stiff sports competition , it looked much rosier : In early numbers , the more than three-hour ceremony snared an audience of 5.11 million and a 1.0 rating in the key demographic for ABC .
These are fast affiliate numbers , which will be adjusted and updated in final data expected later today , but it is still going to be a steep and perhaps impossible climb to top 2019 ’ s depths .
Broadcast on Fox , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Awards ended up with 6.9 million viewers and a 1.6 rating among the 18-49s That was a significant double-digit drop from the 2018 Emmys on NBC , which aired on a Monday .
Looking at the last time ABC hosted the Emmys , last night ’ s show was down 47 % in viewership and 60 % in the key demo from the early numbers of the 2016 ceremony .
Marking Kimmel ’ s second time as Emmy host , that September 18 , 2016 show , which was held on a Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an audience of 11.38 million and a demo rating of 2.8 , both lows at the time .
Roughly speaking , that ’ s a two-thirds drop in viewership over seven years , and a halving of the audience over the last four .
That kind of dramatic trend would normally prompt entertainment executives to either cancel shows or to revamp them to correct for the losses .
Thus far , though , the Emmys seem just as disinterested in audience disinterest as every other self-congratulatory Hollywood awards show .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a theory , but the one that Hollywood will resist the hardest is that getting woke leads to going broke .
Awards shows have had politics on stage since Sasheen Littlefeather , but over the last couple of decades , it seems all that Hollywood wants to promote on these broadcasts .
All of it goes in the same direction , and all of it is getting more strident and lecturing .
And just like with the sports leagues , people who tune in to these events normally want an escape from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how they are supposed to think and believe .
Instead , Hollywood and the sports industry seem happy with “ boutique ” viewership .
At least it gives us an idea of just how popular the woke brigades really are , even when they control most corporate media platforms and outlets .
On the other hand , everyone who found something else to do this year missed this comic bit .
WTF , indeed .

What does this mean? The Associated Press reported the cratering of viewership for the Emmys — the most prestigious television-show awards in Hollywood — as an example of a “boutique event.” The AP also generously allows that the competition was exceptionally tough this year, but ….
The Nielsen company said 6.1 million people watched the Emmys on Sunday night, down from 6.9 million in 2019 and the third straight year of record low viewership. The Emmys faced competition from both NFL football and the NBA Western Conference finals. The coronavirus pandemic eliminated any chance fans had of seeing stars on a red carpet, although host Jimmy Kimmel gamely tried to make do in a mostly empty auditorium with actors accepting awards remotely. Still, it illustrated how the Emmy Awards are becoming a boutique event. Last year was the first time viewership slipped under 10 million people. As recently as 2013, the Emmys had 17.6 million viewers.
Needless to say, if the same broadcasters who vie for these awards had shows with this kind of “boutique” viewership, none of them would last long enough to contend for these awards. The competition argument doesn’t hold much water, either. The Emmys routinely have sports competition on Sunday nights — late-season baseball or early-season NFL games, at least. The sports leagues aren’t exactly growing their audiences either, so the viewers aren’t exactly enamored of live-action events — or at least some live-action events.
By the way, this cratering is a bit more recent than the AP report lets on. Deadline worked off of more preliminary numbers, but the results turned out to be a new depth of disinterest regardless. Four years ago, when ABC last aired the Emmys against stiff sports competition, it looked much rosier:
In early numbers, the more than three-hour ceremony snared an audience of 5.11 million and a 1.0 rating in the key demographic for ABC. These are fast affiliate numbers, which will be adjusted and updated in final data expected later today, but it is still going to be a steep and perhaps impossible climb to top 2019’s depths. Broadcast on Fox, last year’s 71st Primetime Emmy Awards ended up with 6.9 million viewers and a 1.6 rating among the 18-49s That was a significant double-digit drop from the 2018 Emmys on NBC, which aired on a Monday. Looking at the last time ABC hosted the Emmys, last night’s show was down 47% in viewership and 60% in the key demo from the early numbers of the 2016 ceremony. Marking Kimmel’s second time as Emmy host, that September 18, 2016 show, which was held on a Sunday and did face SNF, ended up with an audience of 11.38 million and a demo rating of 2.8, both lows at the time.
Roughly speaking, that’s a two-thirds drop in viewership over seven years, and a halving of the audience over the last four. That kind of dramatic trend would normally prompt entertainment executives to either cancel shows or to revamp them to correct for the losses. Thus far, though, the Emmys seem just as disinterested in audience disinterest as every other self-congratulatory Hollywood awards show.
What’s driving the disinterest? Everyone will have a theory, but the one that Hollywood will resist the hardest is that getting woke leads to going broke. Awards shows have had politics on stage since Sasheen Littlefeather, but over the last couple of decades, it seems all that Hollywood wants to promote on these broadcasts. All of it goes in the same direction, and all of it is getting more strident and lecturing. And just like with the sports leagues, people who tune in to these events normally want an escape from politics and troubles, not a lecture on how they are supposed to think and believe.
