hotair--2020-08-11--Change: Trump leads in new poll of Arizona

The bad news is that he ’ s trailed in nearly every poll of Arizona taken this year , making this new one an outlier .
The good news is that it comes from Trafalgar , the pollster who detected Trump ’ s late surge to victory in the Rust Belt in 2016 and then followed up in 2018 by forecasting Ron DeSantis ’ s and Rick Scott ’ s surprise victories in Florida .
A la Rasmussen , Trafalgar reliably has Trump polling several points better this year than other outfits do .
Is that because they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that helps them spot Trump voters who go overlooked by other pollsters ?
Or is it just a “ house effect ” that leans right , the same way other pollsters have a house effect that leans left ?
One would think that other pros in the field would have caught up to Trafalgar by now in finding ways to make sure that Trumpers aren ’ t being undercounted .
Maybe not , per this Arizona data : From mid-June to mid-July , multiple firms saw Biden leading by six points or better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June he led by an average of five points .
Today that average has been cut by more than half , with Biden ahead by just 2.2 points .
Nor is that entirely attributable to Trafalgar ’ s outlierish result .
The last poll of the state by Change Research , a Democratic firm , had Biden ’ s lead dropping to two points after their July poll of Arizona had him up six .
That ’ s consistent with the slight tightening of the race we ’ ve seen lately in national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 10-point lead for Biden in the national average in late June is down to seven points today .
The conventional wisdom on why Biden ’ s lead has shrunk is that it ’ s due to the BLM protests disappearing off the public ’ s radar , replaced with images of anarchists running wild in Portland .
Trump gets terrible ratings on handling race relations ; as that issue becomes less urgent , it stands to reason that opposition to him would soften .
I wonder , though , if Arizona ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping Trump there .
For much of July it was one of the worst hot spots in the country .
But the trends lately are all in the right direction , which presumably weakened some of the public outrage over the pandemic .
Want further evidence that Arizona is tightening ?
Coming right up : That ’ s from OH Predictive Insights .
When they polled the Kelly/McSally race in early July , Kelly led by nine .
That was in line with other surveys ; another poll from mid-July put him ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race has seemed like a foregone conclusion for months , so much so that there ’ s a question as to how much money the GOP should spend trying to defend the seat .
Now , though , OHPI has Kelly ’ s lead down to five , and the latest one from Change Research has it down to *two .
* So maybe McSally isn ’ t a lost cause after all .
On the other hand , the tightening that ’ s happening in Arizona doesn ’ t seem to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll this afternoon from Marquette Law School : Biden by five .
Of the last six polls of the state , Biden has led by five or six points in all but one of them .
Holding Arizona and Texas would be nice for Trump , but if he loses the Rust Belt this year and can ’ t flip a Hillary state from 2016 to offset that , he ’ s done .
And the midwest isn ’ t in the same position as Arizona with respect to the virus : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak , they ’ re heading into one .
Whether that ’ ll affect Trump ’ s numbers there is anyone ’ s guess , but if there is an impact it ’ s unlikely to be one that helps him .
I ’ ll leave you with one more set of numbers .
This comes from Monmouth ’ s new national survey , which has the race surprisingly stable — Biden 51 , Trump 41 .
Not much evidence of tightening there .
Here ’ s an ominous partisan split : Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s somewhat likely they ’ ll vote by mail this fall .
Among Democrats , 72 percent say so .
We ’ re approaching a scenario in which Trump leads , possibly comfortably , in swing states when the day-of counting is finished on November 3 and then has to watch that lead evaporate as overwhelmingly Democratic mail-in voters are counted in the following days .
Trump being Trump , there ’ s no way he won ’ t screech about being cheated in that situation , which now has lefties wondering if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day-of after all .
I predict a sh*tshow .
In America 2020 , that prediction is seldom wrong .

The bad news is that he’s trailed in nearly every poll of Arizona taken this year, making this new one an outlier. The good news is that it comes from Trafalgar, the pollster who detected Trump’s late surge to victory in the Rust Belt in 2016 and then followed up in 2018 by forecasting Ron DeSantis’s and Rick Scott’s surprise victories in Florida.
A la Rasmussen, Trafalgar reliably has Trump polling several points better this year than other outfits do. Is that because they’ve developed a methodological “secret sauce” that helps them spot Trump voters who go overlooked by other pollsters? Or is it just a “house effect” that leans right, the same way other pollsters have a house effect that leans left?
One would think that other pros in the field would have caught up to Trafalgar by now in finding ways to make sure that Trumpers aren’t being undercounted. Maybe not, per this Arizona data:
From mid-June to mid-July, multiple firms saw Biden leading by six points or better in AZ. At the end of June he led by an average of five points. Today that average has been cut by more than half, with Biden ahead by just 2.2 points. Nor is that entirely attributable to Trafalgar’s outlierish result. The last poll of the state by Change Research, a Democratic firm, had Biden’s lead dropping to two points after their July poll of Arizona had him up six.
That’s consistent with the slight tightening of the race we’ve seen lately in national polling as well. What had been a 10-point lead for Biden in the national average in late June is down to seven points today.
The conventional wisdom on why Biden’s lead has shrunk is that it’s due to the BLM protests disappearing off the public’s radar, replaced with images of anarchists running wild in Portland. Trump gets terrible ratings on handling race relations; as that issue becomes less urgent, it stands to reason that opposition to him would soften. I wonder, though, if Arizona’s improving picture on COVID-19 is also helping Trump there. For much of July it was one of the worst hot spots in the country. But the trends lately are all in the right direction, which presumably weakened some of the public outrage over the pandemic.
Want further evidence that Arizona is tightening? Coming right up:
That’s from OH Predictive Insights. When they polled the Kelly/McSally race in early July, Kelly led by nine. That was in line with other surveys; another poll from mid-July put him ahead by 12. The outcome of the race has seemed like a foregone conclusion for months, so much so that there’s a question as to how much money the GOP should spend trying to defend the seat. Now, though, OHPI has Kelly’s lead down to five, and the latest one from Change Research has it down to *two.*
So maybe McSally isn’t a lost cause after all.
On the other hand, the tightening that’s happening in Arizona doesn’t seem to be happening in Wisconsin, per the latest poll this afternoon from Marquette Law School:
Biden by five. Of the last six polls of the state, Biden has led by five or six points in all but one of them. Holding Arizona and Texas would be nice for Trump, but if he loses the Rust Belt this year and can’t flip a Hillary state from 2016 to offset that, he’s done. And the midwest isn’t in the same position as Arizona with respect to the virus: They’re not getting past a nasty outbreak, they’re heading into one. Whether that’ll affect Trump’s numbers there is anyone’s guess, but if there is an impact it’s unlikely to be one that helps him.
I’ll leave you with one more set of numbers. This comes from Monmouth’s new national survey, which has the race surprisingly stable — Biden 51, Trump 41. Not much evidence of tightening there. Here’s an ominous partisan split:
Just 22 percent of Republicans say it’s somewhat likely they’ll vote by mail this fall. Among Democrats, 72 percent say so. We’re approaching a scenario in which Trump leads, possibly comfortably, in swing states when the day-of counting is finished on November 3 and then has to watch that lead evaporate as overwhelmingly Democratic mail-in voters are counted in the following days. Trump being Trump, there’s no way he won’t screech about being cheated in that situation, which now has lefties wondering if they should encourage Democratic voters to vote day-of after all. I predict a sh*tshow. In America 2020, that prediction is seldom wrong.


hotair--2020-08-11--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Bleeding Blue, Chicago fuse, biased news, foreign-policy hues, veepstak

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Bleeding Blue, Chicago fuse, biased news, foreign-policy hues, veepstakes choose, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
How big of a role will foreign policy play in this election ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary in MN-05 today , as well as cover more issues of media bias .
• Are police forces riddled with systemic racism ?
Or are polemicists taking advantage of the killing of George Floyd for their own agendas ?
Kevin Jackson of The Blacksphere joins us for the first time to talk about his documentary , Bleeding Blue , and why police are needed more than ever in inner-city minority neighborhoods .
Don ’ t miss Kevin ’ s podcast , The Kevin Jackson Show , and be sure to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-08-11--Opposition candidate in Belarus flees the country, releases video under duress

