hotair--2020-09-30--Seattle tries to bury Uber and Lyft with new minimum wage law

A little thing like a pandemic isn ’ t going to keep the liberal municipal governments of many cities from continuing to prosecute their war on the gig economy , and that ’ s clearly true in Seattle .
Despite having plenty of more pressing issues to address , with all of the rioting and looting going on , the City Council voted unanimously this week to enforce a new “ pay formula ” for drivers of ride-sharing companies to ensure that they receive the $ 16.39 per hour pay rate as regular full-time workers in the city .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooked up to do this is nothing but a hot mess .
As usual , the measure had the financial and vocal support of labor unions who have long been fighting to keep these gig economy jobs out of reach in support of traditional taxi companies and their unions .
( Seattle Times ) The Seattle City Council on Tuesday unanimously backed a new pay formula for Uber and Lyft drivers meant to ensure they make the same $ 16.39 per hour minimum wage as other workers in the city .
The new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates high enough to account for a wide range of expenses and for the time drivers spend waiting for rides and heading on their way to pick up passengers , not just the time when a passenger is in the car .
As the gig economy surged in recent years , Seattle battled ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft over pay and rights for their drivers , who are classified as independent contractors and work without basic guarantees like minimum wage .
Drivers have split on City Hall proposals .
The aspects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make them so unique are precisely what makes it so hard to define or legislate anything to do with their wages , but it ’ s precisely those attributes that Seattle is twisting around to enforce this mandate .
For example , when is an Uber driver technically “ working ?
” When they ’ re ferrying a rider from point A to point B they are obviously on the job .
But what about when they ’ re sitting in their car and looking at the app on their phone and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ?
Are they working then ?
How about after they drop a passenger off and they ’ re driving back to where they normally hang out , even if it ’ s at their home ?
Under Seattle ’ s new rules , all of that time would be considered “ working hours.
” But the customers who use the app don ’ t care how long a driver was waiting for a call or where they drive to after being dropped off at their destination .
And they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Further , the city insists that the drivers ’ compensation must include money to cover a variety of costs .
These include : – $ 8,000 a year for vehicle costs including lease payments – $ 2,000 a year for maintenance and repairs – $ 1,600 a year in cellphone costs – $ 3,800 a year for medical , dental and vision insurance – 30 minutes each day for vehicle cleaning – 10 minutes of rest for every four hours worked .
There are so many problems with these assumptions that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First of all , the city wants to treat the driver ’ s car as if it ’ s a work vehicle for their own business .
That ’ s not how Uber and Lyft operate .
Drivers use their own vehicles to give people rides and they only work when they feel like it .
It ’ s still their own personal car that they would otherwise be responsible for in terms of maintenance costs anyway .
Similarly , they don ’ t need a special cellphone just to operate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an app that they install , just as customers install a user app on their own phones .
The same goes for keeping their vehicles clean .
It ’ s their car .
They would have to do that anyway .
What Seattle will probably accomplish with this new rule is the same thing that happened in New York City when they implemented similar requirements for gig economy drivers .
It will be the drivers who lose out on the work and their income .
In the Big Apple , Uber stopped enrolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app to peak hours unless drivers had completed a certain number of rides in the previous month .
This shut out pretty much anyone who wasn ’ t driving full time , eliminating the benefits of part-time work for everyone looking to just make a little extra money to get by .
But the welfare of the drivers isn ’ t what ’ s of concern to Seattle to begin with .
The unions hate the gig economy companies and they want them driven out of business .
And those same unions finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do the math from there and you won ’ t even need to brush up on long division .

A little thing like a pandemic isn’t going to keep the liberal municipal governments of many cities from continuing to prosecute their war on the gig economy, and that’s clearly true in Seattle. Despite having plenty of more pressing issues to address, with all of the rioting and looting going on, the City Council voted unanimously this week to enforce a new “pay formula” for drivers of ride-sharing companies to ensure that they receive the $16.39 per hour pay rate as regular full-time workers in the city. And the “formula” they’ve cooked up to do this is nothing but a hot mess. As usual, the measure had the financial and vocal support of labor unions who have long been fighting to keep these gig economy jobs out of reach in support of traditional taxi companies and their unions. (Seattle Times)
The Seattle City Council on Tuesday unanimously backed a new pay formula for Uber and Lyft drivers meant to ensure they make the same $16.39 per hour minimum wage as other workers in the city. The new rules require ride-hailing companies to pay drivers rates high enough to account for a wide range of expenses and for the time drivers spend waiting for rides and heading on their way to pick up passengers, not just the time when a passenger is in the car. As the gig economy surged in recent years, Seattle battled ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft over pay and rights for their drivers, who are classified as independent contractors and work without basic guarantees like minimum wage. Drivers have split on City Hall proposals.
The aspects of the jobs that Uber and Lyft drivers hold that make them so unique are precisely what makes it so hard to define or legislate anything to do with their wages, but it’s precisely those attributes that Seattle is twisting around to enforce this mandate. For example, when is an Uber driver technically “working?” When they’re ferrying a rider from point A to point B they are obviously on the job. But what about when they’re sitting in their car and looking at the app on their phone and waiting for a ride request to come in? Are they working then? How about after they drop a passenger off and they’re driving back to where they normally hang out, even if it’s at their home?
Under Seattle’s new rules, all of that time would be considered “working hours.” But the customers who use the app don’t care how long a driver was waiting for a call or where they drive to after being dropped off at their destination. And they don’t pay for those hours, either. Further, the city insists that the drivers’ compensation must include money to cover a variety of costs. These include:
– $8,000 a year for vehicle costs including lease payments
– $2,000 a year for maintenance and repairs
– $1,600 a year in cellphone costs
– $3,800 a year for medical, dental and vision insurance
– 30 minutes each day for vehicle cleaning
– 10 minutes of rest for every four hours worked.
There are so many problems with these assumptions that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, the city wants to treat the driver’s car as if it’s a work vehicle for their own business. That’s not how Uber and Lyft operate. Drivers use their own vehicles to give people rides and they only work when they feel like it. It’s still their own personal car that they would otherwise be responsible for in terms of maintenance costs anyway. Similarly, they don’t need a special cellphone just to operate as a driver. It’s just an app that they install, just as customers install a user app on their own phones. The same goes for keeping their vehicles clean. It’s their car. They would have to do that anyway.
What Seattle will probably accomplish with this new rule is the same thing that happened in New York City when they implemented similar requirements for gig economy drivers. It will be the drivers who lose out on the work and their income. In the Big Apple, Uber stopped enrolling new drivers and restricted access to the app to peak hours unless drivers had completed a certain number of rides in the previous month. This shut out pretty much anyone who wasn’t driving full time, eliminating the benefits of part-time work for everyone looking to just make a little extra money to get by.
But the welfare of the drivers isn’t what’s of concern to Seattle to begin with. The unions hate the gig economy companies and they want them driven out of business. And those same unions finance the campaigns of most Democrats. You can do the math from there and you won’t even need to brush up on long division.


hotair--2020-09-30--Hmmm: Kentucky AG changing tune on Breonna Taylor grand-jury presentation?

Protests over the lack of homicide charges in the death of Breonna Taylor erupted last week after the grand jury only return an indictment of “ wanton endangerment ” against one of the police officers involved .
At the time , Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced that he had “ walked them through every homicide offense and also presented all of the information that was available to the grand jury.
” That left the impression that the grand jury had discerned on all possible options before restricting its actions to just wanton endangerment .
However , Cameron revealed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never allowed the grand jury to consider homicide charges .
Critics are now accusing Cameron of misrepresenting the handling of the case , but Cameron says he only asked the grand jury to indict what the evidence would prove in court : Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said his office did not give the grand jury in the Breonna Taylor case the option to consider murder or even lesser charges charges in her death .
In an exclusive interview with WDRB News on Tuesday , Cameron said it was “ not appropriate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police officers — Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly and Det .
Myles Cosgrove —who fired shots into her apartment early on March 13 , six of which hit Taylor .
“ They ’ re an independent body .
If they wanted to make an assessment about different charges , they could have done that , ” said Cameron .
“ But our recommendation was that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their acts and their conduct.
” Cameron ’ s office did recommend wanton endangerment charges for former Det .
Brett Hankison , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; a Jefferson County grand jury indicted Hankison on those charges last week .
“ The charge that we could prove at trial , beyond reasonable doubt , was for wanton endangerment against Mr. Hankison , ” Cameron said Tuesday .
“ Myles Cosgrove and Jonathan Mattingly were fired upon by Mr. Walker .
They were justified in returning fire.
” That ’ s fine and largely supported by the evidence we ’ ve seen so far , or at least heard described from the grand-jury testimony .
However , this goes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Cameron was sloppy about how he described his presentation to the grand jury , how much can we rely on his description of other evidence in the case ?
For instance , Cameron said last week that the warrant was not a “ no knock ” version despite popular discussion to the contrary , but Radley Balko linked to the actual warrant to rebut Cameron ’ s announcement : It absolutely was .
It says so right on the warrant .
Moreover , the portion of the warrant authorizing a no-knock entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other warrants that were part of the same investigation .
This is a violation of a requirement set by the Supreme Court that no-knock warrants should be granted when police can present evidence that a particular suspect is a risk to shoot at police or destroy evidence if they knock and announce .
They didn ’ t do that .
The police claim they were told after the fact to disregard the no-knock portion and instead knock and announce themselves , because , by that point , someone had determined that Taylor was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat , and not a major player in the drug investigation .
But there are problems with this account .
If Taylor was a “ soft target , ” why not surround the house , get on a megaphone , and ask her to come out with her hands up ?
Why still take down her door with a battering ram ?
Why still serve the warrant in the middle of the night ?
It ’ s this kind of confusion that had critics and even grand jury members demanding the release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cameron ’ s new version of the presentation adds even more doubt , or at least uncertainty , to his previous emphatic public case that a grand jury independently reached their indicting decisions based on the best evidence and the widest latitude possible .
A court has ordered Cameron to produce the grand jury proceedings after one of the panel members filed a motion to allow her to speak publicly about the deliberations .
Cameron initially pledged to comply today , but this morning asked for a one-week delay : Kentucky State Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay in releasing the grand jury ’ s recordings in the Breonna Taylor case .
… Cameron was ordered by a judge to enter into the court record by noon Wednesday , the recording of the grand jury hearing that produced a single charge of wanton endangerment against one of the officers involved in the Taylor shooting , but not for Taylor ’ s death .
On Wednesday morning , Cameron filed a motion asking the the release of the recording be delayed for a week .
“ For its grounds , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection of witnesses , and in particular private citizens named in the record , the Commonwealth seeks to redact personal identifiers of any named person , and to redact both names and personal identifiers of any private citizen , ” Cameron ’ s motion reads .
This might all amount to a tempest in a teapot .
If the evidence presented to the grand jury — and already in evidence publicly — matches up with what Cameron has already stated , the transcripts will corroborate that .
However , Cameron ’ s lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that outcome , and neither does the demand from the grand juror who apparently feels Cameron has misrepresented his presentation .
Stay tuned , both for conclusions about the case as well as the inevitable reactions on the streets of Louisville .