Instead, Hollywood and the sports industry seem happy with “boutique” viewership. At least it gives us an idea of just how popular the woke brigades really are, even when they control most corporate media platforms and outlets.
On the other hand, everyone who found something else to do this year missed this comic bit. WTF, indeed.
https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1307862447341015041


hotair--2020-09-22--Polls: Biden still underperforming with Hispanic voters nationally and in Miami-Dade County

Are they selling any red hats in Trump ’ s online campaign store with “ Si se puede ” in place of the MAGA slogan ?
If not , why not ?
This has become a target demographic for him .
Or at least the male side of it has .
More on that in a second .
Two weeks ago the chatterati was rocked by a Miami Herald poll that found Trump was leading outright with Hispanics in Miami-Dade County .
Then another poll dropped the same day showing Trump ahead among Hispanics in Florida statewide by four points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 points four years ago and still lost the state to Trump by a point .
Biden ’ s competitive there because he ’ s cutting into Trump ’ s margins among whites , but a Democrat in trouble with Latinos is in a very precarious position .
And not just in Florida .
Two new polls this week show that he ’ s still not quite up to par with Clinton among Hispanics in Miami-Dade or nationwide .
But he ’ s improved a bit in the former .
Maybe Hispanic voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The Miami Herald poll found Biden up 17 points overall in Miami-Dade but a point behind Trump among Latinos there , 47/46 .
This new one suggests that they ’ ve come around to him a bit since he turned up in the state to ask for their votes last week .
But he ’ s still behind Clinton ’ s pace : She won Miami-Dade by 30 .
And in the Miami Herald survey Cuban-Americans broke for Trump by 38 points after they ’ d split roughly evenly between Obama and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , per NBC .
Biden ’ s leading among Hispanic voters , just not comfortably enough .
He ’ s up 62/26 over Trump after Hillary won that group 63/16 four years ago .
If Biden were able to consolidate Latinos to the same degree Clinton did , especially in Florida , he might put the race away .
Talking heads have been puzzling over Trump ’ s surprising strength with Hispanics for weeks now .
What ’ s his secret ?
Analysts have dug deeper into the numbers and concluded that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally , he ’ s overperforming with Latino men , specifically .
That is , the topline numbers for that racial demographic are disguising a gender gap that ’ s showing up in many other places this year , sometimes to an outlandish degree .
“ Thirty-one percent of Latino men are backing Trump over Biden , compared to just 22 percent of Latinas , ” NBC notes of its own data .
Both Politico and The Atlantic have also had pieces lately noting that Latino men seem warmer to Trump than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of the theories as to why are , uh , provocative : That ’ s from Politico , which notes one recent poll of Florida found Biden ahead by 21 points among Hispanic women but just 10 points among Hispanic men .
Derek Thompson of The Atlantic speculates that it ’ s Trump ’ s businessman image that ’ s drawing Hispanic men to him , but either way , the effect is real — especially among younger Latinos : Unlike the Cuban American phenomenon , which is confined almost entirely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national phenomenon .
In Arizona , for example , only half of Latino men under 50 say they will vote for Biden , far fewer than the nearly 70 percent of young Latina women .
Among older Latinos in Arizona , there is practically no difference between male and female preferences , with Biden ’ s edge among women at just 3 percent .
The gender gap among young Latino voters is “ one of the most significant new developments in the Latino vote today , ” Lopez said .
It reflects a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As late as the 1970s , there was scarcely any difference between male and female voters .
But in the past four decades , women have edged toward the Democratic Party , while men moved into the GOP .
In 2016 , Clinton won the popular vote by several million ballots with just 41 percent of male support .
As net immigration from Mexico and Central America continues to decline , third- and fourth-generation Latino men ( i.e.
, whose grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the U.S. ) seem to be less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ Hispanic ” and more likely to vote like white men , the GOP ’ s demographic sweet spot .
That last bit is a fascinating gloss on identity politics .
Both parties tend to approach young Hispanic men as “ Hispanics.
” Approaching them simply as “ young men , ” especially if their roots in the U.S. go back generations , might provide a better clue as to how they ’ re processing their electoral choice this year .
As I say , by no means is the gender gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moines Register dropped a poll this morning that found Iowa , a state Trump won by 10 points in 2016 , now dead even at 47 .
How ’ s Biden doing it ?
Simple : He ’ s offsetting a gigantic Trump lead among men there with an almost equally gigantic lead among women .
The DMR finds the president up 21 points among male voters while the former VP leads by 20 among females , leading pollster Ann Selzer to say , “ I don ’ t know that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential polling in Iowa that shows this kind of division.
