hotair--2020-11-13--California governor attended birthday party in defiance of state's rules against gatherings involvin

California governor attended birthday party in defiance of state's rules against gatherings involving multiple households

If I ’ m not mistaken , he was exempt from the state rules pursuant to the overarching national rule that liberals are entitled to ignore social distancing guidelines so long as it ’ s for an Important Cause™ .
Like holding mass demonstrations against police brutality .
Or smoking weed in a park with strangers to celebrate Trump losing .
To my dying day I ’ ll believe that a person should conduct themselves responsibly irrespective of what others do .
But how mad can one be at Californians who ’ ll hear this news about Gavin Newsom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m having a big family Thanksgiving ” ?
The dinner the night of Nov. 6 at the famed French Laundry in Yountville in Napa County brought together at least 12 people to celebrate the 50th birthday of Jason Kinney , a longtime friend and political adviser to Newsom who is also a partner at the lobbying firm Axiom Advisors .
In addition to the governor , his wife , Jennifer Siebel Newsom , was in attendance .
State guidelines limit gatherings , defined as “ social situations that bring together people from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single space or place , ” to no more than three households .
Representatives for Kinney and Newsom declined to specify how many households the diners represented , but did not dispute that it was more than three .
Nathan Click , communications director for Newsom , defended the birthday celebration because it took place outdoors at a restaurant , which must follow separate coronavirus safety regulations developed by the state for the dining industry .
That guidance is silent on whether people from more than three households can dine together… Click @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted because state guidelines require only that restaurants “ limit the number of patrons at a single table to a household unit or patrons who have asked to be seated together.
” I ’ d much prefer to believe that Newsom thinks he ’ s above the law than that California ’ s state guidance really does amount to “ no gatherings of more than three households *unless* you ’ re at a restaurant.
” That ’ s completely idiotic , as restaurants have been flagged by the CDC and other experts as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spring .
The masks come off , people talk and laugh , aerosols are exchanged in close proximity .
It ’ s good that Newsom ’ s event was held outdoors , at least , but it ’ s inexcusable to have a rule in which you ’ re allowed to bring a small crowd together so long as you make sure to do it in one of the riskiest possible venues .
And it ’ s emblematic of how hazy the logic has gotten behind some of the guidelines included in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just in California but everywhere .
For instance , Andrew Cuomo can ’ t seriously believe there ’ s a special risk of late-night transmission at gyms that requires closing them down at 10 .
Like Newsom , he ’ s just flinging rules around now to achieve some sort of vague , incoherent compromise between keeping businesses open and limiting how much interaction people can have there .
It ’ s not just the public that ’ s quit on trying to manage the pandemic effectively .
Increasingly , politicians have too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make compromises that seem inexplicable to the point of recklessness — until you realize the extent of the crisis they ’ re facing .
North Dakota ’ s going to allow asymptomatic health-care workers to stay on the job after they ’ ve tested positive for coronavirus , when they ’ re at risk of passing it on to others .
How could they do something so insanely dangerous ?
Simple : They don ’ t have enough health-care workers to cope with the colossal rate of infections in the state right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ troops ” on the battlefield because otherwise they ’ ll be overrun .
North Dakota ’ s hospitals have reached their limit , and the coming weeks could push them past their capabilities , Gov .
Doug Burgum said at a news conference on Monday , Nov. 9 .
Due to a major shortage of health care staffing , the state ’ s hospitals have a severe lack of available beds .
Rising COVID-19 hospitalizations and high noncoronavirus admissions , some resulting from residents who deferred health care earlier in the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centers… In an attempt to alleviate some of the staffing concerns , Burgum announced that interim State Health Officer Dirk Wilke has amended an order that will allow health care workers with asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 to continue working in COVID-19 units at hospitals and nursing homes .
They ’ re going to limit the risk by restricting infected doctors and nurses to handling patients who already have COVID .
Who knows if that ’ ll lead to more severe infections on either end of that equation as patients and medical workers end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other .
But they ’ re up against it .
Here ’ s what the positivity rate in the state looks like : According to the department of health , there are more than 10,000 active cases of COVID right now in ND , a state with only 762,000 people .
That ’ s a rate of better than one in every hundred North Dakotans who ’ s presumed to be carrying the virus right now .
The chief officer at a hospital in a small town there told WaPo this week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October and tried to sound the alarm locally but “ she would go outside and see no one wearing a mask or social distancing , ‘ having giant weddings and going about their lives.
’ ” Health-care workers across the map in hard-hit states are already burning out in trying to manage the patient load and we ’ re probably nowhere near how bad things will get before we hit the peak : Intensive-care units are called that for a reason .
A typical patient with a severe case of COVID-19 will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ventilator , which must be monitored by a respiratory therapist .
If their kidneys shut down , they might be on 24-hour dialysis .
Every day , they ’ ll need to be flipped onto their stomach , and then onto their back again—a process that requires six or seven people .
They ’ ll have several tubes going into their heart and blood vessels , administering eight to 12 drugs—sedatives , pain medications , blood thinners , antibiotics , and more .
All of these must be carefully adjusted , sometimes minute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of these drugs is for treating COVID-19 itself .
“ That ’ s just to keep them alive , ” Neville , the Iowa nurse , said .
An ICU nurse can typically care for two people at a time , but a single COVID-19 patient can consume their full attention .
Those patients remain in the ICU for three times the length of the usual stay .
There are economic consequences too as the virus consumes a state , of course : I ’ ll leave you with this piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s state , writing about a wedding reception that happened in August across the country in Maine .
Total attendees : 55 .
Number infected : One .
Casualties over the next 40 days , according to contact tracing : 176 infections , including seven deaths — and all of the deaths were people who hadn ’ t attended the reception .
Something to think about if you ’ re going ahead with a big Thanksgiving get-together because of Newsom ’ s terrible example .

If I’m not mistaken, he was exempt from the state rules pursuant to the overarching national rule that liberals are entitled to ignore social distancing guidelines so long as it’s for an Important Cause™. Like holding mass demonstrations against police brutality.
Or smoking weed in a park with strangers to celebrate Trump losing.
Or [checks notes] attending a friend’s birthday party.
To my dying day I’ll believe that a person should conduct themselves responsibly irrespective of what others do. But how mad can one be at Californians who’ll hear this news about Gavin Newsom and think, “F*** it, I’m having a big family Thanksgiving”?
The dinner the night of Nov. 6 at the famed French Laundry in Yountville in Napa County brought together at least 12 people to celebrate the 50th birthday of Jason Kinney, a longtime friend and political adviser to Newsom who is also a partner at the lobbying firm Axiom Advisors. In addition to the governor, his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, was in attendance. State guidelines limit gatherings, defined as “social situations that bring together people from different households at the same time in a single space or place,” to no more than three households. Representatives for Kinney and Newsom declined to specify how many households the diners represented, but did not dispute that it was more than three. Nathan Click, communications director for Newsom, defended the birthday celebration because it took place outdoors at a restaurant, which must follow separate coronavirus safety regulations developed by the state for the dining industry. That guidance is silent on whether people from more than three households can dine together… Click said the birthday dinner for Kinney was permitted because state guidelines require only that restaurants “limit the number of patrons at a single table to a household unit or patrons who have asked to be seated together.”
I’d much prefer to believe that Newsom thinks he’s above the law than that California’s state guidance really does amount to “no gatherings of more than three households *unless* you’re at a restaurant.” That’s completely idiotic, as restaurants have been flagged by the CDC and other experts as the engines of COVID transmission this past spring. The masks come off, people talk and laugh, aerosols are exchanged in close proximity. It’s good that Newsom’s event was held outdoors, at least, but it’s inexcusable to have a rule in which you’re allowed to bring a small crowd together so long as you make sure to do it in one of the riskiest possible venues.
And it’s emblematic of how hazy the logic has gotten behind some of the guidelines included in the patchwork quilt of COVID regulations, not just in California but everywhere. For instance, Andrew Cuomo can’t seriously believe there’s a special risk of late-night transmission at gyms that requires closing them down at 10. Like Newsom, he’s just flinging rules around now to achieve some sort of vague, incoherent compromise between keeping businesses open and limiting how much interaction people can have there. It’s not just the public that’s quit on trying to manage the pandemic effectively. Increasingly, politicians have too.
Some governors have been forced lately to make compromises that seem inexplicable to the point of recklessness — until you realize the extent of the crisis they’re facing. North Dakota’s going to allow asymptomatic health-care workers to stay on the job after they’ve tested positive for coronavirus, when they’re at risk of passing it on to others. How could they do something so insanely dangerous?
Simple: They don’t have enough health-care workers to cope with the colossal rate of infections in the state right now. They’re keeping wounded “troops” on the battlefield because otherwise they’ll be overrun.
North Dakota’s hospitals have reached their limit, and the coming weeks could push them past their capabilities, Gov. Doug Burgum said at a news conference on Monday, Nov. 9. Due to a major shortage of health care staffing, the state’s hospitals have a severe lack of available beds. Rising COVID-19 hospitalizations and high noncoronavirus admissions, some resulting from residents who deferred health care earlier in the pandemic, have caused the crunch on medical centers… In an attempt to alleviate some of the staffing concerns, Burgum announced that interim State Health Officer Dirk Wilke has amended an order that will allow health care workers with asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 to continue working in COVID-19 units at hospitals and nursing homes.
They’re going to limit the risk by restricting infected doctors and nurses to handling patients who already have COVID. Who knows if that’ll lead to more severe infections on either end of that equation as patients and medical workers end up absorbing higher viral loads from each other. But they’re up against it. Here’s what the positivity rate in the state looks like:
According to the department of health, there are more than 10,000 active cases of COVID right now in ND, a state with only 762,000 people. That’s a rate of better than one in every hundred North Dakotans who’s presumed to be carrying the virus right now. The chief officer at a hospital in a small town there told WaPo this week that she saw cases rising in September and October and tried to sound the alarm locally but “she would go outside and see no one wearing a mask or social distancing, ‘having giant weddings and going about their lives.’” Health-care workers across the map in hard-hit states are already burning out in trying to manage the patient load and we’re probably nowhere near how bad things will get before we hit the peak:
Intensive-care units are called that for a reason. A typical patient with a severe case of COVID-19 will have a tube connecting their airways to a ventilator, which must be monitored by a respiratory therapist. If their kidneys shut down, they might be on 24-hour dialysis. Every day, they’ll need to be flipped onto their stomach, and then onto their back again—a process that requires six or seven people. They’ll have several tubes going into their heart and blood vessels, administering eight to 12 drugs—sedatives, pain medications, blood thinners, antibiotics, and more. All of these must be carefully adjusted, sometimes minute to minute, by an ICU nurse. None of these drugs is for treating COVID-19 itself. “That’s just to keep them alive,” Neville, the Iowa nurse, said. An ICU nurse can typically care for two people at a time, but a single COVID-19 patient can consume their full attention. Those patients remain in the ICU for three times the length of the usual stay.
There are economic consequences too as the virus consumes a state, of course:
JPMORGAN: Chase card-spending has “fallen notably.. in a variety of retail categories .. There is some sign that recent declines have been largest in states where COVID-19 has been spreading most rapidly .. our tracker is down about 7%-pts over the last two weeks in North Dakota” pic.twitter.com/OmcLuEXMBd — Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) November 13, 2020
I’ll leave you with this piece from the biggest newspaper in Newsom’s state, writing about a wedding reception that happened in August across the country in Maine. Total attendees: 55. Number infected: One. Casualties over the next 40 days, according to contact tracing: 176 infections, including seven deaths — and all of the deaths were people who hadn’t attended the reception. Something to think about if you’re going ahead with a big Thanksgiving get-together because of Newsom’s terrible example.


