hotair--2020-10-28--MLB: Dodgers player ignored security, insisted on celebrating with teammates after testing positive

MLB: Dodgers player ignored security, insisted on celebrating with teammates after testing positive for COVID

I can ’ t believe they ’ re going to punish him .
This moron ’ s insistence on partying *after learning he had COVID* is so quintessentially American that it should be formally commemorated somehow .
He ’ s practically a mascot for the country ’ s approach to the pandemic .
Trump should make him a special guest at his final campaign rally .
After some scary outbreaks early in the truncated season , MLB players and staff did an amazing job of preventing infections the rest of the way .
They made it all the way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Series before running into a problem .
But it was a big one , in the sport ’ s brightest spotlight : You ’ re asking yourself , “ Why did they let this guy on the field in the first place knowing that he had COVID ?
” They didn ’ t know .
He had an inconclusive test the day before , which the Dodgers assumed meant that he was okay to take the field .
Then , whoopsie : That was a major disappointment to Turner , forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team ’ s first championship in 32 years .
He ’ s one of the Dodgers ’ star players , someone who suffered through their World Series disappointments in 2017 and 2018 .
Now , at the moment of triumph , he was being sent away .
But you know what ?
Compared to not being able to say goodbye to a dying loved one in an isolated hospital ward , or not being able to hold a proper wedding due to social-distancing rules , it ’ s not much to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money .
And then , in a week or two , when the virus is cleared from his system , the whole team can have a get-together to celebrate .
Turner couldn ’ t wait , though .
After the final out , he was back on the field — against the orders of MLB security .
As the party raged on , Turner defied orders and returned to the field .
He hugged his teammates .
He kissed his wife .
He sat inches away from manager Dave Roberts—without a mask—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an interview with Fox afterward , Roberts said , “ I didn ’ t touch him.
” When told by MLB security that he had to leave , a person familiar with the matter said , Turner refused .
He continued to share space not just with other players who had already been in close contact with him throughout the game , but with his teammates ’ spouses , children and other family members who had not been .
Dave Roberts is a cancer survivor , in case you ’ re wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo of him here sitting next to Turner , neither man wearing a mask , right after the game .
As for Turner ’ s wife , either she didn ’ t know why he had been pulled from the game or she really , really loves him because… In marriage you share everything important .
Children , a home , money , deadly respiratory diseases .
MLB is furious that he screwed up their “ safety first ” approach , and at the last possible moment .
They ’ re investigating , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning the game , the Dodgers bailed them out of a sticky situation potentially .
If Tampa Bay had come back to tie the series and force Game Seven , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess when that game would have been played .
Conceivably there ’ s an outbreak brewing within the Dodgers right now , soon to be revealed by subsequent testing .
I can imagine being Turner ’ s teammate and feeling sympathy for his choice to join the team on the field after the game ; he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exult , and so if no one else ends up being infected it ’ ll be a “ no harm , no foul ” kind of thing .
But if he ended up passing the virus to me or members of my family ?
I ’ d want to choke him with my bare hands .
There ’ s a lingering question of how Turner got infected considering that the teams were operating inside a “ bubble ” during the playoffs designed to protect them from contact with the outside world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ night was a false positive , soon to be corrected .
Who knows what MLB will do in that case ?
Discipline would still be warranted because he flouted safety protocols , but it ’ d be tricky to come down hard on someone who wasn ’ t actually infectious and who had the very human impulse to relish a moment of camaraderie with friends after a supreme triumph .
On the other hand , this meathead ’ s insistence on putting everyone around him at risk makes it easy to imagine him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the days before last night ’ s game , picking up the virus on the outside doing whatever he was doing .
Incredibly selfish , if so .
I hope he ’ s okay , and I hope MLB makes an example of him .

I can’t believe they’re going to punish him. This moron’s insistence on partying *after learning he had COVID* is so quintessentially American that it should be formally commemorated somehow.
He’s practically a mascot for the country’s approach to the pandemic. Trump should make him a special guest at his final campaign rally.
After some scary outbreaks early in the truncated season, MLB players and staff did an amazing job of preventing infections the rest of the way. They made it all the way to the seventh inning of Game Six of the World Series before running into a problem.
But it was a big one, in the sport’s brightest spotlight:
2020 butts its head into the middle of the World Series celebration pic.twitter.com/1421D1sQq2 — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) October 28, 2020
You’re asking yourself, “Why did they let this guy on the field in the first place knowing that he had COVID?” They didn’t know. He had an inconclusive test the day before, which the Dodgers assumed meant that he was okay to take the field. Then, whoopsie:
In the second inning tonight, the lab doing COVID tests informed MLB that Justin Turner’s test from yesterday came back inconclusive. The samples from today had just arrived and were run. It showed up positive. The league immediately called the Dodgers and said to pull Turner. — Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) October 28, 2020
That was a major disappointment to Turner, forced to isolate himself literally minutes away from the team’s first championship in 32 years. He’s one of the Dodgers’ star players, someone who suffered through their World Series disappointments in 2017 and 2018. Now, at the moment of triumph, he was being sent away.
But you know what? Compared to not being able to say goodbye to a dying loved one in an isolated hospital ward, or not being able to hold a proper wedding due to social-distancing rules, it’s not much to ask. He can cry into his pile of money. And then, in a week or two, when the virus is cleared from his system, the whole team can have a get-together to celebrate.
Turner couldn’t wait, though. After the final out, he was back on the field — against the orders of MLB security.
As the party raged on, Turner defied orders and returned to the field. He hugged his teammates. He kissed his wife. He sat inches away from manager Dave Roberts—without a mask—to take part in a team photo. In an interview with Fox afterward, Roberts said, “I didn’t touch him.” When told by MLB security that he had to leave, a person familiar with the matter said, Turner refused. He continued to share space not just with other players who had already been in close contact with him throughout the game, but with his teammates’ spouses, children and other family members who had not been.
Dave Roberts is a cancer survivor, in case you’re wondering about comorbidities. There’s a photo of him here sitting next to Turner, neither man wearing a mask, right after the game. As for Turner’s wife, either she didn’t know why he had been pulled from the game or she really, really loves him because…
This might be the most 2020 photo I’ve seen. pic.twitter.com/VXsTW1ewV0 — Moneybagg Yo(hannes) 🇪🇷 (@AronYohannes) October 28, 2020
In marriage you share everything important. Children, a home, money, deadly respiratory diseases.
MLB is furious that he screwed up their “safety first” approach, and at the last possible moment. They’re investigating, presumably with discipline to come:
MLB statement on Justin Turner: pic.twitter.com/J8S8mVbG13 — Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) October 28, 2020
By winning the game, the Dodgers bailed them out of a sticky situation potentially. If Tampa Bay had come back to tie the series and force Game Seven, it’s anyone’s guess when that game would have been played. Conceivably there’s an outbreak brewing within the Dodgers right now, soon to be revealed by subsequent testing. I can imagine being Turner’s teammate and feeling sympathy for his choice to join the team on the field after the game; he’s a key player, he wanted to exult, and so if no one else ends up being infected it’ll be a “no harm, no foul” kind of thing.
But if he ended up passing the virus to me or members of my family? I’d want to choke him with my bare hands.
There’s a lingering question of how Turner got infected considering that the teams were operating inside a “bubble” during the playoffs designed to protect them from contact with the outside world. Maybe — hopefully — his test last night was a false positive, soon to be corrected. Who knows what MLB will do in that case? Discipline would still be warranted because he flouted safety protocols, but it’d be tricky to come down hard on someone who wasn’t actually infectious and who had the very human impulse to relish a moment of camaraderie with friends after a supreme triumph. On the other hand, this meathead’s insistence on putting everyone around him at risk makes it easy to imagine him secretly leaving the bubble and breaking quarantine in the days before last night’s game, picking up the virus on the outside doing whatever he was doing. Incredibly selfish, if so. I hope he’s okay, and I hope MLB makes an example of him.


hotair--2020-10-28--Former Homeland Security official outs himself as 'Anonymous' (Update: Will remain as CNN contributo

Former Homeland Security official outs himself as 'Anonymous' (Update: Will remain as CNN contributor)