Yesterday I wrote about the election in Belarus which took place Sunday .
After the government announced that President Aleksandr Lukashenko , who has been in office since 1994 , would win another term there were massive protests in the streets and as many as 3,000 people were arrested .
Opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , a housewife who agreed to run for office after her husband was arrested , had gone to a government office with her attorneys to officially contest the results of the election which , by all accounts was fraudulent .
However , after five hours no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there was concern she had been arrested .
Today , Tikhanovskaya turned up in Lithuania , having fled her country .
She released a video on her husband ’ s popular YouTube channel in which she claimed she had made the decision on her own : Looking haggard and distressed , Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya , a former teacher and political novice , apologized to her supporters in a video statement and said it was her own choice to leave the country .
“ It was a very hard decision to make , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of you will understand me , many others will condemn me and some will even hate me .
But God forbid you ever face the choice that I faced.
” In another video statement released later on Tuesday , she urged her supporters to respect the law and avoid clashes with police .
Her campaign aides said she made the unexpected move under duress .
Tsikhanouskaya ’ s husband has been at a Belarusian jail since his arrest in May .
“ It ’ s very difficult to resist pressure when your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been taken hostages , ” said Maria Kolesnikova , a top associate of Tsikhanouskaya .
Here ’ s the first video described above .
You can use auto-translation to get a sense of what she ’ s saying but the translation isn ’ t very good .
What ’ s more important is her obvious distress .
The other video in which she asked protesters to accept the official results is even more clearly a kind of hostage video .
She ’ s reading a script and it ’ s a safe bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both of these clips were reportedly filmed in Belarus before she left the country .
It ’ s pretty clear what is happening here .
Tikhanovskaya went in to file a complaint about the election and was given a choice .
Either she could tell her supporters to accept the results of the election and flee the country with her children or she could go to jail and maybe not see her children again for a few years or longer .
And I wouldn ’ t be surprised if there were some fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her and her husband ( who is already in prison ) and maybe to her children during her stint in prison .
Some descriptions of beatings and torture seem likely .
In short , she was told ‘ read this statement or we brutalize your family.
’ That ’ s the choice she faced that she said she wouldn ’ t wish on anyone else .
She made the right choice because President Aleksandr Lukashenko would have followed through on whatever threats were made .
She would have disappeared , probably been beaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be out in the street crushing the protests .
A total of 5,000 people have been arrested so far , so many that the police stations can ’ t hold them all : This is a tragedy for the people of Belarus who very likely elected this woman to be their president yesterday ( though we ’ ll never really know ) .
Instead the dictator remains in power and the world gets another lesson in the ways that a ruthless ruler can use the state to crush dissent .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong , China , Russia and Venezuela , to name a few and the dictators seem to be growing more bold by the day .

Yesterday I wrote about the election in Belarus which took place Sunday. After the government announced that President Aleksandr Lukashenko, who has been in office since 1994, would win another term there were massive protests in the streets and as many as 3,000 people were arrested. Opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a housewife who agreed to run for office after her husband was arrested, had gone to a government office with her attorneys to officially contest the results of the election which, by all accounts was fraudulent. However, after five hours no one had seen or heard from her and there was concern she had been arrested.
Today, Tikhanovskaya turned up in Lithuania, having fled her country. She released a video on her husband’s popular YouTube channel in which she claimed she had made the decision on her own:
Looking haggard and distressed, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a former teacher and political novice, apologized to her supporters in a video statement and said it was her own choice to leave the country. “It was a very hard decision to make,” she said. “I know that many of you will understand me, many others will condemn me and some will even hate me. But God forbid you ever face the choice that I faced.” In another video statement released later on Tuesday, she urged her supporters to respect the law and avoid clashes with police. Her campaign aides said she made the unexpected move under duress. Tsikhanouskaya’s husband has been at a Belarusian jail since his arrest in May. “It’s very difficult to resist pressure when your family and all your inner circle have been taken hostages,” said Maria Kolesnikova, a top associate of Tsikhanouskaya.
Here’s the first video described above. You can use auto-translation to get a sense of what she’s saying but the translation isn’t very good. What’s more important is her obvious distress.
The other video in which she asked protesters to accept the official results is even more clearly a kind of hostage video. She’s reading a script and it’s a safe bet she didn’t write it. Both of these clips were reportedly filmed in Belarus before she left the country.
❗Before she was forced by the authorities to leave to Lithuania last night, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya was made to record this Kadyrov-style apologizing video where she calls on people to accept the official results and to not protesting pic.twitter.com/W2saD3J11U — Tadeusz Giczan (@TadeuszGiczan) August 11, 2020
It’s pretty clear what is happening here. Tikhanovskaya went in to file a complaint about the election and was given a choice. Either she could tell her supporters to accept the results of the election and flee the country with her children or she could go to jail and maybe not see her children again for a few years or longer. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some fairly clear threats about what could happen to her and her husband (who is already in prison) and maybe to her children during her stint in prison. Some descriptions of beatings and torture seem likely. In short, she was told ‘read this statement or we brutalize your family.’ That’s the choice she faced that she said she wouldn’t wish on anyone else.
She made the right choice because President Aleksandr Lukashenko would have followed through on whatever threats were made. She would have disappeared, probably been beaten and Lukashenko’s goons would still be out in the street crushing the protests.
A total of 5,000 people have been arrested so far, so many that the police stations can’t hold them all:
#Belarus: over 5000 arrests have been made these past days, more than local police stations can take in. Because there is no more room inside detainees are forced to lay on their stomachs outside on the courtyard pic.twitter.com/1KCJllXLlB — Thomas van Linge (@ThomasVLinge) August 11, 2020
This is a tragedy for the people of Belarus who very likely elected this woman to be their president yesterday (though we’ll never really know). Instead the dictator remains in power and the world gets another lesson in the ways that a ruthless ruler can use the state to crush dissent. It’s happening right now in North Korea, Hong Kong, China, Russia and Venezuela, to name a few and the dictators seem to be growing more bold by the day.


hotair--2020-08-11--BLM "protester" released after assault, 6 hour standoff with cops

During Friday ’ s edition of the “ peaceful protests ” in New York City , one self-described leader of the local Black Lives Matter chapter was seen assaulting an NYPD officer using a bullhorn .
Nearly a dozen police responded to the incident , seeking to take Derrick Ingram into custody , but Ingram ’ s supporters swarmed onto the scene , leading to a six-hour standoff between the mob and the cops .
In the end , Ingram escaped the area but then showed up to turn himself in at the local precinct on Saturday .
And because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was immediately released without bail to go back out to the streets and pick up where he left off .
To say that the police are displeased by this turn of events is an understatement .
( CBS New York ) A Black Lives Matter protest leader was free Saturday after he turned himself in to face charges for allegedly assaulting a police officer .
Twenty-eight-year-old Derrick Ingram is accused of shouting into a bullhorn that was aimed at a police officer ’ s ear during a June protest , causing pain and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arrest Ingram on Friday during a six-hour standoff in Midtown .
Ingram ’ s supporters showed up at the scene , and officers were then ordered to back off , a move that ’ s been criticized by police unions .
The handling of this incident was pretty much bungled from the beginning .
The assault on the officer may not sound like much since there wasn ’ t any physical contact , but Ingram held a bullhorn directly up to the officer ’ s ear and began screaming into it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s still an assault by any definition and Ingram should have been immediately taken into custody .
And just for the record , once you ’ ve assaulted a police officer , you are no longer a “ protester.
” You are the mob .
And he probably would have been taken into custody were it not for the need for backup because the NYPD was significantly outnumbered by people showing zero fear of or respect for the police .
By the time more cops arrived , Ingram had his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was when Police Commissioner Shea gave the order for the cops to stand down and back off .
That allowed Ingram to escape and infuriated the police unions .
Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to walk a line down the middle , calling any assault on a police officer “ unacceptable ” but still insisting Shea made the correct call .
All the Mayor and the Commissioner have done here is feed into the problem the NYPD is already facing .
Once an officer is assaulted , the perpetrator needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once they had a dozen or so cops on the scene , they could have pulled Ingram from the crowd .
If his “ supporters ” refused to back off , they should have gone in with guns drawn .
It ’ s a dangerous situation , but sometimes the police have to confront potential violence with the threat of force .
Backing down in front of the mob only reinforced the idea that they can do whatever they want and get away with it .
This is why we ’ ve seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor assaults upon NYPD officers over the past year .
Once those wishing to break the law lose their fear of the police , all bets are off .
Friday ’ s events only further emboldened them .
And then we have the question of bail .
New “ bail reform ” laws be damned .
When you ’ ve assaulted a police officer , you should either be behind bars or paying a stiff amount of bail to ensure you show up for your court date .
Letting Ingram walk scot-free and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hero ’ s welcome further reinforced the idea that the rioters have already won the war and now control the streets .
If this situation could have been handled more poorly , I can ’ t imagine how .

During Friday’s edition of the “peaceful protests” in New York City, one self-described leader of the local Black Lives Matter chapter was seen assaulting an NYPD officer using a bullhorn. Nearly a dozen police responded to the incident, seeking to take Derrick Ingram into custody, but Ingram’s supporters swarmed onto the scene, leading to a six-hour standoff between the mob and the cops. In the end, Ingram escaped the area but then showed up to turn himself in at the local precinct on Saturday. And because this is New York City, he was immediately released without bail to go back out to the streets and pick up where he left off. To say that the police are displeased by this turn of events is an understatement. (CBS New York)
A Black Lives Matter protest leader was free Saturday after he turned himself in to face charges for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Twenty-eight-year-old Derrick Ingram is accused of shouting into a bullhorn that was aimed at a police officer’s ear during a June protest, causing pain and hearing impairment. Dozens of officers tried to arrest Ingram on Friday during a six-hour standoff in Midtown. Ingram’s supporters showed up at the scene, and officers were then ordered to back off, a move that’s been criticized by police unions.
The handling of this incident was pretty much bungled from the beginning. The assault on the officer may not sound like much since there wasn’t any physical contact, but Ingram held a bullhorn directly up to the officer’s ear and began screaming into it, leading to hearing impairment and physical pain. That’s still an assault by any definition and Ingram should have been immediately taken into custody. And just for the record, once you’ve assaulted a police officer, you are no longer a “protester.” You are the mob.
And he probably would have been taken into custody were it not for the need for backup because the NYPD was significantly outnumbered by people showing zero fear of or respect for the police. By the time more cops arrived, Ingram had his own small army of supporters present. That was when Police Commissioner Shea gave the order for the cops to stand down and back off. That allowed Ingram to escape and infuriated the police unions. Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to walk a line down the middle, calling any assault on a police officer “unacceptable” but still insisting Shea made the correct call.
All the Mayor and the Commissioner have done here is feed into the problem the NYPD is already facing. Once an officer is assaulted, the perpetrator needs to be arrested immediately by whatever means necessary. Once they had a dozen or so cops on the scene, they could have pulled Ingram from the crowd. If his “supporters” refused to back off, they should have gone in with guns drawn. It’s a dangerous situation, but sometimes the police have to confront potential violence with the threat of force.
Backing down in front of the mob only reinforced the idea that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. This is why we’ve seen so many instances of disrespect for and minor assaults upon NYPD officers over the past year. Once those wishing to break the law lose their fear of the police, all bets are off. Friday’s events only further emboldened them.
And then we have the question of bail. New “bail reform” laws be damned. When you’ve assaulted a police officer, you should either be behind bars or paying a stiff amount of bail to ensure you show up for your court date. Letting Ingram walk scot-free and return to his “supporters” for a hero’s welcome further reinforced the idea that the rioters have already won the war and now control the streets. If this situation could have been handled more poorly, I can’t imagine how.


