hotair--2020-08-12--Human Rights Watch pushing legislative ban on killer robots

I ’ m getting the impression that many of our readers are growing very tired of constantly having to worry about the current pandemic , the next pandemic , an impending alien invasion , the murder hornets or , God forbid , a Joe Biden presidency .
So in the interest of shoving all of that off of the front page for a little while , how about something to take your mind off all of those things ?
Something like… killer robots , perhaps ?
That ’ s been on the minds of the folks at Human Rights Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of their time thinking about global warming , but they see the killer robots as a serious threat to humanity ’ s future also .
So much so , in fact , that they have started an initiative to get all the industrialized nations fo the world to sign on to a treaty banning the development of fully autonomous weapons.
” Of course , given how well the whole Paris Accord thing worked out , I ’ m not holding my breath for this one to do much better .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrillers such as “ The Terminator , ” “ Blade Runner ” and “ Westworld ” have warned viewers that our reliance on artificial intelligence is a real threat to civilization .
Now , real-life researchers with the Human Rights Watch are sounding the alarm on potentially world-ending “ killer robots , ” according to a new report .
The message comes as part of their Campaign to Stop Killer Robots , which calls for a global ban on “ fully autonomous weapons.
” “ Removing human control from the use of force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to humanity that , like climate change , deserves urgent multilateral action , ” said Mary Wareham , advocacy director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch , in a press release on HRW.org , whose campaign is pushing for “ an international ban treaty ” on AI-operated weapons .
Given how much time I spend here harping on the coming robot revolution when the Artificial Intelligence wakes up , it would be fairly hypocritical of me to simply brush off the concerns of Human Rights Watch in this instance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as most of you know , and plenty of great thinkers have long been concerned over just how wrong things could go when you start mixing military-grade hardware with Artificial Intelligence without a human hand being available to intervene between the two .
So I ’ m not going to laugh this proposal off entirely .
But at the same time , there are problems with it .
As I alluded to above , any form of “ global treaty ” is going to raise concerns as long as there ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Or even worse , one country that says the will abide by the agreement but keeps on working on such systems in secret without adequate verification protocols in place .
If that apple is hanging from the tree , you know somebody is going to pick it sooner or later .
And that ’ s the other problem with this plan .
HRW may be worried about the arrival of killer robots , but the fact is that they ’ re already here and they ’ ve been here for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of decades now since the United States commissioned the Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers with the Lockheed Martin ’ s Aegis Combat System installed .
Those ships were built in such a way that even if the entire crew were to be killed off by radiation or whatever else during combat , the ship could identify enemy ships , aircraft , or subs on its own and attack them with multiple weapons systems .
Trust me , it had plenty of people nervous when it first rolled out .
More recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of autonomous , armed robots with muscular AI built into them .
They can be remotely controlled by a human , but they can also be put into automatic mode to seek out targets on their own .
And they ’ re already guarding five of their ballistic missile installations .
The Israelis have the Harpy missile that can stay airborne for nine hours and pick out targets by itself .
And back here in the United States , we ’ re supposed to have the X-47B drone in full service in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can have a pilot control it remotely , but if the connection is cut , the X-47B can go forth and hunt on its own , deciding on which targets to strike without human intervention .
So HRW may be expressing valid concerns here , but I ’ m afraid that horse has already left the barn and has long since faded out of sight .
The killer robots are here , folks .
Now we ’ re just waiting to find out if the Artificial Intelligence is actually capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just a fantasy .
And until a robot is proven to have come up with a completely original thought , truly autonomous AI will remain a fantasy… right up until the microsecond when it isn ’ t anymore .

I’m getting the impression that many of our readers are growing very tired of constantly having to worry about the current pandemic, the next pandemic, an impending alien invasion, the murder hornets or, God forbid, a Joe Biden presidency. So in the interest of shoving all of that off of the front page for a little while, how about something to take your mind off all of those things? Something like… killer robots, perhaps?
That’s been on the minds of the folks at Human Rights Watch this year. Sure, they spend a lot of their time thinking about global warming, but they see the killer robots as a serious threat to humanity’s future also. So much so, in fact, that they have started an initiative to get all the industrialized nations fo the world to sign on to a treaty banning the development of fully autonomous weapons.” Of course, given how well the whole Paris Accord thing worked out, I’m not holding my breath for this one to do much better. (NY Post)
For decades, robot thrillers such as “The Terminator,” “Blade Runner” and “Westworld” have warned viewers that our reliance on artificial intelligence is a real threat to civilization. Now, real-life researchers with the Human Rights Watch are sounding the alarm on potentially world-ending “killer robots,” according to a new report. The message comes as part of their Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, which calls for a global ban on “fully autonomous weapons.” “Removing human control from the use of force is now widely regarded as a grave threat to humanity that, like climate change, deserves urgent multilateral action,” said Mary Wareham, advocacy director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, in a press release on HRW.org, whose campaign is pushing for “an international ban treaty” on AI-operated weapons.
Given how much time I spend here harping on the coming robot revolution when the Artificial Intelligence wakes up, it would be fairly hypocritical of me to simply brush off the concerns of Human Rights Watch in this instance. This isn’t a new topic as most of you know, and plenty of great thinkers have long been concerned over just how wrong things could go when you start mixing military-grade hardware with Artificial Intelligence without a human hand being available to intervene between the two. So I’m not going to laugh this proposal off entirely.
But at the same time, there are problems with it. As I alluded to above, any form of “global treaty” is going to raise concerns as long as there’s one country not willing to go along with it. Or even worse, one country that says the will abide by the agreement but keeps on working on such systems in secret without adequate verification protocols in place. If that apple is hanging from the tree, you know somebody is going to pick it sooner or later.
And that’s the other problem with this plan. HRW may be worried about the arrival of killer robots, but the fact is that they’re already here and they’ve been here for a while. It’s been a couple of decades now since the United States commissioned the Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers with the Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System installed. Those ships were built in such a way that even if the entire crew were to be killed off by radiation or whatever else during combat, the ship could identify enemy ships, aircraft, or subs on its own and attack them with multiple weapons systems. Trust me, it had plenty of people nervous when it first rolled out.
More recently, the Russians premiered a new class of autonomous, armed robots with muscular AI built into them. They can be remotely controlled by a human, but they can also be put into automatic mode to seek out targets on their own. And they’re already guarding five of their ballistic missile installations. The Israelis have the Harpy missile that can stay airborne for nine hours and pick out targets by itself. And back here in the United States, we’re supposed to have the X-47B drone in full service in two years. Much like the Russian tech, we can have a pilot control it remotely, but if the connection is cut, the X-47B can go forth and hunt on its own, deciding on which targets to strike without human intervention.
So HRW may be expressing valid concerns here, but I’m afraid that horse has already left the barn and has long since faded out of sight. The killer robots are here, folks. Now we’re just waiting to find out if the Artificial Intelligence is actually capable of “waking up” or if that’s just a fantasy. And until a robot is proven to have come up with a completely original thought, truly autonomous AI will remain a fantasy… right up until the microsecond when it isn’t anymore.


hotair--2020-08-12--Success! California protects Uber drivers by ... costing them their jobs