hotair--2020-11-13--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Religious liberty, 2020 lessons, police drain, rule of law, H

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Religious liberty, 2020 lessons, police drain, rule of law, Hollywood's latest, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Salena Zito breaks down the cultural and political lessons of the 2020 election , and don ’ t forget to sign up for her newsletter !
• Charles Fain Lehman on the mass exodus of manpower in police departments and the impact on public safety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disfavored right , ” as Justice Samuel Alito claims ?
We ’ ll discuss that and a new appeal from the Diocese of Brooklyn to set aside arbitrary restrictions on in-person worship .
We ’ ll also discuss Christine Rousselle ’ s report from Maine on how the Diocese of Portland got locked out of COVID-19 discussions .
• What does an effort to doxx and boycott attorneys working on Donald Trump ’ s election challenge portend for fair access to legal representation ?
National Review ’ s Wesley J. Smith joins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weekend is here !
What should we watch to take our minds off of our woes ?
Hollywood in Toto ‘ s Christian Toto joins us to talk about Fatman , The Climb , Come Away , Freaky , plus I may play Stump The Critic by talking about the February 2020 film Coda .
• And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-11-13--Democratic polling expert: Media narratives like 'defund the police' matter more than the actions of

Democratic polling expert: Media narratives like 'defund the police' matter more than the actions of individual candidates

Politico published an interesting interview with “ Democratic polling and data expert ” David Shor .
The interview is lengthy and covers a lot of territory but I wanted to highlight one section in particular where Shor talks about the power of the media and the elites who guide it in determining what issues matter during elections .
Shor ’ s view is frankly something that I think a lot of people on the right would largely agree with .
He recognizes the media isn ’ t merely an observer in a neutral process but has the power to set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or tailwinds for campaigns .
Shor first starts talking about this in terms of message discipline , i.e .
choosing which topics to talk about and which one not to talk about : There are very real tradeoffs to talking about things that aren ’ t popular .
Obviously , there ’ s a lot of disagreement about what is popular and what isn ’ t , and polling is hard .
It ’ s very easy to create polls that make single-payer health care popular or background checks [ for gun purchases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things show up at the ballot box in various ways , they end up losing .
The things that liberals want — or that the left wants — some of them are very popular and some aren ’ t , and I think we have to be honest with ourselves about which is which .
And that can be difficult , both from a coalition perspective and emotionally , but the importance of it is very high .
Shor is really talking about Democrats .
He ’ s circling around a point about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” can wind up hurting Democrats but he eases into it by talking about Republicans and their message discipline : The word “ propaganda ” is pretty loaded but the point he ’ s actually making here is that you have to play it smarter than AOC if you want to win .
And at that point he ’ s already anticipating the push back to this idea from people on the far left : What about pushing for what we really believe in ?
!
Shor offers a kind of pre-buttal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you can argue for pushing voters hard on issues like the Green New Deal or whatever else , but you can ’ t forget there ’ s a risk involved in shouting everything you believe from the rooftops .
And at this point Shor is asked specifically about some recent comments by AOC and her suggestion that Democrats should use something called “ deep canvassing ” to win over voters one by one .
But Shor pushes back on that and basically argues that the media plays a very big role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember about campaigns , big picture , is this : The average voter in a general election is something like 50 years old — in a midterm or primary , it ’ s higher .
They don ’ t have a college degree .
They watch about six hours of TV a day — that ’ s the average ; there are people who watch more .
They generally don ’ t read partisan media .
They still largely get their news from mainstream sources .
They ’ re watching what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they see some stuff on Facebook , but it ’ s really mostly from mainstream sources .
You have to center on this person , and think about how they ’ re interacting with politics .
With all of these things , whether canvassing or digital ads , the reality is that people are mostly forming their opinions on the basis of what the press says .
This theory has a long history — [ political scientist John ] Zaller ’ s “ Nature and Origins of Mass Public Opinion ” — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think this is a right-wing idea ; this is a leftist theory of mass politics that goes back to the 1920s and ’ 30s radio .
If you really want to affect public opinion , you have to do so via scalable media and communication .
Shor then tries to illustrate this with an analogy to weather : In this analogy , the weather is set by larger forces that but also by narratives campaigns or parties choose to turn into national conversations .
Again , he ’ s talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there directly to “ defund the police ” which he correctly points out originated completely on the left .
The left demanded this become part of the national conversation : When you look at “ defund the police ” specifically , there was a real movement among educated , liberal people in the media and among activists across a broad swath of the left to elevate this issue and get folks to talk about it .
And there are pros and cons to doing that .
I ’ m not going to claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is — sometimes , it makes sense to talk about unpopular issues .
But we should acknowledge that in practice , those decisions to elevate the salience of certain issues and reduce it on other issues — those decisions are actually something campaigns and activists have a lot of control over .
And they are going to end up influencing vote share much more than any decision that any individual campaign makes about what digital vendors they use , or how many digital ads they use versus what TV ads they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home , i.e .
weather systems/national media narratives are more powerful than candidates .
Candidates are balloons caught in a gale-force wind : My own view is that this is often true and almost always gives Democrats a huge structural advantage .
The people who set these national narratives are almost always left-leaning elites or activists .
Their messages are eagerly picked up and amplified by a media that is largely sympathetic to the messages and the goals of the left .
By contrast , the right faces an uphill battle trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s one of the reasons the left hates Fox News so much , because it helps put the right on more equal footing in this regard .
In this election the left wound up whispering two different messages into the wind .
One was about the toll of COVID-19 on the country .
That was a message Democrats and the media were repeating daily for months .
It was clearly the message they believed would help them triumph over Trump and the GOP in this election .
But the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again , that was a message that came from the left , from the protests that happened all summer .
And because it came from the left , the media eagerly picked it up , amplified and did its best to helpfully contextualize and explain it .
They tried to make something very radical as non-threatening as possible .
But that second message brought with it a tornado of anger , riots and looting .
It was in fact a weather pattern that did more damage to Democrats than to Republicans .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dems are probably going to wind up losing 10 seats .
That ’ s why so many moderates are angry , at Pelosi for not doing more to stop it and at AOC and the far left for not shutting up about it .
It ’ s why the Democratic leadership is talking about message discipline just like David Shor is .
In this election , Democrats were essentially hoisted on their own petard .
Their ability to turn every partisan enthusiasm into a national narrative is usually a big advantage but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being amplified , “ defund the police , ” was just too extreme for their own good .
And by the time they realized it , it was already too late .
A lot of Democratic balloons wound up wrapped around the power lines .

