hotair--2020-10-26--Media ushered away as Biden trails off in answering question on court-packing

I ’ m skeptical that the “ Biden has dementia ” attack still has legs with undecideds after two debates and several townhalls .
But Sleepy Joe certainly is doing his part to supply Trump and the GOP with more material for it , isn ’ t he ?
They should include an extra question in exit polling this year : “ Are you concerned that the brain of the candidate you voted for might be turning into oatmeal ?
” You can hear him answering at greater length as the media walks away , herded towards the bus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the substance .
Although we already know the substance .
He ’ s punting .
He ’ s not going to deliver a straight answer on court-packing lest it piss off one part of his coalition or another .
John wrote earlier about the lengths to which the Washington Post ’ s fact-checker went this afternoon to try to cover for Biden when he said “ George ” instead of “ Trump ” during an interview .
The AP did it too , even though it seems plain from the clip that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out of his mouth instead .
“ The character of the country in my view is literally on the ballot , what kind of country are we going to be , ” he says .
“ Four more years of George uh…George , going to find ourselves in a position if Trump gets elected , we are going to be in a different world.
” Biden appears to stumble over his words before correcting himself .
The clips online do not mention that Biden was being interviewed by [ George ] Lopez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused that he mixed up President Trump with George W. Bush , who was president immediately before Barack Obama and Biden , his vice president , took office .
The most charitable read is that Biden clearly was thinking of Trump even though he landed on “ George.
” The point he was making about choosing the character of the country is the Democrats ’ core argument against the president .
The less charitable read is that , uh , that ’ s the same argument Democrats always make against Republicans , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the MAGA crowd .
Maybe Biden ’ s train of thought steered him back momentarily to the days of the 2004 campaign .
If he starts talking about the urgent need to elect John Kerry and undo our mistake in Iraq while on the trail this week , we ’ ll know that the oatmeal has finished cooking .
Here he is elsewhere today , sounding more coherent in answering other questions about the Court .
He ’ s not in favor of ending lifetime appointments for justices , he says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme in which judges rotate onto and off of the Court .
That ’ s an interesting proposal to dilute the influence of any single justice .
And it might be constitutional so long as the people being rotated onto the court are already federal judges , confirmed by the Senate and entitled to hold their position for life to insulate them from partisan pressure .
( If the Court can be expanded via simple statute , could its members also be made subject to a “ rotation ” scheme through simple statute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of timetable a rotation “ schedule ” would be on — e.g.
, one member rotates out every year — and whether the Senate gets to advise and consent on judges rotating in .
Does the upper chamber get veto power over the president ’ s choice of the new “ rotation justice ” or can he just fill that vacancy since that judge will have already been confirmed by the Senate at some point ?

I’m skeptical that the “Biden has dementia” attack still has legs with undecideds after two debates and several townhalls.
But Sleepy Joe certainly is doing his part to supply Trump and the GOP with more material for it, isn’t he?
They should include an extra question in exit polling this year: “Are you concerned that the brain of the candidate you voted for might be turning into oatmeal?”
https://twitter.com/FrancisBrennan/status/1320814970817433601
You can hear him answering at greater length as the media walks away, herded towards the bus, but I can’t make out the substance.
Although we already know the substance. He’s punting. He’s not going to deliver a straight answer on court-packing lest it piss off one part of his coalition or another.
John wrote earlier about the lengths to which the Washington Post’s fact-checker went this afternoon to try to cover for Biden when he said “George” instead of “Trump” during an interview. The AP did it too, even though it seems plain from the clip that he meant to say Trump and something else came out of his mouth instead.
“The character of the country in my view is literally on the ballot, what kind of country are we going to be,” he says. “Four more years of George uh…George, going to find ourselves in a position if Trump gets elected, we are going to be in a different world.” Biden appears to stumble over his words before correcting himself. The clips online do not mention that Biden was being interviewed by [George] Lopez and instead contend that Biden was so confused that he mixed up President Trump with George W. Bush, who was president immediately before Barack Obama and Biden, his vice president, took office.
The most charitable read is that Biden clearly was thinking of Trump even though he landed on “George.” The point he was making about choosing the character of the country is the Democrats’ core argument against the president. The less charitable read is that, uh, that’s the same argument Democrats always make against Republicans, although it’s on steroids this time against the MAGA crowd. Maybe Biden’s train of thought steered him back momentarily to the days of the 2004 campaign.
If he starts talking about the urgent need to elect John Kerry and undo our mistake in Iraq while on the trail this week, we’ll know that the oatmeal has finished cooking.
Here he is elsewhere today, sounding more coherent in answering other questions about the Court. He’s not in favor of ending lifetime appointments for justices, he says, although he might be okay with some scheme in which judges rotate onto and off of the Court. That’s an interesting proposal to dilute the influence of any single justice. And it might be constitutional so long as the people being rotated onto the court are already federal judges, confirmed by the Senate and entitled to hold their position for life to insulate them from partisan pressure. (If the Court can be expanded via simple statute, could its members also be made subject to a “rotation” scheme through simple statute?) The question is what sort of timetable a rotation “schedule” would be on — e.g., one member rotates out every year — and whether the Senate gets to advise and consent on judges rotating in. Does the upper chamber get veto power over the president’s choice of the new “rotation justice” or can he just fill that vacancy since that judge will have already been confirmed by the Senate at some point?


hotair--2020-10-26--WaPo: Biden's "transition from oil" pledge a huge headache -- and not just for him