In September of 2018 the NY Times published an op-ed by a person referring to himself as Anonymous .
As I pointed out at the time , Anonymous claimed there was an internal resistance to President Trump which was seen as an alternative to invoking the 25th Amendment .
At the time , Anonymous also claimed this resistance wanted the administration to succeed : The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of them .
To be clear , ours is not the popular “ resistance ” of the left .
We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous… Given the instability many witnessed , there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment , which would start a complex process for removing the president .
But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis .
So we will do what we can to steer the administration in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or another — it ’ s over .
Today , the Times reports Anonymous has outed himself .
He is Miles Taylor a former DHS official : Mr. Taylor was also the anonymous author of “ A Warning , ” a book he wrote the following year that described the president as an “ undisciplined ” and “ amoral ” leader whose abuse of power threatened the foundations of American democracy .
He acknowledged that he was the author of both the book and the opinion article in an interview and in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mr. Taylor resigned from the Department of Homeland Security in June 2019 , and went public with his criticism of Mr. Trump this past summer .
He released a video just before the start of the Republican National Convention declaring that the president was unfit for office and endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr. , the Democratic presidential nominee .
I know what you ’ re thinking .
Who ?
Should the NY Times have granted this guy an anonymous platform in the first place ?
Even Joe Scarborough is having trouble with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link to his own statement on Medium about why he is no longer anonymous : I witnessed Trump ’ s inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years .
Everyone saw it , though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals .
So when I left the Administration I wrote A Warning , a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a caution to voters that it wasn ’ t as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration — it was worse .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the sentiments expressed within it were widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government .
In other words , Trump ’ s own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability .
Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously .
The decision wasn ’ t easy , I wrestled with it , and I understand why some people consider it questionable to levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity .
But my reasoning was straightforward , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without attribution forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all , rather than creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling .
That ’ s one way to justify it .
Another is that he undermined the White House from within while refusing to speak on the record to avoid a ) losing his job and b ) taking responsibility for what he was saying .
After an endorsement of Joe Biden , the piece ends with Anonymous/Taylor lamenting the partisan divide in America .
He doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fanning those flames .
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes , unfortunately .
While on the road visiting swing states for the past month , it ’ s become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown from one another .
We ’ ve perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive President , so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life , the change must begin with each of us , not just with the occupant of the Oval Office .
Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on August 17 the Washington Post published an opinion piece he ’ d written under his own name .
In response , President Trump criticized him on Twitter : A few days later Taylor was asked directly by CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper if he was Anonymous .
Taylor denied it saying , “ I wear a mask for two things , Anderson , Halloweens and pandemics .
So no.
” Taylor also lied to Vice when asked the same question : After this , Taylor endorsed Joe Biden and was part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Against Trump ” which was founded by Bill Kristol .
Taylor has continued to appear on CNN since then .
Any consequences for lying to CNN anchors and viewers on the air ?
So will this make Taylor more or less of a resistance hero ?
At best I ’ d say the jury is out .
Yashar Ali had a tweet about him not being a hero to either side but it seems he has deleted it .
Update : CNN has decided that lying by its own contributor is not a @ @

In September of 2018 the NY Times published an op-ed by a person referring to himself as Anonymous. As I pointed out at the time, Anonymous claimed there was an internal resistance to President Trump which was seen as an alternative to invoking the 25th Amendment. At the time, Anonymous also claimed this resistance wanted the administration to succeed:
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them. To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous… Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
Today, the Times reports Anonymous has outed himself. He is Miles Taylor a former DHS official:
Mr. Taylor was also the anonymous author of “A Warning,” a book he wrote the following year that described the president as an “undisciplined” and “amoral” leader whose abuse of power threatened the foundations of American democracy. He acknowledged that he was the author of both the book and the opinion article in an interview and in a three-page statement he intended to post online. Mr. Taylor resigned from the Department of Homeland Security in June 2019, and went public with his criticism of Mr. Trump this past summer. He released a video just before the start of the Republican National Convention declaring that the president was unfit for office and endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee.
I know what you’re thinking. Who?
Oh I guess it is true? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. That is so bleeping BEAUTIFUL I can't possibly be more thankful. I love this so much. The person that the NYT strongly insinuated was, like, the VP or WH Chief of Staff, or Cabinet Member was literally "Miles Taylor." HA HA HA — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 28, 2020
Should the NY Times have granted this guy an anonymous platform in the first place?
Miles Taylor is living Dwight Schrute's personal dream: he got the NY Times to describe him as a "senior administration official" rather than "assistant to the regional manager," which is more or less what he was as a mid-level functionary with zero policymaking power. — Jeff B., who on earth is this guy?? (@EsotericCD) October 28, 2020
Should the NYT have granted anonymity as a “senior administration official” to minor DHS bureaucrat Miles Taylor? I’d say no in retrospect. Granted him a stature to attack the president that was totally unwarranted — HowardKurtz (@HowardKurtz) October 28, 2020
Don’t let @nytimes off the hook. They purposefully misled the country into thinking a notable senior Trump admin official was plotting against him when in fact it was an unknown Obama donor, Miles Taylor, from DHS. They knew what they were doing and it’s not journalism. — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 28, 2020
You have got to be kidding me. Miles Taylor? That’s who the New York Times granted an anonymous editorial article? I’ve seen more exciting reveals in Scooby-Doo episodes. What a monumental embarrassment. — Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) October 28, 2020
Even Joe Scarborough is having trouble with this:
I thank Mr Taylor for his critique but question the @nytimes granting him such an anonymous elevated status. It was misleading to readers. — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) October 28, 2020
Taylor has now published a link to his own statement on Medium about why he is no longer anonymous:
I witnessed Trump’s inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years. Everyone saw it, though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals. So when I left the Administration I wrote A Warning, a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a caution to voters that it wasn’t as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration — it was worse. While I claim sole authorship of the work, the sentiments expressed within it were widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government. In other words, Trump’s own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability. Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously. The decision wasn’t easy, I wrestled with it, and I understand why some people consider it questionable to levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity. But my reasoning was straightforward, and I stand by it. Issuing my critiques without attribution forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all, rather than creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling.
That’s one way to justify it. Another is that he undermined the White House from within while refusing to speak on the record to avoid a) losing his job and b) taking responsibility for what he was saying.
After an endorsement of Joe Biden, the piece ends with Anonymous/Taylor lamenting the partisan divide in America. He doesn’t seem to hold himself responsible for fanning those flames.
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes, unfortunately. While on the road visiting swing states for the past month, it’s become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown from one another. We’ve perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive President, so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life, the change must begin with each of us, not just with the occupant of the Oval Office.
Taylor eventually left his DHS job last year and on August 17 the Washington Post published an opinion piece he’d written under his own name. In response, President Trump criticized him on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1295699653753745408
Here was Taylor’s response:
Alas, I’ll take the bait. Haven’t forgotten you though! I guess the only way to prove it is to tell some stories. Maybe until the election. What do you think? https://t.co/2dJhaLFNlN pic.twitter.com/m3msUsDJyZ — Miles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) August 18, 2020
A few days later Taylor was asked directly by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if he was Anonymous. Taylor denied it saying, “I wear a mask for two things, Anderson, Halloweens and pandemics. So no.”
“I wear a mask for two things, Anderson: Halloween and pandemics. So, no,” says @MilesTaylorUSA, when asked by @AndersonCooper if he is the author of the op-ed book written by someone called Anonymous. pic.twitter.com/sPjs4OoAnp — CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) August 21, 2020
Taylor also lied to Vice when asked the same question:
I asked @MilesTaylorUSA during our @VICENews in August if he was Anonymous. He said no. Exchange below: pic.twitter.com/cz1jkku6Q3 — Elizabeth Landers (@ElizLanders) October 28, 2020
After this, Taylor endorsed Joe Biden and was part of a group called “Republican Voters Against Trump” which was founded by Bill Kristol. Taylor has continued to appear on CNN since then. Any consequences for lying to CNN anchors and viewers on the air?
So on August 21 Miles Taylor appeared on CNN and lied when asked whether he was 'Anonymous.' Then, on September 9, CNN hired Taylor as a contributor, presumably unaware that he had lied on their air. Consequences? — Byron York (@ByronYork) October 28, 2020
So will this make Taylor more or less of a resistance hero? At best I’d say the jury is out.
Miles Taylor was a critical part of the team that decided to separated thousands of migrant kids from their parents, resulting in lifelong psychological trauma. He would like you to believe otherwise. — Jacob Soboroff (@jacobsoboroff) October 28, 2020
Miles Taylor complained in writing about Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. But he worked as the @DHSgov secretary’s chief of staff as she helped launch family separation. Now, he wants us all to douse him in holy water. Other Trump officials will want the same. Don’t fall for it. — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) October 28, 2020
So Miles Taylor is the anonymous white guy who knows how to cash in on both sides in our booming media grifter economy. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) October 28, 2020
Yashar Ali had a tweet about him not being a hero to either side but it seems he has deleted it.
Update: CNN has decided that lying by its own contributor is not a problem.


hotair--2020-10-28--Ho hum. PA's largest county mails out tens of thousands of flawed ballots