hotair--2020-08-11--ABC News: Ilhan Omar's primary challenger "weaponizing her celebrity status," you know

Behold this totally balanced and not-at-all loaded Twitter headline from ABC News regarding today ’ s primary in MN-05 .
“ Weaponizing her celebrity status ” ?
Or pointing out that the district could get a progressive Democrat without going the full Farrakhan about Jews ?
What does that mean ?
“ Pouncing with guns , ” one Twitter follower suggested , but we know that only Republicans pounce , according to media standards .
Or maybe it ’ s a scale : On that scale , expect to see media outlets report this as “ pouncing ” soon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit better in reporting on the race , at least at first .
They feature Antone Melton-Meaux ’ s actual argument against Omar — not “ celebrity , ” but on her anti-Semitic remarks and campaign-finance scandals : Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , is set to defend her seat in Minnesota ’ s 5th Congressional District on Tuesday , in one of the most expensive primary campaigns in the state .
Antone Melton-Meaux , a Black lawyer and mediator , has emerged as Omar ’ s most serious challenger .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marred the congresswoman ’ s first term , including Omar ’ s criticism pertaining to the influence of pro-Israel donors and accusations of potential campaign finance violations .
In an interview with ABC News , Melton-Meaux described himself as a progressive who wants to address the “ underlying systemic issues of racism , ” the inequities in education , housing , health care and the economy , as well as to move toward reducing carbon footprint .
However , the report also includes the “ weaponizing celebrity ” take too : I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ weaponizing ” anything .
Did the media report that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “ weaponized ” those same arguments against Joe Crowley two years ago ?
Or how Dave Brat “ weaponized ” them against Eric Cantor ?
Those are pretty traditional arguments from primary challengers to incumbents , even those without “ celebrity , ” which in Omar ’ s case should probably be described more as “ notoriety.
” NBC News doesn ’ t do much better , but at least they don ’ t claim that Melton-Meaux has “ weaponized ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to learn whether voters in her Minneapolis-area congressional district support the mix of confrontational , anti-Trump progressivism and celebrity that she brings to the job .
Omar , the first Somali American and one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress , is facing a surprisingly well-funded challenger in Minnesota ’ s Democratic primaries on Tuesday .
Antone Melton-Meaux , a Black lawyer and mediator , raised millions of anti-Omar dollars to fill mailboxes and flood airwaves .
His “ Focused on the Fifth ” message has portrayed Omar , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four progressive female lawmakers , as out of touch with the 5th District .
Omar rejected Melton-Meaux ’ s attacks , saying they were funded by interests that wanted to get her out of Congress because she ’ s effective .
She also downplayed Melton-Meaux ’ s money and played up her ground game before the vote , saying , “ Organized people will always beat organized money.
” Thanks to a “ tidal wave ” of mail-in ballots , we probably won ’ t know tonight who won in MN-05 .
Usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incumbent , but in this case there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with Omar and her constant scandal eruptions .
Omar ’ s standing has deteriorated enough that the Star Tribune felt compelled to endorse Melton-Meaux as a way to restore “ integrity and progress.
” Just how influential that endorsement will be is anyone ’ s guess , but it also reflects current Minneapolis thinking about its one-term wonder .
And in an ominous sign for Omar , she ’ s not getting a lot of help this time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being vastly outspent on the air , a dynamic that is usually concerning for an incumbent .
Melton-Meaux has spent nearly $ 2.1 million on TV ads , compared to Omar ’ s $ 875,000 , according to data compiled by the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics .
Omar has invested some $ 400,000 on digital ads but Melton-Meaux has $ 1.5 million in outside help .
A high-spending super PAC , Americans for Tomorrow ’ s Future , has also waded into the race , spending close to $ 2.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and boosting Melton-Meaux .
The group had previously contributed to DMFI PAC — a pro-Israel super PAC that unsuccessfully tried to save Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-N.Y. ) in his primary with Jamaal Bowman — and uses Anedot to process payments , a firm popular with Republicans until it was recently usurped by WinRed .
… Progressive groups , who spent big to help Tlaib in her primary last week , have not done much to back up Omar .
The congresswoman ’ s internal polling from early July showed her with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party fear this primary will be much closer than Tlaib ’ s .
Is that an oversight , or a deliberate choice to put the scandal-plagued Squad member at arm ’ s length ?

Behold this totally balanced and not-at-all loaded Twitter headline from ABC News regarding today’s primary in MN-05. “Weaponizing her celebrity status”? Or pointing out that the district could get a progressive Democrat without going the full Farrakhan about Jews?
While her national profile has turned Rep. Ilhan Omar into a progressive firebrand, her opponent has been weaponizing her celebrity status. https://t.co/mLesRRMyfo — ABC News (@ABC) August 11, 2020
What does that mean? “Pouncing with guns,” one Twitter follower suggested, but we know that only Republicans pounce, according to media standards. Or maybe it’s a scale:
Where does "weaponize" fall on the pounce scale? Above railing or below? pic.twitter.com/Ivyqgozlkn — Alex Jeffries (@the1codemonkey) August 11, 2020
On that scale, expect to see media outlets report this as “pouncing” soon.
The actual report from ABC does a bit better in reporting on the race, at least at first. They feature Antone Melton-Meaux’s actual argument against Omar — not “celebrity,” but on her anti-Semitic remarks and campaign-finance scandals:
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is set to defend her seat in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District on Tuesday, in one of the most expensive primary campaigns in the state. Antone Melton-Meaux, a Black lawyer and mediator, has emerged as Omar’s most serious challenger. He has capitalized on the several controversies that have marred the congresswoman’s first term, including Omar’s criticism pertaining to the influence of pro-Israel donors and accusations of potential campaign finance violations. In an interview with ABC News, Melton-Meaux described himself as a progressive who wants to address the “underlying systemic issues of racism,” the inequities in education, housing, health care and the economy, as well as to move toward reducing carbon footprint.
However, the report also includes the “weaponizing celebrity” take too:
While her national profile has turned Omar into a progressive firebrand, her opponent has been weaponizing her celebrity status. Melton-Meaux has repeatedly critiqued Omar as disengaged from her constituents, more focused on achieving personal fame and national celebrity than on resolving the district’s problems.
I’m not sure how that’s “weaponizing” anything. Did the media report that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “weaponized” those same arguments against Joe Crowley two years ago? Or how Dave Brat “weaponized” them against Eric Cantor? Those are pretty traditional arguments from primary challengers to incumbents, even those without “celebrity,” which in Omar’s case should probably be described more as “notoriety.”
NBC News doesn’t do much better, but at least they don’t claim that Melton-Meaux has “weaponized” anything:
Rep. Ilhan Omar is about to learn whether voters in her Minneapolis-area congressional district support the mix of confrontational, anti-Trump progressivism and celebrity that she brings to the job. Omar, the first Somali American and one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, is facing a surprisingly well-funded challenger in Minnesota’s Democratic primaries on Tuesday. Antone Melton-Meaux, a Black lawyer and mediator, raised millions of anti-Omar dollars to fill mailboxes and flood airwaves. His “Focused on the Fifth” message has portrayed Omar, a member of “The Squad” of four progressive female lawmakers, as out of touch with the 5th District. Omar rejected Melton-Meaux’s attacks, saying they were funded by interests that wanted to get her out of Congress because she’s effective. She also downplayed Melton-Meaux’s money and played up her ground game before the vote, saying, “Organized people will always beat organized money.”
Thanks to a “tidal wave” of mail-in ballots, we probably won’t know tonight who won in MN-05. Usually it’s safer to bet on the incumbent, but in this case there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with Omar and her constant scandal eruptions. Omar’s standing has deteriorated enough that the Star Tribune felt compelled to endorse Melton-Meaux as a way to restore “integrity and progress.” Just how influential that endorsement will be is anyone’s guess, but it also reflects current Minneapolis thinking about its one-term wonder. And in an ominous sign for Omar, she’s not getting a lot of help this time around from her progressive pals:
Omar is being vastly outspent on the air, a dynamic that is usually concerning for an incumbent. Melton-Meaux has spent nearly $2.1 million on TV ads, compared to Omar’s $875,000, according to data compiled by the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics. Omar has invested some $400,000 on digital ads but Melton-Meaux has $1.5 million in outside help. A high-spending super PAC, Americans for Tomorrow’s Future, has also waded into the race, spending close to $2.5 million on mailers and TV ads criticizing Omar and boosting Melton-Meaux. The group had previously contributed to DMFI PAC — a pro-Israel super PAC that unsuccessfully tried to save Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) in his primary with Jamaal Bowman — and uses Anedot to process payments, a firm popular with Republicans until it was recently usurped by WinRed. … Progressive groups, who spent big to help Tlaib in her primary last week, have not done much to back up Omar. The congresswoman’s internal polling from early July showed her with a big lead — but some operatives in the party fear this primary will be much closer than Tlaib’s.
Is that an oversight, or a deliberate choice to put the scandal-plagued Squad member at arm’s length?