The good news : Uber drivers will no longer feel exploited .
The bad news : They ’ ll also no longer feel employed .
Thanks to a court ruling that forces Uber to classify its drivers as employees rather than contractors , the ride-share firm ’ s CEO says the company will have to shut down in California at least until November , when a referendum allowing for a contractor relationship will go before voters : Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says the San Francisco-based company will likely shut down service in California temporarily if it ’ s forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khosrowshahi made the comment Wednesday during interview on MSNBC .
“ If the court doesn ’ t reconsider , then in California , it ’ s hard to believe we ’ ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly , ” Khosrowshahi said .
The announcement comes days after a judge ordered ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft to treat their California drivers as employees instead of independent contractors , a shift that would guarantee benefits like overtime , sick leave and expense reimbursement for workers who make up much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the state ’ s ludicrous AB-5 bill that has all but demolished the gig economy in California .
The law forces businesses to hire people onto payrolls if they engage them for any more than a handful of transactions .
The state legislature argued that contract work without benefits amounted to exploitation .
For free-lance writers , artists , and other kinds of contract workers , however , the law has all but dried up their income as businesses avoid working with anyone in California .
A court ruled that this applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although the contract arrangement had actually been typical with taxi services for decades .
That would also force a few other outcomes , Khosrowshahi made clear .
As costs go up , so do prices , and so do restrictions on employment : Employees , even part-time employees , are generally granted a slew of rights under California state and federal labor laws , while contractors are not .
Those rights include workers ’ compensation benefits , unemployment benefits and the right to unionize , among others.Last week , the California Labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed a similar lawsuit in Alameda County against Uber and Lyft for allegedly engaging in “ systemic wage theft.
” … Khosrowshahi said that if the company is forced to adhere to the judge ’ s ruling , it would “ take a significant amount of time ” for the company to retool .
He said the new version of Uber in California would result in “ much smaller service , much higher prices , ” harking back to the early days of Uber , when it was largely a private car service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s a reality , so it ’ s not a game of chicken one way or another , ” he said .
“ It ’ s really up to the courts and we ’ re going to comply with the law , and we will look to get going again.
” The only possible way out of the vise is the referendum , Proposition 22 , which would exempt app-based ride services from AB-5 .
Khosrowshahi wrote a defense of Prop 22 in the New York Times this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to be treated as employees — they want the flexibility of being contractors , and working when it suits them : Why not just treat drivers as employees ?
Some of our critics argue that doing so would make drivers ’ problems vanish overnight .
It may seem like a reasonable assumption , but it ’ s one that I think ignores a stark reality : Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and , in turn , the number of drivers needed to provide those trips .
Uber would not be as widely available to riders , and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees .
More important than what I think is what drivers think : In public surveys over the last decade , the vast majority of drivers have said they don ’ t want to be employees because of how much they value flexibility .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies found that two out of three app drivers would stop driving if their flexibility was compromised .
This is because they understand the trade-offs between traditional employment and app work .
Unlike traditional jobs , drivers have total freedom to choose when and how they drive , so they can fit their work around their life , not the other way around .
Anyone who ’ s been fired after having to miss a shift , or who ’ s been forced to choose between school and work , will tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value and simply does not exist with most traditional jobs .
True enough … but that ’ s also true of many gig workers , not just in the ride-sharing industry .
Why is the state of California interfering in those choices ?
In the current high-unemployment crisis of COVID-19 , worries about exploitation might be more legit , but California passed AB-5 when unemployment was at all-time lows .
There were more jobs for payroll jobs than applicants when the California legislature white-knighted gig workers .
And even now , perhaps gig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans , especially those with children locked out of closed schools .
Gig work allows people to work around scheduling issues and adapt on the fly .
Parents who need to support children through distance learning but still earn a living have better opportunities in some instances to do that by maintaining control of their work schedule rather than adapt to the necessities of a payroll-style work environment .
The real lesson from this episode is that AB-5 is a disaster .
Let people choose gig work , or choose more traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law allows workers only to choose no income at all , an all-but-predictable outcome of the perverse incentives created by AB-5 .

The good news: Uber drivers will no longer feel exploited. The bad news: They’ll also no longer feel employed. Thanks to a court ruling that forces Uber to classify its drivers as employees rather than contractors, the ride-share firm’s CEO says the company will have to shut down in California at least until November, when a referendum allowing for a contractor relationship will go before voters:
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says the San Francisco-based company will likely shut down service in California temporarily if it’s forced to classify its drivers as full-time employees. Khosrowshahi made the comment Wednesday during interview on MSNBC. “If the court doesn’t reconsider, then in California, it’s hard to believe we’ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly,” Khosrowshahi said. The announcement comes days after a judge ordered ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft to treat their California drivers as employees instead of independent contractors, a shift that would guarantee benefits like overtime, sick leave and expense reimbursement for workers who make up much of the freewheeling gig economy.
This comes from the state’s ludicrous AB-5 bill that has all but demolished the gig economy in California. The law forces businesses to hire people onto payrolls if they engage them for any more than a handful of transactions. The state legislature argued that contract work without benefits amounted to exploitation. For free-lance writers, artists, and other kinds of contract workers, however, the law has all but dried up their income as businesses avoid working with anyone in California.
A court ruled that this applies to ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, although the contract arrangement had actually been typical with taxi services for decades. That would also force a few other outcomes, Khosrowshahi made clear. As costs go up, so do prices, and so do restrictions on employment:
Employees, even part-time employees, are generally granted a slew of rights under California state and federal labor laws, while contractors are not. Those rights include workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment benefits and the right to unionize, among others.Last week, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office in Oakland also filed a similar lawsuit in Alameda County against Uber and Lyft for allegedly engaging in “systemic wage theft.” … Khosrowshahi said that if the company is forced to adhere to the judge’s ruling, it would “take a significant amount of time” for the company to retool. He said the new version of Uber in California would result in “much smaller service, much higher prices,” harking back to the early days of Uber, when it was largely a private car service that operated nearly entirely in city centers. “That’s a reality, so it’s not a game of chicken one way or another,” he said. “It’s really up to the courts and we’re going to comply with the law, and we will look to get going again.”
The only possible way out of the vise is the referendum, Proposition 22, which would exempt app-based ride services from AB-5. Khosrowshahi wrote a defense of Prop 22 in the New York Times this week, arguing that drivers don’t want to be treated as employees — they want the flexibility of being contractors, and working when it suits them:
Why not just treat drivers as employees? Some of our critics argue that doing so would make drivers’ problems vanish overnight. It may seem like a reasonable assumption, but it’s one that I think ignores a stark reality: Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today. Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips. Uber would not be as widely available to riders, and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees. More important than what I think is what drivers think: In public surveys over the last decade, the vast majority of drivers have said they don’t want to be employees because of how much they value flexibility. A recent survey commissioned by Uber and other companies found that two out of three app drivers would stop driving if their flexibility was compromised. This is because they understand the trade-offs between traditional employment and app work. Unlike traditional jobs, drivers have total freedom to choose when and how they drive, so they can fit their work around their life, not the other way around. Anyone who’s been fired after having to miss a shift, or who’s been forced to choose between school and work, will tell you that this type of freedom has real value and simply does not exist with most traditional jobs.
True enough … but that’s also true of many gig workers, not just in the ride-sharing industry. Why is the state of California interfering in those choices? In the current high-unemployment crisis of COVID-19, worries about exploitation might be more legit, but California passed AB-5 when unemployment was at all-time lows. There were more jobs for payroll jobs than applicants when the California legislature white-knighted gig workers.
And even now, perhaps gig work still makes sense for a lot of Americans, especially those with children locked out of closed schools. Gig work allows people to work around scheduling issues and adapt on the fly. Parents who need to support children through distance learning but still earn a living have better opportunities in some instances to do that by maintaining control of their work schedule rather than adapt to the necessities of a payroll-style work environment.
The real lesson from this episode is that AB-5 is a disaster. Let people choose gig work, or choose more traditional employment instead. Right now, California’s law allows workers only to choose no income at all, an all-but-predictable outcome of the perverse incentives created by AB-5.


hotair--2020-08-12--Ferguson Effect: Crime data shows rise in violent crime in U.S. cities

The National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice just released a report on crime rates in U.S. cities before and after the pandemic .
The report looked at public data from 27 cites and focused on 11 categories of crime .
It concludes that as the pandemic took hold and stay-at-home orders set in , some types of property crime decreased .
The one big exception to this trend was a spike in commercial burglary rates in late May .
The report connects this to reports of looting around the country that week : Where it did occur , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its abruptness , size , brevity , and timing .
It interrupted a lengthy period of declining commercial burglary rates and increased to a level three times higher than the peak rates of the previous several years .
The spike was limited to a single week—the same week in nearly every city where it occurred .
As noted earlier , the spike took place at the beginning of the period of social unrest after George Floyd ’ s killing in Minneapolis .
The cities with the greatest increases in commercial burglary—Los Angeles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chicago , and St. Louis—also had particularly large and boisterous demonstrations marked by sporadic property destruction and looting ( Taylor 2020 ; Wagner 2020 ) .
But the spike in commercial burglary ended as abruptly as it began , which calls into question claims that property damage and looting persisted as the protests continued through the month of June .
The bad news in the report is that violent crime appears to be up in several cities since the death of George Floyd .
The report says it ’ s impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in violent crime but it ’ s possible this is the return of the Ferguson effect .
In case you ’ ve forgotten what that was , the Ferguson Effect was the name given to the observation that after the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson several cities around the U.S. saw spikes in violent crime .
There was a public debate at the time which even included President Obama ( who discounted it ) and then-FBI Director James Comey ( who said it was the only explanation that fit all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noting that the author of the present report , University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld , was a key figure in that public discussion .
Rosenfeld intially published a paper discounting the Ferguson Effect and his paper was widely reported in the media at the time .
However , about a year later Rosenfeld reversed himself .
Here ’ s how the Guardian reported it in 2016 : In the current report , Rosenfeld writes that while he can ’ t draw any firm conclusions the situation does seem to parallel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Effect : It is too early to draw strong inferences about the causes of the recent rise in urban violence , but it is instructive to compare the recent upturn with the increase that occurred five years ago in the midst of a similar period of widespread protest against police violence .
Homicide and nonfatal violent crime increased in 2015 and 2016 in the aftermath of protests against police brutality in Ferguson , MO , Baltimore , Chicago , and elsewhere around the country .
Analysts tied the heightened violence to two versions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first connects the violence to “ de-policing , ” a pullback in law enforcement .
The second essentially turns this explanation on its head and connects the violence to “ de-legitimizing , ” positing that communities , disadvantaged communities of color in particular , drew even further away from the police due to breached trust and lost confidence .
As a result of diminished police legitimacy , fewer people reported crimes to the police or cooperated in investigations , and more engaged in street justice to settle disputes ( see Rosenfeld , Gaston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It remains unclear whether either of these theories explains the previous rise in violence , much less today ’ s increase .
What is clear is that there is no simple connection between protests against police brutality and violent crime .
Rosenfeld is somewhat agnostic about which version of the Ferguson Effect is at work here .
It may be both but I can immediately think of lots of evidence for the former version , i.e .
that police are pulling back .
That ’ s what happened in the CHAZ/CHOP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlanta where a little girl named Secoriea Turner was shot and killed when her mother tried to get away from a roadblock in the street near where Rayshard Brooks was shot .
And it happened in the section of Minneapolis around where George Floyd was killed .
Residents there say it has become a violent , police no-go zone at night .
One pregnant woman was shot in the area several weeks ago .
There ’ s plenty of evidence that police are pulling back and really who can blame them under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very clear to them that they aren ’ t wanted .
But what this report makes clear is that America ’ s cities still need the police to be active because when they aren ’ t violent crime increases .
Unfortunately , that ’ s not the way things are trending in many of these cities which are run by far left mayors and city councils .
What we have in many places now are demands to slash budgets and reduce the number of officers .
That ’ s going to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one is willing to say that out loud .