It ’ s becoming increasingly clear that it ’ s not the US Post Office that ’ s going to cause all of the headaches with mail-in voting next week .
( Well… not all of them , anyway . )
It ’ s the Boards of Elections in the many states that are launching out into the uncharted waters of massive vote-by-mail processes without ever having tackled the task on this scale before .
This is far from the first case , and I seriously doubt it will be the last , but Allegheny County in Pennsylvania managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks ago .
National Review ’ s Jim Geraghty had the details in today ’ s edition of the Morning Jolt .
Allegheny County , which includes Pittsburgh and is the second-most populous county in the state , accidentally sent out 29,000 copies of the wrong ballot to voters earlier this month , giving people ballots for races in other districts .
The county is sending out replacement ballots .
But if someone sends back the incorrect ballot and doesn ’ t send back the correct one , should it count ?
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their district ?
If someone sends back both the incorrect one and the correct one , will any accidentally get double counted ?
As noted above , Allegheny County includes Pittsburgh and it ’ s the second-largest county in the state .
So 29,000 ballots don ’ t represent a huge chunk of the electorate there , but given how tight everyone expects the presidential contest to be in the Keystone State , that number could prove to be significant .
And when you consider that most of Biden ’ s votes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this has to be a serious headache for both the Biden campaign and the state Democratic Party .
So what exactly went wrong and how does it get fixed ?
According to one local news report , election officials in the county are pinning the blame on the contractor they hired to print the ballots .
The company is blaming a “ ballot image mapping error , ” whatever that means , but the upshot is that all of those people received ballots showing a congressional race in a district other than their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoiled ballots that were mailed , they found another 19,000 that were packed up and ready to send out .
Those were allegedly destroyed and replaced .
This took place on October 14th and they ’ ve been scrambling to correct the situation since then .
As to what they could do about it , the county mailed replacement ballots out to everyone the following week .
The obvious questions involve how the voters on that list acted or will act this week .
Election officials say they ’ ve been checking any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the misprinted ones .
If they find any , those ballots will be “ set aside ” to be reviewed by the Elections Returns Board after the election .
So what happens to the congressional races that are affected by this ?
Did all the people who filled out the ballot lose their chance to vote for their congressperson ?
Some of the people who sent in a bad ballot may simply ignore any additional letters from the Board of Elections , believing that they ’ ve already voted .
Others may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one as well .
Officials claim that they will be checking the lists of all the bad ballots they receive against later submissions to make sure nobody votes twice .
But that ’ s a lot of “ checking ” we ’ re talking about at this point , right ?
And it ’ s all going to have to be done manually .
That could take quite a while , and in a very close race , it ’ s just one more factor that could hold things up .
This situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mess indeed .
And they ’ re going to have to deal with all of this at the same time that Philadelphia is being burned down by a mob of rioters .
But don ’ t worry campers .
This is fine .
It ’ s all going to be fine .
I ’ m sure we can all have full confidence in the eventual outcome , no matter what sort of numbers they announce or who they say carries the state .

It’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s not the US Post Office that’s going to cause all of the headaches with mail-in voting next week. (Well… not all of them, anyway.) It’s the Boards of Elections in the many states that are launching out into the uncharted waters of massive vote-by-mail processes without ever having tackled the task on this scale before. This is far from the first case, and I seriously doubt it will be the last, but Allegheny County in Pennsylvania managed to botch the process themselves a couple of weeks ago. National Review’s Jim Geraghty had the details in today’s edition of the Morning Jolt.
Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh and is the second-most populous county in the state, accidentally sent out 29,000 copies of the wrong ballot to voters earlier this month, giving people ballots for races in other districts. The county is sending out replacement ballots. But if someone sends back the incorrect ballot and doesn’t send back the correct one, should it count? Should it only count for the races in their district? If someone sends back both the incorrect one and the correct one, will any accidentally get double counted?
As noted above, Allegheny County includes Pittsburgh and it’s the second-largest county in the state. So 29,000 ballots don’t represent a huge chunk of the electorate there, but given how tight everyone expects the presidential contest to be in the Keystone State, that number could prove to be significant. And when you consider that most of Biden’s votes will be coming from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, this has to be a serious headache for both the Biden campaign and the state Democratic Party. So what exactly went wrong and how does it get fixed?
According to one local news report, election officials in the county are pinning the blame on the contractor they hired to print the ballots. The company is blaming a “ballot image mapping error,” whatever that means, but the upshot is that all of those people received ballots showing a congressional race in a district other than their own. On top of the 29,000 spoiled ballots that were mailed, they found another 19,000 that were packed up and ready to send out. Those were allegedly destroyed and replaced. This took place on October 14th and they’ve been scrambling to correct the situation since then.
As to what they could do about it, the county mailed replacement ballots out to everyone the following week. The obvious questions involve how the voters on that list acted or will act this week. Election officials say they’ve been checking any ballots they receive to see if they are the misprinted ones. If they find any, those ballots will be “set aside” to be reviewed by the Elections Returns Board after the election. So what happens to the congressional races that are affected by this? Did all the people who filled out the ballot lose their chance to vote for their congressperson?
Some of the people who sent in a bad ballot may simply ignore any additional letters from the Board of Elections, believing that they’ve already voted. Others may become confused and send in the second one as well. Officials claim that they will be checking the lists of all the bad ballots they receive against later submissions to make sure nobody votes twice. But that’s a lot of “checking” we’re talking about at this point, right? And it’s all going to have to be done manually. That could take quite a while, and in a very close race, it’s just one more factor that could hold things up.
This situation in Pennsylvania is turning into a fine mess indeed. And they’re going to have to deal with all of this at the same time that Philadelphia is being burned down by a mob of rioters. But don’t worry campers. This is fine. It’s all going to be fine. I’m sure we can all have full confidence in the eventual outcome, no matter what sort of numbers they announce or who they say carries the state.


hotair--2020-10-28--Hmmmm: Are Democrats coming up short in early voting?

Just how much of a lead do Democrats need in early voting to overcome a projected Republican turnout wave on Election Day ?
In battleground states , John Pudner writes at The Hill , they ’ ll need a 70/30 split , thanks to a number of factors .
A lot depends on electorate modeling , but the split in voting intentions make it clear that the early-vote lead had better be substantial : Let ’ s stipulate to this point up front : National numbers applied to state races creates problems , and party ID doesn ’ t always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , where both parties are relatively evenly positioned , the former issue may not be quite as much of a problem , but YMMV .
Anyway .
This is where the Gallup party-ID polling becomes more useful .
Its previous iteration suggested that Republicans had a slight advantage over Democrats ( R+1 ) and near parity among independent leaners ( D+3 ) .
In that shape , Pudner ’ s estimate might have been a little too soft on where Democrats need to end up .
The latest data , released yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , with a D+2/indie split D+8 .
That ’ s closer to the 2012 model of the electorate , one in which Barack Obama narrowly won re-election while Democrats only made marginal gains in the House and Senate .
We ’ ll get back to that in a moment , but let ’ s look at how Pudner ’ s test works in the four battleground states in which return data is available .
Only one state , Pennsylvania , shows Democrats building the kind of early lead they need , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the curve , actually .
However , Democrats fall short in the other three : In Iowa , Democrats have cast 336,780 early votes and Republicans cast 199,586 , a 63 percent to 37 percent edge , which is well short of the 70 percent they need to hit .
Advantage goes to Republicans in Iowa .
In Florida , much has been made of Democrats flipping the early voting edge this year by outvoting Republicans 1,926,055 to 1,463,281 so far .
However , that 57 percent of the partisan share is well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to beat expected Republican turnout .
Democrats ’ early voting across the state is actually falling well short of what they would need to win if they lose Election Day 31 percent to 69 percent .
Again , the advantage goes to Republicans in Florida .
Nevada might be the most telling state , though hardest to calculate .
So far , Democrats outvoted Republicans 170,689 to 122,735 for a 58 percent to 42 percent edge .
At first glance , that would be well short of the 70 percent they need in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they only need a 59 percent to 41 percent edge in early voting since only about 1 in 5 voters will wait until Election Day .
Ballots were mailed to all voters , and even in 2016 more than 60 percent voted by mail in the state .
Advantage Republicans in Nevada .
But wait , readers might ask , what about the Gallup indie split at D+8 ?
Doesn ’ t that change the calculation ?
Keep a couple of points in mind about that national metric .
It gets driven by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate , which is why anything better than a D+5 for Republicans in congressional-preference polling is usually a sign of good news .
Democrats don ’ t usually do well unless that indie split hits double digits , as the modeling I provided for the last six elections shows .
The only exception was the aforementioned 2012 election , but that has a huge caveat , too .
In 2012 , Obama deployed a far superior ground game to essentially perform to the Gallup model and to drag fellow Democrats across the line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this election ?
Which side has registered more voters ?
Those are also important context points , neither of which favors Democrats in this cycle .
And which group will be the most successful in effectively casting ballots ?
NBC News raises that point again today : Sixty percent of voters — nearly 70 million people — are projected to vote by mail nationwide during the coronavirus pandemic .
Those who study absentee rejection rates estimate that 1 percent to 2 percent of those votes — potentially more than 1 million — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a difference in battleground states .
“ The vote-by-mail ballot rejections are going to be the hanging chads of 2000 , ” said Daniel Smith , a professor of political science at the University of Florida .
The risk of ballot rejection varies by demographics and geography .
The rate of rejection tends to be higher for Black , Hispanic , female and younger voters , as well as for people who don ’ t usually vote by mail .
Experts say it also tends to be higher in states that don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots — a category that includes the battleground states of Georgia , Nevada , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
All five had less than 10 percent of turnout by mail in 2016 , and they will see huge increases in mail votes this fall .
The 1-2 % range applies to normal absentee balloting .
New mass-vote-by-mail systems have much higher failure rates , as we saw in primaries earlier this year .
In California , estimates of ballot failure ran between 3-5 % , as it did in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to twenty percent .
If Democrats are mainly voting by mail in these battleground states and sustain a 3-5 % failure rate , that may well be enough to decide the entire election — a point on which Donald Trump warned , although he foolishly highlighted fraud rather than incompetence .
Basically , this means that Pudner might have needed to push his threshold up as high as 75 % .
And it means that we should all gird our loins for plenty of outrage in the weeks ahead .