” If Trump loses the presidency this fall , we ’ ll be able to sum up his defeat in one word : Women .
The DMR poll is also useful here as a way to keep the Florida/Miami-Dade results in perspective , though .
Florida is crucially important , of course — Trump almost certainly loses the election if he loses there — but Biden has a lot of red states on the back burner right now that could help get him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Iowa is worth six electoral votes ; Georgia is worth 16 , and a new poll out of that state today also finds Biden and Trump deadlocked at 47 .
Combined , those two states are worth more EVs than Pennsylvania .
And the fact that Biden is competitive in Iowa is a bracing reminder of Trump ’ s big liability this time around , namely that he ’ s not quite as strong among white voters as he was last time .
Given how many more whites there are in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade Trump a few percentage points among the latter group for a few points among the former .

Are they selling any red hats in Trump’s online campaign store with “Si se puede” in place of the MAGA slogan? If not, why not?
This has become a target demographic for him. Or at least the male side of it has. More on that in a second.
Two weeks ago the chatterati was rocked by a Miami Herald poll that found Trump was leading outright with Hispanics in Miami-Dade County. Then another poll dropped the same day showing Trump ahead among Hispanics in Florida statewide by four points. Hillary Clinton won that group by 27 points four years ago and still lost the state to Trump by a point. Biden’s competitive there because he’s cutting into Trump’s margins among whites, but a Democrat in trouble with Latinos is in a very precarious position. And not just in Florida.
Two new polls this week show that he’s still not quite up to par with Clinton among Hispanics in Miami-Dade or nationwide. But he’s improved a bit in the former. Maybe Hispanic voters are shifting towards him down the stretch?
Biden leads Trump by a 21-point margin in Miami-Dade County, 58%-37%. Among Hispanic voters, Biden leads by 10 percentage points. That’s lower than his lead overall, but contrasts results from a Miami Herald/Bendixen & Amandi International poll that showed Biden and Trump running almost even among Hispanics.
The Miami Herald poll found Biden up 17 points overall in Miami-Dade but a point behind Trump among Latinos there, 47/46. This new one suggests that they’ve come around to him a bit since he turned up in the state to ask for their votes last week. But he’s still behind Clinton’s pace: She won Miami-Dade by 30. And in the Miami Herald survey Cuban-Americans broke for Trump by 38 points after they’d split roughly evenly between Obama and Romney in 2012.
Same story nationally, per NBC. Biden’s leading among Hispanic voters, just not comfortably enough. He’s up 62/26 over Trump after Hillary won that group 63/16 four years ago. If Biden were able to consolidate Latinos to the same degree Clinton did, especially in Florida, he might put the race away.
Talking heads have been puzzling over Trump’s surprising strength with Hispanics for weeks now. What’s his secret? Analysts have dug deeper into the numbers and concluded that Trump’s not really overperforming with Latinos generally, he’s overperforming with Latino men, specifically. That is, the topline numbers for that racial demographic are disguising a gender gap that’s showing up in many other places this year, sometimes to an outlandish degree. “Thirty-one percent of Latino men are backing Trump over Biden, compared to just 22 percent of Latinas,” NBC notes of its own data. Both Politico and The Atlantic have also had pieces lately noting that Latino men seem warmer to Trump than they were to other recent Republican nominees. Some of the theories as to why are, uh, provocative:
Soto, who became the first person of Puerto Rican descent in the state to win a congressional seat, said Biden has another dynamic working against him as well with some Latino men. “There is some machismo in our community, unfortunately,” said Soto. “There’s good machismo,” Soto said, and there is “caudillo machismo,” referring to henchman-style leaders, whose style sometimes appeals to Latino men. For fans of caudillo machismo, he said, Trump’s aggressiveness appeals.
That’s from Politico, which notes one recent poll of Florida found Biden ahead by 21 points among Hispanic women but just 10 points among Hispanic men. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic speculates that it’s Trump’s businessman image that’s drawing Hispanic men to him, but either way, the effect is real — especially among younger Latinos:
Unlike the Cuban American phenomenon, which is confined almost entirely to Florida, this appears to be a national phenomenon. In Arizona, for example, only half of Latino men under 50 say they will vote for Biden, far fewer than the nearly 70 percent of young Latina women. Among older Latinos in Arizona, there is practically no difference between male and female preferences, with Biden’s edge among women at just 3 percent. The gender gap among young Latino voters is “one of the most significant new developments in the Latino vote today,” Lopez said. It reflects a broader gender gap in the U.S. electorate. As late as the 1970s, there was scarcely any difference between male and female voters. But in the past four decades, women have edged toward the Democratic Party, while men moved into the GOP. In 2016, Clinton won the popular vote by several million ballots with just 41 percent of male support. As net immigration from Mexico and Central America continues to decline, third- and fourth-generation Latino men (i.e., whose grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the U.S.) seem to be less likely to consider themselves “Latino” or “Hispanic” and more likely to vote like white men, the GOP’s demographic sweet spot.