Protests over the lack of homicide charges in the death of Breonna Taylor erupted last week after the grand jury only return an indictment of “wanton endangerment” against one of the police officers involved. At the time, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced that he had “walked them through every homicide offense and also presented all of the information that was available to the grand jury.” That left the impression that the grand jury had discerned on all possible options before restricting its actions to just wanton endangerment.
However, Cameron revealed in an interview with WDRB that he actually never allowed the grand jury to consider homicide charges. Critics are now accusing Cameron of misrepresenting the handling of the case, but Cameron says he only asked the grand jury to indict what the evidence would prove in court:
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said his office did not give the grand jury in the Breonna Taylor case the option to consider murder or even lesser charges charges in her death. In an exclusive interview with WDRB News on Tuesday, Cameron said it was “not appropriate” to recommend charges for two Louisville Metro Police officers — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove —who fired shots into her apartment early on March 13, six of which hit Taylor. “They’re an independent body. If they wanted to make an assessment about different charges, they could have done that,” said Cameron. “But our recommendation was that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their acts and their conduct.” Cameron’s office did recommend wanton endangerment charges for former Det. Brett Hankison, he acknowledged for the first time Monday night; a Jefferson County grand jury indicted Hankison on those charges last week. “The charge that we could prove at trial, beyond reasonable doubt, was for wanton endangerment against Mr. Hankison,” Cameron said Tuesday. “Myles Cosgrove and Jonathan Mattingly were fired upon by Mr. Walker. They were justified in returning fire.”
That’s fine and largely supported by the evidence we’ve seen so far, or at least heard described from the grand-jury testimony. However, this goes to credibility on that point, too. If Cameron was sloppy about how he described his presentation to the grand jury, how much can we rely on his description of other evidence in the case? For instance, Cameron said last week that the warrant was not a “no knock” version despite popular discussion to the contrary, but Radley Balko linked to the actual warrant to rebut Cameron’s announcement:
“This was not a no-knock warrant.” It absolutely was. It says so right on the warrant. Moreover, the portion of the warrant authorizing a no-knock entry cited only cut-and-pasted information from the four other warrants that were part of the same investigation. This is a violation of a requirement set by the Supreme Court that no-knock warrants should be granted when police can present evidence that a particular suspect is a risk to shoot at police or destroy evidence if they knock and announce. They didn’t do that. The police claim they were told after the fact to disregard the no-knock portion and instead knock and announce themselves, because, by that point, someone had determined that Taylor was a “soft target” — not a threat, and not a major player in the drug investigation. But there are problems with this account. If Taylor was a “soft target,” why not surround the house, get on a megaphone, and ask her to come out with her hands up? Why still take down her door with a battering ram? Why still serve the warrant in the middle of the night?
It’s this kind of confusion that had critics and even grand jury members demanding the release of the transcripts from the proceedings. Cameron’s new version of the presentation adds even more doubt, or at least uncertainty, to his previous emphatic public case that a grand jury independently reached their indicting decisions based on the best evidence and the widest latitude possible.
A court has ordered Cameron to produce the grand jury proceedings after one of the panel members filed a motion to allow her to speak publicly about the deliberations. Cameron initially pledged to comply today, but this morning asked for a one-week delay:
Kentucky State Attorney General Daniel Cameron has asked for a delay in releasing the grand jury’s recordings in the Breonna Taylor case. … Cameron was ordered by a judge to enter into the court record by noon Wednesday, the recording of the grand jury hearing that produced a single charge of wanton endangerment against one of the officers involved in the Taylor shooting, but not for Taylor’s death. On Wednesday morning, Cameron filed a motion asking the the release of the recording be delayed for a week. “For its grounds, the Commonwealth states that in the interest of protection of witnesses, and in particular private citizens named in the record, the Commonwealth seeks to redact personal identifiers of any named person, and to redact both names and personal identifiers of any private citizen,” Cameron’s motion reads.
This might all amount to a tempest in a teapot. If the evidence presented to the grand jury — and already in evidence publicly — matches up with what Cameron has already stated, the transcripts will corroborate that. However, Cameron’s lack of consistency doesn’t build confidence in that outcome, and neither does the demand from the grand juror who apparently feels Cameron has misrepresented his presentation. Stay tuned, both for conclusions about the case as well as the inevitable reactions on the streets of Louisville.


hotair--2020-09-30--Brian Kilmeade: I don't understand why Trump didn't clearly condemn white supremacists

Does he really not understand it , or is this just the way this sort of criticism has to be phrased on Fox , as a form of “ confusion ” ?
It ’ s surprising that Kilmeade would express dissatisfaction with Trump ’ s answer when the line among MAGA media this morning is that he *did* condemn white supremacists .
Wallace asked him if he would and he said “ sure.
” It ’ s right there in the transcript .
But then he said some other stuff .
That ’ s what has Kilmeade “ confused.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics last week after he started chattering to an audience in Minnesota about “ good genes ” and the “ racehorse theory.
” There ’ s no demographic group that he disdains so much that he won ’ t happily embrace them if they embrace him first .
There are , in fact , really only two groups that exist in his mind , I suspect — people who like him and people who don ’ t .
If you ’ re pro-Trump then there ’ s no sin you ’ ve committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re anti-Trump then your “ sins , ” like being an immigrant , are unforgivable .
That ’ s why he knocks Ilhan Omar for the “ sin ” of hailing from a “ sh*thole country ” while extolling Cuban-Americans as an inspiration who escaped poverty and oppression to find a better life .
It ’ s all filtered through how people view him .
Everything is .
That ’ s how he ran into trouble with the Proud Boys comment last night .
Ask him to clearly denounce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … he just can ’ t , even when it ’ s to his benefit to do so .
Is Trump secretly a hardcore white supremacist ?
Nah .
His most powerful advisor , Jared Kushner , is Jewish .
His Jewish daughter is the apple of his eye .
But he ’ s certainly aware that white supremacists like him and his narcissism won ’ t allow him to emphatically reject a pro-Trump group , whether or not it ’ s immoral .
You can imagine him thinking , “ If they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could they be ?
” Whether the Proud Boys are properly categorized as “ white supremacist ” is a separate question and not that important in the context of Trump ’ s answer .
What ’ s important from his exchange with Biden and Wallace is him ( a ) winking approvingly at the idea of street battles between left and right , which is certainly the least responsible thing ever said at a presidential debate ( by a sitting president , no less ) and ( b ) suggesting that the Proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … something .
He didn ’ t elaborate on what that something should be , but given that he refused Wallace ’ s invitation to ask his fans not to engage in “ civil unrest ” after the election , one can guess .
Which must be the second-least responsible thing ever said at a presidential debate .
The Proud Boys themselves don ’ t feel denounced by Trump at all this morning .
Quite the contrary .
“ The general of the Proud Boys.
” Other members of the group were ecstatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any other country I ’ d say the president , in an ugly slugfest of a debate , called his militia to attention , putting them on the ready , ” said Richard Engel of NBC .
Maybe that ’ s an underrated reason for Biden to skip the next two debates .
He shouldn ’ t want to give Trump another opportunity in front of 90 million people to “ basically say to go f*** them up ” to his most ardent fans .
The daily ritual of reporters pressing Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest outrageous comment has already begun .
Mitt Romney told them this morning that “ of course ” Trump should unambiguously condemn white supremacists when asked .
Tim Scott ’ s answer was more nuanced — and more interesting : “ If he doesn ’ t correct it , I guess he didn ’ t misspeak.
” Hmm .
I ’ d be curious to hear Scott explain what he thought Trump meant when he “ misspoke ” by saying “ stand by.
” I ’ ll leave you with historian Jon Meacham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , speculating about the possibility of a “ quiet Biden ” contingent among the electorate arising in a backlash to what Trump said last night .
I think he ’ s kidding himself , but it ’ s an interesting counterpoint to the phenomenon of the “ shy Trump voter ” we ’ ve heard about for four years .
Some Trump fans are embarrassed to tell pollsters that they support him for fear of being judged , the theory goes , which is why Trump did better in swing states in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know who Meacham has in mind when he imagines a “ shy Biden voter , ” but I suppose there are people among Trump ’ s working-class white base who live in red states and have pro-Trump spouses , family , and friends who might not want to feel like the odd man out by advertising their skepticism of him .
Guess we ’ ll find out in five weeks .