Just how much of a lead do Democrats need in early voting to overcome a projected Republican turnout wave on Election Day? In battleground states, John Pudner writes at The Hill, they’ll need a 70/30 split, thanks to a number of factors. A lot depends on electorate modeling, but the split in voting intentions make it clear that the early-vote lead had better be substantial:
Forbes polling indicates that roughly half of all voters plan to vote early, with 62 percent of Democrats planning to vote early while 72 percent of Republicans plan to wait and vote on Election Day. If that happened and independents split evenly (last time Trump won them), then Democrats would need to win early voting at least 70 percent to 30 percent to be on pace to barely overcome a 31 percent to 69 percent disadvantage in partisan Election Day votes.
Let’s stipulate to this point up front:
It proves it in a sense: People can look at the same early voting returns and see wildly different things. https://t.co/etsz6Ur6dW — Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) October 28, 2020
National numbers applied to state races creates problems, and party ID doesn’t always indicate the final vote. In battleground states, where both parties are relatively evenly positioned, the former issue may not be quite as much of a problem, but YMMV.
Anyway. This is where the Gallup party-ID polling becomes more useful. Its previous iteration suggested that Republicans had a slight advantage over Democrats (R+1) and near parity among independent leaners (D+3). In that shape, Pudner’s estimate might have been a little too soft on where Democrats need to end up. The latest data, released yesterday, shows a slightly better environment for Democrats, with a D+2/indie split D+8. That’s closer to the 2012 model of the electorate, one in which Barack Obama narrowly won re-election while Democrats only made marginal gains in the House and Senate.
We’ll get back to that in a moment, but let’s look at how Pudner’s test works in the four battleground states in which return data is available. Only one state, Pennsylvania, shows Democrats building the kind of early lead they need, with a 79/21 split — well ahead of the curve, actually. However, Democrats fall short in the other three:
In Iowa, Democrats have cast 336,780 early votes and Republicans cast 199,586, a 63 percent to 37 percent edge, which is well short of the 70 percent they need to hit. Advantage goes to Republicans in Iowa. In Florida, much has been made of Democrats flipping the early voting edge this year by outvoting Republicans 1,926,055 to 1,463,281 so far. However, that 57 percent of the partisan share is well short of the 70 percent they need to beat expected Republican turnout. Democrats’ early voting across the state is actually falling well short of what they would need to win if they lose Election Day 31 percent to 69 percent. Again, the advantage goes to Republicans in Florida. Nevada might be the most telling state, though hardest to calculate. So far, Democrats outvoted Republicans 170,689 to 122,735 for a 58 percent to 42 percent edge. At first glance, that would be well short of the 70 percent they need in other states. However, in Nevada they only need a 59 percent to 41 percent edge in early voting since only about 1 in 5 voters will wait until Election Day. Ballots were mailed to all voters, and even in 2016 more than 60 percent voted by mail in the state. Advantage Republicans in Nevada.
But wait, readers might ask, what about the Gallup indie split at D+8? Doesn’t that change the calculation? Keep a couple of points in mind about that national metric. It gets driven by wide disparities in coastal states where Democrats dominate, which is why anything better than a D+5 for Republicans in congressional-preference polling is usually a sign of good news. Democrats don’t usually do well unless that indie split hits double digits, as the modeling I provided for the last six elections shows.
The only exception was the aforementioned 2012 election, but that has a huge caveat, too. In 2012, Obama deployed a far superior ground game to essentially perform to the Gallup model and to drag fellow Democrats across the line. Which side has the ground-game superiority in this election? Which side has registered more voters? Those are also important context points, neither of which favors Democrats in this cycle.
And which group will be the most successful in effectively casting ballots? NBC News raises that point again today:
Sixty percent of voters — nearly 70 million people — are projected to vote by mail nationwide during the coronavirus pandemic. Those who study absentee rejection rates estimate that 1 percent to 2 percent of those votes — potentially more than 1 million — won’t count, which could make a difference in battleground states. “The vote-by-mail ballot rejections are going to be the hanging chads of 2000,” said Daniel Smith, a professor of political science at the University of Florida. The risk of ballot rejection varies by demographics and geography. The rate of rejection tends to be higher for Black, Hispanic, female and younger voters, as well as for people who don’t usually vote by mail. Experts say it also tends to be higher in states that don’t normally have a lot of absentee ballots — a category that includes the battleground states of Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All five had less than 10 percent of turnout by mail in 2016, and they will see huge increases in mail votes this fall.
The 1-2% range applies to normal absentee balloting. New mass-vote-by-mail systems have much higher failure rates, as we saw in primaries earlier this year. In California, estimates of ballot failure ran between 3-5%, as it did in New York, but in NYC it ran closer to twenty percent. If Democrats are mainly voting by mail in these battleground states and sustain a 3-5% failure rate, that may well be enough to decide the entire election — a point on which Donald Trump warned, although he foolishly highlighted fraud rather than incompetence.
Basically, this means that Pudner might have needed to push his threshold up as high as 75%. And it means that we should all gird our loins for plenty of outrage in the weeks ahead.


hotair--2020-10-28--Twitter chief: We won't allow Hunter Biden misinformation but we will allow Holocaust misinformation

Everyone expects a sh*tshow from a Senate hearing , but who could have guessed that Jack Dorsey wouldn ’ t come prepared to answer the most basic questions about why some dubious information gets banned and other dubious information remains free as a bird ?
It ’ s only the core critique of Twitter ’ s attempt to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story , after all .
And it ’ s *been* the core critique of the platform ever since they began their policy of appending advisories to propaganda pushed by certain world leaders ( Trump ) but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Trump tweets nonsense about the fraudulence of mail-in ballots , they ’ re johnny on the spot .
If the Chinese government tweets nonsense about Americans having seeded the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan , they ’ ll *maybe* get around to flagging it .
Eventually .
After they ’ ve flagged some Trump tweet first and need to find someone else to flag in order to seem evenhanded .
What ’ s the difference between a vicious anti-semitic lie about what was done to Europe ’ s Jews in World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden trying to drum up business in China ?
Answer : Only one of those affects the Democrats ’ chances of winning next week ’ s election , and so that ’ s the one that needs to be suppressed .
Did this guy prepare for this hearing at all ?
He was asked why the New York Post is still locked out of its account many days after the Hunter Biden story broke .
He said that all they need to do is delete their initial tweets promoting it , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , once they ’ re reinstated , they can go ahead and tweet about the story under Twitter ’ s new policy , which calls for labeling posts that rely on possibly hacked materials instead of suppressing them outright .
But … if it ’ s okay for the Post to tweet about the story now , why can ’ t they just have their account back and have the original tweets stay up ?
And if it ’ s okay to tweet about the Post story now , why was Ted Cruz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few hours ago ?
The problem appears to have finally been fixed after today ’ s hearing , quite conveniently .
Dorsey was also asked whether he thinks Twitter has the power to influence elections and answered … no .
But less than three weeks ago the company announced “ [ a ] dditional steps we ’ re taking ahead of the 2020 US Election ” to make it more difficult for users to amplify misleading information before and after the vote .
The point of suppressing the Hunter Biden story was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past four years insisting that social media didn ’ t do enough to restrain Russia misinformation and hacked material like the DNC/Podesta emails published by Wikileaks — that is , to make sure that Twitter can ’ t influence the presidential election again this time .
Dorsey ’ s team is so eager to correct , or overcorrect , for its possible influence last time that they ’ re not even waiting for assurance that the Biden laptop materials actually were hacked to try to limit their influence this time .
Because all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also stupidity from the questioners .
Here ’ s Cruz , grandstanding to a degree even he rarely approaches : Judging from the reaction on conservative social media , it worked .
Righties are tossing bouquets at him for asking a business owner “ who the hell elected you ” and — let me quote exactly — “ put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear.
” Did I miss Lord Dorsey ’ s edict to the media that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hunter Biden story ?
Didn ’ t Fox News do a primetime interview with Tony Bobulinski just last night ?
No one elected the Walton family and put them in charge of what happens inside Walmart stores .
No one elected the Sulzbergers and put them in charge of what reporters are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to read in their own newspaper .
They ’ re business owners .
They run their business the way they want to run it , within the bounds of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nothing like a monopoly .
Not only are they a small part of the total social-media landscape — a dwarf compared to Facebook — they have competition even in their own niche of social media .
Why , just ask this guy : Dave Burge knows what Dorsey should have said to Cruz : “ They can repeal Section 230 !
” you might say .
Right , that ’ s Cruz ’ s and Josh Hawley ’ s trump card , that these hearings are proper because social media companies like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in exempting them from liability for material posted on their platforms by third parties .
But here ’ s a dirty little secret I ’ ll let you in on before you toss another bouquet Cruz ’ s way : Neither he , Hawley , nor anyone else have any intention of repealing Section 230 .
If the GOP were serious about doing that , they would have made an issue of it when they had total control of government .
Cruz knows that ending Section 230 would force comment sections across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To the extent that any remained open , users who seem unusually prone to defaming others — like , say , the president — would be banned straightaway .
The Hunter Biden laptop story would be verboten too ; the facts simply aren ’ t certain enough to take a legal risk by publishing it .
The Section 230 hubbub is a con , in other words , and we Republican primary voters are the marks .
Slamming Twitter for its thuggish attempt to suppress the Hunter Biden story isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they got enough of it to make them change their minds about it within a few days .
But this theatrical nonsense from Cruz about Twitter being “ in charge of what the media are allowed to report ” is nothing more than an audition for the 2024 primary .
He and Hawley have absorbed a key lesson from the Trump era : To get ahead you need to hate whom your base hates and you need to make a big show about it , but you don ’ t actually need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sense , the applause for Cruz today from the base is justified .
If a senator ’ s job in 2020 isn ’ t to legislate but merely to perform , then why shouldn ’ t he be cheered for an especially impassioned performance ?
He did his job !
Meanwhile , the odds of a stimulus deal passing Congress before late January while laid-off workers try to figure out how to keep the lights on are approaching zero .
Today ’ s hearing is thus a sterling demonstration of priorities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheap seats on his side is a better use of the Senate ’ s time than working something out with the House , good for you .
You ’ re well-suited to politics in 2020 .
I ’ ll leave you with this from Hawley , who also understands what ’ s needed to succeed in a primary in a post-Trump GOP .
And decorum certainly ain ’ t it .