The National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice just released a report on crime rates in U.S. cities before and after the pandemic. The report looked at public data from 27 cites and focused on 11 categories of crime. It concludes that as the pandemic took hold and stay-at-home orders set in, some types of property crime decreased.
In summary, with one exception, property crime rates in US cities fell significantly during the spring of 2020. Drug offense rates did as well. The timing of these declines coincided with the stay-at-home mandates and business closings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarantines reduced residential burglary. When businesses are closed, there is no shoplifting. Selling drugs on the street is more difficult when there are fewer people on the street and when police prioritize away from drug enforcement activities.
The one big exception to this trend was a spike in commercial burglary rates in late May. The report connects this to reports of looting around the country that week:
Where it did occur, the spike in commercial burglary is notable for its abruptness, size, brevity, and timing. It interrupted a lengthy period of declining commercial burglary rates and increased to a level three times higher than the peak rates of the previous several years. The spike was limited to a single week—the same week in nearly every city where it occurred. As noted earlier, the spike took place at the beginning of the period of social unrest after George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis. The cities with the greatest increases in commercial burglary—Los Angeles, Washington, New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, and St. Louis—also had particularly large and boisterous demonstrations marked by sporadic property destruction and looting (Taylor 2020; Wagner 2020). But the spike in commercial burglary ended as abruptly as it began, which calls into question claims that property damage and looting persisted as the protests continued through the month of June.
The bad news in the report is that violent crime appears to be up in several cities since the death of George Floyd.
Rates of homicide and aggravated assault also increased significantly in late May of 2020. Some of the violence was directly connected to the protest activity, although in most cases it appears to have involved persons other than the protesters (Taylor 2020). Most of the increase in violent crime took place away from the demonstrations and was not limited to a single week.
The report says it’s impossible to pin down a specific reason for the increase in violent crime but it’s possible this is the return of the Ferguson effect. In case you’ve forgotten what that was, the Ferguson Effect was the name given to the observation that after the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson several cities around the U.S. saw spikes in violent crime. There was a public debate at the time which even included President Obama (who discounted it) and then-FBI Director James Comey (who said it was the only explanation that fit all the facts).
It’s worth noting that the author of the present report, University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld, was a key figure in that public discussion. Rosenfeld intially published a paper discounting the Ferguson Effect and his paper was widely reported in the media at the time. However, about a year later Rosenfeld reversed himself. Here’s how the Guardian reported it in 2016:
Looking at data from 56 large cities across the country, Rosenfeld found a 17% increase in homicide in 2015. Much of that increase came from only 10 cities, which saw an average 33% increase in homicide… “The only explanation that gets the timing right is a version of the Ferguson effect,” Rosenfeld said. Now, he said, that’s his “leading hypothesis”.
In the current report, Rosenfeld writes that while he can’t draw any firm conclusions the situation does seem to parallel the previous rise in violence aka the Ferguson Effect:
It is too early to draw strong inferences about the causes of the recent rise in urban violence, but it is instructive to compare the recent upturn with the increase that occurred five years ago in the midst of a similar period of widespread protest against police violence. Homicide and nonfatal violent crime increased in 2015 and 2016 in the aftermath of protests against police brutality in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore, Chicago, and elsewhere around the country. Analysts tied the heightened violence to two versions of the so-called Ferguson Effect. The first connects the violence to “de-policing,” a pullback in law enforcement. The second essentially turns this explanation on its head and connects the violence to “de-legitimizing,” positing that communities, disadvantaged communities of color in particular, drew even further away from the police due to breached trust and lost confidence. As a result of diminished police legitimacy, fewer people reported crimes to the police or cooperated in investigations, and more engaged in street justice to settle disputes (see Rosenfeld, Gaston, Spivak, and Irazola 2017). It remains unclear whether either of these theories explains the previous rise in violence, much less today’s increase. What is clear is that there is no simple connection between protests against police brutality and violent crime.
Rosenfeld is somewhat agnostic about which version of the Ferguson Effect is at work here. It may be both but I can immediately think of lots of evidence for the former version, i.e. that police are pulling back. That’s what happened in the CHAZ/CHOP, with deadly consequences. It happened in Atlanta where a little girl named Secoriea Turner was shot and killed when her mother tried to get away from a roadblock in the street near where Rayshard Brooks was shot. And it happened in the section of Minneapolis around where George Floyd was killed. Residents there say it has become a violent, police no-go zone at night. One pregnant woman was shot in the area several weeks ago.
There’s plenty of evidence that police are pulling back and really who can blame them under the circumstances. It’s been made very clear to them that they aren’t wanted. But what this report makes clear is that America’s cities still need the police to be active because when they aren’t violent crime increases. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things are trending in many of these cities which are run by far left mayors and city councils. What we have in many places now are demands to slash budgets and reduce the number of officers. That’s going to make the situation worse but at this moment almost no one is willing to say that out loud.


hotair--2020-08-12--Another 25-year-old cold case solved through genealogy

This one may not be on the same level as the Golden State Killer in terms of national notoriety , but it was still a horrible crime that went unsolved for nearly a quarter of a century .
On May 4 , 1996 , Jessica Baggen attended a birthday party in her honor at her sister ’ s house in the city of Sitka , Alaska .
( The word “ city ” is used generously , as the town has a population of barely more than 8,000 . )
After the party , she left to walk back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alive again .
Jessica ’ s body was found buried in a shallow grave two days later .
She had been raped and murdered .
One person bizarrely confessed to the crime but was acquitted when it was determined that he couldn ’ t have been the perpetrator .
The case went cold after that and remained in the unsolved file until 2018 .
That ’ s when another set of genetic sleuths requested DNA evidence from Jessica ’ s autopsy and got to work with the help of a genetics laboratory and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months ago they had identified a suspect far away in Arkansas .
What happened next was almost as shocking as the original events .
( NBC News ) A suspect identified in the case , Steve Branch , 66 , died by suicide last week after state police investigators traveled to his home in Austin , Arkansas , to interview him about Baggen ’ s murder in the city of Sitka , southwest of Juneau , Alaska State Police Maj. Dave Hanson told reporters .
After authorities tried to obtain a DNA sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s slaying and refused to provide one , Hanson said .
Thirty minutes after the officers left to get a warrant , Branch died by suicide , Hanson said .
“ While Branch will never face a jury of his peers in this case , we can finally say that Jessica ’ s case is solved , ” Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Amanda Price said .
At first , I was tempted to put the phrase committed suicide in scare quotes when talking about Steve Branch .
It ’ s awfully convenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunting for that long suddenly take himself off the field of play just when you ’ ve identified him .
But on further reflection , it probably makes sense .
The guy was 66-years-old and had been on the run for decades .
When the police showed up at his door that far from the scene of the crime asking about this specific rape and murder , he no doubt realized that the game was over .
If he was taken back to Alaska to stand trial he would probably have died in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure why the cops left him alone long enough to take his own life .
I realize that they needed to get a warrant to demand a DNA sample from him , but the idea that he would either try to flee or take his own life must have crossed their minds .
Still , at least they found the monster before he had a chance to live out his entire , natural lifespan as a free man .
We ’ re seeing more and more of these cold cases being solved via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire reality series on the subject named The Genetic Detective .
( A very good show , by the way if you haven ’ t checked it out yet . )
I still see people raising privacy complaints about the use of genetic research in these investigations , but I ’ ve yet to hear one argument that makes me feel much sympathy for the people involved .
The databases these teams use are full of DNA that was knowingly and voluntarily submitted by people interested in their own backgrounds and ancestry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a killer or rapist , so be it .
In this case , it sounds like they didn ’ t get an immediate hit from a close relative in the same geographic vicinity .
But somebody in Branch ’ s family must have contributed a sample at some point , perhaps in Alaska .
That could have slowed down the search until they came up with a relatively close match popping up in the lower 48 .
At that point , I would assume that investigators were able to dig through Branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had lived up in Alaska at the time the crime took place .
It turns out that he had also been arrested for the rape of another minor during the same period but was acquitted at trial , so that may have helped law enforcement to narrow it down as well .
As I said previously , this is an exciting time and a fascinating area of science in terms of bringing well-hidden criminals to justice .
And as time goes by and these databases grow larger , more and more crimes should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps saving future victims from these types of attacks by getting the perpetrators off the streets rapidly .