That last bit is a fascinating gloss on identity politics. Both parties tend to approach young Hispanic men as “Hispanics.” Approaching them simply as “young men,” especially if their roots in the U.S. go back generations, might provide a better clue as to how they’re processing their electoral choice this year.
As I say, by no means is the gender gap unique to Latino voters. The Des Moines Register dropped a poll this morning that found Iowa, a state Trump won by 10 points in 2016, now dead even at 47. How’s Biden doing it? Simple: He’s offsetting a gigantic Trump lead among men there with an almost equally gigantic lead among women. The DMR finds the president up 21 points among male voters while the former VP leads by 20 among females, leading pollster Ann Selzer to say, “I don’t know that there’s any race in the history of presidential polling in Iowa that shows this kind of division.” If Trump loses the presidency this fall, we’ll be able to sum up his defeat in one word: Women.
The DMR poll is also useful here as a way to keep the Florida/Miami-Dade results in perspective, though. Florida is crucially important, of course — Trump almost certainly loses the election if he loses there — but Biden has a lot of red states on the back burner right now that could help get him to 270 even if Florida falls through. Iowa is worth six electoral votes; Georgia is worth 16, and a new poll out of that state today also finds Biden and Trump deadlocked at 47. Combined, those two states are worth more EVs than Pennsylvania. And the fact that Biden is competitive in Iowa is a bracing reminder of Trump’s big liability this time around, namely that he’s not quite as strong among white voters as he was last time. Given how many more whites there are in the U.S. than Hispanics, Biden will happily trade Trump a few percentage points among the latter group for a few points among the former.


hotair--2020-09-22--'Defund Police' supporter Alyssa Milano praises police called to her property because of teen with a

'Defund Police' supporter Alyssa Milano praises police called to her property because of teen with air rifle

And it probably goes without saying that Milano is an anti-gun activist as well : Sunday , Milano and her husband allegedly heard gunshots near their property and called the police , though as you ’ ll see in a moment Milano is telling a different story : They allegedly told the emergency hotline the sound ‘ scared their dogs ’ and made them feel like the gunman was nearby .
A description was given of a suspect to the officers who was ‘ male , 40-years old , with long rifle ’ .
Multiple police SUVs ( the Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s house plus a helicopter in the air .
Half a dozen officers with rifles took positions near her gate .
Here are some of the photos from the scene : A 3-hour search for the shooter followed .
According to the Daily Mail , the person at the center of this drama eventually caught on to what was happening and turned himself in : ‘ It turned out it was a neighborhood teen with an air gun shooting at squirrels , ’ a resident told the DailyMail.com .
The male teenager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was the cause and turned himself in .
The officers then had an impromptu meeting with some of the residents in the Bell Canyon community center , confirming what they dubbed , ‘ Squirrelgate.
’ That ’ s the version published by the Daily Mail but just a moment ago Milano released a statement giving her own version of this story .
So her husband did call police but she ’ s claiming she didn ’ t call first .
She did admit that if she ’ d seen what her neighbor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
No word on the age of this “ man.
” Was he 18 ?
Milano even suggested the whole thing might have been a set up designed to make her look bad : But let ’ s get back to her description of what happened and praise for the local police .
It would be great if Milano had expressed this kind of relatively moderate position before now .
From what I can see she ’ s only been promoting left-wing outrage and demanding we defund the police .
Having well-trained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea in my opinion , but that should be in addition to the police not instead of them .
For instance , it ’ s unlikely mental health professionals are going to go to respond to a domestic disturbance without armed police given the potential for violence in these situations .
Simply put , it ’ s not necessary to defund the police to do what Milano is suggesting .
I sincerely hope there ’ s a left-wing backlash to her praise for “ these brave officers ” from the same fans she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” outrage material for the past few months .
She ’ s earned it .

Actress/activists Alyssa Milano believes it’s time to defund the police:
The Black activists, organizers and advocates who have been fighting for abolition aren’t asking for your permission or thoughts on their movement. Please stop trying to whitesplain #DefundThePolice. Let our spectacular Black Leaders lead us to a better way.#BlackLivesMatter — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 11, 2020
This is the problem. We've militarized the police. To protect and serve? Please. How many hungry children would the cost of this tank feed? How many community programs would this serve? How many classroom supplies or childcare programs? Mental health services?#DefundPolice https://t.co/eSC0oLecfJ — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) June 19, 2020
And it probably goes without saying that Milano is an anti-gun activist as well:
Hey, @Walmart! This would be a great opportunity for you to take a true leadership position and stop selling guns. https://t.co/JcQ6BvTbUe — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) August 3, 2019
Sunday, Milano and her husband allegedly heard gunshots near their property and called the police, though as you’ll see in a moment Milano is telling a different story:
They allegedly told the emergency hotline the sound ‘scared their dogs’ and made them feel like the gunman was nearby. A description was given of a suspect to the officers who was ‘male, 40-years old, with long rifle’.