Everyone expects a sh*tshow from a Senate hearing, but who could have guessed that Jack Dorsey wouldn’t come prepared to answer the most basic questions about why some dubious information gets banned and other dubious information remains free as a bird?
It’s only the core critique of Twitter’s attempt to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, after all. And it’s *been* the core critique of the platform ever since they began their policy of appending advisories to propaganda pushed by certain world leaders (Trump) but not others (literally everyone else). If Trump tweets nonsense about the fraudulence of mail-in ballots, they’re johnny on the spot. If the Chinese government tweets nonsense about Americans having seeded the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan, they’ll *maybe* get around to flagging it. Eventually. After they’ve flagged some Trump tweet first and need to find someone else to flag in order to seem evenhanded.
What’s the difference between a vicious anti-semitic lie about what was done to Europe’s Jews in World War II and a not-yet-discredited story about Joe and Hunter Biden trying to drum up business in China? Answer: Only one of those affects the Democrats’ chances of winning next week’s election, and so that’s the one that needs to be suppressed.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defends not flagging tweets denying the Holocaust as misinformation, while flagging the president's tweetshttps://t.co/63qT3FSx8p pic.twitter.com/hkk9MgR3XA — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 28, 2020
Did this guy prepare for this hearing at all?
“We don’t”: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admits they don't have any evidence to say the New York Post Biden story is disinformationhttps://t.co/pCnv4L9doW pic.twitter.com/O4iye3COEo — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 28, 2020
He was asked why the New York Post is still locked out of its account many days after the Hunter Biden story broke. He said that all they need to do is delete their initial tweets promoting it, which were banned at the time. Then, once they’re reinstated, they can go ahead and tweet about the story under Twitter’s new policy, which calls for labeling posts that rely on possibly hacked materials instead of suppressing them outright. But … if it’s okay for the Post to tweet about the story now, why can’t they just have their account back and have the original tweets stay up?
And if it’s okay to tweet about the Post story now, why was Ted Cruz still having a problem doing so a few hours ago?
What @jack told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption. Still blocked. 18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate. https://t.co/BDHRB8CEzy — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 28, 2020
The problem appears to have finally been fixed after today’s hearing, quite conveniently.
Dorsey was also asked whether he thinks Twitter has the power to influence elections and answered … no. But less than three weeks ago the company announced “[a]dditional steps we’re taking ahead of the 2020 US Election” to make it more difficult for users to amplify misleading information before and after the vote. The point of suppressing the Hunter Biden story was to appease critics who’ve spent the past four years insisting that social media didn’t do enough to restrain Russia misinformation and hacked material like the DNC/Podesta emails published by Wikileaks — that is, to make sure that Twitter can’t influence the presidential election again this time. Dorsey’s team is so eager to correct, or overcorrect, for its possible influence last time that they’re not even waiting for assurance that the Biden laptop materials actually were hacked to try to limit their influence this time.
Because all Senate hearings are sh*tshows, there was also stupidity from the questioners. Here’s Cruz, grandstanding to a degree even he rarely approaches:
.@tedcruz to Twitter's Jack Dorsey: "[Y]ou can censor the @nypost, you can censor @Politico, presumably you can censor the @nytimes… Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you & put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report & what the American people are allowed to hear?" pic.twitter.com/fX4DRgbXmC — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 28, 2020
Judging from the reaction on conservative social media, it worked. Righties are tossing bouquets at him for asking a business owner “who the hell elected you” and — let me quote exactly — “put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear.”
Did I miss Lord Dorsey’s edict to the media that they’re not allowed to report on the Hunter Biden story? Didn’t Fox News do a primetime interview with Tony Bobulinski just last night?
No one elected the Walton family and put them in charge of what happens inside Walmart stores. No one elected the Sulzbergers and put them in charge of what reporters are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to read in their own newspaper. They’re business owners. They run their business the way they want to run it, within the bounds of the law. And no, Twitter’s nothing like a monopoly. Not only are they a small part of the total social-media landscape — a dwarf compared to Facebook — they have competition even in their own niche of social media. Why, just ask this guy:
I’m proud to join @parler_app — a platform gets what free speech is all about — and I’m excited to be a part of it. Let’s speak. Let’s speak freely. And let’s end the Silicon Valley censorship. Follow me there @tedcruz! pic.twitter.com/pzUFvhipBZ — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 25, 2020
Dave Burge knows what Dorsey should have said to Cruz:
I'd have a shit-ton more respect for Jack Dorsey if he just said, yes, Twitter is completely biased against Trump, and will continue to block information, true or not, that would help re-elect him, and the First Amendment means there's not a fucking thing you can do about it — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) October 28, 2020
“They can repeal Section 230!” you might say. Right, that’s Cruz’s and Josh Hawley’s trump card, that these hearings are proper because social media companies like Twitter depend on Congress’s largesse in exempting them from liability for material posted on their platforms by third parties. But here’s a dirty little secret I’ll let you in on before you toss another bouquet Cruz’s way: Neither he, Hawley, nor anyone else have any intention of repealing Section 230. If the GOP were serious about doing that, they would have made an issue of it when they had total control of government. Cruz knows that ending Section 230 would force comment sections across the Internet to close (including ours). To the extent that any remained open, users who seem unusually prone to defaming others — like, say, the president — would be banned straightaway. The Hunter Biden laptop story would be verboten too; the facts simply aren’t certain enough to take a legal risk by publishing it.
The Section 230 hubbub is a con, in other words, and we Republican primary voters are the marks. Slamming Twitter for its thuggish attempt to suppress the Hunter Biden story isn’t a con; they deserve it, and they got enough of it to make them change their minds about it within a few days. But this theatrical nonsense from Cruz about Twitter being “in charge of what the media are allowed to report” is nothing more than an audition for the 2024 primary. He and Hawley have absorbed a key lesson from the Trump era: To get ahead you need to hate whom your base hates and you need to make a big show about it, but you don’t actually need to do anything about it. In that sense, the applause for Cruz today from the base is justified. If a senator’s job in 2020 isn’t to legislate but merely to perform, then why shouldn’t he be cheered for an especially impassioned performance? He did his job!
Meanwhile, the odds of a stimulus deal passing Congress before late January while laid-off workers try to figure out how to keep the lights on are approaching zero. Today’s hearing is thus a sterling demonstration of priorities. If you think Cruz playing to the cheap seats on his side is a better use of the Senate’s time than working something out with the House, good for you. You’re well-suited to politics in 2020.
I’ll leave you with this from Hawley, who also understands what’s needed to succeed in a primary in a post-Trump GOP. And decorum certainly ain’t it.