Does he really not understand it, or is this just the way this sort of criticism has to be phrased on Fox, as a form of “confusion”?
Brian Kilmeade: "Donald Trump ruined the biggest layup in the history of debates by not condemning white supremists. I don't know if he didn't hear it, but he's gotta clarify that right away. … Why the president didn't just knock it out of the park, I'm not sure." pic.twitter.com/Qo52jBDTPl — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) September 30, 2020
It’s surprising that Kilmeade would express dissatisfaction with Trump’s answer when the line among MAGA media this morning is that he *did* condemn white supremacists. Wallace asked him if he would and he said “sure.” It’s right there in the transcript.
But then he said some other stuff. That’s what has Kilmeade “confused.”
That debate was garbage but this is the actual transcript of the white supremacy exchange. Trump didn't "refuse" to denounce white supremacy, as much of the media is now saying. Look at his first reply. Sure, take issue with how he handled the q, but don't misinform people. pic.twitter.com/TIg2WSxKVj — Emily Jashinsky (@emilyjashinsky) September 30, 2020
I wrote about how Trump approaches racial politics last week after he started chattering to an audience in Minnesota about “good genes” and the “racehorse theory.” There’s no demographic group that he disdains so much that he won’t happily embrace them if they embrace him first. There are, in fact, really only two groups that exist in his mind, I suspect — people who like him and people who don’t. If you’re pro-Trump then there’s no sin you’ve committed that he can’t overlook. If you’re anti-Trump then your “sins,” like being an immigrant, are unforgivable. That’s why he knocks Ilhan Omar for the “sin” of hailing from a “sh*thole country” while extolling Cuban-Americans as an inspiration who escaped poverty and oppression to find a better life. It’s all filtered through how people view him. Everything is.
That’s how he ran into trouble with the Proud Boys comment last night. Ask him to clearly denounce a group which he knows supports him and … he just can’t, even when it’s to his benefit to do so. Is Trump secretly a hardcore white supremacist? Nah. His most powerful advisor, Jared Kushner, is Jewish. His Jewish daughter is the apple of his eye. But he’s certainly aware that white supremacists like him and his narcissism won’t allow him to emphatically reject a pro-Trump group, whether or not it’s immoral. You can imagine him thinking, “If they like me so much, how immoral could they be?”
Whether the Proud Boys are properly categorized as “white supremacist” is a separate question and not that important in the context of Trump’s answer. What’s important from his exchange with Biden and Wallace is him (a) winking approvingly at the idea of street battles between left and right, which is certainly the least responsible thing ever said at a presidential debate (by a sitting president, no less) and (b) suggesting that the Proud Boys should “stand by” for … something. He didn’t elaborate on what that something should be, but given that he refused Wallace’s invitation to ask his fans not to engage in “civil unrest” after the election, one can guess. Which must be the second-least responsible thing ever said at a presidential debate.
The Proud Boys themselves don’t feel denounced by Trump at all this morning. Quite the contrary.
The Proud Boys are now sharing the group's logo with the president's words emblazoned like a slogan. pic.twitter.com/T3tp286YRa — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) September 30, 2020
"He did a general command. He’s the general of the proud boys" https://t.co/2kG6bJuXTJ pic.twitter.com/x0GNjgycmN — Almaqah (@_Almaqah) September 30, 2020
“The general of the Proud Boys.” Other members of the group were ecstatic:
Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs also posted after the debate that he was “standing by,” and he said the president “basically said to go f— them up.” “President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA… well sir! we’re ready!!” Biggs wrote. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a tweet that the president’s answer was “astonishing.” “President Trump owes America an apology or an explanation,” he said. “Now.”
“If I were covering this in any other country I’d say the president, in an ugly slugfest of a debate, called his militia to attention, putting them on the ready,” said Richard Engel of NBC. Maybe that’s an underrated reason for Biden to skip the next two debates. He shouldn’t want to give Trump another opportunity in front of 90 million people to “basically say to go f*** them up” to his most ardent fans.
The daily ritual of reporters pressing Senate Republicans for reactions to Trump’s latest outrageous comment has already begun. Mitt Romney told them this morning that “of course” Trump should unambiguously condemn white supremacists when asked. Tim Scott’s answer was more nuanced — and more interesting:
Tim Scott on Trump refusing to condemn white supremacists, via Hill pool: "I think he misspoke, I think he should correct it. If he doesn't correct it I guess he didn't misspeak." — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) September 30, 2020
“If he doesn’t correct it, I guess he didn’t misspeak.” Hmm. I’d be curious to hear Scott explain what he thought Trump meant when he “misspoke” by saying “stand by.”
I’ll leave you with historian Jon Meacham, who spoke at the Democratic convention, speculating about the possibility of a “quiet Biden” contingent among the electorate arising in a backlash to what Trump said last night. I think he’s kidding himself, but it’s an interesting counterpoint to the phenomenon of the “shy Trump voter” we’ve heard about for four years. Some Trump fans are embarrassed to tell pollsters that they support him for fear of being judged, the theory goes, which is why Trump did better in swing states in 2016 than pollsters predicted. I don’t know who Meacham has in mind when he imagines a “shy Biden voter,” but I suppose there are people among Trump’s working-class white base who live in red states and have pro-Trump spouses, family, and friends who might not want to feel like the odd man out by advertising their skepticism of him. Guess we’ll find out in five weeks.


hotair--2020-09-30--Comey doesn't recall anything about the referral for investigation mentioned in DNI Ratcliffe's lett

Comey doesn't recall anything about the referral for investigation mentioned in DNI Ratcliffe's letter

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been teasing for days that another shoe was about to drop from the Durham investigation .
Yesterday , Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe sent a letter to Sen. Graham highlighting newly declassified information about Hillary Clinton , Russia and the 2016 election .
Here are the three bullet-points from the letter : • In late July 2016 , U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National Committee .
The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication .
• According to his handwritten notes , former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence , including the “ alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26 , 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “ U.S .
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ’ s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.
” Before we move on let ’ s acknowledge up front that line in the first bullet point which reads “ The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
” Politico published a story yesterday saying that the Senate investigation was aware of all of this and set it aside , apparently in the belief that this was Russian disinformation .
That ’ s obviously significant and raises questions about why this was released at this point .
We ’ ll come back to that .
Today , former FBI Director James Comey is testifying before the Senate and was asked directly about the referral mentioned in bullet point # 3 by Sen. Graham .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t ring a bell with him .
And that ’ s about all Comey had to say about it .
A bit later he added that he had read Ratcliffe ’ s letter and had trouble understanding it .
He didn ’ t explain what he meant by that .
Granted there ’ s still some question about the reliability of the underlying information but if President Obama was briefed on this and there was a referral for investigation to the FBI , it seems odd that Comey doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re probably already well aware , Comey has a history of not knowing things that everyone else around him seems to know .
For instance , in 2018 he told Bret Baier he still didn ’ t know who had funded the dossier even though the fact that Hillary ’ s campaign was behind it had been widely reported .
When pressed , Comey adopted a false Democratic talking point about the dossier initially being funded by Republicans : “ I still don ’ t know that for a fact , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean ?
” Baier said , genuinely confused for the first time in the interview .
“ I ’ ve only seen it in the media .
I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded it .
I knew it was funded first by Republicans , ” Comey said .
“ That ’ s not true that the dossier that Christopher Steel worked on was funded by Republicans , ” Baier said .
“ My understanding was his work started , funded by , as oppo-research funded by Republicans , ” Comey said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information on this topic was widely known .
Let ’ s just say that Comey ’ s claims of ignorance sometimes strain credulity .
And that makes it difficult to take denials like the one he made today seriously .
As for the reliability of the underlying information , last night Democrats were quick to jump on this as Russian disinformation released as a kind of October surprise .
DNI Ratcliffe responded to that by putting out a brief statement saying this was “ not Russian disinformation.
” The obvious question is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian disinformation .
If his own letter states the Intelligence Community isn ’ t sure about the accuracy of it , what is he basing his statement on ?
Until we know the basis for his claim this should be taken with a grain of salt .
Still , it ’ s infuriating to see Democrats pretend to be outraged about about injecting possible Russian disinformation into the public sphere after they spent nearly two years doing the same .
Schiff literally made a career out of alleging there was evidence of collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He spent hours on television flogging the reliability of the dossier and took the lead in denying the accuracy of the Nunes memo .
He was wrong on every point .
And now he ’ s shocked , shocked !
that someone on the other side of the aisle is allegedly playing politics with intelligence .
It ’ s absolutely laughable .
There are no Democrats that I can think of who have any credibility to play this card but the single individual with the least credibility of all would have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this one out .
There isn ’ t a clip of the Graham-Comey exchange up yet so I ’ m embedding the full livestream .
If you scroll in to this about 30 minutes you ’ ll find Graham ’ s questioning of Comey including the question about the referral .