My favorite part of this concession from the Washington Post about Joe Biden ’ s incoherence on energy policy ?
Framing it as a “ Republicans Pounce !
® ” moment .
From the beginning , Biden has tried to eat his cake and have it too on domestic energy production while American media outlets pretended not to notice .
Even here , the Post calls Biden ’ s two-faced pronouncements — declaring an end to fossil fuel production in the US during the primaries while denying he ever said it in the federal election — “ walk [ ing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden finally telling the truth in the last debate after tiring out at the end , the Trump campaign has been vindicated on this point .
And that matters not just for Biden , but for Democrats who tried to “ walk ” that same false line with him : For months , the Democratic presidential nominee has walked a careful line with policies and rhetoric calibrated to satisfy both sides of the long-simmering divisions in the Democratic Party over climate change , fossil fuels and how to talk about them in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Republicans .
But in the last days of the race , that balancing act has been thrust into jeopardy , creating new challenges for Democrats up and down the ballot .
“ Trump , he ’ s obviously looking for something to try and hang his hat on at this point , said Rep. Tim Ryan ( D-Ohio ) , whose district abuts the border with Pennsylvania , a region where fracking is a major issue .
“ That ’ s what makes it difficult.
” The United States is already moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions must go down by 7 percent each year by 2030 to avoid catastrophe , but President Trump and his allies seized on Biden ’ s comments throughout the weekend , portraying them as evidence that he is beholden to his party ’ s left wing and would eliminate many blue-collar jobs .
Some moderate House Democrats in competitive districts where oil is an economic engine distanced themselves from the remarks .
And liberals who championed a sweeping “ Green New Deal ” climate blueprint vowed to pressure Biden to go big on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a muddying of the Democratic Party ’ s stance , forcing Biden and other candidates into a defensive posture with just over a week until Election Day .
Biden hasn ’ t walked a careful line as much as he ’ s talked out of both sides of his face on energy production .
As Matt Lewis writes today , it ’ s the result of attempting to “ serve two masters ” in the 2020 election cycle .
Biden pandered to progressives in the primary to flank Bernie Sanders on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s trying old-school politics to come back to the center without losing either .
Until Thursday night , Biden got away with it , thanks to his ability to parse his wording and media “ fact checks ” that ignored his explicit pledges to ban fracking and end fossil-fuel production .
Now that Trump led Biden by the nose down the primrose path , the media cover no longer holds .
Now it ’ s every Democrat for himself , and Biden exposed on more than just climate change : Almost immediately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments .
“ I disagree with VP Biden ’ s statement tonight , ” New Mexico Rep. Xochitl Torres Small tweeted .
“ Energy is part of the backbone of New Mexico ’ s economy… ” Likewise , Oklahoma Rep. Kendra Horn said , “ Here ’ s one of the places Biden and I disagree .
We must stand up for our oil and gas industry.
” Politicians have parochial and pecuniary reasons for their public policy preferences , but here ’ s why I think this issue is even bigger : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat , ” but America faces other existential threats—such as China and Russia ( there ’ s a reason why Vladimir Putin hates fracking ) .
As Daniel Yergin , author of The New Map : Energy , Climate , and the Clash of Nations , tells me : “ Overall , this new position resulting from fracking is a fundamental contribution to U.S. energy security.
” Energy policy is about jobs and money , yes , but it also has national security and geopolitical ramifications .
“ The shale revolution and America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. foreign policy and augmented America ’ s position in the world , ” Yergin , a Pulitzer Prize-winning author , continues .
The national-security aspect is almost more important than the economic ramifications .
If we don ’ t produce our own energy , we go back to dependency on output from unstable regions .
That increases the need for US military intervention to secure our energy supplies , and with it the risk of more foreign wars .
The rise in oil prices will benefit Russia and Iran most of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperately need that economic and strategic boost .
It ’ s sheer idiocy , made more so by the Trump administration ’ s debunking of the oft-posited Obama-Biden claim that we couldn ’ t drill our way to energy independence .
Over at RedState , our colleague Shipwreckedcrew points out the reasons why the media now has to cover Biden ’ s actual deceit on energy after making it plain in the debate .
It impacts a lot more than Pennsylvania : One thing I learned many years ago was the basic idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect , a tax cut .
Lower gas prices at the pump , lower utility bills for the house , lower costs for fuel-intensive industries like farming , lower production costs for consumer goods that are made from petroleum-based products — all leave more money in an individual ’ s pocket every month .
Hydraulic fracturing is currently used in Arkansas , California , Colorado , Louisiana , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Texas , Virginia , West Virginia , and Wyoming .
I think this list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably in more widespread use .
… Social media has effectively throttled the emerging stories of Biden ’ s corruption involving the business dealings of his son Hunter in China and elsewhere , but the “ oil ” issue raised by Biden ’ s debate comment was such that all the major media outlets long in the tank for Biden are being forced to acknowledge the implications over the next 9 days until the election .
And so have the Democrat Party .
Republicans aren ’ t pouncing here .
Democrats are recoiling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large number of voters .