hotair--2020-10-28--Vanity Fair gives AOC the puffiest of puff pieces

Today Vanity Fair published a profile of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez which has to be one of the puffiest puff pieces ever written .
It ’ s like a ball of cotton candy floating on a cloud .
The entire thing from start to finish presents AOC as a uniquely talented candidate without any discernible flaws .
Every detail of this piece is crafted to present her as a kind of icon , or as the piece itself dubs her a “ neopolitical icon , ” who is at once ready for the White House and yet still just “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends : Most of Ocasio-Cortez ’ s family and close friends call her Sandy .
A few , like Representative Ayanna Pressley , go with “ Alex.
” But becoming AOC—and @ AOC—has simultaneously vaulted her into a pantheon of triple-initialed legends and , alternately , given a handy tagline to the right ’ s worst nightmare .
Her beatific face is commodified on twee Etsy greeting cards ( “ I AOC It ’ s Your Birthday ” ) and stamped alongside those of RBG and Frida Kahlo on “ feminist prayer candles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative attack ads depict her as socialist villainess .
One especially disturbing spot shows a photo of her face on fire before cutting to a pile of skulls .
“ It ’ s very dehumanizing in both ways , strangely , both the negative and the positive , ” the congresswoman tells me one afternoon from behind the desk of her Bronx campaign office .
And with all of the adulation comes a lot of threats .
In fact , threats are really the only opposition to AOC that gets any real attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez ’ s first term , a Coast Guard lieutenant and self-described white nationalist was arrested in Maryland with a stockpile of guns and a plot to kill Ocasio-Cortez , Senator Kamala Harris , Pelosi , and others .
His internet search history included “ where in dc to [ sic ] congress live.
” He eventually pleaded guilty to federal drug and gun charges… The death threats seem to spike in concert with Fox News rhetoric .
“ I used to wake up in the morning and literally get a stack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or FBI .
Like , ‘ These are the people who want to kill you today , ’ ” she says .
But the piece is quick to suggest none of that can stop her from fulfilling her destiny as a future candidate for President : Ocasio-Cortez ’ s charisma and raw talent are often compared to Barack Obama ’ s .
Not three years into her congressional career , speculation abounds about a future presidential run , with everyone from Howard Dean to Cardi B rooting for it .
No sooner had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s running mate than chatter began bubbling about a 2024 primary between Harris and Ocasio-Cortez , who turned 31 in October and would only narrowly make the 35-year-old age requirement .
“ I ’ ve told her , I fully expect that she ’ s going to run one day , and that she should , ” former Housing and Urban Development secretary and 2020 candidate Julián Castro told me .
“ She absolutely has the talent , the dynamism , and the leadership ability.
” AOC is cagey about her future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her stardom goes way beyond politics : The only negative thing the piece can find to say about AOC is that she lacks enough votes in Congress to be effective .
So it ends with her vow to help more far-left progressives get elected .
And who knows , maybe she ’ ll have some success .
The success of Bernie Sanders certainly shows there is an appetite for socialism among young people .
But I think there are still a lot of people in America who don ’ t support AOC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vanity Fair piece , they aren ’ t limited to crazy people making death threats .
At some point “ Sandy ” is going to have to deal with the real costs of her agenda .
Even with the media eagerly rolling out the White House red carpet for her , I don ’ t think she can get there on icon status alone .
Yes , I know people will argue that ’ s exactly what Trump did but even if you think that ’ s true , how has it worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If she did make it to the White House the resistance to AOC would be every bit as strong as it was to Trump from day one .
There ’ s just no way she breezes through this in the way Vanity Fair seems to imagine she could .

Today Vanity Fair published a profile of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez which has to be one of the puffiest puff pieces ever written. It’s like a ball of cotton candy floating on a cloud. The entire thing from start to finish presents AOC as a uniquely talented candidate without any discernible flaws. Every detail of this piece is crafted to present her as a kind of icon, or as the piece itself dubs her a “neopolitical icon,” who is at once ready for the White House and yet still just “Sandy” from the block to her friends:
Most of Ocasio-Cortez’s family and close friends call her Sandy. A few, like Representative Ayanna Pressley, go with “Alex.” But becoming AOC—and @AOC—has simultaneously vaulted her into a pantheon of triple-initialed legends and, alternately, given a handy tagline to the right’s worst nightmare. Her beatific face is commodified on twee Etsy greeting cards (“I AOC It’s Your Birthday”) and stamped alongside those of RBG and Frida Kahlo on “feminist prayer candles” and “Latina icon stickers.” Conservative attack ads depict her as socialist villainess. One especially disturbing spot shows a photo of her face on fire before cutting to a pile of skulls. “It’s very dehumanizing in both ways, strangely, both the negative and the positive,” the congresswoman tells me one afternoon from behind the desk of her Bronx campaign office.
And with all of the adulation comes a lot of threats. In fact, threats are really the only opposition to AOC that gets any real attention to this piece:
A month into Ocasio-Cortez’s first term, a Coast Guard lieutenant and self-described white nationalist was arrested in Maryland with a stockpile of guns and a plot to kill Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Kamala Harris, Pelosi, and others. His internet search history included “where in dc to [sic] congress live.” He eventually pleaded guilty to federal drug and gun charges… The death threats seem to spike in concert with Fox News rhetoric. “I used to wake up in the morning and literally get a stack of pictures that were forwarded by Capitol police or FBI. Like, ‘These are the people who want to kill you today,’ ” she says.
But the piece is quick to suggest none of that can stop her from fulfilling her destiny as a future candidate for President:
Ocasio-Cortez’s charisma and raw talent are often compared to Barack Obama’s. Not three years into her congressional career, speculation abounds about a future presidential run, with everyone from Howard Dean to Cardi B rooting for it. No sooner had Kamala Harris been chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate than chatter began bubbling about a 2024 primary between Harris and Ocasio-Cortez, who turned 31 in October and would only narrowly make the 35-year-old age requirement. “I’ve told her, I fully expect that she’s going to run one day, and that she should,” former Housing and Urban Development secretary and 2020 candidate Julián Castro told me. “She absolutely has the talent, the dynamism, and the leadership ability.”
AOC is cagey about her future goals but it’s already clear her stardom goes way beyond politics:
AOC is the perhaps the only member of Congress who moonlights as a beauty influencer: Sharing her go-to red gloss—Stila’s Stay All Day Liquid in Beso—translated to a sales spike. “Every time I go on TV, people ask for my lipstick,” she says.
The only negative thing the piece can find to say about AOC is that she lacks enough votes in Congress to be effective. So it ends with her vow to help more far-left progressives get elected. And who knows, maybe she’ll have some success. The success of Bernie Sanders certainly shows there is an appetite for socialism among young people. But I think there are still a lot of people in America who don’t support AOC’s views and, contrary to the Vanity Fair piece, they aren’t limited to crazy people making death threats.
At some point “Sandy” is going to have to deal with the real costs of her agenda. Even with the media eagerly rolling out the White House red carpet for her, I don’t think she can get there on icon status alone. Yes, I know people will argue that’s exactly what Trump did but even if you think that’s true, how has it worked out for the last four years? If she did make it to the White House the resistance to AOC would be every bit as strong as it was to Trump from day one. There’s just no way she breezes through this in the way Vanity Fair seems to imagine she could.


hotair--2020-10-28--Gun sales being driven by... healthcare workers?

If there ’ s one thing that ’ s been consistent in the headlines all through the pandemic and the riots , it ’ s the fact that gun sales continue to set records all over the country .
It ’ s even been happening in California .
The demand in Philadelphia has been so great ( even before the current spate of riots ) that people have been put on waiting lists for months or even years just to apply for a permit .
But there ’ s one little factoid out of all the gun sales data that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A significantly disproportionate percentage of new gun buyers come from the healthcare industry .
They were buying new firearms early in the pandemic and that trend has continued through this month .
( Free Beacon ) When the coronavirus hit American shores , nurses and doctors stocked up on guns , a new study reports .
Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals .
“ One of the things we should see , in my limited view , is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months , ” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon .
“ And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.
” This seems like one of those trivia questions that never would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look obvious after you hear the answer .
Why would healthcare workers be the first ones out of the gate and in line to purchase firearms ?
I would imagine it ’ s because they were on the front lines of the health crisis and knew a lot more about infectious diseases than the rest of us .
If they knew ( or at least strongly suspected ) that a massive wave of a potentially deadly disease was on the way , they could also see that the potential for unrest in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the George Floyd protests , things could begin to get pretty grim out there and they likely sensed they might need to protect themselves at home .
One analyst quoted in the article pointed out that the demographics of this new wave of gun owners also should have given us a clue .
In increasing numbers , they have tended to be “ younger , more urban , more female , and less white.
” And that description lines up perfectly with the people that are represented significantly in the healthcare industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the greatest growth in the jobs market for several years now , so the two sets of demographics ( those workers and gun buyers ) have “ intersected.
” The report also points to a recent survey indicating that between one quarter and one half of American physicians own firearms .
The real driver , however , remains the concern for the safety of yourself and/or your family .
They pose the questions , ‘ have you felt threatened or exposed to violence ?
Or do you know someone who has ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ undoubtedly going to make you consider improving your capacity for home defense .
That ’ s similar to an old axiom in politics .
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn ’ t been mugged yet .
Today we might replace those two subjects with “ gun control proponents ” and “ Second Amendment enthusiasts .
”