Multiple police SUVs (the Daily Mail said seven) arrived outside Milano’s house plus a helicopter in the air. Half a dozen officers with rifles took positions near her gate. Here are some of the photos from the scene:
#DefundThePolice… but not yet! Glad you're okay, @Alyssa_Milano. I hope you thanked the officers who rushed to your aid.https://t.co/0VSJfDmXul pic.twitter.com/tla8L7QwIh — I got your #Unity right here (@jtLOL) September 22, 2020
A 3-hour search for the shooter followed. According to the Daily Mail, the person at the center of this drama eventually caught on to what was happening and turned himself in:
‘It turned out it was a neighborhood teen with an air gun shooting at squirrels,’ a resident told the DailyMail.com. The male teenager witnessed the emergency response and later realized he was the cause and turned himself in. The officers then had an impromptu meeting with some of the residents in the Bell Canyon community center, confirming what they dubbed, ‘Squirrelgate.’
That’s the version published by the Daily Mail but just a moment ago Milano released a statement giving her own version of this story.
Apparently, rightwing media & trolls have decided that they should target me because my neighbor called the police after seeing a person dressed in black holding a rifle behind my home where I live with my young children and husband. Here is my statement and what really happened. pic.twitter.com/RwnSd9XCs0 — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 22, 2020
So her husband did call police but she’s claiming she didn’t call first. She did admit that if she’d seen what her neighbor saw, she would have called the police.
Correct. I never called the police. But I would have if I saw a guy with a gun in my backyard. — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 22, 2020
No word on the age of this “man.” Was he 18?
Milano even suggested the whole thing might have been a set up designed to make her look bad:
There were tweets sent out literally while we were in lockdown that make me feel it was all a set up. The disinformation campaign has begun. Vote. #NationalVoterRegistrationDay pic.twitter.com/lXT2BjC4WM — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 22, 2020
But let’s get back to her description of what happened and praise for the local police. It would be great if Milano had expressed this kind of relatively moderate position before now. From what I can see she’s only been promoting left-wing outrage and demanding we defund the police.
Having well-trained non-police professionals isn’t a bad idea in my opinion, but that should be in addition to the police not instead of them. For instance, it’s unlikely mental health professionals are going to go to respond to a domestic disturbance without armed police given the potential for violence in these situations. Simply put, it’s not necessary to defund the police to do what Milano is suggesting.
I sincerely hope there’s a left-wing backlash to her praise for “these brave officers” from the same fans she’s been feeding the “defund” outrage material for the past few months. She’s earned it.


hotair--2020-09-22--Twitter: We need to fix our blatantly racist AI algorithm

Twitter has a problem with racism , but this time we ’ re not talking about their efforts to censor all of President Trump ’ s tweets for hidden white supremacy or Q-Anon hand signals .
To invoke ( and paraphrase ) a favorite old movie from my youth , the racism is coming from inside the house !
This supposedly isn ’ t a case of a bunch of Twitter employees getting up to racist hijinks , however .
Or at least not according to to the powers that be at the social media giant .
Their automated software @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
How do we know ?
They use an Artificial Intelligence algorithm to create cropped preview images of pictures that users tweet out , but if the photo includes both White and Black people , the algorithm has a tendency to crop out the Black face and focus in on the White one for some reason .
But they assure us that they ’ re hard at work on the problem and will come up with a resolution soon .
( NY Post ) Twitter is examining why its artificial intelligence sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of photos .
The social-media giant uses technology called a neural network to create the cropped previews of photos that users see as they scroll through their feeds .
But users discovered that the system often hones in on white faces when they ’ re pictured in the same image as black faces .
“ We tested for bias before shipping the model and didn ’ t find evidence of racial or gender bias in our testing , but it ’ s clear that we ’ ve got more analysis to do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after users pointed out the issue , which was reported earlier by The Verge .
“ We ’ ll open source our work so others can review and replicate.
” I ’ ll confess that this sounded a bit far-fetched to me at first glance , but there are other examples of similar phenomena in the tech world and Twitter ’ s own testing seems to bear out the claim .
Here ’ s one of their software engineers ( with the clever and not-at-all biased user name of “ Tony Abolish ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test .
He took a picture that showed Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell in the same shot and ran it through to see how the algorithm would crop it .
It picked McConnell every time , even when he switched the color of their ties .
Here ’ s another test where someone tried the same experiment with two cartoon characters from the Simpsons , one White and one Black .
Sure enough , they got the same results .
As I mentioned above , there ’ s certainly precedent for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left will react to this news will almost certainly be different .