Politico published an interesting interview with “Democratic polling and data expert” David Shor. The interview is lengthy and covers a lot of territory but I wanted to highlight one section in particular where Shor talks about the power of the media and the elites who guide it in determining what issues matter during elections. Shor’s view is frankly something that I think a lot of people on the right would largely agree with. He recognizes the media isn’t merely an observer in a neutral process but has the power to set national narratives which amount to either headwinds or tailwinds for campaigns.
Shor first starts talking about this in terms of message discipline, i.e. choosing which topics to talk about and which one not to talk about:
There are very real tradeoffs to talking about things that aren’t popular. Obviously, there’s a lot of disagreement about what is popular and what isn’t, and polling is hard. It’s very easy to create polls that make single-payer health care popular or background checks [for gun purchases] popular. But then when these things show up at the ballot box in various ways, they end up losing. The things that liberals want — or that the left wants — some of them are very popular and some aren’t, and I think we have to be honest with ourselves about which is which. And that can be difficult, both from a coalition perspective and emotionally, but the importance of it is very high.
Shor is really talking about Democrats. He’s circling around a point about how things like “defund the police” can wind up hurting Democrats but he eases into it by talking about Republicans and their message discipline:
Even though a lot of Republican activists really want to eliminate the capital-gains taxes or legalize machine guns or make it easier to pollute rivers, they don’t go out and hold their politicians accountable on those issues. They’re not demanding that of Republican politicians. And Ted Cruz isn’t out there tweeting that we need more assault rifles on the streets. He is instead doing message-tested propaganda.
The word “propaganda” is pretty loaded but the point he’s actually making here is that you have to play it smarter than AOC if you want to win. And at that point he’s already anticipating the push back to this idea from people on the far left: What about pushing for what we really believe in?! Shor offers a kind of pre-buttal to those anticipated reactions:
There is a real existential question: What is activism for? What is public communication for? We should be pushing things that we think are going to move voters in a direction that we want. People can have reasonable disagreements about what those things are, but there are some issues that are clearly not on that side.
In other words, you can argue for pushing voters hard on issues like the Green New Deal or whatever else, but you can’t forget there’s a risk involved in shouting everything you believe from the rooftops. And at this point Shor is asked specifically about some recent comments by AOC and her suggestion that Democrats should use something called “deep canvassing” to win over voters one by one. But Shor pushes back on that and basically argues that the media plays a very big role in this process:
The important thing to remember about campaigns, big picture, is this: The average voter in a general election is something like 50 years old — in a midterm or primary, it’s higher. They don’t have a college degree. They watch about six hours of TV a day — that’s the average; there are people who watch more. They generally don’t read partisan media. They still largely get their news from mainstream sources. They’re watching what’s on the ABC Nightly News. Maybe they see some stuff on Facebook, but it’s really mostly from mainstream sources. You have to center on this person, and think about how they’re interacting with politics. With all of these things, whether canvassing or digital ads, the reality is that people are mostly forming their opinions on the basis of what the press says. This theory has a long history — [political scientist John] Zaller’s “Nature and Origins of Mass Public Opinion” — but it’s true. I don’t think this is a right-wing idea; this is a leftist theory of mass politics that goes back to the 1920s and ’30s radio. If you really want to affect public opinion, you have to do so via scalable media and communication.
Shor then tries to illustrate this with an analogy to weather:
One of my old bosses said that politics is like you’re in a hot-air balloon. A lot of the stuff that you deal with day-to-day — microtargeting models or digital ads or whatever — that’s just throwing sandbags on and off; the thing that really determines where you go is the weather. In politics, the important thing is to do what you can to change the weather, which is very hard.
In this analogy, the weather is set by larger forces that but also by narratives campaigns or parties choose to turn into national conversations.
Most of what determines the “weather,” the national media environment, are these big structural forces — the economy, anti-incumbency, cultural forces, whether it’s what’s in the media or the country getting more educated or secular over time. But campaigns and activists do have the ability to shape media narratives about what gets talked about and what doesn’t. From an electoral perspective, those are the most important decisions campaigns and activists make, and that creates a real responsibility on the part of everyone involved.
Again, he’s talking about message discipline and specifically he goes from there directly to “defund the police” which he correctly points out originated completely on the left. The left demanded this become part of the national conversation:
When you look at “defund the police” specifically, there was a real movement among educated, liberal people in the media and among activists across a broad swath of the left to elevate this issue and get folks to talk about it. And there are pros and cons to doing that. I’m not going to claim that I know what the right thing to do is — sometimes, it makes sense to talk about unpopular issues. But we should acknowledge that in practice, those decisions to elevate the salience of certain issues and reduce it on other issues — those decisions are actually something campaigns and activists have a lot of control over. And they are going to end up influencing vote share much more than any decision that any individual campaign makes about what digital vendors they use, or how many digital ads they use versus what TV ads they use.
Shor really drives this point home, i.e. weather systems/national media narratives are more powerful than candidates. Candidates are balloons caught in a gale-force wind:
Ultimately, in this hyperpolarized world, what national media outlets choose to talk about is going to be much more important in determining whether [Democratic Congressman] Collin Peterson survives in Minnesota’s 7th district than anything he does. That’s just the reality. [This month, Peterson lost his bid for reelection.]
My own view is that this is often true and almost always gives Democrats a huge structural advantage. The people who set these national narratives are almost always left-leaning elites or activists. Their messages are eagerly picked up and amplified by a media that is largely sympathetic to the messages and the goals of the left. By contrast, the right faces an uphill battle trying to launch any comparable narratives into the mainstream. It’s one of the reasons the left hates Fox News so much, because it helps put the right on more equal footing in this regard.
In this election the left wound up whispering two different messages into the wind. One was about the toll of COVID-19 on the country. That was a message Democrats and the media were repeating daily for months. It was clearly the message they believed would help them triumph over Trump and the GOP in this election.
But the other message was “defund the police.” Again, that was a message that came from the left, from the protests that happened all summer. And because it came from the left, the media eagerly picked it up, amplified and did its best to helpfully contextualize and explain it. They tried to make something very radical as non-threatening as possible.
But that second message brought with it a tornado of anger, riots and looting. It was in fact a weather pattern that did more damage to Democrats than to Republicans. Instead of gaining 15 seats in the House, Dems are probably going to wind up losing 10 seats. That’s why so many moderates are angry, at Pelosi for not doing more to stop it and at AOC and the far left for not shutting up about it. It’s why the Democratic leadership is talking about message discipline just like David Shor is.
In this election, Democrats were essentially hoisted on their own petard. Their ability to turn every partisan enthusiasm into a national narrative is usually a big advantage but this year it backfired because the message being amplified, “defund the police,” was just too extreme for their own good. And by the time they realized it, it was already too late. A lot of Democratic balloons wound up wrapped around the power lines.


hotair--2020-11-13--Trump: This was the most secure election ever, except for the Democrats' massive fraud

This is the funniest tweet of his career , although it must be that he meant it seriously .
He can ’ t be doing absurdist jokes about his own “ rigged election ” allegations , right ?
There are a few signs today besides Trump ’ s tweet that the White House may be starting to resign itself to reality .
The campaign ’ s voter-fraud hotline , which was pranked mercilessly by lefties , is reportedly shutting down : The plan for Trump to hold post-election rallies where he ’ d push voter-fraud propaganda may also be rethought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding rallies .
One is the near-term effect those events might have on the runoffs in Georgia , both financially ( by drawing away resources ) and politically .
A “ Republican close to Trump ” said this week to Politico , “ I ’ ve told the campaign his only priority should be holding onto the Senate .
Frankly , he is losing credibility the more and more we have this fraudulent ballot fight.
” They want him down in GA campaigning for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler if only to signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should turn out to vote on January 5 even though , ah , the president thinks the last vote in Georgia was rigged .
Republicans may also be worried that the time is approaching — in theory — where they ’ ll have to start acknowledging that Biden is the president-elect , which will infuriate Trumpers in Georgia and elsewhere .
Once that happens , the only person capable of bringing them back on the team and getting them to show up for Perdue and Loeffler is Trump himself .
The longer-term risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a protracted “ I was cheated ” campaign might affect perceptions of him and the GOP if it plays out beyond the next few weeks and takes a coup-like turn , with the White House asking state legislatures to void their election results on fraud grounds .
I made this point a few days ago but it ’ s worth repeating : The more destabilized the country is by this transition process , the less likely swing voters will be to roll the dice on a second Trump term in 2024 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chances then is to be cooperative now .
And maybe he will be , sort of : Even if he exits *relatively* quietly , though , he won ’ t be quiet for long .
That ’ s another risk to the party .
What if Trump remains so omnipresent in politics that he becomes a factor in the midterms , a moment when the out-party wants all the focus on the sitting president ?
If Trump is campaigning , tweeting and generally just being himself , he ’ ll interject himself into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he ’ s most comfortable and because the news media has been unable to ignore him since 2012 .
That might excite the GOP base , but it could also remind independent voters why they voted against him and excite Democratic voters .
Trump ’ s trail of tweets and actions could also command attention and force Republicans to answer for him , even though he ’ s not in office .
At a minimum , a Trump presidential candidacy would be a distraction , but it could devolve into a liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inopportune time considering a strong 2020 performance has put House Republicans well within striking distance of a majority , if the midterms are anything close to normal .
There ’ s not much the GOP can do about that , and in any case it ’ s several years away .
What they can do right now is nudge voters to accept the election results , and gradually more of them are doing it : Sen. Kevin Cramer also told CNN that GSA should start the transition process for Biden .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dates for certifying the elections in Georgia ( November 20 ) and Arizona ( November 30 ) as the moments of truth , believing that Trump would *probably* concede — or rather , accept that Biden will be inaugurated on January 20 — if his legal challenges fail to stop the certification .
But Trump is an avid consumer of populist media and there ’ ll be lots of claptrap on those outlets with certification looming that he should try to get electors awarded to him by swing states notwithstanding the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s serious about 2024 , he ’ ll ignore that noise .
But maybe he won ’ t be able to help himself , in which case all bets are off .
I ’ ll leave you with this as a gloss on the sorry state of our poor , divided , benighted country .
Imagine Trump ’ s reaction when he sees the results !