hotair--2020-08-11--Retail chains complain business in New York City is 'unsustainable'

Retail chains are trying to stay alive despite the coronavirus and that seems to be working in some parts of the country , but not so much in New York City .
Today the NY Times reports that major chains have boarded up , stopped paying their rent and some may not come back .
While having an outlet in the city is prestigious from a branding point of view , it ’ s just not sustainable without the usual crowd of tourists who have mostly abandoned the city .
Michael Weinstein , the chief executive of Ark Restaurants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 19 other restaurants , said he will never open another restaurant in New York… “ There ’ s no reason to do business in New York , ” Mr. Weinstein said .
“ I can do the same volume in Florida in the same square feet as I would have in New York , with my expenses being much less .
The idea was that branding and locations were important , but the expense of being in this city has overtaken the marketing group that says you have to be there.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corridors , from SoHo to Fifth Avenue to Madison Avenue , once packed sidewalks are now nearly empty .
A fraction of the usual army of office workers goes into work every day , and many wealthy residents have left the city for second homes… “ In the prime real estate areas , all the stores rely on having half international tourists and half local tourists or those from the local neighborhoods , ” said Thiago Hueb , a founder of a jewelry company who had decided to close his flagship store on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of high rents… For Veggie Grill , a California-based chain of 35 restaurants , New York is “ the most difficult market for us to operate in right now , ” said Jay Gentile , the company ’ s chief operating officer… “ We have two hours at lunch and 2½ hours at dinner to make our money , ” he said .
“ We ’ re still paying very high rent .
It ’ s unsustainable.
” The tourists won ’ t come back until big attractions like Broadway reopen , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying sky high rents despite having no customers .
Some chains like Victoria ’ s Secret have simply stopped paying their rent while stores are closed and that ’ s leading to a new wave of lawsuits by property owners .
Another reason stores in New York are doing especially badly : None of them have drive-thrus .
In the suburbs , outlets like Shake Shack can serve people in their cars and people seem more comfortable with that .
But stores in NYC don ’ t have drive-thrus so it all comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there just isn ’ t much of that happening in the city .
But there is another reason to suspect things won ’ t return to normal anytime soon .
A lot of people have simply left the city .
It started as the pandemic was breaking out back in February/March .
The result has been visible in the drop in rents in the city for the first time since the recession : According to StreetEasy , Manhattan posted a 3.1 percent drop in rent as of July , the largest year-over-year drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell almost 10 percent .
UrbanDigs , a data analytics provider , showed median rents dropping 6 percent compared to last year .
And they don ’ t think this drop will end anytime soon… When the pandemic hit in March , parts of Manhattan emptied out as residents left to stay with relatives or moved second homes outside of the city .
At the same time , NYC ’ s unemployment rate spiked to 20.4 percent in June — double the city ’ s Great-Recession peak in December 2009 .
This likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fled the city won ’ t be coming back .
Some lost their jobs and can ’ t afford to return ; others are now working remotely and have realized that it is easier to work from home in a place where you have more room .
There are issues of child care too , as New York struggles with trying to bring its students back to school .
Others are afraid to ride the subway and wonder : What ’ s the point of living in Manhattan without the theater or bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of college students is on hold .
Simply put , a lot of people have realized the big city is a terrible place to be in a pandemic and many won ’ t be coming back .
This will have a lasting impact on everything from rents and vacancies to foot traffic and retail sales .
Until the threat of the virus goes away ( because of a vaccine or treatment ) NYC is going to have a very tough time luring people back .
I found this video of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city and talking about how empty it is .
This was posted on this site a week ago so it ’ s fairly current .
Near the end of this he walks into Times Square around noon and , you guessed it , there ’ s almost no one there .

Retail chains are trying to stay alive despite the coronavirus and that seems to be working in some parts of the country, but not so much in New York City. Today the NY Times reports that major chains have boarded up, stopped paying their rent and some may not come back. While having an outlet in the city is prestigious from a branding point of view, it’s just not sustainable without the usual crowd of tourists who have mostly abandoned the city.
Michael Weinstein, the chief executive of Ark Restaurants, who owns Bryant Park Grill & Cafe and 19 other restaurants, said he will never open another restaurant in New York… “There’s no reason to do business in New York,” Mr. Weinstein said. “I can do the same volume in Florida in the same square feet as I would have in New York, with my expenses being much less. The idea was that branding and locations were important, but the expense of being in this city has overtaken the marketing group that says you have to be there.”… In Manhattan’s major retail corridors, from SoHo to Fifth Avenue to Madison Avenue, once packed sidewalks are now nearly empty. A fraction of the usual army of office workers goes into work every day, and many wealthy residents have left the city for second homes… “In the prime real estate areas, all the stores rely on having half international tourists and half local tourists or those from the local neighborhoods,” said Thiago Hueb, a founder of a jewelry company who had decided to close his flagship store on Madison Avenue before the pandemic struck because of high rents… For Veggie Grill, a California-based chain of 35 restaurants, New York is “the most difficult market for us to operate in right now,” said Jay Gentile, the company’s chief operating officer… “We have two hours at lunch and 2½ hours at dinner to make our money,” he said. “We’re still paying very high rent. It’s unsustainable.”
The tourists won’t come back until big attractions like Broadway reopen, but in the meantime these outlets are stuck paying sky high rents despite having no customers. Some chains like Victoria’s Secret have simply stopped paying their rent while stores are closed and that’s leading to a new wave of lawsuits by property owners.
Another reason stores in New York are doing especially badly: None of them have drive-thrus. In the suburbs, outlets like Shake Shack can serve people in their cars and people seem more comfortable with that. But stores in NYC don’t have drive-thrus so it all comes down to foot traffic and right now there just isn’t much of that happening in the city.
But there is another reason to suspect things won’t return to normal anytime soon. A lot of people have simply left the city. It started as the pandemic was breaking out back in February/March. The result has been visible in the drop in rents in the city for the first time since the recession:
According to StreetEasy, Manhattan posted a 3.1 percent drop in rent as of July, the largest year-over-year drop since the Great Recession, when rent fell almost 10 percent. UrbanDigs, a data analytics provider, showed median rents dropping 6 percent compared to last year. And they don’t think this drop will end anytime soon… When the pandemic hit in March, parts of Manhattan emptied out as residents left to stay with relatives or moved second homes outside of the city. At the same time, NYC’s unemployment rate spiked to 20.4 percent in June — double the city’s Great-Recession peak in December 2009. This likely means that many of the people who fled the city won’t be coming back. Some lost their jobs and can’t afford to return; others are now working remotely and have realized that it is easier to work from home in a place where you have more room. There are issues of child care too, as New York struggles with trying to bring its students back to school. Others are afraid to ride the subway and wonder: What’s the point of living in Manhattan without the theater or bar scene? Meanwhile, the annual influx of thousands of college students is on hold.
Simply put, a lot of people have realized the big city is a terrible place to be in a pandemic and many won’t be coming back. This will have a lasting impact on everything from rents and vacancies to foot traffic and retail sales. Until the threat of the virus goes away (because of a vaccine or treatment) NYC is going to have a very tough time luring people back.
I found this video of a radio guy named Joey Contino walking around the city and talking about how empty it is. This was posted on this site a week ago so it’s fairly current. Near the end of this he walks into Times Square around noon and, you guessed it, there’s almost no one there.


hotair--2020-08-11--Chicago alderman: Bring in the feds as Lightfoot "totally unprepared"