If there’s one thing that’s been consistent in the headlines all through the pandemic and the riots, it’s the fact that gun sales continue to set records all over the country. It’s even been happening in California. The demand in Philadelphia has been so great (even before the current spate of riots) that people have been put on waiting lists for months or even years just to apply for a permit. But there’s one little factoid out of all the gun sales data that had escaped my attention until this week. A significantly disproportionate percentage of new gun buyers come from the healthcare industry. They were buying new firearms early in the pandemic and that trend has continued through this month. (Free Beacon)
When the coronavirus hit American shores, nurses and doctors stocked up on guns, a new study reports. Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals. “One of the things we should see, in my limited view, is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months,” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon. “And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.”
This seems like one of those trivia questions that never would have crossed your mind but begins to look obvious after you hear the answer. Why would healthcare workers be the first ones out of the gate and in line to purchase firearms? I would imagine it’s because they were on the front lines of the health crisis and knew a lot more about infectious diseases than the rest of us. If they knew (or at least strongly suspected) that a massive wave of a potentially deadly disease was on the way, they could also see that the potential for unrest in the streets could follow. Even without all of the George Floyd protests, things could begin to get pretty grim out there and they likely sensed they might need to protect themselves at home.
One analyst quoted in the article pointed out that the demographics of this new wave of gun owners also should have given us a clue. In increasing numbers, they have tended to be “younger, more urban, more female, and less white.” And that description lines up perfectly with the people that are represented significantly in the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry has shown some of the greatest growth in the jobs market for several years now, so the two sets of demographics (those workers and gun buyers) have “intersected.”
The report also points to a recent survey indicating that between one quarter and one half of American physicians own firearms.
The real driver, however, remains the concern for the safety of yourself and/or your family. They pose the questions, ‘have you felt threatened or exposed to violence? Or do you know someone who has?’ If so, that’s undoubtedly going to make you consider improving your capacity for home defense. That’s similar to an old axiom in politics. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet. Today we might replace those two subjects with “gun control proponents” and “Second Amendment enthusiasts.”


hotair--2020-10-28--Rush -- and Reason: Don't vote for Biden

Two pitches , two very different perspectives , but both focusing on a similar theme — a Joe Biden presidency would be dangerous to Americans ’ rights .
Rush Limbaugh ’ s home-stretch argument won ’ t surprise anyone , but his focus here on Biden ’ s negatives rather than Donald Trump ’ s positives is notable .
We ’ re no longer in a “ same objectives … different philosophies ” paradigm , Limbaugh warns , and it ’ s time to vote accordingly ( via The Blaze ) : “ Hey , folks , sitting here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation vote — Amy Coney Barrett , Supreme Court — and it just reminds me : Folks , we don ’ t have a choice in this election .
It ’ s got to be Donald Trump .
“ We ’ re not going to have the kind of country everybody thinks we ’ re going to have .
This is not the old ‘ Republicans versus Democrats , ’ where we all have the same objectives , just different philosophies on how to get there .
They do not have those objectives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erase the Constitution , start over rewriting it , eliminating the concept of ‘ The citizen has rights which prevail over government.
’ “ It ’ s serious , and it ’ s scary , and we don ’ t have a choice .
You have to get out there and vote Trump.
” I agree with Rush on all of the above , and so would most Hot Air readers , I ’ d guess .
Surprisingly , Reason ’ s Nick Gillespie largely agrees on everything except the part about having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his libertarian ( and Libertarian ) readers have “ 11 trillion reasons to fear Joe Biden ’ s presidency , ” and not just on the usual fiscal-insanity grounds : Not only is the former vice president likely to win , but FiveThirtyEight predicts Democrats have a 74-in-100 chance of taking the Senate while holding the House of Representatives , meaning that he will have a great opportunity to deliver on all of his campaign promises , which add up to a mind-blowing total of $ 11 trillion in new federal spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform is more liberal than that of every past Democratic nominee , ” writes The Washington Post .
That ’ s bad news not just for the economy but for a wide range of libertarian concerns about things such as individual autonomy , free speech , school choice , and gun rights .
In last week ’ s debate with Trump , Biden warned that we are entering a “ dark winter.
” He was talking about rising COVID-19 cases , but his own platform is likely to keep us at home , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad place for a long time to come .
… Perhaps even scarier than Biden ’ s explicit plans to tax , spend , and regulate what already exists are the seemingly infinite promises he has made to push new government controls onto virtually all aspects of our lives .
He wants to repeal Section 230 , the law that protects online platforms from legal liability for speech generated by users , and wants to “ take a really hard look ” at breaking up tech companies , especially Facebook .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding for charter schools and the reinstatement of ineffective assault-weapons bans and countless other gun-control measures .
Pick any page of his campaign website ’ s extensive “ vision ” section and you ’ ll find endless proposals to tinker with everyday life and employment .
He pledges to “ aggressively pursue employers who violate labor laws , participate in wage theft , or cheat on their taxes by intentionally misclassifying employees as independent contractors ” and also to “ establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the U.S. Department of Justice.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts of things require ?
The same sorts of questions are raised by his on-again , off-again endorsement of a federal mask mandate .
On many , perhaps most , issues , Joe Biden ’ s America will be one in which political and economic power is unified under Washington ’ s control .
Where Nick disagrees — and passionately so — is that voters do have another choice besides Trump .
The Libertarian Party has nominated Jo Jorgensen , who will appear on the ballot in all 50 states this year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether this is a rational choice or a vote throwaway .
However , don ’ t lose sight of the fact that Nick is not endorsing Trump , but that he does point out just how dangerous a Joe Biden administration would be to individual liberty and subsidiarity in government .
Nick and Rush agree on that much , even if they likely don ’ t agree on the solution .

Two pitches, two very different perspectives, but both focusing on a similar theme — a Joe Biden presidency would be dangerous to Americans’ rights. Rush Limbaugh’s home-stretch argument won’t surprise anyone, but his focus here on Biden’s negatives rather than Donald Trump’s positives is notable. We’re no longer in a “same objectives … different philosophies” paradigm, Limbaugh warns, and it’s time to vote accordingly (via The Blaze):
https://twitter.com/RealRLimbaugh/status/1320875378701979648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320875378701979648%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Frush-limbaugh-plea-re-elect-trump
“Hey, folks, sitting here in the library getting ready to watch the confirmation vote — Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court — and it just reminds me: Folks, we don’t have a choice in this election. It’s got to be Donald Trump. “We’re not going to have the kind of country everybody thinks we’re going to have. This is not the old ‘Republicans versus Democrats,’ where we all have the same objectives, just different philosophies on how to get there. They do not have those objectives any more. Their purpose is to erase the Constitution, start over rewriting it, eliminating the concept of ‘The citizen has rights which prevail over government.’ “It’s serious, and it’s scary, and we don’t have a choice. You have to get out there and vote Trump.”
I agree with Rush on all of the above, and so would most Hot Air readers, I’d guess. Surprisingly, Reason’s Nick Gillespie largely agrees on everything except the part about having no choice. Yesterday, Nick wrote that his libertarian (and Libertarian) readers have “11 trillion reasons to fear Joe Biden’s presidency,” and not just on the usual fiscal-insanity grounds:
Not only is the former vice president likely to win, but FiveThirtyEight predicts Democrats have a 74-in-100 chance of taking the Senate while holding the House of Representatives, meaning that he will have a great opportunity to deliver on all of his campaign promises, which add up to a mind-blowing total of $11 trillion in new federal spending over the coming decade. His “platform is more liberal than that of every past Democratic nominee,” writes The Washington Post. That’s bad news not just for the economy but for a wide range of libertarian concerns about things such as individual autonomy, free speech, school choice, and gun rights. In last week’s debate with Trump, Biden warned that we are entering a “dark winter.” He was talking about rising COVID-19 cases, but his own platform is likely to keep us at home, out of work, and in a bad place for a long time to come. … Perhaps even scarier than Biden’s explicit plans to tax, spend, and regulate what already exists are the seemingly infinite promises he has made to push new government controls onto virtually all aspects of our lives. He wants to repeal Section 230, the law that protects online platforms from legal liability for speech generated by users, and wants to “take a really hard look” at breaking up tech companies, especially Facebook. He’s called for an end to federal funding for charter schools and the reinstatement of ineffective assault-weapons bans and countless other gun-control measures. Pick any page of his campaign website’s extensive “vision” section and you’ll find endless proposals to tinker with everyday life and employment. He pledges to “aggressively pursue employers who violate labor laws, participate in wage theft, or cheat on their taxes by intentionally misclassifying employees as independent contractors” and also to “establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the U.S. Department of Justice.” What sort of bureaucracy do those sorts of things require? The same sorts of questions are raised by his on-again, off-again endorsement of a federal mask mandate. On many, perhaps most, issues, Joe Biden’s America will be one in which political and economic power is unified under Washington’s control.
Where Nick disagrees — and passionately so — is that voters do have another choice besides Trump. The Libertarian Party has nominated Jo Jorgensen, who will appear on the ballot in all 50 states this year. The question, as always, is whether this is a rational choice or a vote throwaway. However, don’t lose sight of the fact that Nick is not endorsing Trump, but that he does point out just how dangerous a Joe Biden administration would be to individual liberty and subsidiarity in government. Nick and Rush agree on that much, even if they likely don’t agree on the solution.