This is the funniest tweet of his career, although it must be that he meant it seriously. He can’t be doing absurdist jokes about his own “rigged election” allegations, right?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327279929319432200
There are a few signs today besides Trump’s tweet that the White House may be starting to resign itself to reality. The campaign’s voter-fraud hotline, which was pranked mercilessly by lefties, is reportedly shutting down:
The Trump campaign is discontinuing its voter fraud hotline – the one flooded with pranks calls – and planning to downsize its staff beginning next week, per @wsteaks + @KFaulders — Ben Siegel (@bensiegel) November 13, 2020
The plan for Trump to hold post-election rallies where he’d push voter-fraud propaganda may also be rethought:
2/ “… but I think there is growing understanding that there are money and execution issues. The campaign is trying to raise money for the legal fight and rallies cost a lot and don’t make any money,” the official says. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 13, 2020
There are other considerations involved in holding rallies. One is the near-term effect those events might have on the runoffs in Georgia, both financially (by drawing away resources) and politically. A “Republican close to Trump” said this week to Politico, “I’ve told the campaign his only priority should be holding onto the Senate. Frankly, he is losing credibility the more and more we have this fraudulent ballot fight.” They want him down in GA campaigning for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler if only to signal to Republican voters that yes, they should turn out to vote on January 5 even though, ah, the president thinks the last vote in Georgia was rigged. Republicans may also be worried that the time is approaching — in theory — where they’ll have to start acknowledging that Biden is the president-elect, which will infuriate Trumpers in Georgia and elsewhere. Once that happens, the only person capable of bringing them back on the team and getting them to show up for Perdue and Loeffler is Trump himself.
The longer-term risk for Trump and the party is how a protracted “I was cheated” campaign might affect perceptions of him and the GOP if it plays out beyond the next few weeks and takes a coup-like turn, with the White House asking state legislatures to void their election results on fraud grounds. I made this point a few days ago but it’s worth repeating: The more destabilized the country is by this transition process, the less likely swing voters will be to roll the dice on a second Trump term in 2024. The best thing he can do for his chances then is to be cooperative now. And maybe he will be, sort of:
Just had heartfelt phone call w friend @realDonaldTrump who said he's a "realist" who'll do the"right thing" But he wants to see "what states do in terms of certifiction (etc)" He sounded committed to fighting for every vote & if he loses, talking more about all he's accomplished — Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) November 13, 2020
Even if he exits *relatively* quietly, though, he won’t be quiet for long. That’s another risk to the party. What if Trump remains so omnipresent in politics that he becomes a factor in the midterms, a moment when the out-party wants all the focus on the sitting president?
If Trump is campaigning, tweeting and generally just being himself, he’ll interject himself into the spotlight because ultimately that’s where he’s most comfortable and because the news media has been unable to ignore him since 2012. That might excite the GOP base, but it could also remind independent voters why they voted against him and excite Democratic voters. Trump’s trail of tweets and actions could also command attention and force Republicans to answer for him, even though he’s not in office. At a minimum, a Trump presidential candidacy would be a distraction, but it could devolve into a liability for Republicans. It could come at an inopportune time considering a strong 2020 performance has put House Republicans well within striking distance of a majority, if the midterms are anything close to normal.
There’s not much the GOP can do about that, and in any case it’s several years away. What they can do right now is nudge voters to accept the election results, and gradually more of them are doing it:
“Sure,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said when asked if she considers Biden “president-elect.” While Capito says there’s a “process” for legal challenges, she added that she hoped the process would resolve itself quickly — “inside a week or so.” “It looks like a difficult mountain for the President,” she said of his legal case… “I think it’s a very narrow road,” Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a member of the Senate GOP leadership, said when asked about Trump’s chances at reversing the election’s outcome.
Sen. Kevin Cramer also told CNN that GSA should start the transition process for Biden. A “top Republican source” singled out the dates for certifying the elections in Georgia (November 20) and Arizona (November 30) as the moments of truth, believing that Trump would *probably* concede — or rather, accept that Biden will be inaugurated on January 20 — if his legal challenges fail to stop the certification. But Trump is an avid consumer of populist media and there’ll be lots of claptrap on those outlets with certification looming that he should try to get electors awarded to him by swing states notwithstanding the results of the elections there. If he’s serious about 2024, he’ll ignore that noise. But maybe he won’t be able to help himself, in which case all bets are off.
I’ll leave you with this as a gloss on the sorry state of our poor, divided, benighted country. Imagine Trump’s reaction when he sees the results!


hotair--2020-11-13--TX Attorney General win: Court of Appeals temporarily stops El Paso County's shutdown order

The Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso , Texas is composed of a Chief Justice and two justices and has appellate jurisdiction of both civil and criminal cases appealed from district and county courts in the 17 counties .
The two justices are Democrats and the Chief Justice is a Republican .
In a bipartisan 2-1 decision Thursday the court temporarily halted El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego ’ s order shutting down nonessential businesses in El Paso County .
The Texas Attorney General ’ s Office and a group of 10 El Paso restaurant companies requested that Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their argument is that the judge ’ s order was illegal because it is counter to Gov .
Abbott ’ s Oct. 7 order tied to reopening Texas businesses .
Samaniego ’ s order involved shutting down businesses deemed as non-essential .
The court ruled that several sections of Samaniego ’ s order can not be enforced , including the business closures .
The ruling overrides Samaniego ’ s order until a final decision is made by the court , likely to come today .
“ We exercise our discretion to preserve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the issuance of the county ’ s later , more restrictive Stay-at-Home Order ” until the court makes its final judgment , the court ruled .
Last week , state 34th District Court Judge William Moody in El Paso denied the Attorney General ’ s Office and restaurant group ’ s motions to temporarily halt the shutdown order .
Moody ’ s decision was then appealed to the appeals court .
It ’ s likely the case will end up in the Texas Supreme Court .
This struggle between local elected officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing the coronavirus pandemic in Texas is an ongoing one .
Local officials are on the ground in communities and don ’ t always agree with Governor Abbott ’ s decisions , especially as some counties are seeing new waves of the virus .
El Paso is one of those areas right now that is a hot spot .
The increase in cases was unexpected , frankly , but in recent days the positivity rate has declined , which is good news .
The dissenting justice , Justice Yvonne Rodriguez , wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to rule on Judge Samaniego ’ s order .
Justice Yvonne Rodriguez argued that the court does not have authority to rule on Samaniego ’ s new order .
She said the Texas Attorney General ’ s Office and the El Paso restaurant group must go back to the lower court and ask for a temporary halt for the new order as it did for the original order .
Rodriguez also said the appeals court was moving too fast on issuing its final opinion on Friday because , she said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a snap decision .
… ” “ The County ’ s order , right or wrong ( I can not say just yet ) is an attempt to stem a rising tide .
On the other side of the equation , the harm the Governor cites is that his dignity as the State ’ s top law enforcement officer will be offended until we answer the question ” of “ … not only whether County Judge Samaniego had the authority to do what he did , but also whether the Governor did as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies continue to stack up in refrigerated trucks in El Paso , ” adding , “ Every other patient in our hospitals is a COVID-19 patient.
” The 2-1 decision was a bipartisan one .
Chief Justice Jeff Alley ( Republican ) was appointed by Governor Abbott in October 2019 .
The justices are elected by the voters .
Justice Gina Palafox ( Democrat ) was elected in 2017 and Justice Rodriguez was elected in 2013 .
While politics often intrudes into coronavirus mitigation decisions , it should be noted that Palafox sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Texas are essentially county CEOs , the position is a nonjudicial position .
A county judge doesn ’ t have to have a background in law or have a law degree .
Judge Samaniego does not have a legal background .
He was sworn in as the El Paso County Judge on January 1 , 2019 .
He holds several college degrees , according to his official website – Bachelor ’ s Degree in Sociology from the University of Texas at El Paso , a Master ’ s Degree in Educational Psychology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paso , a Master ’ s Degree in Bilingual Bi-Cultural Education from New Mexico State University , and a Master ’ s Degree in International Economics and Public Policy from the University of Notre Dame .
I mention this because since the coronavirus pandemic surfaced in Texas , major city officials have often had conflicts with Governor Abbott and state officials .
Abbott has tried to balance the struggles of small business owners while managing the spread of the virus .
Harris County ( Houston ) looks to be on this same path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Harris County Judge has a political science degree but is not a lawyer .
She is indicating that she will order more lockdown measures if the spread of the virus continues to rise .
Judge Samaniego encourages El Paso residents to continue to wear masks and social distance while a final ruling is being deliberated .
He said he ’ ll be pursuing all legal options to stop the spread of the virus .
The mayor of El Paso is looking for a balance between lockdowns and keeping residents healthy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ order remain in place under the court ruling , including 50 % capacity limits at most nonessential businesses ; and restaurants must close dining rooms between 9 p.m , -6 a.m. Takeout is permitted after 9 p.m. After the courts ruling came out , the City of El Paso announced it would return to enforcing its previous emergency directive and Abbott ’ s executive order allowing non-essential businesses to reopen with limits .
“ Today ’ s ruling from the 8th Court of Appeals restores our previous directive ; and as I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , ” El Paso Mayor Dee Margo said in a statement .
“ We must balance the lives and the livelihoods of our community , and this requires all of us to change our social behavior.
” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is pleased with the temporary halt to the order .
The mayor ’ s concern for the survival of small businesses in El Paso was evident during a news conference Thursday .
From January to October , El Paso has lost more than 25 % of its small businesses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was recorded in mid-March .
Some businesses have been ignoring Judge Samaniego ’ s order and potential fines in order to stay open and keep workers employed .
The argument is the same as it has been from the beginning of the pandemic – if big box stores can stay open , why can ’ t small businesses ?
Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s office announced Wednesday that state agencies sent more than 1,350 additional medical personnel to El Paso , with more available as needed .

The Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas is composed of a Chief Justice and two justices and has appellate jurisdiction of both civil and criminal cases appealed from district and county courts in the 17 counties. The two justices are Democrats and the Chief Justice is a Republican. In a bipartisan 2-1 decision Thursday the court temporarily halted El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego’s order shutting down nonessential businesses in El Paso County.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office and a group of 10 El Paso restaurant companies requested that Judge Samaniego’s order be halted. Their argument is that the judge’s order was illegal because it is counter to Gov. Abbott’s Oct. 7 order tied to reopening Texas businesses. Samaniego’s order involved shutting down businesses deemed as non-essential. The court ruled that several sections of Samaniego’s order cannot be enforced, including the business closures. The ruling overrides Samaniego’s order until a final decision is made by the court, likely to come today.
“We exercise our discretion to preserve the status quo as it existed just prior to the issuance of the county’s later, more restrictive Stay-at-Home Order” until the court makes its final judgment, the court ruled. Last week, state 34th District Court Judge William Moody in El Paso denied the Attorney General’s Office and restaurant group’s motions to temporarily halt the shutdown order. Moody’s decision was then appealed to the appeals court. It’s likely the case will end up in the Texas Supreme Court.
This struggle between local elected officials ordering shutdowns versus Governor Abbotts orders for managing the coronavirus pandemic in Texas is an ongoing one. Local officials are on the ground in communities and don’t always agree with Governor Abbott’s decisions, especially as some counties are seeing new waves of the virus. El Paso is one of those areas right now that is a hot spot. The increase in cases was unexpected, frankly, but in recent days the positivity rate has declined, which is good news.
The dissenting justice, Justice Yvonne Rodriguez, wrote that the court didn’t have the authority to rule on Judge Samaniego’s order.
Justice Yvonne Rodriguez argued that the court does not have authority to rule on Samaniego’s new order. She said the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the El Paso restaurant group must go back to the lower court and ask for a temporary halt for the new order as it did for the original order. Rodriguez also said the appeals court was moving too fast on issuing its final opinion on Friday because, she said, “The stakes are too high to make a snap decision. …” “The County’s order, right or wrong (I cannot say just yet) is an attempt to stem a rising tide. On the other side of the equation, the harm the Governor cites is that his dignity as the State’s top law enforcement officer will be offended until we answer the question” of “… not only whether County Judge Samaniego had the authority to do what he did, but also whether the Governor did as well.” She also noted that “bodies continue to stack up in refrigerated trucks in El Paso,” adding, “Every other patient in our hospitals is a COVID-19 patient.”
The 2-1 decision was a bipartisan one. Chief Justice Jeff Alley (Republican) was appointed by Governor Abbott in October 2019. The justices are elected by the voters. Justice Gina Palafox (Democrat) was elected in 2017 and Justice Rodriguez was elected in 2013. While politics often intrudes into coronavirus mitigation decisions, it should be noted that Palafox sided with the chief justice.
County judges in Texas are essentially county CEOs, the position is a nonjudicial position. A county judge doesn’t have to have a background in law or have a law degree. Judge Samaniego does not have a legal background. He was sworn in as the El Paso County Judge on January 1, 2019. He holds several college degrees, according to his official website – Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from the University of Texas at El Paso, a Master’s Degree in Educational Psychology from the University of Texas at El Paso, a Master’s Degree in Bilingual Bi-Cultural Education from New Mexico State University, and a Master’s Degree in International Economics and Public Policy from the University of Notre Dame. I mention this because since the coronavirus pandemic surfaced in Texas, major city officials have often had conflicts with Governor Abbott and state officials. Abbott has tried to balance the struggles of small business owners while managing the spread of the virus. Harris County (Houston) looks to be on this same path as the number of cases ticks up. The Harris County Judge has a political science degree but is not a lawyer. She is indicating that she will order more lockdown measures if the spread of the virus continues to rise.
Judge Samaniego encourages El Paso residents to continue to wear masks and social distance while a final ruling is being deliberated. He said he’ll be pursuing all legal options to stop the spread of the virus. The mayor of El Paso is looking for a balance between lockdowns and keeping residents healthy.
Samaniego also noted that parts of his order remain in place under the court ruling, including 50% capacity limits at most nonessential businesses; and restaurants must close dining rooms between 9 p.m,-6 a.m. Takeout is permitted after 9 p.m. After the courts ruling came out, the City of El Paso announced it would return to enforcing its previous emergency directive and Abbott’s executive order allowing non-essential businesses to reopen with limits. “Today’s ruling from the 8th Court of Appeals restores our previous directive; and as I have stated, the City must follow the law,” El Paso Mayor Dee Margo said in a statement. “We must balance the lives and the livelihoods of our community, and this requires all of us to change our social behavior.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is pleased with the temporary halt to the order.
I commend the 8th Court of Appeals for stopping El Paso Co. Judge Samaniego’s shutdown order – pending the final decision on the merits. It is important that we do not shutdown the economy ever again, & this decision allows small businesses to continue to operate & pay employees. — Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) November 13, 2020
The mayor’s concern for the survival of small businesses in El Paso was evident during a news conference Thursday. From January to October, El Paso has lost more than 25% of its small businesses. The first coronavirus case in El Paso was recorded in mid-March. Some businesses have been ignoring Judge Samaniego’s order and potential fines in order to stay open and keep workers employed. The argument is the same as it has been from the beginning of the pandemic – if big box stores can stay open, why can’t small businesses?
Gov. Greg Abbott’s office announced Wednesday that state agencies sent more than 1,350 additional medical personnel to El Paso, with more available as needed.


hotair--2020-11-13--Bad news from Schiff: Investigating an incoming president-elect is a degredation of democracy, or so

Bad news from Schiff: Investigating an incoming president-elect is a degredation of democracy, or something

MSNBC morphed so slowly into the Comedy Channel that I barely noticed the change .
“ Is this what we ’ re going to sit through for the next four years , ” Joy Reid asks , “ Republicans just doing investigations and refusing to legislate ?
” She poses that question to the man who spent the last four years doing nothing but investigations — and lying about them , too , as the Mueller probe made clear .
Suddenly , though , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) sees investigations into inbound presidents-elect as “ tearing down our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a new president is now something that the House needs to “ overcome.
” At one point , Schiff says , “ That ’ s been the story of the last four years , ” in a different context .
However , it ’ s more accurate in this context , and Schiff was among the worst offenders .
Schiff went full-out on McCarthyism regarding his claims of having solid evidence of Donald Trump ’ s alleged collusion with Russia in 2016 , only to spend the next year after Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that showed Schiff had knowingly lied all along .
He ’ s literally the last member of Congress with any standing to complain about investigating incoming presidents and “ delegitimizing ” them .
A real journalist might have asked Schiff about the precedents he himself set in this regard .
One has to conclude that ’ s the reason he ’ s appearing on Reid ’ s show .