Enough with the excuses , one Chicago alderman declared yesterday after the coordinated looting of the Magnificent Mile .
Brian Hopkins told local radio station WGN that he witnessed the police response to the action , which he claimed was too timid and disorganized to stop the pillaging of Chicago ’ s business district .
Hopkins also published a statement demanding a serious plan from Mayor Lori Lightfoot to restore order — and failing that , to get federal assistance in putting down unrest in Second City : Brian Hopkins , an alderman who represents parts of the downtown area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CWBChicago Monday night .
“ Our city was devastated by widespread looting and rioting for which our mayor seemed totally unprepared , ” he said .
He also accused Lightfoot of offering “ nothing but rhetoric and blame , ” just like she did after similar riots in May .
He demanded she come up with a “ safety plan that will protect all neighborhoods and small business owners.
” Anything short of that and “ I am strongly in favor of asking for federal assistance , ” Hopkins said .
Hopkins had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ward , the Chicago Tribune reports , when the looting broke out .
Lightfoot ’ s call for “ unity ” yesterday left Hopkins unimpressed after watching Lightfoot ’ s administration all but abandon the city ’ s business and retail district the night before .
Unless Lightfoot puts together a plan to enforce the law right now , Hopkins warns that Chicago might not have businesses and retail left to protect : “ The real question today is , where was the strategy ?
What was the decision making at the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means the police superintendent and the mayor , who ’ s a very hands-on mayor when it comes to these kinds of decisions.
” Hopkins painted a bleak picture for the city if Lightfoot can ’ t get such criminal activity in and around downtown under control .
“ Literally , the future of Chicago hangs in the balance , I don ’ t think it ’ s an overstatement to say that , ” he said .
“ If this continues , how can Chicago survive ?
What will be left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and the for-sale signs go up on all the condos near Michigan Avenue ?
People who live around there have had their sense of safety badly shaken .
This is our tax base , by the way .
We count on tax revenue from this area of the city to fund all number of other programs we count on.
” “ Ald .
Hopkins has a penchant for letting his mouth run before he actually gets the facts , ” Lightfoot said .
“ I don ’ t think there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further.
” “ What we need now is not Monday morning quarterbacks and sideline critics .
What we need is to come together as a city and have a united strategy and focus , ” Lightfoot added .
“ We ’ re focused , we ’ re not going to let the noise of people that like to chatter before they know what the facts are get in the way and that ’ s all I ’ ll say about that.
” Ahem .
The facts that Hopkins sees is the looting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless of what Lightfoot said she did in preparation and response , the objective facts are that it was totally insufficient .
Criminals pillaged with impunity , and the city ’ s administration did nothing effective to stop it .
Hopkins isn ’ t the only one warning about leadership .
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Fran Spielman warned last night that the city was about to become the new Detroit unless Lightfoot figures out a better response than what she offered over the weekend .
Spielman echoed Hopkins ’ point about a disappearing tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it : The coordinated looting that overwhelmed police and left huge swaths of downtown and the Near North Side ransacked threatens to turn Chicago into pre-renaissance Detroit .
If it does , Mayor Lori Lightfoot will pay the price , whether or not she was powerless to stop it .
Businesses that survived the stay-at-home shutdown and sustained heavy losses during the looting in late May triggered by the death of George Floyd may be reluctant to rebuild for fear they won ’ t be protected .
Even if they do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dining or going to the theater downtown .
Empty-nesters and young people drawn to the city by the nightlife and cultural attractions that made Chicago a magnet for corporate headquarters may abandon the city as well because they , too , no longer feel safe .
Population gains downtown and on the Near North and Near West sides have helped offset the loss of Chicago ’ s Black middle class .
If both groups continue to leave Chicago , the city will hemorrhage population and lose its tax base .
Spielman also noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and her attempt to shut down a question from a reporter over Lightfoot ’ s demand for accountability .
“ Don ’ t bait us , ” she admonished when WSL-TV reporter Craig Wall asked whether that was a criticism of State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx : Tough stance .
Too bad that toughness doesn ’ t translate into getting control of the streets .
“ Because of what happened last night , ” Lightfoot said , “ there have to be consequences .
.. We are in a serious situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a serious response.
” That ’ s the point Hopkins made , too , and he ’ s arguing that Lightfoot and this administration isn ’ t providing one so far .
And that is a very serious situation .
Exit question , of sorts : Does anyone think that Rahm Emanuel would have let the situation get this far out of hand ?

Enough with the excuses, one Chicago alderman declared yesterday after the coordinated looting of the Magnificent Mile. Brian Hopkins told local radio station WGN that he witnessed the police response to the action, which he claimed was too timid and disorganized to stop the pillaging of Chicago’s business district. Hopkins also published a statement demanding a serious plan from Mayor Lori Lightfoot to restore order — and failing that, to get federal assistance in putting down unrest in Second City:
Brian Hopkins, an alderman who represents parts of the downtown area, blasted Lightfoot in a statement to CWBChicago Monday night. “Our city was devastated by widespread looting and rioting for which our mayor seemed totally unprepared,” he said. He also accused Lightfoot of offering “nothing but rhetoric and blame,” just like she did after similar riots in May. He demanded she come up with a “safety plan that will protect all neighborhoods and small business owners.” Anything short of that and “I am strongly in favor of asking for federal assistance,” Hopkins said.
Hopkins had been on this streets in his downtown ward, the Chicago Tribune reports, when the looting broke out. Lightfoot’s call for “unity” yesterday left Hopkins unimpressed after watching Lightfoot’s administration all but abandon the city’s business and retail district the night before. Unless Lightfoot puts together a plan to enforce the law right now, Hopkins warns that Chicago might not have businesses and retail left to protect:
“The real question today is, where was the strategy? What was the decision making at the highest levels?” Hopkins said. “That means the police superintendent and the mayor, who’s a very hands-on mayor when it comes to these kinds of decisions.” Hopkins painted a bleak picture for the city if Lightfoot can’t get such criminal activity in and around downtown under control. “Literally, the future of Chicago hangs in the balance, I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that,” he said. “If this continues, how can Chicago survive? What will be left downtown after Water Tower Place gets boarded up and the for-sale signs go up on all the condos near Michigan Avenue? People who live around there have had their sense of safety badly shaken. This is our tax base, by the way. We count on tax revenue from this area of the city to fund all number of other programs we count on.”
Lightfoot shrugged off Hopkin’s criticism:
“Ald. Hopkins has a penchant for letting his mouth run before he actually gets the facts,” Lightfoot said. “I don’t think there’s any reason for me to say anything further.” “What we need now is not Monday morning quarterbacks and sideline critics. What we need is to come together as a city and have a united strategy and focus,” Lightfoot added. “We’re focused, we’re not going to let the noise of people that like to chatter before they know what the facts are get in the way and that’s all I’ll say about that.”
Ahem. The facts that Hopkins sees is the looting and lack of effective response to it. Regardless of what Lightfoot said she did in preparation and response, the objective facts are that it was totally insufficient. Criminals pillaged with impunity, and the city’s administration did nothing effective to stop it.
Hopkins isn’t the only one warning about leadership. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Fran Spielman warned last night that the city was about to become the new Detroit unless Lightfoot figures out a better response than what she offered over the weekend. Spielman echoed Hopkins’ point about a disappearing tax base, and Lightfoot’s responsibility for it:
The coordinated looting that overwhelmed police and left huge swaths of downtown and the Near North Side ransacked threatens to turn Chicago into pre-renaissance Detroit. If it does, Mayor Lori Lightfoot will pay the price, whether or not she was powerless to stop it. Businesses that survived the stay-at-home shutdown and sustained heavy losses during the looting in late May triggered by the death of George Floyd may be reluctant to rebuild for fear they won’t be protected. Even if they do, customers may not feel safe shopping, dining or going to the theater downtown. Empty-nesters and young people drawn to the city by the nightlife and cultural attractions that made Chicago a magnet for corporate headquarters may abandon the city as well because they, too, no longer feel safe. Population gains downtown and on the Near North and Near West sides have helped offset the loss of Chicago’s Black middle class. If both groups continue to leave Chicago, the city will hemorrhage population and lose its tax base.
Spielman also noted “Lightfoot’s notoriously thin skin” and her attempt to shut down a question from a reporter over Lightfoot’s demand for accountability. “Don’t bait us,” she admonished when WSL-TV reporter Craig Wall asked whether that was a criticism of State’s Attorney Kim Foxx:
Tough stance. Too bad that toughness doesn’t translate into getting control of the streets. “Because of what happened last night,” Lightfoot said, “there have to be consequences. .. We are in a serious situation here, and we need to have a serious response.” That’s the point Hopkins made, too, and he’s arguing that Lightfoot and this administration isn’t providing one so far. And that is a very serious situation.
Exit question, of sorts: Does anyone think that Rahm Emanuel would have let the situation get this far out of hand?