This one may not be on the same level as the Golden State Killer in terms of national notoriety, but it was still a horrible crime that went unsolved for nearly a quarter of a century. On May 4, 1996, Jessica Baggen attended a birthday party in her honor at her sister’s house in the city of Sitka, Alaska. (The word “city” is used generously, as the town has a population of barely more than 8,000.) After the party, she left to walk back to her home. She was never seen alive again.
Jessica’s body was found buried in a shallow grave two days later. She had been raped and murdered. One person bizarrely confessed to the crime but was acquitted when it was determined that he couldn’t have been the perpetrator. The case went cold after that and remained in the unsolved file until 2018. That’s when another set of genetic sleuths requested DNA evidence from Jessica’s autopsy and got to work with the help of a genetics laboratory and a public genealogy service. A few months ago they had identified a suspect far away in Arkansas. What happened next was almost as shocking as the original events. (NBC News)
A suspect identified in the case, Steve Branch, 66, died by suicide last week after state police investigators traveled to his home in Austin, Arkansas, to interview him about Baggen’s murder in the city of Sitka, southwest of Juneau, Alaska State Police Maj. Dave Hanson told reporters. After authorities tried to obtain a DNA sample, Branch denied involvement in the teen’s slaying and refused to provide one, Hanson said. Thirty minutes after the officers left to get a warrant, Branch died by suicide, Hanson said. “While Branch will never face a jury of his peers in this case, we can finally say that Jessica’s case is solved,” Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Amanda Price said.
At first, I was tempted to put the phrase committed suicide in scare quotes when talking about Steve Branch. It’s awfully convenient to have someone you’ve been hunting for that long suddenly take himself off the field of play just when you’ve identified him. But on further reflection, it probably makes sense. The guy was 66-years-old and had been on the run for decades. When the police showed up at his door that far from the scene of the crime asking about this specific rape and murder, he no doubt realized that the game was over. If he was taken back to Alaska to stand trial he would probably have died in prison anyway.
I’m not sure why the cops left him alone long enough to take his own life. I realize that they needed to get a warrant to demand a DNA sample from him, but the idea that he would either try to flee or take his own life must have crossed their minds. Still, at least they found the monster before he had a chance to live out his entire, natural lifespan as a free man.
We’re seeing more and more of these cold cases being solved via genetic research. ABC has created an entire reality series on the subject named The Genetic Detective. (A very good show, by the way if you haven’t checked it out yet.) I still see people raising privacy complaints about the use of genetic research in these investigations, but I’ve yet to hear one argument that makes me feel much sympathy for the people involved. The databases these teams use are full of DNA that was knowingly and voluntarily submitted by people interested in their own backgrounds and ancestry. If that leads to a close match to a killer or rapist, so be it.
In this case, it sounds like they didn’t get an immediate hit from a close relative in the same geographic vicinity. But somebody in Branch’s family must have contributed a sample at some point, perhaps in Alaska. That could have slowed down the search until they came up with a relatively close match popping up in the lower 48. At that point, I would assume that investigators were able to dig through Branch’s history and find that he had lived up in Alaska at the time the crime took place. It turns out that he had also been arrested for the rape of another minor during the same period but was acquitted at trial, so that may have helped law enforcement to narrow it down as well.
As I said previously, this is an exciting time and a fascinating area of science in terms of bringing well-hidden criminals to justice. And as time goes by and these databases grow larger, more and more crimes should wind up being solved more quickly, perhaps saving future victims from these types of attacks by getting the perpetrators off the streets rapidly.


hotair--2020-08-12--Wow: Chicago neighborhood ejects BLM protesters at police station

Englewood may set the tone for dealing with rioters for the rest of the summer .
After the organized pillaging this weekend on the Magnificent Mile , the city of Chicago toughened up their security stance .
Black Lives Matter protesters and others set their sights on the Englewood neighborhood ’ s police precinct , but residents there pushed them out — literally .
“ Those people were opportunist [ s ] , ” one leader of the neighborhood pushback told reporters : A protest Tuesday started over a Chicago police-involved shooting and ended when Englewood residents pushed back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing and shoving , which forced the protesters to retreat .
A caravan started on 64th and Cottage Grove , and the protesters eventually ended up in front of the 7th District police station , but it didn ’ t last long .
“ If you ain ’ t from Englewood , get the F*** out of here , ” longtime neighborhood resident Darryl Smith told protesters… .
“ A lot of people saying the looting started because of Englewood .
We are tired of Englewood getting a black eye , those people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He says he ’ s not buying it and he and other Englewood residents had wanted the protesters from Black Lives Matter Chicago , Good Kids Mad City and other groups to leave .
Three cheers for Englewood ?
This should make us feel conflicted , at least to some extent .
There is no indication that the protest had turned violent or that laws were being broken .
BLM and the other associated groups have a First Amendment right to demonstrate lawfully and peacefully .
Others do not have the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of neighborhoods simply because they don ’ t like them .
On the other hand , the Englewood neighborhood simply gave these protesters exactly what they want — mob rule .
BLM Chicago practically celebrated mob rule in their statement Monday , claiming that the pillaging of the Magnificent Mile was a legitimate response to corporate exploitation .
Well , this is what happens with mob rule : competing mobs .
This time , the competition was peaceful , but in Fort Collins , Colorado , it wasn ’ t , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time , too .
If BLM and their associates have any complaints after Englewood , they should rethink their agenda .
The people we pay to keep order , protect our civil rights , and discourage mob actions are the very people BLM and their affiliates want to abolish .
The police are far from perfect , but they are by far the best option .
The more they get pushed behind their walls , the more that mobs will start dealing with the mobs intimidating the police — and it won @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Englewood may set the tone for dealing with rioters for the rest of the summer. After the organized pillaging this weekend on the Magnificent Mile, the city of Chicago toughened up their security stance. Black Lives Matter protesters and others set their sights on the Englewood neighborhood’s police precinct, but residents there pushed them out — literally.
“Those people were opportunist[s],” one leader of the neighborhood pushback told reporters:
A protest Tuesday started over a Chicago police-involved shooting and ended when Englewood residents pushed back. Expletives were dropped, and there was pushing and shoving, which forced the protesters to retreat. A caravan started on 64th and Cottage Grove, and the protesters eventually ended up in front of the 7th District police station, but it didn’t last long. “If you ain’t from Englewood, get the F*** out of here,” longtime neighborhood resident Darryl Smith told protesters…. “A lot of people saying the looting started because of Englewood. We are tired of Englewood getting a black eye, those people were opportunist,” Smith said. He says he’s not buying it and he and other Englewood residents had wanted the protesters from Black Lives Matter Chicago, Good Kids Mad City and other groups to leave.
Three cheers for Englewood? This should make us feel conflicted, at least to some extent. There is no indication that the protest had turned violent or that laws were being broken. BLM and the other associated groups have a First Amendment right to demonstrate lawfully and peacefully. Others do not have the right to disrupt peaceful demonstrations or chase people out of neighborhoods simply because they don’t like them.
On the other hand, the Englewood neighborhood simply gave these protesters exactly what they want — mob rule. BLM Chicago practically celebrated mob rule in their statement Monday, claiming that the pillaging of the Magnificent Mile was a legitimate response to corporate exploitation. Well, this is what happens with mob rule: competing mobs. This time, the competition was peaceful, but in Fort Collins, Colorado, it wasn’t, and the “abolish the police” crowd lost that time, too.
If BLM and their associates have any complaints after Englewood, they should rethink their agenda. The people we pay to keep order, protect our civil rights, and discourage mob actions are the very people BLM and their affiliates want to abolish. The police are far from perfect, but they are by far the best option. The more they get pushed behind their walls, the more that mobs will start dealing with the mobs intimidating the police — and it won’t end well for anyone.


hotair--2020-08-12--Trump congratulates QAnon-er on winning Georgia House primary, because why not