My favorite part of this concession from the Washington Post about Joe Biden’s incoherence on energy policy? Framing it as a “Republicans Pounce!®” moment. From the beginning, Biden has tried to eat his cake and have it too on domestic energy production while American media outlets pretended not to notice. Even here, the Post calls Biden’s two-faced pronouncements — declaring an end to fossil fuel production in the US during the primaries while denying he ever said it in the federal election — “walk[ing] a careful line.”
Thanks to Biden finally telling the truth in the last debate after tiring out at the end, the Trump campaign has been vindicated on this point. And that matters not just for Biden, but for Democrats who tried to “walk” that same false line with him:
For months, the Democratic presidential nominee has walked a careful line with policies and rhetoric calibrated to satisfy both sides of the long-simmering divisions in the Democratic Party over climate change, fossil fuels and how to talk about them in the campaign while seeking to head off attacks from Republicans. But in the last days of the race, that balancing act has been thrust into jeopardy, creating new challenges for Democrats up and down the ballot. “Trump, he’s obviously looking for something to try and hang his hat on at this point, said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), whose district abuts the border with Pennsylvania, a region where fracking is a major issue. “That’s what makes it difficult.” The United States is already moving away from fossil fuels, and carbon emissions must go down by 7 percent each year by 2030 to avoid catastrophe, but President Trump and his allies seized on Biden’s comments throughout the weekend, portraying them as evidence that he is beholden to his party’s left wing and would eliminate many blue-collar jobs. Some moderate House Democrats in competitive districts where oil is an economic engine distanced themselves from the remarks. And liberals who championed a sweeping “Green New Deal” climate blueprint vowed to pressure Biden to go big on climate change if elected. The effect has been a muddying of the Democratic Party’s stance, forcing Biden and other candidates into a defensive posture with just over a week until Election Day.
Biden hasn’t walked a careful line as much as he’s talked out of both sides of his face on energy production. As Matt Lewis writes today, it’s the result of attempting to “serve two masters” in the 2020 election cycle. Biden pandered to progressives in the primary to flank Bernie Sanders on the Left. Now, Biden’s trying old-school politics to come back to the center without losing either. Until Thursday night, Biden got away with it, thanks to his ability to parse his wording and media “fact checks” that ignored his explicit pledges to ban fracking and end fossil-fuel production.
Now that Trump led Biden by the nose down the primrose path, the media cover no longer holds. Now it’s every Democrat for himself, and Biden exposed on more than just climate change:
Almost immediately, vulnerable Democrats started distancing themselves from the comments. “I disagree with VP Biden’s statement tonight,” New Mexico Rep. Xochitl Torres Small tweeted. “Energy is part of the backbone of New Mexico’s economy…” Likewise, Oklahoma Rep. Kendra Horn said, “Here’s one of the places Biden and I disagree. We must stand up for our oil and gas industry.” Politicians have parochial and pecuniary reasons for their public policy preferences, but here’s why I think this issue is even bigger: Biden calls climate change an “existential threat,” but America faces other existential threats—such as China and Russia (there’s a reason why Vladimir Putin hates fracking). As Daniel Yergin, author of The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations, tells me: “Overall, this new position resulting from fracking is a fundamental contribution to U.S. energy security.” Energy policy is about jobs and money, yes, but it also has national security and geopolitical ramifications. “The shale revolution and America’s regaining energy independence have bolstered U.S. foreign policy and augmented America’s position in the world,” Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, continues.
The national-security aspect is almost more important than the economic ramifications. If we don’t produce our own energy, we go back to dependency on output from unstable regions. That increases the need for US military intervention to secure our energy supplies, and with it the risk of more foreign wars. The rise in oil prices will benefit Russia and Iran most of all, two of our geopolitical foes who desperately need that economic and strategic boost. It’s sheer idiocy, made more so by the Trump administration’s debunking of the oft-posited Obama-Biden claim that we couldn’t drill our way to energy independence.
Over at RedState, our colleague Shipwreckedcrew points out the reasons why the media now has to cover Biden’s actual deceit on energy after making it plain in the debate. It impacts a lot more than Pennsylvania:
One thing I learned many years ago was the basic idea that lower energy prices were, in effect, a tax cut. Lower gas prices at the pump, lower utility bills for the house, lower costs for fuel-intensive industries like farming, lower production costs for consumer goods that are made from petroleum-based products — all leave more money in an individual’s pocket every month. Hydraulic fracturing is currently used in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. I think this list is a bit outdated, and its probably in more widespread use. … Social media has effectively throttled the emerging stories of Biden’s corruption involving the business dealings of his son Hunter in China and elsewhere, but the “oil” issue raised by Biden’s debate comment was such that all the major media outlets long in the tank for Biden are being forced to acknowledge the implications over the next 9 days until the election. And so have the Democrat Party.
Republicans aren’t pouncing here. Democrats are recoiling. And likely, so are a large number of voters.


hotair--2020-10-26--USC: Data from experimental polling questions points to another Trump upset next week