hotair--2020-08-11--Putin: We have a vaccine

Putin: We have a vaccine

In case it wasn ’ t clear enough that Putin views being “ first ” in the global vaccine race as a matter of intense national prestige , they ’ re calling their product “ Sputnik V. ” Congrats to Russia on having won the Cold War after all , I guess .
No , actually , this is propaganda , as you might expect .
Watch , then read on .
As I understand it , vaccine candidates typically go through three phases of testing .
Phase one tests the product for basic safety on a small number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , phase two broadens the sample to many hundreds of people and tests for whether it produces antibodies .
If it does then it ’ s on to phase three for the big test , whether the product actually prevents the disease from developing in people who ’ ve been infected or , if the vaccine is really effective , prevents infection from happening in the first place .
That test involves tens of thousands of subjects since researchers need to be confident that some members of their sample will actually encounter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you test on only 100 people , say , and none get sick , you won ’ t have a sense of whether the vaccine protected them or whether collectively they just weren ’ t exposed much to the virus during the observation period .
Several American vaccines , like Moderna and Novavax , have already cleared phases one and two and are either conducting phase three right now or are about to .
Russia ’ s counter is to … simply skip phase three altogether .
They ’ ve tested their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seem confident that it ’ s producing antibodies in recipients — although , not surprisingly , they haven ’ t shared their data with the world .
Instead of doing a proper phase three , i.e .
a clinical study in which thousands are given the vaccine and thousands are given a placebo and then the rates of infection in the two groups are compared , they ’ re just going to roll that sucker out into the population and hope for the best .
And not just in Russia , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world are clamoring to treat their constituents as guinea pigs for Putin ’ s vaccine .
Even some Russian scientists are concerned .
Russia on Tuesday became the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine for use in tens of thousands of its citizens despite international skepticism about injections that have not completed clinical trials and were studied in only dozens of people for less than two months… “ Fast-tracked approval will not make Russia the leader in the ( vaccine ) race , it will just expose consumers of the vaccine to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association of Clinical Trials Organizations said Monday , urging government officials to postpone clearing the vaccine without completed advanced trials… The trials study will span several countries , including the UAE , Saudi Arabia , the Philippines and possibly Brazil , and involve “ several thousand people , ” Dmitriev said .
In the meantime , the vaccine will be offered to tens of thousands of people who volunteer to be vaccinated… According to officials , large-scale production of the vaccine will start in September , and mass vaccination may begin as early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecause it ’ s testing a much larger group of people , a Phase 3 trial can also pick up more subtle side effects of a vaccine that earlier trials could not , ” notes the Times , ominously .
Putin sought to reassure skeptics by having his own daughter receive the vaccine , which he admits generated a brief fever in her before she felt better .
Involving his own child is his way of encouraging people to ask themselves , “ If he weren ’ t confident that the vaccine was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own kid to be injected it ?
” To which one might reasonably answer : Well , yes ?
What has this guy ever said or done to convince anyone that his moral scruples might intervene in a matter that would otherwise enhance Russia ’ s , and his own , international prestige ?
Scott Gottlieb was asked this morning on CNBC if he ’ d take the Russian product , which is an adenovirus vaccine along the lines of what Oxford is working on .
No thanks : Why would anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s barely been tested and for which data isn ’ t available ?
I don ’ t buy Gottlieb ’ s suggestion , though , that this is a way for Putin to bait Trump into trying to rush through America ’ s own leading vaccine candidate .
Certainly , the risk is there .
For the planet ’ s authoritarians , the vaccine race is a sort of dong-measuring contest and Trump won ’ t like being told that his/America ’ s dong isn ’ t the biggest .
A senior official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House ’ s COVID response told WaPo recently , “ Everyone is busy trying to create a Potemkin village for [ Trump ] every day .
You ’ re not supposed to see this behavior in liberal democracies that are founded on principles of rule of law .
Everyone bends over backwards to create this Potemkin village for him and for his inner circle.
” Would the yes-men around him try to create a Potemkin village about the vaccine , assuring him that we have enough data to approve a leading candidate when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the difference between Trump and Putin , I think/hope , is that American scientists would feel more comfortable speaking out against that than their Russian counterparts might .
Trump and his team don ’ t have the credibility to sell an untested product to a public that ’ s already skeptical of vaccines if doctors are out there claiming that it ’ s not ready for primetime .
Look at what happened with hydroxychloroquine : Four days ago a poll found that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump sharing videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against COVID .
If there ’ s that much skepticism about HCQ , a medication that ’ s been used commercially in other contexts for decades , imagine the skepticism about a rushed-through novel vaccine with people like Gottlieb on TV every day insisting that it might not be safe .
It also doesn ’ t make sense strategically .
If it ’ s true that Russia favors Trump in the election while China and Iran favor Biden , why would Putin want to hand Democrats a pre-election talking point like , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries are beating us to the vaccine ” ?
And then there ’ s the matter of Putin having to put up or shut up .
Now that he ’ s announced that the vaccine has been approved , word will trickle out from Russia this fall about whether the product is effective or not .
Even if Putin can bottle that up to a large degree , some sense will be gleaned from other countries where the vaccine is being administered , like Saudi Arabia and the UAE , as to whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a bust , his prestige will suffer .
That ’ s a mighty big risk for him to take just to get a leg up on the U.S .
Speaking of which , I think the geopolitical backdrop to today ’ s announcement is worth noting .
Mass protests have rocked parts of eastern Russia over the past few weeks ; meanwhile , Belarus , on Russia ’ s western flank , seems headed for civil war after allegations of fraud by the incumbent in its recent presidential election .
Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for him to reassert Russian influence in a former Soviet state .
Both at home and ( slightly ) abroad , in other words , he ’ d benefit from a major shot of prestige right now .
Lo and behold , here he is announcing the world ’ s first state-approved coronavirus vaccine .
The timing is suspiciously fortuitous .

In case it wasn’t clear enough that Putin views being “first” in the global vaccine race as a matter of intense national prestige, they’re calling their product “Sputnik V.”
Congrats to Russia on having won the Cold War after all, I guess.
No, actually, this is propaganda, as you might expect. Watch, then read on.
As I understand it, vaccine candidates typically go through three phases of testing. Phase one tests the product for basic safety on a small number of people. If it’s safe, phase two broadens the sample to many hundreds of people and tests for whether it produces antibodies. If it does then it’s on to phase three for the big test, whether the product actually prevents the disease from developing in people who’ve been infected or, if the vaccine is really effective, prevents infection from happening in the first place. That test involves tens of thousands of subjects since researchers need to be confident that some members of their sample will actually encounter the virus while living their daily lives. If you test on only 100 people, say, and none get sick, you won’t have a sense of whether the vaccine protected them or whether collectively they just weren’t exposed much to the virus during the observation period.
Several American vaccines, like Moderna and Novavax, have already cleared phases one and two and are either conducting phase three right now or are about to. Russia’s counter is to … simply skip phase three altogether. They’ve tested their product on only a few dozen people and seem confident that it’s producing antibodies in recipients — although, not surprisingly, they haven’t shared their data with the world. Instead of doing a proper phase three, i.e. a clinical study in which thousands are given the vaccine and thousands are given a placebo and then the rates of infection in the two groups are compared, they’re just going to roll that sucker out into the population and hope for the best.
And not just in Russia, either. A number of autocrats across the world are clamoring to treat their constituents as guinea pigs for Putin’s vaccine. Even some Russian scientists are concerned.
Russia on Tuesday became the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine for use in tens of thousands of its citizens despite international skepticism about injections that have not completed clinical trials and were studied in only dozens of people for less than two months… “Fast-tracked approval will not make Russia the leader in the (vaccine) race, it will just expose consumers of the vaccine to unnecessary danger,” Russia’s Association of Clinical Trials Organizations said Monday, urging government officials to postpone clearing the vaccine without completed advanced trials… The trials study will span several countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and possibly Brazil, and involve “several thousand people,” Dmitriev said. In the meantime, the vaccine will be offered to tens of thousands of people who volunteer to be vaccinated… According to officials, large-scale production of the vaccine will start in September, and mass vaccination may begin as early as October.
“[B]ecause it’s testing a much larger group of people, a Phase 3 trial can also pick up more subtle side effects of a vaccine that earlier trials could not,” notes the Times, ominously. Putin sought to reassure skeptics by having his own daughter receive the vaccine, which he admits generated a brief fever in her before she felt better. Involving his own child is his way of encouraging people to ask themselves, “If he weren’t confident that the vaccine was safe, would he really have allowed his own kid to be injected it?”
To which one might reasonably answer: Well, yes? What has this guy ever said or done to convince anyone that his moral scruples might intervene in a matter that would otherwise enhance Russia’s, and his own, international prestige?
Scott Gottlieb was asked this morning on CNBC if he’d take the Russian product, which is an adenovirus vaccine along the lines of what Oxford is working on. No thanks:
Russia was reported to be behind disinformation campaigns to sow doubts in U.S. about our Covid vaccines; and today’s news that they “approved” a vaccine on the equivalent of phase 1 data may be another effort to stoke doubts or goad U.S. into forcing early action on our vaccines https://t.co/WR6xPkFcfJ — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) August 11, 2020
Why would anyone willingly be injected with something that’s barely been tested and for which data isn’t available?
I don’t buy Gottlieb’s suggestion, though, that this is a way for Putin to bait Trump into trying to rush through America’s own leading vaccine candidate. Certainly, the risk is there. For the planet’s authoritarians, the vaccine race is a sort of dong-measuring contest and Trump won’t like being told that his/America’s dong isn’t the biggest. A senior official who’s working on the White House’s COVID response told WaPo recently, “Everyone is busy trying to create a Potemkin village for [Trump] every day. You’re not supposed to see this behavior in liberal democracies that are founded on principles of rule of law. Everyone bends over backwards to create this Potemkin village for him and for his inner circle.” Would the yes-men around him try to create a Potemkin village about the vaccine, assuring him that we have enough data to approve a leading candidate when we really don’t? Sure.
But the difference between Trump and Putin, I think/hope, is that American scientists would feel more comfortable speaking out against that than their Russian counterparts might. Trump and his team don’t have the credibility to sell an untested product to a public that’s already skeptical of vaccines if doctors are out there claiming that it’s not ready for primetime. Look at what happened with hydroxychloroquine: Four days ago a poll found that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump sharing videos touting the drug’s alleged efficacy against COVID. If there’s that much skepticism about HCQ, a medication that’s been used commercially in other contexts for decades, imagine the skepticism about a rushed-through novel vaccine with people like Gottlieb on TV every day insisting that it might not be safe.
It also doesn’t make sense strategically. If it’s true that Russia favors Trump in the election while China and Iran favor Biden, why would Putin want to hand Democrats a pre-election talking point like, “Trump is so incompetent that even second-world countries are beating us to the vaccine”?
And then there’s the matter of Putin having to put up or shut up. Now that he’s announced that the vaccine has been approved, word will trickle out from Russia this fall about whether the product is effective or not. Even if Putin can bottle that up to a large degree, some sense will be gleaned from other countries where the vaccine is being administered, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as to whether it works or not. If it’s a bust, his prestige will suffer. That’s a mighty big risk for him to take just to get a leg up on the U.S.
Speaking of which, I think the geopolitical backdrop to today’s announcement is worth noting. Mass protests have rocked parts of eastern Russia over the past few weeks; meanwhile, Belarus, on Russia’s western flank, seems headed for civil war after allegations of fraud by the incumbent in its recent presidential election. Putin is now backing that incumbent, a way for him to reassert Russian influence in a former Soviet state. Both at home and (slightly) abroad, in other words, he’d benefit from a major shot of prestige right now. Lo and behold, here he is announcing the world’s first state-approved coronavirus vaccine. The timing is suspiciously fortuitous.
But hey, maybe it’ll work. Here’s hoping. Exit quotation
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1293163086162137089