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been teasing for days that another shoe was about to drop from the Durham investigation. Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe sent a letter to Sen. Graham highlighting newly declassified information about Hillary Clinton, Russia and the 2016 election. Here are the three bullet-points from the letter:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National
Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication. According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security
officials on the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”
officials on the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”
Before we move on let’s acknowledge up front that line in the first bullet point which reads “The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Politico published a story yesterday saying that the Senate investigation was aware of all of this and set it aside, apparently in the belief that this was Russian disinformation. That’s obviously significant and raises questions about why this was released at this point. We’ll come back to that.
Today, former FBI Director James Comey is testifying before the Senate and was asked directly about the referral mentioned in bullet point #3 by Sen. Graham. Comey’s response was that it didn’t ring a bell with him.
NOW: Senate Judiciary hearing. On @DNI_Ratcliffe letter + whether he received an “investigative referral” Sept 2016 about an alleged effort by Clinton campaign to distract from the email probe. @Comey said under oath, “It doesn't ring a bell." @LindseyGrahamSC "It went to you." https://t.co/TqVz44GJX5 — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) September 30, 2020
And that’s about all Comey had to say about it. A bit later he added that he had read Ratcliffe’s letter and had trouble understanding it. He didn’t explain what he meant by that.
Granted there’s still some question about the reliability of the underlying information but if President Obama was briefed on this and there was a referral for investigation to the FBI, it seems odd that Comey doesn’t recall anything about it.
As you’re probably already well aware, Comey has a history of not knowing things that everyone else around him seems to know. For instance, in 2018 he told Bret Baier he still didn’t know who had funded the dossier even though the fact that Hillary’s campaign was behind it had been widely reported. When pressed, Comey adopted a false Democratic talking point about the dossier initially being funded by Republicans:
“I still don’t know that for a fact,” Comey replied. “What do you mean?” Baier said, genuinely confused for the first time in the interview. “I’ve only seen it in the media. I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded it. I knew it was funded first by Republicans,” Comey said. “But that’s not true,” Baier interjected. “I’m sorry?” Comey said. “That’s not true that the dossier that Christopher Steel worked on was funded by Republicans,” Baier said. “My understanding was his work started, funded by, as oppo-research funded by Republicans,” Comey said.
This was six months after the information on this topic was widely known. Let’s just say that Comey’s claims of ignorance sometimes strain credulity. And that makes it difficult to take denials like the one he made today seriously.
As for the reliability of the underlying information, last night Democrats were quick to jump on this as Russian disinformation released as a kind of October surprise. DNI Ratcliffe responded to that by putting out a brief statement saying this was “not Russian disinformation.”
position exactly as I feared he would + the abuse is accelerating as we near the election" From @DNI_Ratcliffe “..this is not Russian disinformation + has not been assessed as such by the Intel Community + I'll be briefing Congress on sensitive sources + methods…in coming days” https://t.co/TqVz44GJX5 — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) September 30, 2020
The obvious question is how Ratcliffe could know that this was not Russian disinformation. If his own letter states the Intelligence Community isn’t sure about the accuracy of it, what is he basing his statement on? Until we know the basis for his claim this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Still, it’s infuriating to see Democrats pretend to be outraged about about injecting possible Russian disinformation into the public sphere after they spent nearly two years doing the same.
Ratcliffe’s decision to release Russian intelligence he concedes may be false is an obvious domestic political errand with an election weeks away. But his acknowledgment that it was derived from sensitive sources and methods—which he may now have compromised—is just inexcusable. https://t.co/671Lg0bGPh — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) September 29, 2020
Schiff literally made a career out of alleging there was evidence of collusion with Russia just around the corner. He spent hours on television flogging the reliability of the dossier and took the lead in denying the accuracy of the Nunes memo. He was wrong on every point. And now he’s shocked, shocked! that someone on the other side of the aisle is allegedly playing politics with intelligence. It’s absolutely laughable. There are no Democrats that I can think of who have any credibility to play this card but the single individual with the least credibility of all would have to be Adam Schiff. He should really sit this one out.
There isn’t a clip of the Graham-Comey exchange up yet so I’m embedding the full livestream. If you scroll in to this about 30 minutes you’ll find Graham’s questioning of Comey including the question about the referral.


hotair--2020-09-30--Luntz: For first time ever, undecideds in debate focus group decided not to vote at all

Consider Frank Luntz flabbergasted .
The experienced focus-group handler collected a number of undecided voters for the presidential debate , as he has in several cycles , in order to test the initial movement the event creates .
Usually Luntz gets a sense that undecideds have moved toward one candidate or another , and those results are a fairly good test of instant reaction … if not lasting impact .
This time , however , the movement was less towards a candidate , and more toward the door : Out of 15 undecided voters in a virtual focus group conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four said they were supporting Democratic nominee Joe Biden after watching the debate and two backed President Donald Trump .
The rest remained on the fence .
There were nine men and six women and they hailed from Arizona , Pennsylvania , Iowa , Florida , Ohio , North Carolina , Wisconsin and Nevada .
“ You just saw 90 minutes .
How can you still be undecided ?
” an incredulous Luntz asked .
“ Please explain that to me ?
” … The majority of the focus group remained undecided after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put a greater onus on Biden to deliver strong answers than Trump — excusing the president ’ s behavior as “ typical ” or just Trump being Trump .
It wasn ’ t just that they remained undecided .
Luntz reported last night that they had actually made a decision to not vote at all : Maybe we ’ ve never seen a debate like this before ?
Actually , that ’ s not really true ; this debate seems like a fairly clear replay of the Trump-Hillary Clinton debates four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those as well .
Plus , last Trump ’ s strategy in night ’ s debate — to the extent he had a strategy other than just being himself — had echoes of an earlier national debate , as Jim Geraghty noticed : Maybe that helped depress turnout in 2012 , too , but probably not .
Voters don ’ t tend to make decisions based on running mates or their debates , and they don ’ t make too many of their decisions based on game-show debates either .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night ’ s debate will have plenty of voters throwing in the towel after watching the two candidates take bitter and personal shots at each other .
If so , that ’ s a real problem for Joe Biden , much more so than with Donald Trump .
Biden leads in most polling , but lags significantly in enthusiasm .
Any decrease in turnout would impact the less enthusiastic voters whom Biden will need to turn out in force to perform up to the levels shown in polling .
Add that to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurately — the impact of the ground-game imbalance .
Trump and the RNC are pulling out all of the stops , at least mechanically , to support a successful GOTV effort .
Biden and the DNC aren ’ t doing any of that , which means that Trump ’ s edge on enthusiasm is even more potent .
Any decrease in turnout increases the odds of another 2016 outcome , where Trump wins close races not because he added a lot of votes but because voters didn ’ t turn out for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed something more than a default debating-society win on points — he needed to fire people up .
Luntz ’ group suggests he failed on that score last night , just as Biden and his campaign have failed on that score until now .
By the way , there were other indicators of more enthusiasm in post-debate analysis .
Telemundo ’ s snap polling on social media produced a surprising result : Telemundo ’ s hosts are correct to note that this isn ’ t scientific ; neither is Luntz ’ approach .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , if the result from Telemundo reflects Team Trump organizing more than a representative result , it ’ s still pretty impressive .
Keep that in mind when it comes to GOTV .

Consider Frank Luntz flabbergasted. The experienced focus-group handler collected a number of undecided voters for the presidential debate, as he has in several cycles, in order to test the initial movement the event creates. Usually Luntz gets a sense that undecideds have moved toward one candidate or another, and those results are a fairly good test of instant reaction … if not lasting impact.
This time, however, the movement was less towards a candidate, and more toward the door:
Out of 15 undecided voters in a virtual focus group conducted by veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz, four said they were supporting Democratic nominee Joe Biden after watching the debate and two backed President Donald Trump. The rest remained on the fence. There were nine men and six women and they hailed from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Nevada. “You just saw 90 minutes. How can you still be undecided?” an incredulous Luntz asked. “Please explain that to me?” … The majority of the focus group remained undecided after the lengthy, chaotic debate. Many put a greater onus on Biden to deliver strong answers than Trump — excusing the president’s behavior as “typical” or just Trump being Trump.
It wasn’t just that they remained undecided. Luntz reported last night that they had actually made a decision to not vote at all:
This debate has actually convinced some undecided voters to not vote at all. I’ve never seen a debate cause this reaction. #Debates2020 — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) September 30, 2020
Maybe we’ve never seen a debate like this before? Actually, that’s not really true; this debate seems like a fairly clear replay of the Trump-Hillary Clinton debates four years ago. People largely had the same reaction to those as well. Plus, last Trump’s strategy in night’s debate — to the extent he had a strategy other than just being himself — had echoes of an earlier national debate, as Jim Geraghty noticed:
Somewhere, a former speaker fo the House is chuckling, watching Biden stumbling as his own interrupting, jabbing, belittling tactics from 2012 are used against him. pic.twitter.com/3HrvKO6MVS — Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) September 30, 2020
A lot of Democrats are going to be frustrated with how tonight went, and they’re going to blame Chris Wallace. It’s not Wallace’s fault. Trump is playing nonstop heckler, every minute of this. Trump is doing to Biden what Biden did to Paul Ryan. — Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) September 30, 2020
Maybe that helped depress turnout in 2012, too, but probably not. Voters don’t tend to make decisions based on running mates or their debates, and they don’t make too many of their decisions based on game-show debates either.
However, it’s entirely possible that last night’s debate will have plenty of voters throwing in the towel after watching the two candidates take bitter and personal shots at each other. If so, that’s a real problem for Joe Biden, much more so than with Donald Trump. Biden leads in most polling, but lags significantly in enthusiasm. Any decrease in turnout would impact the less enthusiastic voters whom Biden will need to turn out in force to perform up to the levels shown in polling.
Add that to another problem that polls won’t measure accurately — the impact of the ground-game imbalance. Trump and the RNC are pulling out all of the stops, at least mechanically, to support a successful GOTV effort. Biden and the DNC aren’t doing any of that, which means that Trump’s edge on enthusiasm is even more potent. Any decrease in turnout increases the odds of another 2016 outcome, where Trump wins close races not because he added a lot of votes but because voters didn’t turn out for his opponent. With those disadvantages, Biden needed something more than a default debating-society win on points — he needed to fire people up. Luntz’ group suggests he failed on that score last night, just as Biden and his campaign have failed on that score until now.
By the way, there were other indicators of more enthusiasm in post-debate analysis. Telemundo’s snap polling on social media produced a surprising result:
Telemundo’s hosts are correct to note that this isn’t scientific; neither is Luntz’ approach. Both are ad hoc, self-selecting samples. However, if the result from Telemundo reflects Team Trump organizing more than a representative result, it’s still pretty impressive. Keep that in mind when it comes to GOTV.