“ Excellent ” is overstating it , but I think Romney ’ s right that Trump ’ s prospects are better than everyone expects .
Read this new piece from USC Dornsife and you ’ ll find some familiar themes on social desirability bias .
That ’ s the same problem that Trafalgar pollster Robert Cahaly has sought to address in his surveys of battleground states , which he claims is why his data is reliably rosier for Trump — much , much rosier in some cases — than the rest of the polling industry ’ s .
Cahaly ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many more Trump supporters out there than the commentariat realizes but that they ’ re being overlooked in polling for complicated reasons .
Some may be embarrassed about their support for Trump and don ’ t want to admit it to another person .
Some may fear harassment by neighbors or other antagonistic forces ( reasonably or not ) if their support for Trump became known .
Some may simply not pick up the phone when a pollster calls , or give an insincere answer just to mess with the person on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove social desirability bias from the equation , to peer through the haze of some MAGA fans ’ reluctance to admit their support and see the true picture of the electorate .
USC ’ s trying to do the same thing .
How do you get an accurate sense of how people are planning to vote if some of them are unwilling to be honest about their intentions ?
You ask them about other people ’ s intentions .
Not “ Will you vote for Trump ?
” but “ Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump ?
” According to USC , that type of “ social-circle question ” — similar to Trafalgar ’ s approach — shows Trump faring better than most polls indicate .
And not just better , but well enough to pull another rabbit out of the hat in the electoral college next Tuesday .
From our previous research on social judgments , we learned that people seem to know their immediate social circles quite well .
Their answers about the distribution of income , health status — even the relationship satisfaction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were often in the right ballpark .
And when we averaged the data from their responses across a large national sample , it provided a surprisingly accurate picture of the overall population… [ I ] n all five of the elections in which we tested this question , the social circle question predicted election outcomes better than traditional questions about voters ’ own intentions .
These five elections were the 2016 U.S. Presidential election , the 2017 French Presidential election , the 2017 Dutch Parliamentary election , the 2018 Swedish Parliamentary election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Representatives .
In both the U.S. elections , the social-circle question predicted national and state level results better than the “ own intention ” question in the same polls .
In fact , data from the social-circle question in 2016 accurately predicted which candidate won each state , so it predicted Trump ’ s electoral college victory… When we calculate how many electoral votes each candidate could get based on state level averages of the own-intention and social-circle questions , it ’ s looking like an Electoral College loss for Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not designed for state-level predictions , and in some states we have very few participants .
Even so , in 2016 it predicted that Trump would win the electoral vote .
USC is also asking people which candidate they think will win their home state and those results show an even steeper Biden electoral-college loss than the “ social circle ” results do .
What ’ s especially noteworthy about this is that USC has been conducting its own daily “ panel ” poll on the presidential race and has had Sleepy Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today they have him up 11 points nationally , indicating a Democratic bloodbath .
What they ’ re doing here with the “ experimental ” questions , in other words , is giving readers reason to believe that their own horse-race poll is wildly , embarrassingly wrong .
It ’ s possible that the traditional polls are right and the “ social circle ” data is wrong , of course .
Both parties this year seem convinced that Trump will do better than his current numbers , righties because they ’ re sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority ” despite the fact that he ’ s never had a job approval average north of 50 percent and lefties because they have hardcore electoral PTSD from 2016 that makes them fear Trump fans are perennially underestimated .
But neither of those things is necessarily true .
USC speculates that the pandemic might be throwing off people ’ s assessments of how their friends intend to vote for the simple reason that we ’ re all spending less time around each other now .
Our information about the day-to-day happenings of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of their political inclinations is weaker .
And our opportunities to influence each other on how to vote are fewer .
Your MAGA buddy may have twisted your arm in 2016 .
Nowadays he ’ s busy trying not to get COVID and stay afloat financially , just like everyone else .
There ’ s an obvious question about “ social desirability bias ” too .
If it ’ s true that it ’ s distorting the traditional polls and producing artificially encouraging numbers for Biden , whether because people are embarrassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they fear being punished somehow if their community knew their support for Trump , why are we seeing Biden faring better than Clinton in blood-red states ?
People who live in Montana , say , shouldn ’ t have reason to feel shy about telling some anonymous polling apparatchik that they ’ re MAGA and proud , yet Trump ’ s leading Biden there right now by single digits .
He won the state by 20 four years ago .
If anything , the polls in Montana and other very red states should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social desirability bias is real and significant .
There must be a few closet Biden voters in places like that who ’ d rather not let anyone , including pollsters , know that they ’ ve broken from the president ’ s pack .
Either way , I think Matthew Walther ’ s right about what Senate Republicans want out of this election .
They want to lose .
Faced with the possibility of losing both the White House and possibly even the Senate in a year in which Democrats are also expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , Republicans have resigned themselves to a half decade or so of opposition .
Many of them are relieved at the thought of not even having to pretend to govern as members of a minority party — better yet , in the case of those who expect to lose their seats , at the not very remote possibility of a well-remunerated position with a lobbying or consulting firm .
This seems to me the only possible explanation for the GOP ’ s refusal to pass a second relief bill before the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Nancy Pelosi a fool for even entertaining the possibility of such a deal .
But she is a wily old fox .
She understands that even at the best of times the GOP is reluctant to allow such uninviting prospects as winning elections to interfere with their libertarian economic principles .
When things look hopeless and it appears that they have nothing to gain except the gratitude of millions of Americans , they will shrug , like that guy in the Ayn Rand book… What does all of this mean for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins , the way forward is clear .
The template was established during the Obama administration : moan about “ socialism ” in the hope that you can get the House back in two years ( a remote but not totally unimaginable contingency ) , and , if all else fails , hope that the Supreme Court will bail you out .
Governing is difficult and thankless , and involves the sort of compromises that are destined to alienate the hardcore members of one ’ s political base .
If all you really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and positioning yourself for a future presidential run then your path is clear .
First , hope that you ’ re relegated to minority status in the Senate and are no longer responsible for anything .
Then you pander to your right flank to protect yourself in a primary , do a lot of Fox News hits whining about the Biden administration ’ s descent into communism , grandstand during hearings about the base ’ s hobbyhorse du jour ( Section 230 , for instance ) , and start staffing up for 2024 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan .
If he gets lucky on Tuesday night , Democrats will blow the roof off .
Not a good outcome policy-wise for the rest of us , but at least we ’ ll have a party in charge that wants to govern instead of operating like it ’ s an arm of partisan media .
I ’ ll leave you with this funny bit from this weekend ’ s SNL , which captures the flip side of Senate Republicans wanting to lose .
What about all the Trump obsessives who need Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to stay engaged with politics ?