hotair--2020-08-11--Democrat women to media: Don't even think about sexist or racist coverage of Biden's running mate

There is no longer any pretense made by the Democrats to hide their control of the press coverage given to Joe Biden and his campaign for president .
Stories have been written about demands made by Team Joe and the press willingly falls into line .
Now some prominent Democrat women are delivering a new set of marching orders to the press .
They demand fair coverage of Biden ’ s running mate , whoever he chooses .
We know he will choose a woman .
Biden says he will name his vice-presidential choice this week .
As we wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat women has formed “ We Have Her Back ” .
They wrote an open letter to make sure that Biden ’ s female running mate gets fair coverage .
Fair coverage , though , is in the eye of the beholder because the hypocrisy is strong here .
CNN commentator Hilary Rosen , former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson signed the open letter .
They vow to defend the VP pick from sexist and racist attacks in the press – assuming the choice will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman .
The letter was addressed to “ News Division Heads , Editors in Chiefs , Bureau Chiefs , Political Directors , Editors , Producers , Reporters , and Anchors.
” The women listed as signatories were Fatima Goss Graves ( National Women ’ s Law Center ) , Ilyse Hogue ( NARAL ) Valerie Jarrett , Alexis McGill Johnson and Melanie Newman ( Planned Parenthood ) , Debra Ness ( National Partnership for Women and Families ) , Cecile Richards ( Supermajority ) , Jess Morales Rocketto , Hilary Rosen , Stephanie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s List ) , and Tina Tchen ( TimesUp ) .
The women point to the “ historic moment ” of choosing a Black woman as a running mate ( or a brown woman ) and instruct the press on how not to cover her .
They compliment reporters on how they have covered the George Floyd protests and riots and then go on to list ways in which the press might go astray in covering Biden ’ s choice , given past media coverage of women in politics .
We are calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this next historic moment .
A woman VP candidate , and possibly a Black or Brown woman candidate , requires the same kind of internal consideration about systemic inequality as you undertook earlier this year .
Anything less than full engagement in this thoughtful oversight would be a huge step backwards for the progress you have pledged to make to expand diversity of thought and opportunity in your newsrooms and in your coverage .
Women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about qualifications , leadership , looks , relationships and experience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Black and Brown women .
Attempts at legitimate investigations of a candidate have repeatedly turned into misguided stories that perpetuate impressions of women as inadequate leaders , and Black and Brown women as worse .
There are multiple ways that media coverage over the years has contributed to the facts of the lack of diversity at the top of society ’ s roles .
For example : • Reporting on a woman ’ s ambition as though the very nature of seeking political office , or any higher job for that matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Relationships with partners , staff , colleagues and donors are characterized differently if the woman is not seen as subservient or supportive • Reporting on whether a woman is liked ( a subjective metric at best ) as though it is news when the “ likeability ” of men is never considered a legitimate news story .
• Reporting , even as asides in a story , on a woman ’ s looks , weight , tone of voice , attractiveness and hair is sexist news coverage unless the same analysis is applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of electability of women is , in itself , a perpetuation of a stereotype about the ability of women to lead • Reporting on doubts women may not be qualified leaders even when they have experience equal to or exceeding male leaders • Reporting on the heritage of Black women or women of color perpetuates a misunderstanding about who is legitimately American • Reporting on and using pictures of a woman ’ s , particularly black women , show of anger at injustice or any other kind of passion in communication perpetuates racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too emotional or irrational in their leadership or worse “ hate America ” That pretty much covers everything , right ?
The candidate can not be held to the same standard as any other person running for elected office .
She must be reported on by a willfully blind media – you know , the same ones who report about Joe Biden .
The women are particularly sensitive to any coverage that implies the candidate is an angry Black woman who is less than patriotic in her feelings about America , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the women to guide the press on coverage .
How generous .
This is blatant cronyism and censorship of any real press coverage of a woman running to be vice-president yet there is no shame in these women ’ s games .
It is as though this is perfectly acceptable and normal behavior .
They dictate to the press on how to cover the woman and that ’ s that .
And there is a threat , too when they say , they will be watching and ready to call the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hypocrisy of all this is rich .
Does the name Hilary Rosen sound familiar – other than her appearances on CNN ?
She made a splash during the 2012 presidential campaign when she said that Ann Romney “ never worked a day in her life ” .
Ann Romney was the wife of the presidential candidate , not a candidate herself , yet Rosen , a far-left feminist , took it upon herself to attack Ann Romney .
That led Romney to create a Twitter account , by the way , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is as though these liberal women expect conservatives to forget how Sarah Palin was treated .
Democrats said she was uneducated , ignorant , possibly having a child that wasn ’ t her husband ’ s , a hick from Alaska , she wore the wrong clothes , she didn ’ t speak well , they mocked her religion , and so on .
It was hideous .
Sadly , the Democrats were often joined by McCain ’ s own staff in treating Palin badly .
So , forgive me if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever coverage the Democrat women now think is coming down the pike for a Democrat woman running for vice-president .
Whoever Biden ’ s team chooses from his list of potential running mates , there will be plenty of fodder for posts .
I assure you I will be ready and going for her when the choice is made .
Pot/kettle , Ms. Rosen .
There will be no special treatment for a Black ( or Brown ) woman running for vice-president from conservative writers and there should not be .