A perfect snapshot of the party circa 2020 , and one of those ever more frequent moments that reminds me of Kevin Williamson ’ s reaction to Trump cinching the nomination in 2016 .
The mystery , as usual , is whether Trump acted from ignorance , because he doesn ’ t know much about Greene or QAnon , or from malicious intent , because he *does .
* I lean towards “ ignorance ” in this case , partly because his tweet cuts against the wishes of his buddies in the House and partly because it ’ s potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tight races , especially in Georgia .
“ There are a lot of members livid at McCarthy for sitting back and doing nothing to stop this woman from being elected while the entire Georgia delegation , Scalise and some moderates tried ” to help her opponent , said one House Republican aide closely monitoring the race .
A spokesman for McCarthy did not immediately respond to a request for comment… Republicans on Capitol Hill have yet to take similar action against Greene , though some did speak out against her when Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she spewed offensive remarks .
In the videos , she said Black people are “ held slaves to the Democratic Party ” and called the election in 2018 of the first two Muslim women to Congress evidence of an “ Islamic invasion of our government.
” She described George Soros , the liberal investor and Holocaust survivor , as a “ Nazi himself trying to continue what was not finished.
” Those comments met with condemnation from Republican leaders .
Emmer said he was “ personally disgusted ” by her rhetoric .
Scalise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office said in June he was appalled , though he did not choose a side in the primary .
In fact , Greene said in a recent video interview that McCarthy remained supportive of her .
Greene won the primary in Georgia ’ s 14th District , which is overwhelmingly red .
Democrats will make great hay of her QAnon beliefs there , probably to no avail .
But it ’ s not the 14th District they care about ; they ’ re going to look for ways to make Greene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are more competitive .
“ Her winning the primary is the best news Democrats could ask for , ” said one senior Georgia GOP official to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution .
“ Greene ’ s victory is going to be an anchor around every Republican who is relying on votes in metro Atlanta.
” The paper added that “ Many Georgia Republicans will now try to distance themselves from her , ” which is true — but will be a wee bit harder to do now that the genius leader of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future Republican star.
” That ’ s attack-ad material , gift-wrapped for Dems .
Even if she doesn ’ t cost the party any seats , as a congresswoman she ’ s destined to be catnip for a media eager to make her the face of the party nationally and an endless headache for McCarthy , Scalise , and Liz Cheney as she regales the press with her belief that “ There ’ s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out , and I think we have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll modify that belief if Trump is no longer president is an open question ; presumably she ’ ll just resort to accusing Biden of being the leader of said Satan-worshiping pedophilic cabal .
Then McCarthy will face the enjoyable decision of how far to distance the party from her .
Strip her of her committee assignments ?
Kick her out of the caucus ?
Do nothing at all ?
There are plenty of devotees out there who ’ ll be unhappy if she ’ s disciplined .
Does the GOP really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweet QAnon votes ?
Adam Kinzinger , a rare House Republican who does speak up sporadically to criticize Trump , offered this today : We ’ ll see how his colleagues handle it .
My guess is it ’ ll be the same way they handle Trump ’ s daily political farts , ignoring them to whatever extent feasible and hoping they go away .
As I say , because Greene is a liability for the party , I lean towards believing that Trump is largely ignorant of who she is and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other hand , people were showing up to his rallies in “ Q ” gear long before the pandemic shut everything down .
His own campaign has gotten bolder about playing footsie with the movement lately , recognizing them as a source of money and manpower in an election year .
He must have some idea of what she ’ s about .
As a psychological matter , it must be enormously seductive to a grandiose narcissist like Trump to have a cult placing him at the center of their faith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to liberate children from the forces of Satanic evil .
So maybe he knows what he ’ s doing here , caring more about cultivating people who worship him than helping his party electorally .
The movement ’ s promoters seem to be taking this morning ’ s tweet as encouragement , at least : Lots has been written about the scenario in which Trump loses the election and then spends the next four years asserting his influence over the party from the sidelines , whether as a 2024 kingmaker , a promoter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospects , a nationalist critic of centrist drifts among the party , and so on .
But I don ’ t think people have taken seriously enough the possibility of him egging on the QAnon-ers in tweets and interviews .
No moral scruples would prevent him from encouraging people in a delusion from which he profits somehow ; ask the suckers who signed up for Trump University about that .
He ’ s already proved that he ’ s willing to push other conspiracy theories to gain political relevance per the Birther stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tease the Q-bots by occasionally saying things like , “ You have no idea how bad the depravity is , believe me .
I wish I could tell you but I can ’ t right now .
All will be revealed soon.
” ?
Jonathan Last wrote a piece a few days ago about the two theories of Trump-era Republicanism .
One is that Trump exposed that Republican voters have different policy priorities ( protectionism , immigration restrictionism , isolationism ) than their representatives in Congress .
The second is that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much care about policy but want a champion who ’ ll prosecute the culture war for them .
Last puts it this way : I ’ d rephrase it to say that they ’ re fine with bringing tech giants to heel , maybe even enthusiastic , but *only if* they get Lafayette Park too .
That ’ s the entree , making the libs cry ; regulating big tech is the side dish .
The rise of Greene in Georgia and the spectacle of Trump heralding her as the future of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t end up five years from now with some small but noisy QAnon caucus in Congress to complement the slightly more mainstream Identity Politics Conservative majority .
It ’ ll be a fringy , dystopian version of the Boehner/tea party and Ryan/Freedom Caucus dichotomies of the past decade , with QAnon-ers bellowing that the others are RINOs because they won ’ t act to stop President Biden from feeding children to his coven of witches or whatever .
Although maybe electoral realities prohibit that : If the GOP takes enough of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2024 , at some point they ’ ll push a more mainstream product aimed at winning back some of the voters they ’ ve lost .
Or maybe they ’ ll just sit back , remind themselves that parties almost never remain out of the majority for long anymore no matter what they ’ re up to ( Ilhan Omar will be back in Congress next year , right ? )
, and just continue to ride whatever tiger they ’ re riding .
I ’ ll leave you with this , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misery , and social isolation aren ’ t the only gifts COVID-19 has given us .