“Excellent” is overstating it, but I think Romney’s right that Trump’s prospects are better than everyone expects.
.@MittRomney now thinks Trump has “excellent prospects” to win the election (a change from last week before the debate when he put his chances at “40 percent.”) Romney didn’t vote for Trump, and says he “probably won’t” reveal who he did cast a ballot for. — Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) October 26, 2020
Read this new piece from USC Dornsife and you’ll find some familiar themes on social desirability bias. That’s the same problem that Trafalgar pollster Robert Cahaly has sought to address in his surveys of battleground states, which he claims is why his data is reliably rosier for Trump — much, much rosier in some cases — than the rest of the polling industry’s. Cahaly’s baseline assumption is that there are many more Trump supporters out there than the commentariat realizes but that they’re being overlooked in polling for complicated reasons. Some may be embarrassed about their support for Trump and don’t want to admit it to another person. Some may fear harassment by neighbors or other antagonistic forces (reasonably or not) if their support for Trump became known. Some may simply not pick up the phone when a pollster calls, or give an insincere answer just to mess with the person on the line. Cahaly’s methods aim to remove social desirability bias from the equation, to peer through the haze of some MAGA fans’ reluctance to admit their support and see the true picture of the electorate.
USC’s trying to do the same thing. How do you get an accurate sense of how people are planning to vote if some of them are unwilling to be honest about their intentions? You ask them about other people’s intentions. Not “Will you vote for Trump?” but “Do you think your friends and neighbors are voting for Trump?” According to USC, that type of “social-circle question” — similar to Trafalgar’s approach — shows Trump faring better than most polls indicate. And not just better, but well enough to pull another rabbit out of the hat in the electoral college next Tuesday.
From our previous research on social judgments, we learned that people seem to know their immediate social circles quite well. Their answers about the distribution of income, health status — even the relationship satisfaction of their friends, family and acquaintances — were often in the right ballpark. And when we averaged the data from their responses across a large national sample, it provided a surprisingly accurate picture of the overall population… [I]n all five of the elections in which we tested this question, the social circle question predicted election outcomes better than traditional questions about voters’ own intentions. These five elections were the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the 2017 French Presidential election, the 2017 Dutch Parliamentary election, the 2018 Swedish Parliamentary election, and the 2018 U.S. election for House of Representatives. In both the U.S. elections, the social-circle question predicted national and state level results better than the “own intention” question in the same polls. In fact, data from the social-circle question in 2016 accurately predicted which candidate won each state, so it predicted Trump’s electoral college victory… When we calculate how many electoral votes each candidate could get based on state level averages of the own-intention and social-circle questions, it’s looking like an Electoral College loss for Biden. We should note that our poll was not designed for state-level predictions, and in some states we have very few participants. Even so, in 2016 it predicted that Trump would win the electoral vote.
USC is also asking people which candidate they think will win their home state and those results show an even steeper Biden electoral-college loss than the “social circle” results do. What’s especially noteworthy about this is that USC has been conducting its own daily “panel” poll on the presidential race and has had Sleepy Joe ahead the entire time — comfortably. Today they have him up 11 points nationally, indicating a Democratic bloodbath.
What they’re doing here with the “experimental” questions, in other words, is giving readers reason to believe that their own horse-race poll is wildly, embarrassingly wrong.
It’s possible that the traditional polls are right and the “social circle” data is wrong, of course. Both parties this year seem convinced that Trump will do better than his current numbers, righties because they’re sure that Trump fans are a “silent majority” despite the fact that he’s never had a job approval average north of 50 percent and lefties because they have hardcore electoral PTSD from 2016 that makes them fear Trump fans are perennially underestimated. But neither of those things is necessarily true. USC speculates that the pandemic might be throwing off people’s assessments of how their friends intend to vote for the simple reason that we’re all spending less time around each other now. Our information about the day-to-day happenings of our social circle is poorer, therefore our knowledge of their political inclinations is weaker. And our opportunities to influence each other on how to vote are fewer. Your MAGA buddy may have twisted your arm in 2016. Nowadays he’s busy trying not to get COVID and stay afloat financially, just like everyone else.
There’s an obvious question about “social desirability bias” too. If it’s true that it’s distorting the traditional polls and producing artificially encouraging numbers for Biden, whether because people are embarrassed to tell pollsters the truth or because they fear being punished somehow if their community knew their support for Trump, why are we seeing Biden faring better than Clinton in blood-red states? People who live in Montana, say, shouldn’t have reason to feel shy about telling some anonymous polling apparatchik that they’re MAGA and proud, yet Trump’s leading Biden there right now by single digits. He won the state by 20 four years ago.
If anything, the polls in Montana and other very red states should be *overstating* Trump’s support if social desirability bias is real and significant. There must be a few closet Biden voters in places like that who’d rather not let anyone, including pollsters, know that they’ve broken from the president’s pack.
Either way, I think Matthew Walther’s right about what Senate Republicans want out of this election. They want to lose.
Faced with the possibility of losing both the White House and possibly even the Senate in a year in which Democrats are also expected to consolidate control of the House as well, Republicans have resigned themselves to a half decade or so of opposition. Many of them are relieved at the thought of not even having to pretend to govern as members of a minority party — better yet, in the case of those who expect to lose their seats, at the not very remote possibility of a well-remunerated position with a lobbying or consulting firm. This seems to me the only possible explanation for the GOP’s refusal to pass a second relief bill before the election. Some refreshingly honest liberal observers have called Nancy Pelosi a fool for even entertaining the possibility of such a deal. But she is a wily old fox. She understands that even at the best of times the GOP is reluctant to allow such uninviting prospects as winning elections to interfere with their libertarian economic principles. When things look hopeless and it appears that they have nothing to gain except the gratitude of millions of Americans, they will shrug, like that guy in the Ayn Rand book… What does all of this mean for the party’s future? If Biden wins, the way forward is clear. The template was established during the Obama administration: moan about “socialism” in the hope that you can get the House back in two years (a remote but not totally unimaginable contingency), and, if all else fails, hope that the Supreme Court will bail you out.
Governing is difficult and thankless, and involves the sort of compromises that are destined to alienate the hardcore members of one’s political base. If all you really care about is holding onto your seat and positioning yourself for a future presidential run then your path is clear. First, hope that you’re relegated to minority status in the Senate and are no longer responsible for anything. Then you pander to your right flank to protect yourself in a primary, do a lot of Fox News hits whining about the Biden administration’s descent into communism, grandstand during hearings about the base’s hobbyhorse du jour (Section 230, for instance), and start staffing up for 2024. That’s the Ted Cruz plan. If he gets lucky on Tuesday night, Democrats will blow the roof off. Not a good outcome policy-wise for the rest of us, but at least we’ll have a party in charge that wants to govern instead of operating like it’s an arm of partisan media.
I’ll leave you with this funny bit from this weekend’s SNL, which captures the flip side of Senate Republicans wanting to lose. What about all the Trump obsessives who need Trump to win so that they have a reason to stay engaged with politics?


hotair--2020-10-26--Washington Post fact checker bails out Biden after "four more years of George" gaffe