We ’ ve known for a while now that facial recognition software , particularly Amazon ’ s products , are terrible at recognizing minorities and women .
When trying to match the faces of White males , it can hit a better than 95 % accuracy rate .
But when looking at Black or Latino males or any woman , the error rates rise .
When you get around to testing the system using pictures of Black women the success rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the people who designed the software are a bunch of racists ?
That ’ s what many opponents of facial recognition will tell you .
But the reality is that the software is looking for clues in the shapes of facial features , the color of hair and eyes and a slew of other data points to build a unique profile of the face .
And , at least according to one study , the unique features the software is tought to look for are far more variable in White people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the range of eye and hair colors , and other features .
The fewer unique features it ’ s able to tag in any given face , the higher the error rate .
I ’ m guessing ( and it ’ s only a guess ) that a similar issue is what ’ s plaguing Twitter ’ s image cropping algorithm .
But facial recognition software has been getting more accurate lately , so maybe they ’ ll be able to clear this issue up as well .

Twitter has a problem with racism, but this time we’re not talking about their efforts to censor all of President Trump’s tweets for hidden white supremacy or Q-Anon hand signals. To invoke (and paraphrase) a favorite old movie from my youth, the racism is coming from inside the house!
This supposedly isn’t a case of a bunch of Twitter employees getting up to racist hijinks, however. Or at least not according to to the powers that be at the social media giant. Their automated software appears to have a problem with Black people. How do we know? They use an Artificial Intelligence algorithm to create cropped preview images of pictures that users tweet out, but if the photo includes both White and Black people, the algorithm has a tendency to crop out the Black face and focus in on the White one for some reason. But they assure us that they’re hard at work on the problem and will come up with a resolution soon. (NY Post)
Twitter is examining why its artificial intelligence sometimes cuts black people’s faces out of photos. The social-media giant uses technology called a neural network to create the cropped previews of photos that users see as they scroll through their feeds. But users discovered that the system often hones in on white faces when they’re pictured in the same image as black faces. “We tested for bias before shipping the model and didn’t find evidence of racial or gender bias in our testing, but it’s clear that we’ve got more analysis to do,” Twitter spokeswoman Liz Kelley tweeted Sunday after users pointed out the issue, which was reported earlier by The Verge. “We’ll open source our work so others can review and replicate.”
I’ll confess that this sounded a bit far-fetched to me at first glance, but there are other examples of similar phenomena in the tech world and Twitter’s own testing seems to bear out the claim. Here’s one of their software engineers (with the clever and not-at-all biased user name of “Tony Abolish (Pol)ICE Arcieri”) conducting a test. He took a picture that showed Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell in the same shot and ran it through to see how the algorithm would crop it. It picked McConnell every time, even when he switched the color of their ties.
Trying a horrible experiment… Which will the Twitter algorithm pick: Mitch McConnell or Barack Obama? pic.twitter.com/bR1GRyCkia — Tony “Abolish ICE” Arcieri 🦀 (@bascule) September 19, 2020
Here’s another test where someone tried the same experiment with two cartoon characters from the Simpsons, one White and one Black. Sure enough, they got the same results.
I wonder if Twitter does this to fictional characters too. Lenny Carl pic.twitter.com/fmJMWkkYEf — Jordan Simonovski (@_jsimonovski) September 20, 2020
As I mentioned above, there’s certainly precedent for this, but the way that the woke left will react to this news will almost certainly be different. We’ve known for a while now that facial recognition software, particularly Amazon’s products, are terrible at recognizing minorities and women. When trying to match the faces of White males, it can hit a better than 95% accuracy rate. But when looking at Black or Latino males or any woman, the error rates rise. When you get around to testing the system using pictures of Black women the success rate falls into the 30s.
Is that because the people who designed the software are a bunch of racists? That’s what many opponents of facial recognition will tell you. But the reality is that the software is looking for clues in the shapes of facial features, the color of hair and eyes and a slew of other data points to build a unique profile of the face. And, at least according to one study, the unique features the software is tought to look for are far more variable in White people, including the shape of the nose, the range of eye and hair colors, and other features. The fewer unique features it’s able to tag in any given face, the higher the error rate.
I’m guessing (and it’s only a guess) that a similar issue is what’s plaguing Twitter’s image cropping algorithm. But facial recognition software has been getting more accurate lately, so maybe they’ll be able to clear this issue up as well.


hotair--2020-09-22--Report: "Tough" new FDA standard will make it harder for vaccine to be approved before Election Day

Brace for some truly epic presidential sh*tposting about the FDA once this news starts circulating .
The loathsome “ deep state ” tweet he sent last month when he was leaning on them to approve convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID might end up looking tame by comparison .
The FDA has a serious image problem right now , partly of Trump ’ s making but partly of its own .
They approved hydroxychloroquine for emergency use this past spring based on early observational studies and the president ’ s enthusiasm .