A perfect snapshot of the party circa 2020, and one of those ever more frequent moments that reminds me of Kevin Williamson’s reaction to Trump cinching the nomination in 2016.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293525010523578375
The mystery, as usual, is whether Trump acted from ignorance, because he doesn’t know much about Greene or QAnon, or from malicious intent, because he *does.* I lean towards “ignorance” in this case, partly because his tweet cuts against the wishes of his buddies in the House and partly because it’s potentially destructive to the party’s chances in tight races, especially in Georgia.
“There are a lot of members livid at McCarthy for sitting back and doing nothing to stop this woman from being elected while the entire Georgia delegation, Scalise and some moderates tried” to help her opponent, said one House Republican aide closely monitoring the race. A spokesman for McCarthy did not immediately respond to a request for comment… Republicans on Capitol Hill have yet to take similar action against Greene, though some did speak out against her when Politico unearthed hours of Facebook videos in which she spewed offensive remarks. In the videos, she said Black people are “held slaves to the Democratic Party” and called the election in 2018 of the first two Muslim women to Congress evidence of an “Islamic invasion of our government.” She described George Soros, the liberal investor and Holocaust survivor, as a “Nazi himself trying to continue what was not finished.” Those comments met with condemnation from Republican leaders. Emmer said he was “personally disgusted” by her rhetoric. Scalise called her comments “disgusting.” McCarthy’s office said in June he was appalled, though he did not choose a side in the primary. In fact, Greene said in a recent video interview that McCarthy remained supportive of her.
Greene won the primary in Georgia’s 14th District, which is overwhelmingly red. Democrats will make great hay of her QAnon beliefs there, probably to no avail. But it’s not the 14th District they care about; they’re going to look for ways to make Greene the face of the GOP in districts that are more competitive. “Her winning the primary is the best news Democrats could ask for,” said one senior Georgia GOP official to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “Greene’s victory is going to be an anchor around every Republican who is relying on votes in metro Atlanta.” The paper added that “Many Georgia Republicans will now try to distance themselves from her,” which is true — but will be a wee bit harder to do now that the genius leader of the party has promoted her nationally as a “future Republican star.” That’s attack-ad material, gift-wrapped for Dems.
Even if she doesn’t cost the party any seats, as a congresswoman she’s destined to be catnip for a media eager to make her the face of the party nationally and an endless headache for McCarthy, Scalise, and Liz Cheney as she regales the press with her belief that “There’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.” How she’ll modify that belief if Trump is no longer president is an open question; presumably she’ll just resort to accusing Biden of being the leader of said Satan-worshiping pedophilic cabal. Then McCarthy will face the enjoyable decision of how far to distance the party from her. Strip her of her committee assignments? Kick her out of the caucus? Do nothing at all? There are plenty of devotees out there who’ll be unhappy if she’s disciplined. Does the GOP really want to risk losing those sweet, sweet QAnon votes?
Adam Kinzinger, a rare House Republican who does speak up sporadically to criticize Trump, offered this today:
Qanon is a fabrication. This “insider” has predicted so much incorrectly (but people don’t remember PAST predictions) so now has switched to vague generalities. Could be Russian propaganda or a basement dweller. Regardless, no place in Congress for these conspiracies. — Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) August 12, 2020
We’ll see how his colleagues handle it. My guess is it’ll be the same way they handle Trump’s daily political farts, ignoring them to whatever extent feasible and hoping they go away.
As I say, because Greene is a liability for the party, I lean towards believing that Trump is largely ignorant of who she is and how Democrats plan to exploit her. On the other hand, people were showing up to his rallies in “Q” gear long before the pandemic shut everything down. His own campaign has gotten bolder about playing footsie with the movement lately, recognizing them as a source of money and manpower in an election year. He must have some idea of what she’s about. As a psychological matter, it must be enormously seductive to a grandiose narcissist like Trump to have a cult placing him at the center of their faith, as some sort of heaven-sent crusader destined to liberate children from the forces of Satanic evil. So maybe he knows what he’s doing here, caring more about cultivating people who worship him than helping his party electorally. The movement’s promoters seem to be taking this morning’s tweet as encouragement, at least:
https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1293544609272999938
Lots has been written about the scenario in which Trump loses the election and then spends the next four years asserting his influence over the party from the sidelines, whether as a 2024 kingmaker, a promoter of his own children’s political prospects, a nationalist critic of centrist drifts among the party, and so on. But I don’t think people have taken seriously enough the possibility of him egging on the QAnon-ers in tweets and interviews. No moral scruples would prevent him from encouraging people in a delusion from which he profits somehow; ask the suckers who signed up for Trump University about that. He’s already proved that he’s willing to push other conspiracy theories to gain political relevance per the Birther stuff in 2011. Why wouldn’t he tease the Q-bots by occasionally saying things like, “You have no idea how bad the depravity is, believe me. I wish I could tell you but I can’t right now. All will be revealed soon.”?
Jonathan Last wrote a piece a few days ago about the two theories of Trump-era Republicanism. One is that Trump exposed that Republican voters have different policy priorities (protectionism, immigration restrictionism, isolationism) than their representatives in Congress. The second is that Trump exposed that Republican voters don’t much care about policy but want a champion who’ll prosecute the culture war for them. Last puts it this way:
The Identity Politics Conservatism theory would say that these people don’t care a whit about the policies—they care about who is doing the policymaking. Like old-guard Leninists, their primary concern is: Who? Whom? In case you’re too young for Lenin, when you go from his original Russian—кто кого опередит?—his bon mot translates as “Who will overtake whom?” And in practice, this was more precisely carried out as “Who will obliterate whom?” The logic of Identity Politics Conservatism suggests that all of this think tanking and speechifying is—at best—tertiary to what these voters care about. They do not want a new strategy for bringing tech giants to heel. They want Lafayette Park.
I’d rephrase it to say that they’re fine with bringing tech giants to heel, maybe even enthusiastic, but *only if* they get Lafayette Park too. That’s the entree, making the libs cry; regulating big tech is the side dish. The rise of Greene in Georgia and the spectacle of Trump heralding her as the future of the party makes me wonder if we won’t end up five years from now with some small but noisy QAnon caucus in Congress to complement the slightly more mainstream Identity Politics Conservative majority. It’ll be a fringy, dystopian version of the Boehner/tea party and Ryan/Freedom Caucus dichotomies of the past decade, with QAnon-ers bellowing that the others are RINOs because they won’t act to stop President Biden from feeding children to his coven of witches or whatever. Although maybe electoral realities prohibit that: If the GOP takes enough of a beating, whether this fall or in 2024, at some point they’ll push a more mainstream product aimed at winning back some of the voters they’ve lost.
Or maybe they’ll just sit back, remind themselves that parties almost never remain out of the majority for long anymore no matter what they’re up to (Ilhan Omar will be back in Congress next year, right?), and just continue to ride whatever tiger they’re riding.
I’ll leave you with this, a reminder that death, sickness, economic misery, and social isolation aren’t the only gifts COVID-19 has given us.


hotair--2020-08-12--Some Portland residents not thrilled about rioters in their neighborhoods (Update)

There were protests/riots in Portland over the weekend and Saturday night after a riot was declared by police a group of the rioters wound up in a neighborhood called Kenton , which is a suburb north of Portland .
Yesterday the Oregonian reported that the residents of Kenton were not thrilled about it : In downtown Kenton , protesters used wooden items , including picnic tables and road barrier signs , to build a barricade across Denver near Schofield Street .
The standoff between police and demonstrators continued past midnight .
On Reddit and Facebook , people who live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Lots of people worked hard to make our little neighborhood pleasant and to help the local businesses stay open , ” wrote Redditor WheeblesWobble in a post called “ Leave Kenton Alone !
” “ Now it ’ s trashed , ” the user wrote .
“ This was not a BLM protest , this was a tantrum by a bunch of entitled kids.
” The writer of the post and many commenters noted that some of the damaged property was at Po ’ Shine ’ s , a Black-owned business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so irritated is that they had just received permission from the city to block off the street to traffic so restaurants could use the lanes for seating .
The whole area had been painted and signs and tables were set up to make it attractive for people to visit while allowing for social distancing .
This local news clip is from last Wednesday and shows what the street looked like before the rioters got there on Saturday night : And here ’ s an image of what it looked like after the rioters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come just a few nights after protesters confronted two elderly women who didn ’ t want the mob to vandalize and burn a police precinct in their neighborhood .
Those women were hailed as heroes by many in the neighborhood .
It ’ s still early but maybe the rioters are finally wearing out their welcome .
We might even see the tide finally starting to turn against them in the media as the Oregonian story above shows .
But as Jazz pointed out earlier , the local DA is doing his best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rioters so that doesn ’ t help .
The thing about a riot is you never really know what will happen next .
Finally , here ’ s a local news report on one business in Kenton whose owner says she closes early every night because of protesters/rioters and she wonders when it will stop .
Update : Here ’ s video from the scene Saturday night in Kenton as police push through the barricade .

There were protests/riots in Portland over the weekend and Saturday night after a riot was declared by police a group of the rioters wound up in a neighborhood called Kenton, which is a suburb north of Portland. Yesterday the Oregonian reported that the residents of Kenton were not thrilled about it:
In downtown Kenton, protesters used wooden items, including picnic tables and road barrier signs, to build a barricade across Denver near Schofield Street. The standoff between police and demonstrators continued past midnight. On Reddit and Facebook, people who live in the area expressed anger about property destruction. “Lots of people worked hard to make our little neighborhood pleasant and to help the local businesses stay open,” wrote Redditor WheeblesWobble in a post called “Leave Kenton Alone!” “Now it’s trashed,” the user wrote. “This was not a BLM protest, this was a tantrum by a bunch of entitled kids.” The writer of the post and many commenters noted that some of the damaged property was at Po’Shine’s, a Black-owned business.
One reason people in Kenton are so irritated is that they had just received permission from the city to block off the street to traffic so restaurants could use the lanes for seating. The whole area had been painted and signs and tables were set up to make it attractive for people to visit while allowing for social distancing. This local news clip is from last Wednesday and shows what the street looked like before the rioters got there on Saturday night:
And here’s an image of what it looked like after the rioters got there:
The nascent plan for the Denver Avenue Plaza that would allow restaurants in Kenton to open came to a fiery end last night when some people decided it would make a great barricade against the cops. Way to win friends & influence people. Jerks. pic.twitter.com/6EfWBkBidR — Don Baldwin, Everyday Antifascist (@BaldwinDon) August 9, 2020
The events in Kenton come just a few nights after protesters confronted two elderly women who didn’t want the mob to vandalize and burn a police precinct in their neighborhood. Those women were hailed as heroes by many in the neighborhood.
It’s still early but maybe the rioters are finally wearing out their welcome. We might even see the tide finally starting to turn against them in the media as the Oregonian story above shows. But as Jazz pointed out earlier, the local DA is doing his best to make sure there are few consequences for the rioters so that doesn’t help. The thing about a riot is you never really know what will happen next.
Finally, here’s a local news report on one business in Kenton whose owner says she closes early every night because of protesters/rioters and she wonders when it will stop.
Update: Here’s video from the scene Saturday night in Kenton as police push through the barricade.


hotair--2020-08-12--Trump on Harris: She's my number-one draft pick!