This morning Ed wrote about Joe Biden ’ s slip of the tongue yesterday .
During a fundraiser appearance Biden seemed to become confused in the middle of a sentence and referred to “ four more years of George… ” George who exactly ?
As Ed noted this morning , it wasn ’ t clear but in context it seemed like he ’ d forgotten who was president .
Now a few hours later the Washington Post fact-checker has rushed to the rescue and given the RNC rapid response director 4 Pinocchio ’ s over this .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own transcript of what Biden said : The “ I Will Vote ” concert was hosted by comedian George Lopez and political commentator Ana Navarro .
The segment begins with what looks like a fancy Zoom call .
Navarro and Lopez are each in a separate frame , as are the Bidens and a sign language interpreter… “ First of all , the reason they should vote is there is a lot on , on the ballot this year .
This is the most consequen — not because I ’ m running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against — this is the most consequential election in a long , long , long time and the character of the country , in my view , is literally on the ballot , ” Biden responds .
“ What kind of country are we going to be ?
” Then , he stutters , “ Four more years of George , uh , George , uh , he , uh , are going to find ourselves in position where if uh Trump gets elected uh we are going to be uh , going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or was it : “ Four more years , uh , George , uh , George , uh , we , uh.
” It ’ s hard to tell .
Actually , no it ’ s not hard to tell at all unless you ’ re a desperate partisan casting about for excuses just prior to an election .
When you listen to Biden ’ s full statement , he ’ s clearly setting up a contrast between himself and President Trump .
Here ’ s what he said minus the paragraphs used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most consequen — not because I ’ m running but because of who I am running against — this is the most consequential election in a long , long , long time .
And the character of the country , in my view , is literally on the ballot .
What kind of country are we going to be ?
Four more years of George , uh , George , uh , he , uh , gon na find ourselves in a position where , if Trump gets elected , uh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , uh , we ’ re gon na be in a different world.
” This is an accurate transcription of what Biden said including all of the stammering he did near the end .
So the claim by Meg Kelly in that last line above is simply false .
Biden didn ’ t say “ four more years , uh , George ” like an interruption .
It was “ four more of George , uh… ” You can hear the difference between the “ of ” and the “ uh ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no version of that sentence that makes any sense which doesn ’ t end with “ Trump.
” He ’ s the person who might be about to secure four more years .
And it ’ s very clear from the rest of what Biden said that ’ s who he was talking about , i.e .
the person he ’ s “ running against.
” All of the context before and after the fumble points to him meaning to say “ four more years of Trump.
” In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the George confusion in the middle , it ’ s obvious that ’ s the case : “ What kind of country are we going to be ?
Four more years of [ blank ] … gon na find ourselves in a position where , if Trump gets elected…we ’ re gon na be in a different world.
” It ’ s all one thought about what will happen if [ blank ] is re-elected .
The name “ George ” slipped out and created a moment of confusion that derailed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at that moment Biden began stammering , but he did eventually bring it back to Trump as intended all along .
In any case , whether you think “ George ” meant meant George Bush or George Lopez , it didn ’ t make sense .
Lopez isn ’ t up for four more years of anything .
But if it ’ s a choice between Lopez and Bush , I think he meant George Bush .
Here ’ s why I ’ m pretty confident that ’ s the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here it is again : “ Four more years of George , uh , George , uh , he , uh… ” If Biden were referring to George Lopez he wouldn ’ t say “ he ” he would say , “ you ” because he ’ s talking directly to Lopez .
Biden ’ s brain is clearly still thinking about that guy whose name he can ’ t remember so he says “ he ” meaning Trump .
And then he finally does pull the sentence together and says what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ if Trump gets elected… ” , i.e .
four more years of Trump .
But the Post ’ s fact-checker skips over all of that and just comes up with this lame excuse which makes no sense [ emphasis added ] : That just happens to match up with what a spokesman for Biden told the Post : “ He was addressing George Lopez , the interviewer , as is a common practice.
” This is the media at its worst .
Presented with an uncomfortable moment for a Democrat , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the campaign ’ s own and try to brand Biden ’ s critics as liars .
If Biden wins the election against George , uh , George , uh he , uh this is the kind of thing you can look forward to for the next four year , i.e .
blatantly partisan coverage from supposedly neutral arbiters at major media outlets .

This morning Ed wrote about Joe Biden’s slip of the tongue yesterday. During a fundraiser appearance Biden seemed to become confused in the middle of a sentence and referred to “four more years of George…” George who exactly? As Ed noted this morning, it wasn’t clear but in context it seemed like he’d forgotten who was president. Now a few hours later the Washington Post fact-checker has rushed to the rescue and given the RNC rapid response director 4 Pinocchio’s over this. Here’s author Meg Kelly’s explanation including her own transcript of what Biden said:
The “I Will Vote” concert was hosted by comedian George Lopez and political commentator Ana Navarro. The segment begins with what looks like a fancy Zoom call. Navarro and Lopez are each in a separate frame, as are the Bidens and a sign language interpreter… “First of all, the reason they should vote is there is a lot on, on the ballot this year. This is the most consequen — not because I’m running but because of who I am running against — this is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time and the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot,” Biden responds. “What kind of country are we going to be?” Then, he stutters, “Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh, are going to find ourselves in position where if uh Trump gets elected uh we are going to be uh, going to be in a different world.” Or was it: “Four more years, uh, George, uh, George, uh, we, uh.” It’s hard to tell.
Actually, no it’s not hard to tell at all unless you’re a desperate partisan casting about for excuses just prior to an election. When you listen to Biden’s full statement, he’s clearly setting up a contrast between himself and President Trump. Here’s what he said minus the paragraphs used to break it up.
“This is the most consequen — not because I’m running but because of who I am running against — this is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time. And the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot. What kind of country are we going to be? Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh, gonna find ourselves in a position where, if Trump gets elected, uh, we’re gonna be, uh, we’re gonna be in a different world.”
This is an accurate transcription of what Biden said including all of the stammering he did near the end. So the claim by Meg Kelly in that last line above is simply false. Biden didn’t say “four more years, uh, George” like an interruption. It was “four more of George, uh…” You can hear the difference between the “of” and the “uh” that followed clearly. Listen for yourself:
There’s no version of that sentence that makes any sense which doesn’t end with “Trump.” He’s the person who might be about to secure four more years. And it’s very clear from the rest of what Biden said that’s who he was talking about, i.e. the person he’s “running against.” All of the context before and after the fumble points to him meaning to say “four more years of Trump.”
In fact, if you just skip over all of the George confusion in the middle, it’s obvious that’s the case: “What kind of country are we going to be? Four more years of [blank]…gonna find ourselves in a position where, if Trump gets elected…we’re gonna be in a different world.” It’s all one thought about what will happen if [blank] is re-elected. The name “George” slipped out and created a moment of confusion that derailed the thought. It’s no accident that at that moment Biden began stammering, but he did eventually bring it back to Trump as intended all along.
In any case, whether you think “George” meant meant George Bush or George Lopez, it didn’t make sense. Lopez isn’t up for four more years of anything. But if it’s a choice between Lopez and Bush, I think he meant George Bush. Here’s why I’m pretty confident that’s the case.
Notice the one word I highlighted above. Here it is again: “Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh…” If Biden were referring to George Lopez he wouldn’t say “he” he would say, “you” because he’s talking directly to Lopez. Biden’s brain is clearly still thinking about that guy whose name he can’t remember so he says “he” meaning Trump. And then he finally does pull the sentence together and says what he meant to in first place, “if Trump gets elected…”, i.e. four more years of Trump.
But the Post’s fact-checker skips over all of that and just comes up with this lame excuse which makes no sense [emphasis added]:
Starting the clip when the moderators were no longer on the screen, he eliminated key context by removing the most obvious George that Biden could be referring to — George Lopez — and filled in the gap with an answer better suited to the Trump campaign’s unproven narrative of Biden’s faltering mental acuity. Guest earns Four Pinocchios for his efforts.
That just happens to match up with what a spokesman for Biden told the Post: “He was addressing George Lopez, the interviewer, as is a common practice.”
This is the media at its worst. Presented with an uncomfortable moment for a Democrat, they rush to offer excuses that line up with the campaign’s own and try to brand Biden’s critics as liars. If Biden wins the election against George, uh, George, uh he, uh this is the kind of thing you can look forward to for the next four year, i.e. blatantly partisan coverage from supposedly neutral arbiters at major media outlets.