MSNBC morphed so slowly into the Comedy Channel that I barely noticed the change. “Is this what we’re going to sit through for the next four years,” Joy Reid asks, “Republicans just doing investigations and refusing to legislate?” She poses that question to the man who spent the last four years doing nothing but investigations — and lying about them, too, as the Mueller probe made clear.
Suddenly, though, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) sees investigations into inbound presidents-elect as “tearing down our democracy.” Any effort to “delegitimize” a new president is now something that the House needs to “overcome.”
YGBFKM (via Twitchy):
Video: Amazing stuff as MSNBC's Joy Reid and Adam Schiff say Republicans investigating a Biden administration would not only be obstruction, but a degradation of our democracy and waste of the people's time. pic.twitter.com/PvodYznI1G — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 13, 2020
At one point, Schiff says, “That’s been the story of the last four years,” in a different context. However, it’s more accurate in this context, and Schiff was among the worst offenders. Schiff went full-out on McCarthyism regarding his claims of having solid evidence of Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in 2016, only to spend the next year after Robert Mueller came up empty trying to hide the evidence that showed Schiff had knowingly lied all along. He’s literally the last member of Congress with any standing to complain about investigating incoming presidents and “delegitimizing” them.
A real journalist might have asked Schiff about the precedents he himself set in this regard. One has to conclude that’s the reason he’s appearing on Reid’s show.


hotair--2020-11-13--Centrist Dem Elissa Slotkin: I won't vote for Pelosi for Speaker; <span class='red'>Update: Pelosi w

Centrist Dem Elissa Slotkin: I won't vote for Pelosi for Speaker; Update: Pelosi won't take blame for House losses

Not an earth-shaking revelation , as Slotkin represents a Republican-leaning district in Michigan and didn ’ t vote for Pelosi in 2019 either .
( She voted “ present.
” ) But it ’ s newsy in that Pelosi will have a narrower majority next year and can ’ t afford as many centrist defectors in the Speaker ’ s race as she had last time .
And it ’ s also newsy in a more general sense , namely that there ’ s a bunch of enjoyable “ Dems in disarray ” material online today and Slotkin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I will not be voting for Nancy Pelosi , ” Slotkin told Tim Alberta of Politico .
“ I have no idea if people are gon na run against her , or who might run against her .
And I will of course have this conversation directly with her .
But I believe we need new leadership .
I would love to see more Midwesterners , because if you look across the leadership… I respect these people , but it ’ s New York and California.
” That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nutshell : Staring down the barrel of a GOP takeover in 2022 , how much room to maneuver will the moderates in the caucus from flyover country be given by the left in the name of holding the majority ?
Will progressives backburner talk about socialism and defunding the police to help their centrist friends ?
If so , for how long are those ideas supposed to sit on the back burner ?
It ’ s what lefties believe .
If centrists can ’ t get elected when progressives open their mouths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut up forever .
Which would be nice , but isn ’ t going to happen .
Based on Slotkin ’ s qualified praise for Trump in Alberta ’ s piece , I think she ’ d probably hedge by saying that the *substance* of many lefty ideas is fine but that the sloganeering is poisonous .
“ Socialism ” is a scary idea to many Americans — but Medicare for All polls quite well .
“ Defunding the police ” is insanity — but reforming PDs was plenty popular in surveys conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beyond policy , there ’ s also the problem of Democrats increasingly being viewed as the party of elites , which is a bad look when you ’ re trying to claw back votes in middle America .
“ You know , the one thing I will say about Donald Trump , ” Slotkin began .
“ He doesn ’ t talk down to anybody .
He is who he is , but he doesn ’ t talk down to anyone .
And I think that there is a certain voter out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and appreciates him.
” … “ It ’ s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner .
It ’ s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate .
And it ’ s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn ’ t use complicated , wonky language , the way a lot of Democrats do , ” Slotkin said .
“ We sometimes make people feel like they aren ’ t conscientious enough .
They aren ’ t thoughtful enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ enough .
They aren ’ t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what ’ s good for them .
… It ’ s talking down to people .
It ’ s alienating them .
And there ’ s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it ’ s not their life , it ’ s not their world .
They hate it .
They don ’ t like all that politics stuff .
Trump speaks to them , because he includes them.
” … “ I remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was even a twinkle in our eye , the way that people in my life here couldn ’ t stand political correctness .
And I think [ this is ] the same kind of sentiment , ” Slotkin explained .
“ Because the political correctness is thinking you ’ re better than somebody else—it ’ s correcting someone .
Now , I happen to believe that we live in a different era , and that we have to be better than we were in previous eras .
… But people do feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , if you want a vision of the future imagine AOC woke-shaming Rust Belt factory workers forever .
Speaking of whom , even the head of her own state ’ s Democratic Party was caught grumbling this week about Ocasio-Cortez ’ s high profile within a coalition that needs to be able to win in purple districts , not just in monolithic blue districts where DSA heartthrobs can romp by 60 points .
“ AOC has no standing on how to run a general election in the suburbs and upstate .
AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6-1 Democrat and she couldn ’ t find a Republican in her district with binoculars , ” said Jay Jacobs to the New York Post .
“ I invite AOC to come to Long Island and stand for election in one of our districts .
You ’ ll see different results.
” Dems who spoke to HuffPost also had the knives out for Ocasio-Cortez .
“ We have tried their way repeatedly and lose every single time , ” said one Democratic strategist of progressive messaging .
“ Don ’ t get offended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try it again.
” Reporter Matt Fuller reminded readers that lefties who have run uncompromisingly leftist campaigns in moderate districts have in fact flamed out over the last few years , both in the 2018 midterms and just last week with losses in Nebraska and upstate New York .
Quote : Hoo boy .
Ironically , Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad may have been for Democrats what Trump was *supposed* to be for Republicans , a hugely visible , extremely polarizing personality who ’ d supposedly damage the party in congressional races .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably ) retaining control of the Senate and gaining seats in the House , leaving them set up to reclaim total control of Congress in 2022 .
Instead it was progressive agitators who were the anchor on their party — at least if you believe their enemies , the moderates in the Democratic caucus .
We shouldn ’ t personalize it too much , though .
A theme that features in every “ Dems in disarray ” piece published since the election is how furious centrists were with the “ defund the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the Squad .
According to Politico , “ DCCC polled the issue over the summer as nationwide protests over social justice began dominating the headlines , finding it ‘ incredibly damaging , ’ according to a Democratic strategist familiar with the data.
” The same Politico story notes that Cameron Webb , an African-American doctor who ran for a seat in a redder part of Virginia , looked likely to win but ended up losing by six points .
“ My opponent only talked about three words : Defund the police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another irony , though : Black activists in cities like Philly insist that the BLM protests that happened this summer were instrumental in raising political consciousness locally — and money nationally .
“ It was that organizing around police violence that actually led us to be able to mobilize folks to the polls , ” said one organizer based in Pittsburgh to Citylab .
“ We took that energy and those resources that we got and for the first time we were able to hire people , and to recruit digital canvassers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ festivals because we had access to those resources.
” Strong pro-Biden turnout in cities may have made the difference between victory and defeat at the presidential level this year , and that turnout may not have been possible if not for the BLM demonstrations .
But it also may have made the difference for the GOP at the district level .
Maybe that ’ s our explanation for how we ended up with divided government .
And maybe it also kinda sorta proves that a Democratic presidential nominee couldn ’ t have beaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police ” baggage on his back *unless* he was already so well-known to voters as a mushy centrist non-radical that no one seriously believed he ’ d try to defund the police if elected .
Sleepy Joe may have been the only Dem capable of winning under the circumstances .
By the way , as far as I know , there ’ s still no challenger to Pelosi in the Speaker ’ s race .
Conceivably Slotkin and a dozen or so others could vote present and deny her 218 , forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I find it impossible to believe that a master organizer like Pelosi would lose her grip in such a humiliating way .
More likely , I think , is that the bad result last Tuesday night will ensure that this really is her last term in charge of the House .
Democrats are likely to lose their majority anyway in 2022 and Pelosi ’ s already suggested that she ’ d step down that year .
Maybe her caucus would have been more patient with her if they ’ d expanded their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .

Not an earth-shaking revelation, as Slotkin represents a Republican-leaning district in Michigan and didn’t vote for Pelosi in 2019 either. (She voted “present.”) But it’s newsy in that Pelosi will have a narrower majority next year and can’t afford as many centrist defectors in the Speaker’s race as she had last time.
And it’s also newsy in a more general sense, namely that there’s a bunch of enjoyable “Dems in disarray” material online today and Slotkin’s frustration is of a piece with it.
“I will not be voting for Nancy Pelosi,” Slotkin told Tim Alberta of Politico. “I have no idea if people are gonna run against her, or who might run against her. And I will of course have this conversation directly with her. But I believe we need new leadership. I would love to see more Midwesterners, because if you look across the leadership… I respect these people, but it’s New York and California.” That’s the next two years for House Dems in a nutshell: Staring down the barrel of a GOP takeover in 2022, how much room to maneuver will the moderates in the caucus from flyover country be given by the left in the name of holding the majority? Will progressives backburner talk about socialism and defunding the police to help their centrist friends?
If so, for how long are those ideas supposed to sit on the back burner? It’s what lefties believe. If centrists can’t get elected when progressives open their mouths then the left is being asked to shut up forever. Which would be nice, but isn’t going to happen.
Based on Slotkin’s qualified praise for Trump in Alberta’s piece, I think she’d probably hedge by saying that the *substance* of many lefty ideas is fine but that the sloganeering is poisonous. “Socialism” is a scary idea to many Americans — but Medicare for All polls quite well. “Defunding the police” is insanity — but reforming PDs was plenty popular in surveys conducted after George Floyd’s death. Beyond policy, there’s also the problem of Democrats increasingly being viewed as the party of elites, which is a bad look when you’re trying to claw back votes in middle America.
“You know, the one thing I will say about Donald Trump,” Slotkin began. “He doesn’t talk down to anybody. He is who he is, but he doesn’t talk down to anyone. And I think that there is a certain voter out there because of that who identifies with him and appreciates him.”… “It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”… “I remember, long before, literally, Donald Trump was even a twinkle in our eye, the way that people in my life here couldn’t stand political correctness. And I think [this is] the same kind of sentiment,” Slotkin explained. “Because the political correctness is thinking you’re better than somebody else—it’s correcting someone. Now, I happen to believe that we live in a different era, and that we have to be better than we were in previous eras. … But people do feel looked down upon.”
As George Orwell said, if you want a vision of the future imagine AOC woke-shaming Rust Belt factory workers forever. Speaking of whom, even the head of her own state’s Democratic Party was caught grumbling this week about Ocasio-Cortez’s high profile within a coalition that needs to be able to win in purple districts, not just in monolithic blue districts where DSA heartthrobs can romp by 60 points. “AOC has no standing on how to run a general election in the suburbs and upstate. AOC is in a district that’s 6-1 Democrat and she couldn’t find a Republican in her district with binoculars,” said Jay Jacobs to the New York Post. “I invite AOC to come to Long Island and stand for election in one of our districts. You’ll see different results.”
Dems who spoke to HuffPost also had the knives out for Ocasio-Cortez. “We have tried their way repeatedly and lose every single time,” said one Democratic strategist of progressive messaging. “Don’t get offended that we don’t want to try it again.” Reporter Matt Fuller reminded readers that lefties who have run uncompromisingly leftist campaigns in moderate districts have in fact flamed out over the last few years, both in the 2018 midterms and just last week with losses in Nebraska and upstate New York. Quote:
One moderate member took particular issue with Ocasio-Cortez offering campaign advice. “There’s a reason AOC was noting how few members actually asked her for help,” this Democrat said. “And the reason is she would do more harm than good in most districts.” “Aligning yourself with AOC is a good way to become a Twitter celebrity,” the lawmaker added. “But it’s a bad way to stay a member of Congress.”
Hoo boy. Ironically, Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad may have been for Democrats what Trump was *supposed* to be for Republicans, a hugely visible, extremely polarizing personality who’d supposedly damage the party in congressional races. In reality, Republicans overperformed downballot by (probably) retaining control of the Senate and gaining seats in the House, leaving them set up to reclaim total control of Congress in 2022. Instead it was progressive agitators who were the anchor on their party — at least if you believe their enemies, the moderates in the Democratic caucus.
We shouldn’t personalize it too much, though. A theme that features in every “Dems in disarray” piece published since the election is how furious centrists were with the “defund the police” messaging, a phenomenon much broader than the Squad. According to Politico, “DCCC polled the issue over the summer as nationwide protests over social justice began dominating the headlines, finding it ‘incredibly damaging,’ according to a Democratic strategist familiar with the data.” The same Politico story notes that Cameron Webb, an African-American doctor who ran for a seat in a redder part of Virginia, looked likely to win but ended up losing by six points. “My opponent only talked about three words: Defund the police,” he told colleagues this week.
Another irony, though: Black activists in cities like Philly insist that the BLM protests that happened this summer were instrumental in raising political consciousness locally — and money nationally. “It was that organizing around police violence that actually led us to be able to mobilize folks to the polls,” said one organizer based in Pittsburgh to Citylab. “We took that energy and those resources that we got and for the first time we were able to hire people, and to recruit digital canvassers, and put money into things like voting festivals because we had access to those resources.” Strong pro-Biden turnout in cities may have made the difference between victory and defeat at the presidential level this year, and that turnout may not have been possible if not for the BLM demonstrations.
But it also may have made the difference for the GOP at the district level. Maybe that’s our explanation for how we ended up with divided government. And maybe it also kinda sorta proves that a Democratic presidential nominee couldn’t have beaten Trump this year with the “defund the police” baggage on his back *unless* he was already so well-known to voters as a mushy centrist non-radical that no one seriously believed he’d try to defund the police if elected. Sleepy Joe may have been the only Dem capable of winning under the circumstances.
By the way, as far as I know, there’s still no challenger to Pelosi in the Speaker’s race. Conceivably Slotkin and a dozen or so others could vote present and deny her 218, forcing Democrats to look elsewhere for leadership, but I find it impossible to believe that a master organizer like Pelosi would lose her grip in such a humiliating way. More likely, I think, is that the bad result last Tuesday night will ensure that this really is her last term in charge of the House. Democrats are likely to lose their majority anyway in 2022 and Pelosi’s already suggested that she’d step down that year. Maybe her caucus would have been more patient with her if they’d expanded their majority this year. They didn’t.
Update: Pitiful.


hotair--2020-11-13--Bush v Gore's winning attorney: "I do believe the election is over"

This message is notable for both the source and the venue .
Speaking at The Federalist Society , which might have claim to the title of the most influential and successful of activist organizations in Donald Trump ’ s presidency , Ted Olson delivered the bad news .
Having fought an election challenge battle twenty years ago and won in Bush v Gore , the former Solicitor General says this fight is over and we have a new president , like it or not : Olson , a partner with Gibson , Dunn & Crutcher who went on to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , made the remarks during a panel on the powers of the presidency hosted by the Federalist Society , as he discussed checks against the president .
“ The Framers , they separated the powers because they knew that individuals would be flawed .
They put in lots of checks , and we just experienced one , the election , ” Olson said .
“ To the extent that the citizens of this country did not like the manner in which President Trump spoke , or the manner in which he threatened people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laws , they exercised their franchise .
And we have—I do believe the election is over—we do have a new president.
” “ And we do because a large number of people expressed disapproval , whether one agrees with that or not , of the manner , style and techniques of this particular president , ” Olson continued .
“ So we do have a Constitution that works pretty well .
At the end of the day , we are going to have flawed individuals holding that office , and the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a change when they feel it ’ s appropriate.
” That had to be a bit of a buzzkill at the Federalist Society .
They played a crucial role in assisting Trump in filling open seats in the federal judiciary for the past two years , perhaps Trump ’ s best gift to conservatives .
It ’ s certainly going to be his most lasting legacy , thanks to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell , who combined to let Trump appoint conservatives with impunity during that period .
If any outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sunshine blown up its skirts over the election challenges , it ’ s the Federalist Society .
And yet , here we are .
Olson might not have the same draw among conservatives that he once did , after representing the same-sex marriage advocates in Obergefell , but he ’ s still a towering figure among more libertarian circles within the movement .
No one doubts his expertise on election fights , either .
But you don ’ t need a law degree to see the gaps in the states Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise in futility .
In fact , a New York Times report this morning suggests that Trump sees the futility as well .
“ He knows it ’ s over , ” one source says , but he ’ s still spitballing on potential ways to test the system : At a meeting on Wednesday at the White House , President Trump had something he wanted to discuss with his advisers , many of whom have told him his chances of succeeding at changing the results of the 2020 election are thin as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press them on whether Republican legislatures could pick pro-Trump electors in a handful of key states and deliver him the electoral votes he needs to change the math and give him a second term , according to people briefed on the discussion .
It was not a detailed conversation , or really a serious one , the people briefed on it said .
Nor was it reflective of any obsessive desire of Mr. Trump ’ s to remain in the White House .
“ He knows it ’ s over , ” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they said , he is floating one improbable scenario after another for staying in office while he contemplates his uncertain post-presidency future .
So why fight it so hard ?
Three guesses : That makes a lot more sense than actually taking the OANN Dominion story seriously .
Team Trump clearly isn ’ t doing the latter , as there hasn ’ t been any legal filings on it , at least not yet .
Trump ’ s playing out the legal string for as long as he can , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that suits him best .
Trump News Network seems like the likeliest prospect , given his recent broadsides against Fox News .
Get ready for paid-entry rallies and big book deals to help fund those projects in the near future .