Then they sheepishly rescinded that authorization when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s effectiveness .
Something similar happened with plasma .
The president was enthusiastic about that treatment too , especially with the GOP convention impending , and plasma had already been used extensively in a study by the Mayo Clinic .
So they approved plasma for emergency use — even though no clinical trials had proved its effectiveness against COVID in this case either .
Then FDA chief Stephen Hahn went out alongside Trump at a press conference and badly botched the data on how helpful plasma is in saving lives , overstating its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out against a backdrop of other news about the White House pressuring the CDC to conform its COVID guidance to better suit Trump ’ s political interests .
This is a uniquely bad moment to shake the public ’ s trust in the integrity of the federal government ’ s science wing but the president ’ s done it repeatedly for his own selfish electoral interests and the FDA and CDC have done it repeatedly through their own incompetence .
Literally within the last few hours , in fact , new evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most basic professional duties emerged : So here we are , with Trump boasting about the imminent arrival of a vaccine on the trail every day and the American public watching this spectacle play out warily , with the FDA poised to make what may be the most momentous decision in the history of the agency , whether to approve a new COVID vaccine for emergency use .
They need to do something to rebuild the public ’ s trust that that approval will be granted on the merits , without any corner-cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , according to WaPo , they ’ re about to take a major confidence-building measure .
They ’ re slowing the process down .
The Food and Drug Administration is expected to spell out a tough , new standard for an emergency authorization of a coronavirus vaccine as soon as this week that will make it exceedingly difficult for any vaccine to be cleared before Election Day… With the vaccines , the FDA is expected to ask manufacturers seeking an emergency authorization — a far quicker process than a formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trials for a median of at least two months , starting after they receive a second vaccine shot , according to two individuals familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss information before it is made public .
The agency also is looking for at least five severe cases of covid-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , in the placebo group for each trial , as well as some cases of the disease in older people , as a sign the vaccine works… The FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to say that it will require data for an emergency authorization that is close to that required for a full approval , according to recent comments by officials .
That ’ s a higher bar than is typical for an emergency authorization , which requires only that a product “ may be effective , ” and the likely benefits outweigh the harms .
The tougher standard is appropriate , officials have said , because a vaccine is given to healthy people , not to those who are ill. “ Two months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies would have enough data before mid-November , ” the Post notes .
All of the most advanced vaccines require two shots , I believe , with the second given 30 days after the first .
If the FDA is tacking on two months of tracking trial subjects *after* the second shot for assurance that there are no serious adverse effects from the vaccine , that means there probably won ’ t be data by November 3 .
Pfizer ’ s phase-three trial was far enough along that they were aiming to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the FDA follows through with this new rule it may push them past Election Day as well .
Not even joking : How soon before Trump accuses the agency of having concocted this rule because it ’ s trying to tank his election chances rather than trying to restore public confidence in the eventual vaccine ?
I wonder if that ’ s why this news leaked to WaPo before the FDA formally announced its new standard .
Maybe the agency suspects , quite reasonably , that if the public doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new rule now , the White House might try to quash it behind closed doors before it ’ s revealed .
Now that this story ’ s out there , there ’ s no way for political actors to block the FDA from putting the new standard into effect without those actors looking incredibly shady to the public .
Which leads to another question .
Does this story solve yesterday ’ s mystery of why HHS chief Alex Azar issued a new policy this week requiring him to sign off personally on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FDA ?
I couldn ’ t figure out why Azar would do that ; Trump ’ s top priority right now is getting a vaccine approved ASAP but requiring Azar ’ s sign-off would add a new layer of bureaucracy , slowing the process down .
Today ’ s news provides a possible motive , though .
If Azar knew the FDA was working on a new rule for approving the vaccine that would itself slow the process down , he ’ s now in a position to block that rule and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar could quash the FDA ’ s confidence-building process in order to speed through an emergency-use authorization before the election , just as Trump wants .
Maybe that ’ s why this story leaked .
After Azar ’ s new policy took effect , it ’ s possible that FDA scientists decided to outmaneuver him by sharing their plans for their new rule on approving the vaccine with the press .
We ’ ll see how Azar reacts to it .
It could be that I have it all wrong and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
But it seems unlikely , knowing his boss will react to it .
One thing that ’ s not in dispute : Someone needs to do something , urgently , to reassure Americans that whatever ends up going into their arms will be safe and effective .
I ’ ll leave you with this data from Axios .
Not great .

Brace for some truly epic presidential sh*tposting about the FDA once this news starts circulating. The loathsome “deep state” tweet he sent last month when he was leaning on them to approve convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID might end up looking tame by comparison.