Much of the media will spend today offering puff pieces on Kamala Harris and her ascension to the Democratic ticket as Joe Biden ’ s running mate .
The Washington Post ’ s daily newsletter has seven stories — almost half the links in today ’ s blast — that practically look like bullet points on the Biden-Harris campaign web site : • In picking Harris , Biden makes history and plays it safe • Harris and Biden once were at odds on criminal justice issues .
Finding common ground helped lead him to pick her as his running mate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s boldest and most qualified pick • America is about to see what smart Republicans saw in Kamala Harris years ago • What you need to know about Kamala Harris • The qualities that hampered Harris ’ s campaign could be the ones that make her an ideal running mate That last one ’ s my favorite .
Harris went into this cycle the co-favorite ( with Biden ) as the most likely woman of color to succeed with a party that steeped itself in identity-politics preening .
Karen Tumulty at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start that Harris “ fell short of the high expectations that greeted her electrifying entry into the 2020 race … She didn ’ t even make it as far as Iowa.
” In fact , Harris didn ’ t even outlast Tulsi Gabbard , who beat Harris like a drum in two debates .
Tumulty attempts to put the best possible spin Harris ’ abject failure by claiming that this brand of incompetence is just what she needs to succeed as second banana : But the qualities that hampered her when she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what make her ideal as former vice president Joe Biden ’ s running mate — and ultimately , as his partner in governing the country as it struggles to recover from the devastation wrought by the novel coronavirus .
Harris brings to the ticket and potentially the White House the thrill of history as the first Black and Asian woman to be put forward by a major political party as a national candidate .
Note , please : That didn ’ t even thrill Democrats who were positively begging to be thrilled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be an inept campaigner , a wild puncher with a glass jaw , and someone who came across as a phony .
Note also , please : Tumulty never does get around to discussing how those “ qualities ” work in Biden ’ s favor over the next three months .
There ’ s nothing wrong with focusing on a running-mate pick the next news day , but … is it too much to ask for a little balance ?
Is there not one person in the Washington Post staff who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ failure in 2019 , or her issues in posing as a progressive with her record as attorney general ?
Democracies die in the absence of hagiographies of those seeking power , it seems .
One doesn ’ t normally turn to Donald Trump for a little balance , and … well , don ’ t expect any today , either .
However , Trump did get a softball from someone last night about Harris being “ phony ” in his press briefing , and Trump responded by declaring Harris his “ number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wanted to ask about a specific example that a lot of people thought was a phony moment .
As San Francisco DA , she oversaw , according to the Mercury News , 1,900 marijuana convictions .
But she was asked in an interview last year if she had smoked marijuana , and she appeared to joke and , according to some people , lie , and say that she was listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac , while — their music hadn ’ t come out at the time , while she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it .
Why would she lie about that ?
Do you see that as more evidence — is her past on marijuana a liability ?
THE PRESIDENT : Well , she lied .
I mean , she said things that were untrue .
She is a person that ’ s told many , many stories that weren ’ t true .
She ’ s very big into raising taxes .
She wants to slash funds for our military at a level that nobody has — can even believe .
She is against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s against petroleum products .
I mean , how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas ?
She is against fracking ; fracking is a big deal .
She is in favor of socialized medicine , where you ’ re going to lose your doctors , you ’ re going to lose your plans .
She wants to take your healthcare plans away from 180 million Americans — 180 million Americans that are very happy with their health insurance .
And she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was my number-one pick .
I mean , she was — as they would say , because hopefully you ’ ll start college football — she was my number-one draft pick .
And we ’ ll see how she works out .
She did very , very poorly in the primaries , as you know .
She was expected to do well , and she was — she ended up at right around 2 percent , and spent a lot of money .
She had a lot of things happening .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he picked her .
I ’ ve been watching her for a long time , and I was a little surprised .
She was extraordinarily nasty to Kavanaugh — Judge Kavanaugh , then ; now Justice Kavanaugh .
She was nasty to a level that was just a horrible thing .
The way she was — the way she treated now-Justice Kavanaugh .
And I won ’ t forget that soon .
So she did very poorly in the primaries , and now she ’ s chosen .
So let ’ s see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Should supporters of marijuana legalization vote for you , rather than her , because she convicted so many people in the past ?
THE PRESIDENT : I can ’ t tell you what she ’ s voting for .
I don ’ t think she knows what — I think Joe knows even less than she does .
But I was only surprised at the pick .
A lot of people were saying , “ That might be the pick.
” I was more surprised than anything else , because she did so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than her in the primary .
She did very poorly in the primaries .
And that ’ s like a poll .
You know , that ’ s like a poll .
As I wrote yesterday , I doubt Mike Pence is losing any sleep in prepping for a debate against Harris .
Trump ’ s not worried either , but that ’ s mainly because running mates don ’ t really matter in presidential campaigns anyway .
That makes today ’ s coordinated media talking points on Harris all the more mystifying @

Much of the media will spend today offering puff pieces on Kamala Harris and her ascension to the Democratic ticket as Joe Biden’s running mate. The Washington Post’s daily newsletter has seven stories — almost half the links in today’s blast — that practically look like bullet points on the Biden-Harris campaign web site:
That last one’s my favorite. Harris went into this cycle the co-favorite (with Biden) as the most likely woman of color to succeed with a party that steeped itself in identity-politics preening. Karen Tumulty at least acknowledges this point in noting at the start that Harris “fell short of the high expectations that greeted her electrifying entry into the 2020 race … She didn’t even make it as far as Iowa.” In fact, Harris didn’t even outlast Tulsi Gabbard, who beat Harris like a drum in two debates.
Tumulty attempts to put the best possible spin Harris’ abject failure by claiming that this brand of incompetence is just what she needs to succeed as second banana:
But the qualities that hampered her when she was running in her own right could be what make her ideal as former vice president Joe Biden’s running mate — and ultimately, as his partner in governing the country as it struggles to recover from the devastation wrought by the novel coronavirus. Harris brings to the ticket and potentially the White House the thrill of history as the first Black and Asian woman to be put forward by a major political party as a national candidate.
Note, please: That didn’t even thrill Democrats who were positively begging to be thrilled by it. Why? Because Harris turned out to be an inept campaigner, a wild puncher with a glass jaw, and someone who came across as a phony. Note also, please: Tumulty never does get around to discussing how those “qualities” work in Biden’s favor over the next three months.
There’s nothing wrong with focusing on a running-mate pick the next news day, but … is it too much to ask for a little balance? Is there not one person in the Washington Post staff who could write a critical analysis of Harris’ failure in 2019, or her issues in posing as a progressive with her record as attorney general? Democracies die in the absence of hagiographies of those seeking power, it seems.
One doesn’t normally turn to Donald Trump for a little balance, and … well, don’t expect any today, either. However, Trump did get a softball from someone last night about Harris being “phony” in his press briefing, and Trump responded by declaring Harris his “number one draft pick”:
Q And I wanted to ask about a specific example that a lot of people thought was a phony moment. As San Francisco DA, she oversaw, according to the Mercury News, 1,900 marijuana convictions. But she was asked in an interview last year if she had smoked marijuana, and she appeared to joke and, according to some people, lie, and say that she was listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac, while — their music hadn’t come out at the time, while she said she was smoking pot and listening to it. Why would she lie about that? Do you see that as more evidence — is her past on marijuana a liability? THE PRESIDENT: Well, she lied. I mean, she said things that were untrue. She is a person that’s told many, many stories that weren’t true. She’s very big into raising taxes. She wants to slash funds for our military at a level that nobody has — can even believe. She is against fracking. Fracking is — she’s against petroleum products. I mean, how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas? She is against fracking; fracking is a big deal. She is in favor of socialized medicine, where you’re going to lose your doctors, you’re going to lose your plans. She wants to take your healthcare plans away from 180 million Americans — 180 million Americans that are very happy with their health insurance. And she wants to take that away. So she was my number-one pick. I mean, she was — as they would say, because hopefully you’ll start college football — she was my number-one draft pick. And we’ll see how she works out. She did very, very poorly in the primaries, as you know. She was expected to do well, and she was — she ended up at right around 2 percent, and spent a lot of money. She had a lot of things happening. And so I was a little surprised that he picked her. I’ve been watching her for a long time, and I was a little surprised. She was extraordinarily nasty to Kavanaugh — Judge Kavanaugh, then; now Justice Kavanaugh. She was nasty to a level that was just a horrible thing. The way she was — the way she treated now-Justice Kavanaugh. And I won’t forget that soon. So she did very poorly in the primaries, and now she’s chosen. So let’s see how that all works out. Q Should supporters of marijuana legalization vote for you, rather than her, because she convicted so many people in the past? THE PRESIDENT: I can’t tell you what she’s voting for. I don’t think she knows what — I think Joe knows even less than she does. But I was only surprised at the pick. A lot of people were saying, “That might be the pick.” I was more surprised than anything else, because she did so poorly. Many people did much better than her in the primary. She did very poorly in the primaries. And that’s like a poll. You know, that’s like a poll.
Trump returned to that theme today:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293510853074051073
As I wrote yesterday, I doubt Mike Pence is losing any sleep in prepping for a debate against Harris. Trump’s not worried either, but that’s mainly because running mates don’t really matter in presidential campaigns anyway. That makes today’s coordinated media talking points on Harris all the more mystifying.


hotair--2020-08-12--FiveThirtyEight debuts election forecast: Trump has the same chance of winning now as he did in Nove

FiveThirtyEight debuts election forecast: Trump has the same chance of winning now as he did in November 2016