hotair--2020-09-30--Scarborough to Biden: Don't do any more debates if Trump can't behave

A bad idea , although Ed made a strong argument in his post earlier about why Team Joe might consider it .
They ’ re up a touchdown and have possession of the ball with a minute left on the clock .
In that situation , you don ’ t continue to run it because that ’ s what “ the spirit of competition ” requires .
You kneel on it .
Your only goal is to avoid turnovers .
Doing the next two debates would be tantamount to running the ball twice .
But that strategy has problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so masterful last night that he erased all doubts in the minds of people who suspect he ’ s “ lost a step.
” If he pockets last night ’ s ugly victory and walks away , those doubts may hurt him at the polls .
Also , for reasons I don ’ t understand , there are still many , many millions of people who believe things that Trump says , and if Biden ducked the final two debates Trump will happily spend the next five weeks accusing him of trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Does that matter in a race where Biden ’ s winning comfortably ?
Nah , probably not .
Does that matter in a race that tightens in the final few weeks due to unforeseen circumstances ?
Yeah , maybe .
And even if a turbo-charged “ senility ” attack chipped away at Biden ’ s lead without quite costing him the election , margins matter .
Trump couldn ’ t have been clearer last night that he intends to contest the election if he loses no matter what the final vote looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landslide , he ’ ll embarrass himself by doing so .
If it ’ s close , 40 percent of the country will back him up .
Biden ’ s task isn ’ t just to win , it ’ s to win convincingly , indisputably .
The only way to undercut those turbo-charged attacks and deny fencesitters a reason to oppose him on grounds of mental competence is to keep showing them that he ’ s up to the job .
Bill Kristol and a hundred other pundits favorably disposed to Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning : No more debates .
Tuesday ’ s debate in Cleveland was a disgrace because of the behavior of one man , Donald Trump .
The interrupting and the bullying , the absence of both decency and dignity—those were Donald Trump ’ s distinctive contributions to the evening , and they gave the affair the rare and sickening character of a national humiliation .
There should be no more “ debates.
” For the sake of the country , Joe Biden should refuse to appear again on the same stage as Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice weekly town halls , including with Trump supporters .
He can do all manner of interviews and forums .
He can make clear he ’ s happy to engage with the American public in all kinds of ways .
But he should not put the nation through another ordeal like that .
The right strategy for Biden ’ s campaign comes down to this .
Is it riskier for him to hand Trump a pretext to ramp up the senility attacks , which Trump will certainly do if Biden skips the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riskier for him to stand on a stage and endure three more hours of Trump ’ s attacks ?
I say it ’ s the former , for this reason articulated by Guy Benson : Precisely .
In 2016 , when Trump was asserting himself as the leader in the GOP primaries , then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski described his strategy as “ Let Trump be Trump.
” And that turned out to be the right approach for a populist Republican base .
Trump was also Trump in the 2016 general election , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out not to be a crippling liability because the alternative was Hillary being Hillary .
This year , though , Team Joe has borrowed a page from Lewandowski : Their strategy is also “ Let Trump be Trump.
” Hide in the basement , say as little as possible , and do the debates because Trump is certainly going to be Trump in front of an audience of 90 million people .
To be sure , Ed was right in his post when he said that Trump will adjust his approach in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor Chris Christie all but guaranteed it last night — but he ’ s still Trump .
He can only adjust so much .
( And Biden will adjust his approach too , of course . )
It reminds me of when the White House coronavirus briefings began this past spring .
That was an opportunity to let Pence , Fauci , and Birx take the lead and show that his administration was competent and engaged .
Within weeks , though , the lure of the spotlight led Trump to turn them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his enemies .
By the end , he was breezily speculating about whether disinfectants might help cleanse the body of COVID .
He is who he is .
He can probably restrain himself from interrupting Biden so often next time , but he ’ s always going to come off to people who don ’ t adore him like — well , like a “ crackhead ” : I didn ’ t watch Luntz ’ s focus group but other terms used to describe Trump reportedly were “ unhinged , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ bully , ” “ chaotic ” and “ un-American.
” Which , again , is exactly Guy ’ s point .
If Trump did himself more harm than good last night… …and if he ’ s destined to do himself more harm than good because he can ’ t stop being Trump for 90 minutes , why shouldn ’ t Biden show up for debates two and three ?
Let Trump be Trump .
Just let him talk .
If I were Biden , I would actually pick up on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s focus group and start using it as a joke to drive home the perceptions of last night ’ s debate .
“ Usually Americans go into the voting booth when an incumbent president ’ s on the ballot and ask themselves , ‘ Am I better off now than I was four years ago ?
’ This year I want you to go into the voting booth and ask yourselves another question : ‘ Do I like having a president who sounds like a crackhead on stage ? '
” By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data above was taken had Biden “ winning ” the debate , 48/41 , which isn ’ t a bad result for the president .
It suggests , at least , that his base thought he won , which is probably the best-case scenario for him in the aftermath .
If he didn ’ t gain any new votes , at least he didn ’ t lose any .
CNN ’ s poll of debate-watchers had Biden ahead 60/28 , though .
I don ’ t think that means that Biden peeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does strongly imply that the first debate — Trump ’ s single best opportunity of the campaign for an instant gamechanger — wasn ’ t a gamechanger .
There ’ s one more reason for Biden to stick with the debates .
The next one on October 15th is a townhall forum in which the candidates get to interact with voters from Florida .
That format should favor Biden for the simple reason that it ’ ll give him opportunities to empathize with people harmed by COVID and unemployment .
Empathy is his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s weakest .
He should do that debate if only for that reason , to show voters that he feels their pain .
If he does well then I think maybe the balance of equities will tip towards Ed ’ s position of him ducking the third debate .
( “ I have nothing more to prove .
” )