The FDA has a serious image problem right now, partly of Trump’s making but partly of its own. They approved hydroxychloroquine for emergency use this past spring based on early observational studies and the president’s enthusiasm. Then they sheepishly rescinded that authorization when clinical trials failed to prove HCQ’s effectiveness. Something similar happened with plasma. The president was enthusiastic about that treatment too, especially with the GOP convention impending, and plasma had already been used extensively in a study by the Mayo Clinic. So they approved plasma for emergency use — even though no clinical trials had proved its effectiveness against COVID in this case either.
Then FDA chief Stephen Hahn went out alongside Trump at a press conference and badly botched the data on how helpful plasma is in saving lives, overstating its effectiveness wildly.
All of that played out against a backdrop of other news about the White House pressuring the CDC to conform its COVID guidance to better suit Trump’s political interests. This is a uniquely bad moment to shake the public’s trust in the integrity of the federal government’s science wing but the president’s done it repeatedly for his own selfish electoral interests and the FDA and CDC have done it repeatedly through their own incompetence. Literally within the last few hours, in fact, new evidence that the CDC can no longer perform its most basic professional duties emerged:
I know people think political interference drove this embarrassing @CDCgov website move. But sources tell me no. "No White House interference. We shot our own foot," one scientist explained. https://t.co/7TZE0a5lsg — LenaSun (@bylenasun) September 22, 2020
So here we are, with Trump boasting about the imminent arrival of a vaccine on the trail every day and the American public watching this spectacle play out warily, with the FDA poised to make what may be the most momentous decision in the history of the agency, whether to approve a new COVID vaccine for emergency use. They need to do something to rebuild the public’s trust that that approval will be granted on the merits, without any corner-cutting to suit Trump’s electoral agenda. And so, according to WaPo, they’re about to take a major confidence-building measure. They’re slowing the process down.
The Food and Drug Administration is expected to spell out a tough, new standard for an emergency authorization of a coronavirus vaccine as soon as this week that will make it exceedingly difficult for any vaccine to be cleared before Election Day… With the vaccines, the FDA is expected to ask manufacturers seeking an emergency authorization — a far quicker process than a formal approval — to follow participants in late-stage clinical trials for a median of at least two months, starting after they receive a second vaccine shot, according to two individuals familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss information before it is made public. The agency also is looking for at least five severe cases of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, in the placebo group for each trial, as well as some cases of the disease in older people, as a sign the vaccine works… The FDA, in the new vaccine guidance, is expected to say that it will require data for an emergency authorization that is close to that required for a full approval, according to recent comments by officials. That’s a higher bar than is typical for an emergency authorization, which requires only that a product “may be effective,” and the likely benefits outweigh the harms. The tougher standard is appropriate, officials have said, because a vaccine is given to healthy people, not to those who are ill.
“Two months of follow-up would make it unlikely the companies would have enough data before mid-November,” the Post notes. All of the most advanced vaccines require two shots, I believe, with the second given 30 days after the first. If the FDA is tacking on two months of tracking trial subjects *after* the second shot for assurance that there are no serious adverse effects from the vaccine, that means there probably won’t be data by November 3. Pfizer’s phase-three trial was far enough along that they were aiming to have some data by late October, but if the FDA follows through with this new rule it may push them past Election Day as well.
Not even joking: How soon before Trump accuses the agency of having concocted this rule because it’s trying to tank his election chances rather than trying to restore public confidence in the eventual vaccine?
I wonder if that’s why this news leaked to WaPo before the FDA formally announced its new standard. Maybe the agency suspects, quite reasonably, that if the public doesn’t get wind of their intention to implement this new rule now, the White House might try to quash it behind closed doors before it’s revealed. Now that this story’s out there, there’s no way for political actors to block the FDA from putting the new standard into effect without those actors looking incredibly shady to the public.
Which leads to another question. Does this story solve yesterday’s mystery of why HHS chief Alex Azar issued a new policy this week requiring him to sign off personally on any new rules proposed by agencies like the FDA? I couldn’t figure out why Azar would do that; Trump’s top priority right now is getting a vaccine approved ASAP but requiring Azar’s sign-off would add a new layer of bureaucracy, slowing the process down. Today’s news provides a possible motive, though. If Azar knew the FDA was working on a new rule for approving the vaccine that would itself slow the process down, he’s now in a position to block that rule and keep things moving quickly. Conceivably, Azar could quash the FDA’s confidence-building process in order to speed through an emergency-use authorization before the election, just as Trump wants.
Maybe that’s why this story leaked. After Azar’s new policy took effect, it’s possible that FDA scientists decided to outmaneuver him by sharing their plans for their new rule on approving the vaccine with the press. We’ll see how Azar reacts to it. It could be that I have it all wrong and that he’s on board with this idea as well. But it seems unlikely, knowing his boss will react to it.
One thing that’s not in dispute: Someone needs to do something, urgently, to reassure Americans that whatever ends up going into their arms will be safe and effective. I’ll leave you with this data from Axios. Not great.