The site ’ s final forecast in 2016 gave Hillary a 71.4 percent chance of winning versus a 28.6 percent chance for Trump , which turned out to be good enough for 300+ electoral votes .
Nate Silver often stresses that he gave Trump a better than one in four chance of victory four years ago because so many other forecasters put Clinton ’ s odds ludicrously high , in some cases at 99 percent despite how the polls tightened in swing states over the final two weeks .
Those hubristic estimates gave data sites a bad name .
Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reminding readers in his write-up of today ’ s new 2020 model that his model never counted Trump out .
Despite the similarity in the numbers , Trump ’ s 29 percent chance then is qualitatively different from his 29 percent chance now .
Like I say , in November 2016 the polls narrowed at the end as undecideds began breaking for Trump , possibly encouraged by James Comey ’ s eleventh-hour revelation that he had reopened the Emailgate probe .
FiveThirtyEight noticed the shift towards Trump in the numbers at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent shot he enjoys right now isn ’ t really driven by the polls : Although the race has tightened a bit in the past few weeks , Biden still enjoys a national lead in the six- to seven-point range , which has the makings of a comfortable win .
If the election were held today , I suspect Trump would have a less than one in 10 chance at victory .
But the election ’ s not being held today , is it ?
And in a year like 2020 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the chance that the country will endure another major shock or two , or 12 , before November 3 that might reorient the race in Trump ’ s favor .
Uncertainty in an uncertain age , especially over COVID , is one key component of his chances , says Silver .
There ’ s also the fact that Americans are still able to pay their bills — for the moment — thanks to federal assistance , although now that that ’ s momentarily dried up , it ’ s another source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent , of course , which improves a candidate ’ s chances , and he polls better in swing states than he does nationally , which , per FiveThirtyEight , gives him about a 10 percent chance of once again losing the popular vote while winning the electoral college .
( It ’ s hard to imagine any scenario in which Trump wins the popular vote , which makes me wonder how to square that with his 29 percent overall chance of winning . )
“ It ’ s way too soon to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is certainly true .
But it ’ s also too soon to count out a scenario in which Biden blows the roof off : It ’ s important to remember that the uncertainty in our forecast runs in both directions .
There ’ s the chance that Trump could come back — but there ’ s also the chance that things could get really out of hand for him .
Our model thinks there ’ s a 19 percent chance that Biden will win Alaska , for example , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina .
The model also gives Biden a 30 percent chance of a double-digit win in the popular vote , which would be the first time that happened since 1984… Biden is in a reasonably strong position : Having a 70-ish percent chance of beating an incumbent in early August before any conventions or debates is far better than the position that most challengers find themselves in .
And his chances will improve in our model if he maintains his current lead .
But for the time being , the data does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you look at the model itself , you ’ ll find that there are very few scenarios in which Trump does much better than 300 electoral votes .
If he wins a second term , odds are it ’ ll be by the skin of his teeth .
Biden is different : There are various scenarios in which he cracks 400 electoral votes .
Interestingly , if you compare FiveThirtyEight ’ s 2016 model to the new one you ’ ll find that Hillary ’ s odds of winning over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s ever have .
She reached 89 percent after the Democratic convention , declined , then came all the way back to 88 percent in mid-October .
Biden has never topped 79 percent despite his gaudy polling leads in June and July .
The difference is that Hillary also had moments when her odds crashed , twice dipping below 55 percent and declining by more than 20 points over the second half of October .
Biden , by contrast , has been rock-steady since June 1 , never dipping below 69 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this election thus far : As insane as the uncertainty of day-to-day life has been , that uncertainty isn ’ t showing up in the election .
“ In fact , ” says Silver , describing his model , “ the uncertainty index points toward the overall uncertainty going into November being about average relative to past presidential campaigns.
” Imagine that .
A pandemic , an economic collapse , anti-racism riots and protracted violence , and FiveThirtyEight estimates that this race is about as stable as any other presidential contest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent to which voters ’ opinions so far are a pure referendum on Trump , I think .
And opinions about the president tend to be baked in , not something that people are still sussing out three and a half years into his term .
But maybe that ’ s about to change as the campaign grows more active and Biden becomes more visible ?
New numbers from the Democratic firm Change Research , via RCP : Apart from Florida ( which is a very notable exception ) , all of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states than most pollsters saw a month ago .
If I were Sleepy Joe , I wouldn ’ t feel at all comfortable about a four-point lead in any battleground given how pollsters overlooked the strength of Trump ’ s working-class support last time .
It wouldn ’ t surprise me if Biden finally slips below that 69 percent floor he ’ s had in FiveThirtyEight ’ s model over the next week .
Exit question : Will he get a bounce from choosing Harris ?

Seems auspicious!
The site’s final forecast in 2016 gave Hillary a 71.4 percent chance of winning versus a 28.6 percent chance for Trump, which turned out to be good enough for 300+ electoral votes. Nate Silver often stresses that he gave Trump a better than one in four chance of victory four years ago because so many other forecasters put Clinton’s odds ludicrously high, in some cases at 99 percent despite how the polls tightened in swing states over the final two weeks. Those hubristic estimates gave data sites a bad name. Don’t blame me, Silver counters, reminding readers in his write-up of today’s new 2020 model that his model never counted Trump out.
Despite the similarity in the numbers, Trump’s 29 percent chance then is qualitatively different from his 29 percent chance now. Like I say, in November 2016 the polls narrowed at the end as undecideds began breaking for Trump, possibly encouraged by James Comey’s eleventh-hour revelation that he had reopened the Emailgate probe. FiveThirtyEight noticed the shift towards Trump in the numbers at the time and recalibrated accordingly. The 29 percent shot he enjoys right now isn’t really driven by the polls: Although the race has tightened a bit in the past few weeks, Biden still enjoys a national lead in the six- to seven-point range, which has the makings of a comfortable win. If the election were held today, I suspect Trump would have a less than one in 10 chance at victory.
But the election’s not being held today, is it? And in a year like 2020, when anything seems possible, we should allow for the chance that the country will endure another major shock or two, or 12, before November 3 that might reorient the race in Trump’s favor. Uncertainty in an uncertain age, especially over COVID, is one key component of his chances, says Silver. There’s also the fact that Americans are still able to pay their bills — for the moment — thanks to federal assistance, although now that that’s momentarily dried up, it’s another source of uncertainty. Trump’s also an incumbent, of course, which improves a candidate’s chances, and he polls better in swing states than he does nationally, which, per FiveThirtyEight, gives him about a 10 percent chance of once again losing the popular vote while winning the electoral college. (It’s hard to imagine any scenario in which Trump wins the popular vote, which makes me wonder how to square that with his 29 percent overall chance of winning.) “It’s way too soon to count Trump out,” Silver concludes, which is certainly true.
But it’s also too soon to count out a scenario in which Biden blows the roof off:
It’s important to remember that the uncertainty in our forecast runs in both directions. There’s the chance that Trump could come back — but there’s also the chance that things could get really out of hand for him. Our model thinks there’s a 19 percent chance that Biden will win Alaska, for example, and a 13 percent chance that he will win South Carolina. The model also gives Biden a 30 percent chance of a double-digit win in the popular vote, which would be the first time that happened since 1984… Biden is in a reasonably strong position: Having a 70-ish percent chance of beating an incumbent in early August before any conventions or debates is far better than the position that most challengers find themselves in. And his chances will improve in our model if he maintains his current lead. But for the time being, the data does not justify substantially more confidence than that.
If you look at the model itself, you’ll find that there are very few scenarios in which Trump does much better than 300 electoral votes. If he wins a second term, odds are it’ll be by the skin of his teeth. Biden is different: There are various scenarios in which he cracks 400 electoral votes.
Interestingly, if you compare FiveThirtyEight’s 2016 model to the new one you’ll find that Hillary’s odds of winning over the course of the campaign surged higher than Biden’s ever have. She reached 89 percent after the Democratic convention, declined, then came all the way back to 88 percent in mid-October. Biden has never topped 79 percent despite his gaudy polling leads in June and July. The difference is that Hillary also had moments when her odds crashed, twice dipping below 55 percent and declining by more than 20 points over the second half of October. Biden, by contrast, has been rock-steady since June 1, never dipping below 69 percent. That’s a paradox of this election thus far: As insane as the uncertainty of day-to-day life has been, that uncertainty isn’t showing up in the election. “In fact,” says Silver, describing his model, “the uncertainty index points toward the overall uncertainty going into November being about average relative to past presidential campaigns.”
Imagine that. A pandemic, an economic collapse, anti-racism riots and protracted violence, and FiveThirtyEight estimates that this race is about as stable as any other presidential contest. That’s a testament to the extent to which voters’ opinions so far are a pure referendum on Trump, I think. And opinions about the president tend to be baked in, not something that people are still sussing out three and a half years into his term.
But maybe that’s about to change as the campaign grows more active and Biden becomes more visible? New numbers from the Democratic firm Change Research, via RCP:
Apart from Florida (which is a very notable exception), all of those numbers suggest a tighter race in key states than most pollsters saw a month ago. If I were Sleepy Joe, I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable about a four-point lead in any battleground given how pollsters overlooked the strength of Trump’s working-class support last time. It wouldn’t surprise me if Biden finally slips below that 69 percent floor he’s had in FiveThirtyEight’s model over the next week.
Exit question: Will he get a bounce from choosing Harris?