A bad idea, although Ed made a strong argument in his post earlier about why Team Joe might consider it. They’re up a touchdown and have possession of the ball with a minute left on the clock. In that situation, you don’t continue to run it because that’s what “the spirit of competition” requires. You kneel on it. Your only goal is to avoid turnovers. Doing the next two debates would be tantamount to running the ball twice.
But that strategy has problem. For one, Biden wasn’t so masterful last night that he erased all doubts in the minds of people who suspect he’s “lost a step.” If he pockets last night’s ugly victory and walks away, those doubts may hurt him at the polls. Also, for reasons I don’t understand, there are still many, many millions of people who believe things that Trump says, and if Biden ducked the final two debates Trump will happily spend the next five weeks accusing him of trying to hide his Alzheimer’s or whatever. Does that matter in a race where Biden’s winning comfortably? Nah, probably not. Does that matter in a race that tightens in the final few weeks due to unforeseen circumstances? Yeah, maybe.
And even if a turbo-charged “senility” attack chipped away at Biden’s lead without quite costing him the election, margins matter. Trump couldn’t have been clearer last night that he intends to contest the election if he loses no matter what the final vote looks like. If it’s a landslide, he’ll embarrass himself by doing so. If it’s close, 40 percent of the country will back him up. Biden’s task isn’t just to win, it’s to win convincingly, indisputably. The only way to undercut those turbo-charged attacks and deny fencesitters a reason to oppose him on grounds of mental competence is to keep showing them that he’s up to the job.
This is a colossal waste of the American people’s time. If they are not going to cut his mic so we can have an exchange of ideas, then Biden should not attend any more debates, — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) September 30, 2020
Hey Team Biden, if this continues you, pull him off the stage. And do not do anymore debates. This is a disgrace. — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) September 30, 2020
Bill Kristol and a hundred other pundits favorably disposed to Biden made the same case as Scarborough this morning: No more debates.
Tuesday’s debate in Cleveland was a disgrace because of the behavior of one man, Donald Trump. The interrupting and the bullying, the absence of both decency and dignity—those were Donald Trump’s distinctive contributions to the evening, and they gave the affair the rare and sickening character of a national humiliation. There should be no more “debates.” For the sake of the country, Joe Biden should refuse to appear again on the same stage as Donald Trump. Biden can have weekly or twice weekly town halls, including with Trump supporters. He can do all manner of interviews and forums. He can make clear he’s happy to engage with the American public in all kinds of ways. But he should not put the nation through another ordeal like that.
The right strategy for Biden’s campaign comes down to this. Is it riskier for him to hand Trump a pretext to ramp up the senility attacks, which Trump will certainly do if Biden skips the second and third debates? Or is it riskier for him to stand on a stage and endure three more hours of Trump’s attacks? I say it’s the former, for this reason articulated by Guy Benson:
Finally, it seems to me that last night was a microcosm of the wider race. Here’s the dynamic: Biden wants the attention on Trump, and for his part, Trump cannot help but constantly remain the in-your-face center of attention. What Trump needed last night was for Biden to hurt himself in a real damaging “moment,” of which Biden is more than capable. But Trump didn’t give Biden any proverbial “rope” — time and space — with which to hang himself. He just couldn’t stop talking, interjecting, and jabbing, sucking up the oxygen at every turn. I can’t imagine Team Joe was too disappointed by that; it’s their whole strategy.
Precisely. In 2016, when Trump was asserting himself as the leader in the GOP primaries, then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski described his strategy as “Let Trump be Trump.” And that turned out to be the right approach for a populist Republican base. Trump was also Trump in the 2016 general election, which wasn’t as beneficial but which turned out not to be a crippling liability because the alternative was Hillary being Hillary. This year, though, Team Joe has borrowed a page from Lewandowski: Their strategy is also “Let Trump be Trump.” Hide in the basement, say as little as possible, and do the debates because Trump is certainly going to be Trump in front of an audience of 90 million people.
To be sure, Ed was right in his post when he said that Trump will adjust his approach in the second and third debates — campaign advisor Chris Christie all but guaranteed it last night — but he’s still Trump. He can only adjust so much. (And Biden will adjust his approach too, of course.) It reminds me of when the White House coronavirus briefings began this past spring. That was an opportunity to let Pence, Fauci, and Birx take the lead and show that his administration was competent and engaged. Within weeks, though, the lure of the spotlight led Trump to turn them into two-hour venting sessions in which he ranted about his enemies. By the end, he was breezily speculating about whether disinfectants might help cleanse the body of COVID.
He is who he is. He can probably restrain himself from interrupting Biden so often next time, but he’s always going to come off to people who don’t adore him like — well, like a “crackhead”:
lmaoooo…. @FrankLuntz just went around, asking everyone to use one word to describe Trump tonight… every single word was negative, and Ruthie went with "crackhead" again https://t.co/1wVuPJxYRv — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) September 30, 2020
I didn’t watch Luntz’s focus group but other terms used to describe Trump reportedly were “unhinged,” “arrogant,” “forceful,” a “bully,” “chaotic” and “un-American.” Which, again, is exactly Guy’s point. If Trump did himself more harm than good last night…
This is kinda interesting, aside from just who “won” debate Slightly more watchers say debate made them think better of Biden (38%) than worse of him (32%): nets to +6 When it comes to Trump, more watchers say it made them think worse (42%) than better of him (24%): nets to -18 pic.twitter.com/0tVuOg1h3K — Kabir K. (@kabir_here) September 30, 2020
…and if he’s destined to do himself more harm than good because he can’t stop being Trump for 90 minutes, why shouldn’t Biden show up for debates two and three? Let Trump be Trump. Just let him talk. If I were Biden, I would actually pick up on the “crackhead” line from Luntz’s focus group and start using it as a joke to drive home the perceptions of last night’s debate. “Usually Americans go into the voting booth when an incumbent president’s on the ballot and ask themselves, ‘Am I better off now than I was four years ago?’ This year I want you to go into the voting booth and ask yourselves another question: ‘Do I like having a president who sounds like a crackhead on stage?'”
By the way, the CBS/YouGov poll from which the data above was taken had Biden “winning” the debate, 48/41, which isn’t a bad result for the president. It suggests, at least, that his base thought he won, which is probably the best-case scenario for him in the aftermath. If he didn’t gain any new votes, at least he didn’t lose any. CNN’s poll of debate-watchers had Biden ahead 60/28, though. I don’t think that means that Biden peeled any MAGA votes away, but it does strongly imply that the first debate — Trump’s single best opportunity of the campaign for an instant gamechanger — wasn’t a gamechanger.
There’s one more reason for Biden to stick with the debates. The next one on October 15th is a townhall forum in which the candidates get to interact with voters from Florida. That format should favor Biden for the simple reason that it’ll give him opportunities to empathize with people harmed by COVID and unemployment. Empathy is his strongest quality as a retail politician and Trump’s weakest. He should do that debate if only for that reason, to show voters that he feels their pain. If he does well then I think maybe the balance of equities will tip towards Ed’s position of him ducking the third debate. (“I have nothing more to prove.”)


hotair--2020-09-30--Dallas salon owner jailed for defying lockdown orders wins spot in run-off for state senate seat

Remember Shelley Luther , the Dallas salon owner who reopened her business during the coronavirus shutdown ?
She decided to turn her story into action and is running for a seat in the Texas State Senate .
Tuesday night , she earned a spot in the run-off for that seat .
While everyone else was consumed with the presidential debate , a special election race was being held in the Dallas area .
Sen. Pat Fallon ( R-Prosper ) is running for Congress so his seat has been vacated .
The district is a solidly red district and stretches to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 % of precincts reporting , she and state Rep. Drew Springer of Muenster ended in a dead heat .
The third-place finisher was the only Democrat running .
This is an impressive showing by Shelley Luther .
The campaign was accelerated , with only about a month available for her to introduce herself to voters and make her case for why she should hold the office .
Since neither outright won , Governor Abbott will have to set the date for a run-off between the two Republicans .
Springer already represents a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said his strong performance in those areas Tuesday shows that constituents approve of his job performance .
It is mostly a rural area .
It ’ s not good news for Governor Abbott .
She is striking a chord with business owners , especially small business owners like herself , who are suffering over coronavirus lockdown orders .
Springer had to campaign against an unconventional Republican candidate who openly criticized the governor .
She called him a tyrant on the campaign trail .
Luther , whose refusal to shutter her Dallas hair salon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has built her campaign for state Senate on defying COVID-19 shutdown orders .
She pitched herself to the crowd as a normal person like them , who would take their fight to Austin , even if it means going up against the state ’ s Republican leader .
“ I ’ m embarrassed that we ’ ve been shut down that long , that our tyrant governor has embarrassed us completely , ” she said .
When she defied Governor Abbott ’ s lockdown orders , she was issued a citation .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued .
She was found in civil and criminal contempt of court for ignoring a restraining order .
Dallas Civil District Judge Eric Moyé ordered Luther to seven days in jail and fined her $ 500 for every day the salon stayed open .
She was given the opportunity to apologize and not serve any time in jail but she refused to do so .
She went on to explain to the judge why she reopened .
“ If you would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that your actions were selfish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in the community in which you live , ” Moyé said to Luther inside the courtroom Tuesday .
“ I have to disagree with you sir , when you say that I ’ m selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish , ” she said .
“ I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they ’ d rather feed their kids .
So sir , if you think the law is more important than kids being fed then please go ahead with your decision but I ’ m not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement at the time which disagreed with the judge putting Shelley in jail .
He quickly understood that she had the sympathies of Texans as a woman operating a small business , trying to support her children .
Governor Abbott reopened salons and barbershops shortly after all this happened .
Senator Ted Cruz was supportive of her and enjoyed some publicity for going to her salon for a haircut .
Megadonor Tim Dunn , who backs conservative challengers to office-holders he deems not conservative enough , is backing Shelley .
Springer had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in quarantine because his wife tested positive for the virus .
Abbott didn ’ t endorse in the race .
Voters in the district can look forward to more unconventional speech from her .
She proudly says she is not a politician and embraces her outsider status .
“ I never admitted to being a politician , but when it came down to who had the cojones when we were completely shut down and people were committing suicide , I stood up , ” Luther said .

Remember Shelley Luther, the Dallas salon owner who reopened her business during the coronavirus shutdown? She decided to turn her story into action and is running for a seat in the Texas State Senate. Tuesday night, she earned a spot in the run-off for that seat.
While everyone else was consumed with the presidential debate, a special election race was being held in the Dallas area. Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) is running for Congress so his seat has been vacated. The district is a solidly red district and stretches to the northwest around Dallas-Fort Worth. With 100% of precincts reporting, she and state Rep. Drew Springer of Muenster ended in a dead heat. The third-place finisher was the only Democrat running.
This is an impressive showing by Shelley Luther. The campaign was accelerated, with only about a month available for her to introduce herself to voters and make her case for why she should hold the office. Since neither outright won, Governor Abbott will have to set the date for a run-off between the two Republicans. Springer already represents a portion of Senate District 30. He said his strong performance in those areas Tuesday shows that constituents approve of his job performance. It is mostly a rural area.
“There’s a clear understanding they know who I am,” said Springer, who has spent four terms in the Texas House. “As we go forward, now we will have more time to visit with the folks in SD30.”
It’s not good news for Governor Abbott. She is striking a chord with business owners, especially small business owners like herself, who are suffering over coronavirus lockdown orders. Springer had to campaign against an unconventional Republican candidate who openly criticized the governor. She called him a tyrant on the campaign trail.
Luther, whose refusal to shutter her Dallas hair salon launched her into the national spotlight, has built her campaign for state Senate on defying COVID-19 shutdown orders. She pitched herself to the crowd as a normal person like them, who would take their fight to Austin, even if it means going up against the state’s Republican leader. “I’m embarrassed that we’ve been shut down that long, that our tyrant governor has embarrassed us completely,” she said.
When she defied Governor Abbott’s lockdown orders, she was issued a citation. She tore up the citation when it was issued. She was found in civil and criminal contempt of court for ignoring a restraining order. Dallas Civil District Judge Eric Moyé ordered Luther to seven days in jail and fined her $500 for every day the salon stayed open. She was given the opportunity to apologize and not serve any time in jail but she refused to do so. She went on to explain to the judge why she reopened.
“If you would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that your actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live,” Moyé said to Luther inside the courtroom Tuesday. Luther refused. “I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish,” she said. “I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed then please go ahead with your decision but I’m not going to shut the salon.”
Abbott released a statement at the time which disagreed with the judge putting Shelley in jail. He quickly understood that she had the sympathies of Texans as a woman operating a small business, trying to support her children.
“As I have made clear through prior pronouncements, jailing Texans for non-compliance with executive orders should always be the last available option,” he said. “Compliance with executive orders during this pandemic is important to ensure public safety; however, surely there are less restrictive means to achieving that goal than jailing a Texas mother.”
Governor Abbott reopened salons and barbershops shortly after all this happened. Senator Ted Cruz was supportive of her and enjoyed some publicity for going to her salon for a haircut.
Megadonor Tim Dunn, who backs conservative challengers to office-holders he deems not conservative enough, is backing Shelley. Springer had to spend the last part of the campaign in quarantine because his wife tested positive for the virus. Abbott didn’t endorse in the race. Voters in the district can look forward to more unconventional speech from her. She proudly says she is not a politician and embraces her outsider status.
“I never admitted to being a politician, but when it came down to who had the cojones when we were completely shut down and people were committing suicide, I stood up,” Luther said.