hotair--2020-10-28--More on the looting in Philadelphia last night (Update: NY Times reporter has thoughts on coverage)

Jazz wrote earlier about the looting that took place in Philadelphia last night .
I wanted to do a round up of some of the video taken by various people at the scene because I think it really communicates the scale of what happened last night .
The night started with a disagreement among the marchers over which way to go : You can see the same argument in this top clip .
Shortly after part of the group had a confrontation with police ( 2nd clip below ) : Townhall ’ s Julio Rosas says the group ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach the Philadelphia Police 18th District when they were stopped ( 2nd clip below ) : As always , the black officers get the worst of the abuse ( 2nd clip ) : There was reportedly some , ahem , discussion of what to do next ( 2nd clip ) : And shortly after the confrontation with police the looting started .
A Target store was broken into but police showed up and got the situation under control ( 1st clip ) .
As you can see in the 2nd clip , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time things just seemed to spiral completely out of control : Police would intervene and temporarily stop the looting but as soon as they would leave , the looters would return .
Walmart and Target both got hit again after police left : Here ’ s the inside of the Walmart : Just after this reporter for the Blaze said things didn ’ t seem safe anymore , he was jumped for filming the looters .
Part of the attack was filmed by another reporter : Dozens of stores looted .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has been to a lot of these protests , said it felt like the police had completely lost control : And it wasn ’ t just looting taking place .
NBC 10 reports there were 11 people shot last night in the area where the looting took place : Two teenagers , a 15-year-old girl and 18-year-old young man , were among at least 11 people shot in an area targeted by looters during a night of unrest following the police shooting death of a Philadelphia man , police said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting victims were fatally wounded , but some of the gunfire included looters shooting at other looters in the Port Richmond neighborhood , which saw scores of people shatter windows and break into stores along Aramingo Avenue as police officers struggled to contain the chaos following the killing of Walter Wallace Jr. , Philadelphia Police Department sources on the scene told NBC10 .
Were police just overwhelmed or did they make some kind of decision to retreat ?
Finally , here ’ s a CBS Philly report on the damage done last night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few Jewish guys showed up at the BLM protest to “ show solidarity.
” They were forced out , threatened and attacked .
“ You all know we the real Jews , right ?
” a guy off camera said to them .
So I guess we have some more Black Hebrew Israelites at this protest .
And here ’ s Eric Lipton of the NY Times saying it ’ s weird how conservatives want to “ amplify ” a night of riots , looting and shooting : Here ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bier pointed out , that ’ s a step down from some of the Times ’ previous coverage of riots : Update : Fox 29 reports police in Philly were told not to respond to “ burglary ” calls .
Authorities haven ’ t been asked about this yet but this would seem to mean no arrests for looting .

Jazz wrote earlier about the looting that took place in Philadelphia last night. I wanted to do a round up of some of the video taken by various people at the scene because I think it really communicates the scale of what happened last night. The night started with a disagreement among the marchers over which way to go:
https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1321237719897485323
You can see the same argument in this top clip. Shortly after part of the group had a confrontation with police (2nd clip below):
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1321242337721266182
Townhall’s Julio Rosas says the group (or part of it) was trying to approach the Philadelphia Police 18th District when they were stopped (2nd clip below):
The BLM crowd marched as close as they could to the Philadelphia Police 18th District. Police in riot gear stopped them from getting closer. pic.twitter.com/Rlw5QX0ZEk — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) October 28, 2020
As always, the black officers get the worst of the abuse (2nd clip):
Protester yells at the police line: “Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you you coon ass black man, fuck you, fuck every black person out here fuck all y’all!” pic.twitter.com/I5bCLY7TMP — Richie🎥McG🍿 (@RichieMcGinniss) October 28, 2020
There was reportedly some, ahem, discussion of what to do next (2nd clip):
https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1321255980009771009
And shortly after the confrontation with police the looting started.
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1321248082479071232
A Target store was broken into but police showed up and got the situation under control (1st clip). As you can see in the 2nd clip, the looters hit WalMart next:
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1321252111779151872
And around this time things just seemed to spiral completely out of control:
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1321256242992443392
Looters in Philadelphia are pulling up in cars and rushing into stores to grab as much as they can before driving away. pic.twitter.com/I7MCwLnnAg — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) October 28, 2020
BREAKING – Hundreds of looters break into stores on a strip mall on Aramingo Avenue in #Philadelphia pic.twitter.com/FnyEJwzReY — Jorge Ventura Media (@VenturaReport) October 28, 2020
Police would intervene and temporarily stop the looting but as soon as they would leave, the looters would return. Walmart and Target both got hit again after police left:
https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1321278908159975425
Here’s the inside of the Walmart:
BREAKING: Wal-Mart is being looted for a 2nd time by BLM rioters in Philadelphia They are looting 15+ stores over a 4 block radius. Police have not been able to get the situation under control Chaos is ensuing to the point where it’s not safe anymorepic.twitter.com/U34olfZ835 — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) October 28, 2020
Just after this reporter for the Blaze said things didn’t seem safe anymore, he was jumped for filming the looters. Part of the attack was filmed by another reporter:
Tonight, I was jumped by BLM rioters while covering the civil unrest in Philadelphia Reporter @ShelbyTalcott captured the moment the looters jumped me inside of a 5-Below They tried to rob me as well but I was able to get away without losing my phone
pic.twitter.com/DrgnbE20wA — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) October 28, 2020
Another videographer was chased:
I just got chased down a few blocks for filming. If they caught me I would not be in good shape.
Found safety next to a few PPD Officers. I’m done for tonight. ✌🏼 — James Klüg (@realJamesKlug) October 28, 2020
Just got chased by looters. Thankfully PPD Officers were a few blocks away. I’m done for tonight. #Philly pic.twitter.com/rRK4rXK70I — James Klüg (@realJamesKlug) October 28, 2020
Dozens of stores looted. Even the Chick-fil-A was hit:
A Chick-fil-A in Philadelphia was broken into and damaged. pic.twitter.com/yfR4w5laOj — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) October 28, 2020
Elijah Schaffer, who has been to a lot of these protests, said it felt like the police had completely lost control:
The police completely lost control of the city. I've only seen this happen in Dallas immediately post George-Floyd & Kenosha. All terribly sad to witness. No National Guard, police were standing down, barely enough officers to keep a single shopping center clear. Seems planned https://t.co/gOgqz8sjpH — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) October 28, 2020
And it wasn’t just looting taking place. NBC 10 reports there were 11 people shot last night in the area where the looting took place:
Two teenagers, a 15-year-old girl and 18-year-old young man, were among at least 11 people shot in an area targeted by looters during a night of unrest following the police shooting death of a Philadelphia man, police said. It was unclear if any of the shooting victims were fatally wounded, but some of the gunfire included looters shooting at other looters in the Port Richmond neighborhood, which saw scores of people shatter windows and break into stores along Aramingo Avenue as police officers struggled to contain the chaos following the killing of Walter Wallace Jr., Philadelphia Police Department sources on the scene told NBC10.
Were police just overwhelmed or did they make some kind of decision to retreat? Finally, here’s a CBS Philly report on the damage done last night:
Update: I missed this. A few Jewish guys showed up at the BLM protest to “show solidarity.” They were forced out, threatened and attacked. “You all know we the real Jews, right?” a guy off camera said to them. So I guess we have some more Black Hebrew Israelites at this protest.
Orthodox Jews violently attacked by mob @ BLM protest last night in Philly. They told protesters they were there to show solidarity. Mob shouted anti Semitic & racist hate as they assaulted victims. Spoke to victim, says he feared for his life. This needs to be condemned by all! pic.twitter.com/oAY2kSaqM4 — Yaacov Behrman (@ChabadLubavitch) October 28, 2020
And here’s Eric Lipton of the NY Times saying it’s weird how conservatives want to “amplify” a night of riots, looting and shooting:
Watching my Twitter feed since last night very notable the intensity of tweets from conservative voices looking to amplify/draw attention to looting in Phila. Yes it happened. NYT covered it as well. Just remarkable how conservatives want to elevate it. https://t.co/cff3J8xoPs — Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) October 28, 2020
Here’s how the Times covered it:
As Jeryl Bier pointed out, that’s a step down from some of the Times’ previous coverage of riots:
Update: Fox 29 reports police in Philly were told not to respond to “burglary” calls. Authorities haven’t been asked about this yet but this would seem to mean no arrests for looting.