hotair--2020-10-26--Trump: This corrupt media conspiracy over COVID progress should be a violation of election law

A little part of me grudgingly admires that he ’ s stuck to this message to the bitter end .
Apart from his persona , his sanguine messaging on coronavirus is his single biggest liability of the election .
If he loses next week , I could probably be persuaded that it was the deciding factor — that , notwithstanding the boorish tweets and embarrassing lack of decorum , the country would have reelected him easily if he had taken a “ safety first ” approach to the virus from the start .
No doubt his advisors have begged him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reflect the public ’ s anxiety in his comments about the pandemic , particularly at a moment when the long-feared winter wave is beginning to crash .
“ Just pretend to care .
A little.
” He won ’ t do it .
“ I got ta be me , ” I imagine him telling them .
That should be his campaign slogan , really .
“ Make America Great Again , Again ” is … memorable , but “ Trump 2020 : I Got ta Be Me ” is the true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets one .
The “ conspiracy ” here , I think , is the idea that the media supposedly won ’ t report on the fact that COVID is rarely lethal , especially in people under 80 .
But they have reported on that : It was left-wing NPR that flagged two studies last week showing that the fatality rate from the disease is much lower now than it was in spring , as doctors have gotten better at treating it .
But it ’ s still killing people , and may kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this summer for the simple reason that the virus is apt to spread more widely in the months ahead than it did in the months behind us .
Last Thursday we topped 1,000 dead in a day , the highest number in weeks .
Trump celebrating the percentage of young people who survive while the national death toll is creeping up again sends an interesting message to senior citizens about how much of a priority they are for him .
Also , while it ’ s nice that his stay at Walter Reed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to the hospital and would rather avoid getting a disease with a reasonable chance of sending them there .
Hospitalizations in the U.S. are up 33 percent in less than a month , rising from an average of 30,000 a day in late September to 40,000 now .
In Utah , they ’ re making plans to ration hospital care because they can ’ t cope with the number of sick .
“ Under the criteria , which would require [ Gov .
Gary ] Herbert ’ s approval , patients who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be moved out [ of the ICU ] first , ” reports the Salt Lake Tribune .
“ In the event that two patients ’ conditions are equal , the young get priority over the old , since older patients are more likely to die.
” Here ’ s what the positivity rate in Utah looks like right now : The national positivity rate has increased from 4.3 percent towards the start of this month to 6.2 percent now .
If Trump were right that case counts are rising only because testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flat .
The fact that case counts in Europe are also trending stratospheric at the moment suggests that the increase we ’ re experiencing isn ’ t a function of testing but a true winter wave that ’ s hit them hard already and is descending here .
But he ’ s never going to let go of this talking point about testing driving case counts , which he ’ s been hammering for months .
I got ta be me .
I wrote on Friday about the U.S. setting a new daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point more succinctly .
Remember that Massachusetts was blitzed by the same spring wave that crushed New York and New Jersey .
If there was widespread immunity there as a consequence , we shouldn ’ t be seeing data like this : Nonetheless , he ’ s sticking with his closing argument : This new wave of COVID is no big deal , assuming it even exists , and you ’ re sort of a pussy for worrying about it .
If a plane carrying 500 people went down , the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two planes carrying 500 people went down every day , and had been going down every day since April , I feel like we ’ d be hearing a lot about that and what it says about commercial aviation and the government ’ s oversight of it .
And if two planes carrying 500 people went down every day for seven months and the president was on the stump suggesting that it should be illegal for the media not to cover the fact that most airline passengers arrive safely , we ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , points for honesty .
It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have had an opportunistic eleventh-hour “ Saul on the road to Damascus ” conversion after he got COVID himself , as seems to have happened to Chris Christie .
Not POTUS .
He got right back on the horse and continued his journey .
He ’ s minimized the pandemic from the beginning and he ’ s owning that message in the end .
Good for him .