hotair--2020-09-30--NYC struggles to fix their mail-in ballot fiasco

This is a followup to the story that Ed covered earlier this week .
A vendor who was contracted to print and mail out absentee ballots to virtually everyone in Brooklyn and Queens who requested one sent them out with incorrect return addresses on the envelopes included with the ballots .
And we ’ re not just talking about a few of them .
Nearly 100,000 of the ballots were already on the streets before anyone noticed the error .
And as we ’ ll discuss in a moment , this problem is showing up in other states as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debacle is underway .
A fresh set of documents , allegedly with the correct information on the envelopes is being sent out to the same list of voters .
But that leaves several questions unanswered , including what ’ s going to happen to the people who already mailed theirs in without noticing the mistake ?
( Free Beacon ) One Brooklyn voter told CNN he fears the mistake could lead to somebody else casting a vote in his name .
“ Presumably , someone out there has an envelope with my name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t read the ballot as closely as I did , they could cast a vote in my name , ” Anders Kapur said .
Absentee voters in New York are required to enclose their ballots within an “ oath envelope , ” which includes the voter ’ s name , address , and voter ID , before mailing them back to be counted .
CNN said it was unclear if any of the ballots or envelopes had been returned to the elections board .
This is the second time New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in voting in Brooklyn .
One in four ballots cast for one Brooklyn primary in June were found to be invalid .
One election official said that they had no way of knowing how many ( if any ) of the flawed envelopes had been sent in already .
Discussions were allegedly underway to see if some “ accommodation ” could be made for such voters if they failed to notice the error and used the envelopes anyway .
But how would such an accommodation work ?
The ballot is either spoiled or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose fault it was .
If they start accepting spoiled ballots , they ’ re violating state election laws .
Even worse , imagine the confusion that will arise when people who have already sent in their ballots receive a new one in the mail .
We ’ re not even talking about voter fraud here .
This is just a case of massive incompetence and potentially innocent misunderstandings on the part of the public .
If someone learns that the original ballot they sent in was spoiled and they then send in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists that they might wind up voting twice if an “ accommodation ” is made for the first ballot .
At that point , the election results for those districts all have an asterisk next to them going forward .
As I mentioned at the top , it ’ s not just New York City that ’ s experiencing these headaches .
As Fox News reported yesterday , more than 1,000 voters in Virginia who requested absentee ballots received two of them in the mail .
But don ’ t worry .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be just fine .
According to several media reports about 1400 voters in Virginia got two absentee ballots mailed to them , but elections officials said only one would be counted .
Elections officials in Fairfax County told the Washington Post a printer problem led employees to mistakenly mail two ballots to about 1000 voters .
Officials said people should destroy the second ballot .
Officials told the Post there are safeguards in place to make sure someone can ’ t vote twice .
If a voter tried , a state verification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person with the same identity .
This is happening in Fairfax County and the election officials there are assuring everyone that their verification system will detect any ballots from a person whose vote was already counted and reject them .
But has that system ever been put to a wide-scale test ?
And let ’ s assume that the verification process actually does root out cases of double voting .
Will the voters be prosecuted for voter fraud if they vote twice ?
This question should apply to both New York and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual was intentionally trying to sneak in a second vote or if they were simply confused by the massive errors caused by the government ?
Yes indeed , this massive mail-in voting scheme is really turning out to be a sweet deal , isn ’ t it ?
If only someone had tried to warn us .

This is a followup to the story that Ed covered earlier this week. A vendor who was contracted to print and mail out absentee ballots to virtually everyone in Brooklyn and Queens who requested one sent them out with incorrect return addresses on the envelopes included with the ballots. And we’re not just talking about a few of them. Nearly 100,000 of the ballots were already on the streets before anyone noticed the error. And as we’ll discuss in a moment, this problem is showing up in other states as well.
Now the cleanup work for this debacle is underway. A fresh set of documents, allegedly with the correct information on the envelopes is being sent out to the same list of voters. But that leaves several questions unanswered, including what’s going to happen to the people who already mailed theirs in without noticing the mistake? (Free Beacon)
One Brooklyn voter told CNN he fears the mistake could lead to somebody else casting a vote in his name. “Presumably, someone out there has an envelope with my name on it, and if they don’t read the ballot as closely as I did, they could cast a vote in my name,” Anders Kapur said. Absentee voters in New York are required to enclose their ballots within an “oath envelope,” which includes the voter’s name, address, and voter ID, before mailing them back to be counted. CNN said it was unclear if any of the ballots or envelopes had been returned to the elections board. This is the second time New York City’s board of elections has flubbed mail-in voting in Brooklyn. One in four ballots cast for one Brooklyn primary in June were found to be invalid.
One election official said that they had no way of knowing how many (if any) of the flawed envelopes had been sent in already. Discussions were allegedly underway to see if some “accommodation” could be made for such voters if they failed to notice the error and used the envelopes anyway. But how would such an accommodation work? The ballot is either spoiled or it isn’t, regardless of whose fault it was. If they start accepting spoiled ballots, they’re violating state election laws.
Even worse, imagine the confusion that will arise when people who have already sent in their ballots receive a new one in the mail. We’re not even talking about voter fraud here. This is just a case of massive incompetence and potentially innocent misunderstandings on the part of the public. If someone learns that the original ballot they sent in was spoiled and they then send in a second one, the possibility clearly exists that they might wind up voting twice if an “accommodation” is made for the first ballot. At that point, the election results for those districts all have an asterisk next to them going forward.
As I mentioned at the top, it’s not just New York City that’s experiencing these headaches. As Fox News reported yesterday, more than 1,000 voters in Virginia who requested absentee ballots received two of them in the mail. But don’t worry. The election officials there said everything is going to be just fine.
According to several media reports about 1400 voters in Virginia got two absentee ballots mailed to them, but elections officials said only one would be counted. Elections officials in Fairfax County told the Washington Post a printer problem led employees to mistakenly mail two ballots to about 1000 voters. Officials said people should destroy the second ballot. Officials told the Post there are safeguards in place to make sure someone can’t vote twice. If a voter tried, a state verification system would reject a second ballot from a person with the same identity.
This is happening in Fairfax County and the election officials there are assuring everyone that their verification system will detect any ballots from a person whose vote was already counted and reject them. But has that system ever been put to a wide-scale test? And let’s assume that the verification process actually does root out cases of double voting. Will the voters be prosecuted for voter fraud if they vote twice? This question should apply to both New York and Virginia. Who is to say whether the individual was intentionally trying to sneak in a second vote or if they were simply confused by the massive errors caused by the government?
Yes indeed, this massive mail-in voting scheme is really turning out to be a sweet deal, isn’t it? If only someone had tried to warn us.


hotair--2020-09-30--Biden spox: You better believe we'll show up for the next two debates -- but we want new rules