There is no longer any pretense made by the Democrats to hide their control of the press coverage given to Joe Biden and his campaign for president. Stories have been written about demands made by Team Joe and the press willingly falls into line. Now some prominent Democrat women are delivering a new set of marching orders to the press. They demand fair coverage of Biden’s running mate, whoever he chooses. We know he will choose a woman.
Biden says he will name his vice-presidential choice this week. As we wait for that announcement, a group of Democrat women has formed “We Have Her Back”. They wrote an open letter to make sure that Biden’s female running mate gets fair coverage. Fair coverage, though, is in the eye of the beholder because the hypocrisy is strong here. CNN commentator Hilary Rosen, former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson signed the open letter. They vow to defend the VP pick from sexist and racist attacks in the press – assuming the choice will be not just a woman but a Black woman.
The letter was addressed to “News Division Heads, Editors in Chiefs, Bureau Chiefs, Political Directors, Editors, Producers, Reporters, and Anchors.” The women listed as signatories were Fatima Goss Graves (National Women’s Law Center), Ilyse Hogue (NARAL) Valerie Jarrett, Alexis McGill Johnson and Melanie Newman (Planned Parenthood), Debra Ness (National Partnership for Women and Families), Cecile Richards (Supermajority), Jess Morales Rocketto, Hilary Rosen, Stephanie Shriock, Christina Reynolds (Emily’s List), and Tina Tchen (TimesUp). The women point to the “historic moment” of choosing a Black woman as a running mate (or a brown woman) and instruct the press on how not to cover her. They compliment reporters on how they have covered the George Floyd protests and riots and then go on to list ways in which the press might go astray in covering Biden’s choice, given past media coverage of women in politics.
We are calling on you to do this same with this next historic moment. A woman VP candidate, and possibly a Black or Brown woman candidate, requires the same kind of internal consideration about systemic inequality as you undertook earlier this year. Anything less than full engagement in this thoughtful oversight would be a huge step backwards for the progress you have pledged to make to expand diversity of thought and opportunity in your newsrooms
and in your coverage. Women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about qualifications, leadership, looks, relationships and experience. Those stereotypes are often amplified and weaponized for Black and Brown women. Attempts at legitimate investigations of a candidate have repeatedly turned into misguided stories that perpetuate impressions of women as inadequate leaders, and Black and Brown women as worse. There are multiple ways that media coverage over the years has
contributed to the facts of the lack of diversity at the top of society’s roles. For example:
• Reporting on a woman’s ambition as though the very nature of seeking political office, or any higher job for that matter is not a mission of ambition
• Relationships with partners, staff, colleagues and donors are characterized differently if the woman is not seen as subservient or supportive
• Reporting on whether a woman is liked (a subjective metric at best) as though it is news when the “likeability” of men is never considered a legitimate news story.
• Reporting, even as asides in a story, on a woman’s looks, weight, tone of voice, attractiveness and hair is sexist news coverage unless the same analysis is applied to
every candidate
• Reporting on questions of electability of women is, in itself, a perpetuation of a stereotype about the ability of women to lead
• Reporting on doubts women may not be qualified leaders even when they have experience equal to or exceeding male leaders
• Reporting on the heritage of Black women or women of color perpetuates a misunderstanding about who is legitimately American
• Reporting on and using pictures of a woman’s, particularly black women, show of anger at injustice or any other kind of passion in communication perpetuates racist tropes that suggest unfairly that women are too emotional or irrational in their leadership or worse “hate America”
That pretty much covers everything, right? The candidate cannot be held to the same standard as any other person running for elected office. She must be reported on by a willfully blind media – you know, the same ones who report about Joe Biden. The women are particularly sensitive to any coverage that implies the candidate is an angry Black woman who is less than patriotic in her feelings about America, it seems.
The letter also includes an offer from the women to guide the press on coverage. How generous. This is blatant cronyism and censorship of any real press coverage of a woman running to be vice-president yet there is no shame in these women’s games. It is as though this is perfectly acceptable and normal behavior. They dictate to the press on how to cover the woman and that’s that. And there is a threat, too when they say, they will be watching and ready to call the media out.
We are here to help you with this challenge. We would be happy to meet and continue to engage on these issues. This is a defining election no matter your viewpoint. We intend to collectively and individually monitor coverage and we will call out those we believe take our country backward with sexist and/or racist coverage.
I’ll note that the hypocrisy of all this is rich. Does the name Hilary Rosen sound familiar – other than her appearances on CNN? She made a splash during the 2012 presidential campaign when she said that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life”. Ann Romney was the wife of the presidential candidate, not a candidate herself, yet Rosen, a far-left feminist, took it upon herself to attack Ann Romney. That led Romney to create a Twitter account, by the way, so that she could deliver her own messages.
It is as though these liberal women expect conservatives to forget how Sarah Palin was treated. Democrats said she was uneducated, ignorant, possibly having a child that wasn’t her husband’s, a hick from Alaska, she wore the wrong clothes, she didn’t speak well, they mocked her religion, and so on. It was hideous. Sadly, the Democrats were often joined by McCain’s own staff in treating Palin badly. So, forgive me if I’m less than sympathetic of whatever coverage the Democrat women now think is coming down the pike for a Democrat woman running for vice-president.
Whoever Biden’s team chooses from his list of potential running mates, there will be plenty of fodder for posts. I assure you I will be ready and going for her when the choice is made. Pot/kettle, Ms. Rosen. There will be no special treatment for a Black (or Brown) woman running for vice-president from conservative writers and there should not be.


hotair--2020-08-11--The media spin on enhanced unemployment benefits has certainly changed, hasn't it?

I ’ m old enough to remember when the media was in a frenzy over Congress ’ failure to pass an extension of the $ 600 dollar per week federal enhancement to state unemployment benefits .
People were going to be put out into the streets because they wouldn ’ t be able to pay their rent or mortgage .
Their cupboards would be as barren as Mother Hubbard ’ s .
It would literally be the end of the world and it would all be the fault of Mitch McConnel and President Trump , who were too tight-fisted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Donald Trump decided to skirt around the logjam by signing executive orders and memoranda restoring a majority of the payments .
We can argue all we like about whether or not that was a good idea or even legal , but the desired effect was achieved .
At least somebody was doing something , so all of those unemployed Americans could at least breathe a little easier , right ?
Well , not according to our favorite media mavens .
NBC News was quick to pump out another scathing analysis saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his sagging ratings and the relief he was offering would be short-lived wind up hurting him even worse in public opinion polls .
President Donald Trump and his campaign have been racing to score a political boost from a series of weekend executive actions before the limited impact of the measures in addressing the economic fallout from the coronavirus comes into focus .
Some GOP strategists warned that any gains from the push , which began within minutes of Trump ’ s moves on Saturday , was likely to be short-lived — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward , if voters don ’ t see a direct benefit following the president ’ s promise of relief .
“ It ’ s too real and present in people ’ s lives to paper over with talking points or promises , ” said Brendan Buck , a Republican communications strategist who served as a top adviser to former Speaker Paul Ryan .
“ If these executive orders don ’ t really solve the economic crisis , and I doubt they will , then it will only end up hurting him in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes on at length , criticizing each of Trump ’ s initiatives as either not going far enough , pushing problems down the road , or placing too much of a burden on the states .
They quote several analysts who essentially say that this can all only end in tears .
The facts on the ground , however , don ’ t appear that way at all .
Congress certainly did fail to reach a deal that would have provided unemployment relief .
Nancy Pelosi was offered multiple options to achieve that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every one of them , choosing a “ my way or the highway ” approach .
The President has now made the funds available to allow the states to continue distributing enhanced relief .
This has left Nancy Pelosi looking like the Scrooge who was standing in the way of the unemployed receiving the enhanced benefits .
At the same time , Trump built an insurance policy into the plan .
By including a requirement for states to provide $ 100 of the $ 400 weekly payments , blue state governors , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trap .
If they wish to cry poverty and refuse to cooperate with the Bad Orange Man , their own residents on the unemployment line will be clearly informed that the reason they ’ re losing out on the extra payments is their own state government ’ s inaction , not the President ’ s .
That doesn ’ t mean that the unemployed are going to be any happier , but at least they ’ ll have someone else to blame .
I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically when it comes to the executive overreach of power under the guise of crisis management .
Short term relief ( and , yes , some political leverage ) could easily wind up being a tradeoff in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on the power of the presidency .
But the people who are still dealing with being unemployed through no fault of their own because of executive diktats are probably going to have a hard time focusing on the long-term picture at this point .
Short-term solutions may be the only option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
And the political value of being the one to deliver that sort of relief is hard to overstate .

I’m old enough to remember when the media was in a frenzy over Congress’ failure to pass an extension of the $600 dollar per week federal enhancement to state unemployment benefits. People were going to be put out into the streets because they wouldn’t be able to pay their rent or mortgage. Their cupboards would be as barren as Mother Hubbard’s. It would literally be the end of the world and it would all be the fault of Mitch McConnel and President Trump, who were too tight-fisted to renew the badly-needed relief assistance.
And then Donald Trump decided to skirt around the logjam by signing executive orders and memoranda restoring a majority of the payments. We can argue all we like about whether or not that was a good idea or even legal, but the desired effect was achieved. At least somebody was doing something, so all of those unemployed Americans could at least breathe a little easier, right? Well, not according to our favorite media mavens. NBC News was quick to pump out another scathing analysis saying that Trump was only doing this to boost his sagging ratings and the relief he was offering would be short-lived wind up hurting him even worse in public opinion polls.
President Donald Trump and his campaign have been racing to score a political boost from a series of weekend executive actions before the limited impact of the measures in addressing the economic fallout from the coronavirus comes into focus. Some GOP strategists warned that any gains from the push, which began within minutes of Trump’s moves on Saturday, was likely to be short-lived — and could pose more political risk than potential reward, if voters don’t see a direct benefit following the president’s promise of relief. “It’s too real and present in people’s lives to paper over with talking points or promises,” said Brendan Buck, a Republican communications strategist who served as a top adviser to former Speaker Paul Ryan. “If these executive orders don’t really solve the economic crisis, and I doubt they will, then it will only end up hurting him in the long run.”
NBC’s analysis goes on at length, criticizing each of Trump’s initiatives as either not going far enough, pushing problems down the road, or placing too much of a burden on the states. They quote several analysts who essentially say that this can all only end in tears.
The facts on the ground, however, don’t appear that way at all. Congress certainly did fail to reach a deal that would have provided unemployment relief. Nancy Pelosi was offered multiple options to achieve that goal and she turned down each and every one of them, choosing a “my way or the highway” approach. The President has now made the funds available to allow the states to continue distributing enhanced relief. This has left Nancy Pelosi looking like the Scrooge who was standing in the way of the unemployed receiving the enhanced benefits.
At the same time, Trump built an insurance policy into the plan. By including a requirement for states to provide $100 of the $400 weekly payments, blue state governors, in particular, will be facing something of a trap. If they wish to cry poverty and refuse to cooperate with the Bad Orange Man, their own residents on the unemployment line will be clearly informed that the reason they’re losing out on the extra payments is their own state government’s inaction, not the President’s. That doesn’t mean that the unemployed are going to be any happier, but at least they’ll have someone else to blame.
I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal’s assessment of the situation, specifically when it comes to the executive overreach of power under the guise of crisis management. Short term relief (and, yes, some political leverage) could easily wind up being a tradeoff in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on the power of the presidency. But the people who are still dealing with being unemployed through no fault of their own because of executive diktats are probably going to have a hard time focusing on the long-term picture at this point. Short-term solutions may be the only option that calms the waters a bit for them. And the political value of being the one to deliver that sort of relief is hard to overstate.