This message is notable for both the source and the venue. Speaking at The Federalist Society, which might have claim to the title of the most influential and successful of activist organizations in Donald Trump’s presidency, Ted Olson delivered the bad news. Having fought an election challenge battle twenty years ago and won in Bush v Gore, the former Solicitor General says this fight is over and we have a new president, like it or not:
Olson, a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who went on to serve as solicitor general in the Bush administration, made the remarks during a panel on the powers of the presidency hosted by the Federalist Society, as he discussed checks against the president. “The Framers, they separated the powers because they knew that individuals would be flawed. They put in lots of checks, and we just experienced one, the election,” Olson said. “To the extent that the citizens of this country did not like the manner in which President Trump spoke, or the manner in which he threatened people or the manner in which he executed the laws, they exercised their franchise. And we have—I do believe the election is over—we do have a new president.” “And we do because a large number of people expressed disapproval, whether one agrees with that or not, of the manner, style and techniques of this particular president,” Olson continued. “So we do have a Constitution that works pretty well. At the end of the day, we are going to have flawed individuals holding that office, and the people ultimately have the responsibility and opportunity to make a change when they feel it’s appropriate.”
That had to be a bit of a buzzkill at the Federalist Society. They played a crucial role in assisting Trump in filling open seats in the federal judiciary for the past two years, perhaps Trump’s best gift to conservatives. It’s certainly going to be his most lasting legacy, thanks to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, who combined to let Trump appoint conservatives with impunity during that period. If any outside group had a reason to want some sunshine blown up its skirts over the election challenges, it’s the Federalist Society.
And yet, here we are. Olson might not have the same draw among conservatives that he once did, after representing the same-sex marriage advocates in Obergefell, but he’s still a towering figure among more libertarian circles within the movement. No one doubts his expertise on election fights, either. But you don’t need a law degree to see the gaps in the states Trump’s challenging to know that this is an exercise in futility.
In fact, a New York Times report this morning suggests that Trump sees the futility as well. “He knows it’s over,” one source says, but he’s still spitballing on potential ways to test the system:
At a meeting on Wednesday at the White House, President Trump had something he wanted to discuss with his advisers, many of whom have told him his chances of succeeding at changing the results of the 2020 election are thin as a reed. He then proceeded to press them on whether Republican legislatures could pick pro-Trump electors in a handful of key states and deliver him the electoral votes he needs to change the math and give him a second term, according to people briefed on the discussion. It was not a detailed conversation, or really a serious one, the people briefed on it said. Nor was it reflective of any obsessive desire of Mr. Trump’s to remain in the White House. “He knows it’s over,” one adviser said. But instead of conceding, they said, he is floating one improbable scenario after another for staying in office while he contemplates his uncertain post-presidency future.
So why fight it so hard? Three guesses:
By dominating the story of his exit from the White House, he hopes to keep his millions of supporters energized and engaged for whatever comes next.
That makes a lot more sense than actually taking the OANN Dominion story seriously. Team Trump clearly isn’t doing the latter, as there hasn’t been any legal filings on it, at least not yet. Trump’s playing out the legal string for as long as he can, and then will likely shift to whatever post-presidential project that suits him best. Trump News Network seems like the likeliest prospect, given his recent broadsides against Fox News. Get ready for paid-entry rallies and big book deals to help fund those projects in the near future.


hotair--2020-11-13--"Our city is bleeding": Minneapolis police chief begs council for more resources

And so far , the Minneapolis city council still seems utterly lost on the point .
Crime has jumped by double digits in the city , and homicides and gun violence have already hit 15-year records , as the Star Tribune noted yesterday , with seven weeks yet to go in 2020 .
Yet when police chief Medaria Arradondo went to the city council this week to explain that the sudden reduction in staffing and the rise in crime required an emergency infusion of resources , the same city council who fueled both of those trends with their “ abolish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was doing with his current budget .
Arradondo was more polite and professional about it than I would have been ( via the Daily Wire ) : With dozens of people dead and roughly 500 wounded by gunfire so far in 2020 — the highest tally in at least 15 years — residents have been begging city leaders for a strategy to stem the violence .
With an unprecedented number of officers on leave , Arradondo pleaded for money to bring in help from nearby departments .
“ Resources are hemorrhaging .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m trying to do all I can to stop that bleeding , ” the chief said .
Councilor Steve Fletcher griped that the city was already paying $ 185 million for police , and that they had cut back on community-policing initiatives already .
Where were those resources , Fletcher wondered ?
“ So , we ’ re going to take a thing that has not been working very well and has not been addressing carjackings , has not been addressing the rise in violent crime … and say if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that will get us to a better place .
I ’ m struggling to get my head around why that is a good idea , ” Fletcher said .
Arradondo pushed back hard , saying 74 people have been killed and nearly 500 shot and wounded in Minneapolis this year .
“ We can go back and forth on the $ 185 million but that is not stopping the bloodshed that is occurring every day in our city , ” the chief said .
Here ’ s a clip of that exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells Fletcher and the rest of the council to stop playing games .
Ninety percent of the police budget goes to salaries and benefits , he explains , so there aren ’ t any extra resources laying around for this crime wave .
“ If you choose to say no to these victims of crime , ” Arradondo blasted Fletcher , “ then please stand by that ” : Just to repeat : the police budget was set a year ago , long before this crime wave took place .
The crime wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reaction of local government to its own police force , making the entire force the bogeyman instead of their own complete failure to properly oversee it .
Officers fled through retirements , disability claims , or just flat-out quitting , while police recruiting became useless while the council talked about completely disbanding the force .
The Strib ’ s numbers suggest that the force has lost 20 % of its effective manpower since May and the death of George Floyd : At the beginning of the year , the department had 874 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on some form of leave .
As of Monday , it had 834 officers , 121 of whom were on leave , according to spokesman John Elder .
Some of the officers on leave have filed PTSD claims stemming from their response to the unrest that followed Floyd ’ s death .
All of that signaled an environment of impunity to criminals in the area .
They have reacted as one would easily predict to such signals and incentives , as did police who grasped that the council would not support them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , why should they stick their necks out for a city that wants to fire them ?
If the council isn ’ t willing to confront crime and still sees police as the bigger problem , then it isn ’ t “ bull [ expletive ] ” and “ insincere ” to tell them to defend that position with their constituents , as councilor Jeremiah Ellison claimed .
It ’ s called accountability , and the Minneapolis city council has been ducking it long enough .

And so far, the Minneapolis city council still seems utterly lost on the point. Crime has jumped by double digits in the city, and homicides and gun violence have already hit 15-year records, as the Star Tribune noted yesterday, with seven weeks yet to go in 2020. Yet when police chief Medaria Arradondo went to the city council this week to explain that the sudden reduction in staffing and the rise in crime required an emergency infusion of resources, the same city council who fueled both of those trends with their “abolish the police” strategy wondered what Arradondo was doing with his current budget.
Arradondo was more polite and professional about it than I would have been (via the Daily Wire):
With dozens of people dead and roughly 500 wounded by gunfire so far in 2020 — the highest tally in at least 15 years — residents have been begging city leaders for a strategy to stem the violence. With an unprecedented number of officers on leave, Arradondo pleaded for money to bring in help from nearby departments. “Resources are hemorrhaging. Our city is bleeding at this moment. I’m trying to do all I can to stop that bleeding,” the chief said.
Councilor Steve Fletcher griped that the city was already paying $185 million for police, and that they had cut back on community-policing initiatives already. Where were those resources, Fletcher wondered?
“So, we’re going to take a thing that has not been working very well and has not been addressing carjackings, has not been addressing the rise in violent crime … and say if we just do 5% more of it, that will get us to a better place. I’m struggling to get my head around why that is a good idea,” Fletcher said. Arradondo pushed back hard, saying 74 people have been killed and nearly 500 shot and wounded in Minneapolis this year. “We can go back and forth on the $185 million but that is not stopping the bloodshed that is occurring every day in our city,” the chief said.
Here’s a clip of that exchange, in which a clearly angry Arradondo tells Fletcher and the rest of the council to stop playing games. Ninety percent of the police budget goes to salaries and benefits, he explains, so there aren’t any extra resources laying around for this crime wave. “If you choose to say no to these victims of crime,” Arradondo blasted Fletcher, “then please stand by that”:
Just to repeat: the police budget was set a year ago, long before this crime wave took place. The crime wave took place in large part thanks to the reaction of local government to its own police force, making the entire force the bogeyman instead of their own complete failure to properly oversee it. Officers fled through retirements, disability claims, or just flat-out quitting, while police recruiting became useless while the council talked about completely disbanding the force.
The Strib’s numbers suggest that the force has lost 20% of its effective manpower since May and the death of George Floyd:
At the beginning of the year, the department had 874 police officers, seven of whom were on some form of leave. As of Monday, it had 834 officers, 121 of whom were on leave, according to spokesman John Elder. Some of the officers on leave have filed PTSD claims stemming from their response to the unrest that followed Floyd’s death.
All of that signaled an environment of impunity to criminals in the area. They have reacted as one would easily predict to such signals and incentives, as did police who grasped that the council would not support them in future confrontations regardless of the circumstances. After all, why should they stick their necks out for a city that wants to fire them?
If the council isn’t willing to confront crime and still sees police as the bigger problem, then it isn’t “bull [expletive]” and “insincere” to tell them to defend that position with their constituents, as councilor Jeremiah Ellison claimed. It’s called accountability, and the Minneapolis city council has been ducking it long enough.