Will he or won ’ t he ?
That question reverberated in political and media circles about whether Joe Biden would show up for last night ’ s presidential debate , or find a pretext on which to cancel them .
The subtext of that question was whether Biden was up for a 90-minute or two-hour debate with Donald Trump , or anyone , given his incredibly light schedule and increasingly common gaffes .
The same question arose after last night ’ s debate , but for other reasons .
Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be back for the next two debates .
However , the campaign wants to reopen negotiations with the presidential debate commission over the rules after last night ’ s slugfest : I bet there will be .
That itself suggests that the Biden team wasn ’ t all that secure about Biden ’ s overall performance , nor should they be .
Even if one thinks that Trump lost the debate — and there ’ s an arguable position for that — it ’ s not because Biden won it .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it to the end while Trump went too negative and got in his own way too often .
With that said , one has to wonder why Bedingfield and Team Biden would bother with another debate , let alone two more .
Biden really only needed to accomplish one task last night and in this cycle — remain engaged for 90 minutes and show he can stay on his feet and on offense on the same stage as Donald Trump .
Whatever else took place last night , and at times it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else took place , Biden succeeded in his primary task of not falling down .
What else is there left to prove ?
Biden and his team might calculate that they and the “ moderators ” can get Trump to say some damaging things in these debates , and that might be true .
Of course , Trump can do that without debates , and there ’ s an almost equal risk for Biden on that same score … theoretically , anyway .
His declaration that he won ’ t take a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the election was one of the worst dodges in a presidential debate , maybe ever .
Biden ’ s declaration that “ the party is me ” was also rather risible , especially since he then disclaimed any blame for what his party does or advocates .
In a media world with more objectivity , as Jazz noted earlier , Biden ’ s honesty and integrity would be getting more scrutiny this morning along with Trump ’ s .
Even if the risk is not the same , neither is the reward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes the expectations game from will Biden fall asleep to will Biden take positions and what are they .
It allows Trump to tune his game a bit better , or at least have the opportunity to do so and correct the impression left from this debate .
What ’ s the upside for Biden in a second debate , let alone two more ?
At this point , it would be better for Biden to get back to the bunker in which he ’ s spent most of the month .
Speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hands-down funniest moment last night , and a real missed opportunity for Trump to offer the obvious counterpunch : “ If you weren ’ t going to sleep at 9:30 am every day , Joe , you ’ d have seen me .
”

Will he or won’t he? That question reverberated in political and media circles about whether Joe Biden would show up for last night’s presidential debate, or find a pretext on which to cancel them. The subtext of that question was whether Biden was up for a 90-minute or two-hour debate with Donald Trump, or anyone, given his incredibly light schedule and increasingly common gaffes.
The same question arose after last night’s debate, but for other reasons. Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield told reporters last night after the event that Biden would be back for the next two debates. However, the campaign wants to reopen negotiations with the presidential debate commission over the rules after last night’s slugfest:
.@KBeds on the next debates: "Joe Biden’s going to show up. He's going to continue speaking directly to the American people." She added later that there ongoing discussions with debate commission, and "I would imagine there would be some additional conversations" after tonight. — Mike Memoli (@mikememoli) September 30, 2020
I bet there will be. That itself suggests that the Biden team wasn’t all that secure about Biden’s overall performance, nor should they be. Even if one thinks that Trump lost the debate — and there’s an arguable position for that — it’s not because Biden won it. He just happened to be on stage and make it to the end while Trump went too negative and got in his own way too often.
With that said, one has to wonder why Bedingfield and Team Biden would bother with another debate, let alone two more. Biden really only needed to accomplish one task last night and in this cycle — remain engaged for 90 minutes and show he can stay on his feet and on offense on the same stage as Donald Trump. Whatever else took place last night, and at times it seemed like a kitchen-sink debate where everything else took place, Biden succeeded in his primary task of not falling down.
What else is there left to prove? Biden and his team might calculate that they and the “moderators” can get Trump to say some damaging things in these debates, and that might be true. Of course, Trump can do that without debates, and there’s an almost equal risk for Biden on that same score … theoretically, anyway. His declaration that he won’t take a position on court-packing lest it become an issue in the election was one of the worst dodges in a presidential debate, maybe ever. Biden’s declaration that “the party is me” was also rather risible, especially since he then disclaimed any blame for what his party does or advocates. In a media world with more objectivity, as Jazz noted earlier, Biden’s honesty and integrity would be getting more scrutiny this morning along with Trump’s.
Even if the risk is not the same, neither is the reward. Getting back on stage with Trump changes the expectations game from will Biden fall asleep to will Biden take positions and what are they. It allows Trump to tune his game a bit better, or at least have the opportunity to do so and correct the impression left from this debate. What’s the upside for Biden in a second debate, let alone two more?
At this point, it would be better for Biden to get back to the bunker in which he’s spent most of the month. Speaking of which, this was for me the hands-down funniest moment last night, and a real missed opportunity for Trump to offer the obvious counterpunch: “If you weren’t going to sleep at 9:30 am every day, Joe, you’d have seen me.”


hotair--2020-09-30--Verizon looking to dump HuffPo

Verizon looking to dump HuffPo

If our parent company , Salem Media Group , is looking to pick up a new web property to expand their portfolio , there ’ s one on the market and it sounds like it might be available for bargain-basement prices .
Of course , it probably wouldn ’ t be a very good ideological fit without some major rebranding because we ’ re talking about the ultra-liberal Huffington Post .
The New York Post is reporting that Verizon , who picked up HuffPo as part of their acquisition of AOL five years ago , has been shopping the website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities for the past couple of months .
But at least thus far , nobody has been ready to take the bait .
Verizon has been quietly scrambling to unload HuffPost as it grapples with continued losses at the left-leaning news and culture website , The Post has learned .
The telecom giant — which acquired the site formerly known as the Huffington Post as part of its $ 4.4 billion purchase of AOL in 2015 — has approached multiple digital-media companies during the past few months in a bid to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the coronavirus , according to sources close to the situation .
Verizon has pitched the property to prospective buyers including Thrillist-owner Group Nine Media , Rolling Stone publisher Penske Media Corp. , Bustle Digital Media and J2 Global , insiders said .
Those media outlets declined to comment .
Vox was reportedly in talks to pick up HuffPo , but those talks apparently fell through .
Given their DNC affiliations , Vox would probably have been a fairly natural fit as a new home for the site , but one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested , at least at this time .
One digital media executive who spoke off the record told the NY Post that Huffpo has been losing money hand over fist .
“ It ’ s such a mess , I wouldn ’ t touch it with a 10-foot pole .
I don ’ t think there ’ s any way you can make money.
” The lack of advertising revenue is a major factor for anyone in this business during the pandemic .
It ’ s not because there ’ s no market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firms aren ’ t doing much business , their advertising budgets dwindle and they just can ’ t afford to place as many ads .
But Huffpo ’ s troubles reportedly started long before the novel coronavirus blew into town .
Part of their brand evaporated abruptly in 2016 when the site ’ s founder and namesake , Arianna Huffington , sold the company and left to start a new venture .
Of course , losing a founder isn ’ t always a death-blow in this business .
Breitbart has continued on with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Breitbart .
But that transition clearly wasn ’ t as easy for the Huffington Post to manage .
Any potential buyer will also undoubtedly be concerned about the union situation at HuffPo .
Their staff is unionized with the Writer ’ s Guild of America East and that will create massive problems if the new owner lays off fifty percent of the staff .
( As they would be expected to do if they want the site to return to profitability . )
As the linked report points out , HuffPo was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per year before the pandemic hit .
Those losses are projected to be even higher in 2020 with their shrinking advertising base .
So will the Huffington Post be around next year ?
It ’ s too soon to say .
But if anyone does want to dive into that venture , you can bet that it will be a very different organization going forward .
Original article corrected for referencing Vox instead of the Huffington Post in two sentences .

If our parent company, Salem Media Group, is looking to pick up a new web property to expand their portfolio, there’s one on the market and it sounds like it might be available for bargain-basement prices. Of course, it probably wouldn’t be a very good ideological fit without some major rebranding because we’re talking about the ultra-liberal Huffington Post. The New York Post is reporting that Verizon, who picked up HuffPo as part of their acquisition of AOL five years ago, has been shopping the website around to a number of other media entities for the past couple of months. But at least thus far, nobody has been ready to take the bait.
Verizon has been quietly scrambling to unload HuffPost as it grapples with continued losses at the left-leaning news and culture website, The Post has learned. The telecom giant — which acquired the site formerly known as the Huffington Post as part of its $4.4 billion purchase of AOL in 2015 — has approached multiple digital-media companies during the past few months in a bid to get the property off its books as losses accelerate due to the coronavirus, according to sources close to the situation. Verizon has pitched the property to prospective buyers including Thrillist-owner Group Nine Media, Rolling Stone publisher Penske Media Corp., Bustle Digital Media and J2 Global, insiders said. Those media outlets declined to comment.
Vox was reportedly in talks to pick up HuffPo, but those talks apparently fell through. Given their DNC affiliations, Vox would probably have been a fairly natural fit as a new home for the site, but one of their representatives said they weren’t interested, at least at this time.
One digital media executive who spoke off the record told the NY Post that Huffpo has been losing money hand over fist. “It’s such a mess, I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. I don’t think there’s any way you can make money.”
The lack of advertising revenue is a major factor for anyone in this business during the pandemic. It’s not because there’s no market for the content, but when retail firms aren’t doing much business, their advertising budgets dwindle and they just can’t afford to place as many ads. But Huffpo’s troubles reportedly started long before the novel coronavirus blew into town. Part of their brand evaporated abruptly in 2016 when the site’s founder and namesake, Arianna Huffington, sold the company and left to start a new venture. Of course, losing a founder isn’t always a death-blow in this business. Breitbart has continued on with significant strength after the untimely death of Andrew Breitbart. But that transition clearly wasn’t as easy for the Huffington Post to manage.
Any potential buyer will also undoubtedly be concerned about the union situation at HuffPo. Their staff is unionized with the Writer’s Guild of America East and that will create massive problems if the new owner lays off fifty percent of the staff. (As they would be expected to do if they want the site to return to profitability.) As the linked report points out, HuffPo was losing between 10 and 25 million dollars per year before the pandemic hit. Those losses are projected to be even higher in 2020 with their shrinking advertising base.
So will the Huffington Post be around next year? It’s too soon to say. But if anyone does want to dive into that venture, you can bet that it will be a very different organization going forward.
Original article corrected for referencing Vox instead of the Huffington Post in two sentences.