A little part of me grudgingly admires that he’s stuck to this message to the bitter end. Apart from his persona, his sanguine messaging on coronavirus is his single biggest liability of the election. If he loses next week, I could probably be persuaded that it was the deciding factor — that, notwithstanding the boorish tweets and embarrassing lack of decorum, the country would have reelected him easily if he had taken a “safety first” approach to the virus from the start. No doubt his advisors have begged him, and are still begging him, to reflect the public’s anxiety in his comments about the pandemic, particularly at a moment when the long-feared winter wave is beginning to crash. “Just pretend to care. A little.”
He won’t do it. “I gotta be me,” I imagine him telling them.
That should be his campaign slogan, really. “Make America Great Again, Again” is … memorable, but “Trump 2020: I Gotta Be Me” is the true theme of a second term if he gets one.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320690788628598784
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320708386476990464
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320711322284281862
The “conspiracy” here, I think, is the idea that the media supposedly won’t report on the fact that COVID is rarely lethal, especially in people under 80. But they have reported on that: It was left-wing NPR that flagged two studies last week showing that the fatality rate from the disease is much lower now than it was in spring, as doctors have gotten better at treating it. But it’s still killing people, and may kill more Americans this winter than it did this summer for the simple reason that the virus is apt to spread more widely in the months ahead than it did in the months behind us. Last Thursday we topped 1,000 dead in a day, the highest number in weeks. Trump celebrating the percentage of young people who survive while the national death toll is creeping up again sends an interesting message to senior citizens about how much of a priority they are for him.
Also, while it’s nice that his stay at Walter Reed was comfortable and successful…
Trump on Covid: "I mean, I got it and I'm here. We have great medicines and therapeutics. The first lady got it…you know who else got it? Barron. My very tall son." — Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) October 26, 2020
…many people fear going to the hospital and would rather avoid getting a disease with a reasonable chance of sending them there. Hospitalizations in the U.S. are up 33 percent in less than a month, rising from an average of 30,000 a day in late September to 40,000 now.
In Utah, they’re making plans to ration hospital care because they can’t cope with the number of sick. “Under the criteria, which would require [Gov. Gary] Herbert’s approval, patients who are getting worse despite receiving intensive care would be moved out [of the ICU] first,” reports the Salt Lake Tribune. “In the event that two patients’ conditions are equal, the young get priority over the old, since older patients are more likely to die.” Here’s what the positivity rate in Utah looks like right now:
The national positivity rate has increased from 4.3 percent towards the start of this month to 6.2 percent now. If Trump were right that case counts are rising only because testing is increasing, that rate should be flat. The fact that case counts in Europe are also trending stratospheric at the moment suggests that the increase we’re experiencing isn’t a function of testing but a true winter wave that’s hit them hard already and is descending here. But he’s never going to let go of this talking point about testing driving case counts, which he’s been hammering for months. I gotta be me.
I wrote on Friday about the U.S. setting a new daily record in cases but this graph illustrates the point more succinctly. Remember that Massachusetts was blitzed by the same spring wave that crushed New York and New Jersey. If there was widespread immunity there as a consequence, we shouldn’t be seeing data like this:
This is COVID found in Boston sewage. This is a hard to fake measure that is immune to increased testing rates over time. Very bad news – this virus is starting to look awfully seasonal :-/ https://t.co/HVn1xsNmhy — William Eden (@WilliamAEden) October 25, 2020
Nonetheless, he’s sticking with his closing argument: This new wave of COVID is no big deal, assuming it even exists, and you’re sort of a pussy for worrying about it.
Trump: No it’s not going to be a dark winter. It’s going to be a great winter pic.twitter.com/WGGOojV56F — Acyn (@Acyn) October 26, 2020
One day after the US set a single-day record for new coronavirus cases, Trump claims the US is “rounding the corner beautifully” with regard to the pandemic pic.twitter.com/ntMrqoarm5 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 23, 2020
Trump: “You know what? On November 4th, you’re not gonna hear– the news, CNN, all they talk about, ‘Covid Covid Covid.’ If a plane goes down with 500 people, they don’t talk about … they’re trying to scare everybody. You have to lead your life, and you have to get out.” pic.twitter.com/SL5ndWz7Bu — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 24, 2020
If a plane carrying 500 people went down, the media would be talking about it. If two planes carrying 500 people went down every day, and had been going down every day since April, I feel like we’d be hearing a lot about that and what it says about commercial aviation and the government’s oversight of it.
And if two planes carrying 500 people went down every day for seven months and the president was on the stump suggesting that it should be illegal for the media not to cover the fact that most airline passengers arrive safely, we’d be hearing an awful lot about that.
Still, points for honesty. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have had an opportunistic eleventh-hour “Saul on the road to Damascus” conversion after he got COVID himself, as seems to have happened to Chris Christie. Not POTUS. He got right back on the horse and continued his journey. He’s minimized the pandemic from the beginning and he’s owning that message in the end. Good for him.


hotair--2020-10-26--Silverado Fire in Orange County leads to evacuation of 60,000 people

Strong Santa Ana winds blowing through Orange County have caused a brush fire to explode in size .
What is now being called the Silverado Fire has already burned thousands of acres and now approximately 60,000 people near the city of Irvine have been ordered to evacuate : The Silverado Fire had charred at least 2,000 acres in and around the bedroom community of Irvine , about 50 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles , by 11 a.m. PT , the Orange County Fire Authority said .
About 60,000 people , living in 20,000 homes , are in range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Firefighters are dealing with steady winds of between 20 mph and 30 mph , gusting up to 65 mph , authorities said .
KTLA has more on how quickly this fire has grown : The blaze , dubbed the Silverado Fire , erupted in the Santa Ana Mountains around 6:45 a.m. at Santiago Canyon and Silverado Canyon roads .
The flames spread to the south and southwest as forecasters predicted gusts of up to 60 to 70 mph at the location .
The fire was initially reported at 10 acres , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 p.m. , according to the Orange County Fire Authority .
It ’ s 0 % contained .
The Orange County Fire Authority has published some images and video of the fire this morning : In this clip you can really appreciate the strength of the winds that are driving the fire : I live about half an hour north of the fires and the winds here have been gusting all morning .
A couple of hours ago I took down the flag attached to the front of my house because I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it off the house and send the flag and the pole into my neighbors cars .
Police drove thru threatened neighborhoods this morning warning everyone to “ leave now.
” One of the people trying to evacuate posted video of the traffic jam this caused .
Toward the end of this clip you can see the trees on the side of the road blowing back and forth .
Another view of the skyline : And as mentioned above the fire is not at all contained and is still spreading into Irvine : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people are stopping to look : Unfortunately , this story isn ’ t over yet .
I ’ ll update this post as things develop throughout the afternoon .

Strong Santa Ana winds blowing through Orange County have caused a brush fire to explode in size. What is now being called the Silverado Fire has already burned thousands of acres and now approximately 60,000 people near the city of Irvine have been ordered to evacuate:
The Silverado Fire had charred at least 2,000 acres in and around the bedroom community of Irvine, about 50 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, by 11 a.m. PT, the Orange County Fire Authority said. About 60,000 people, living in 20,000 homes, are in range of the fire and were ordered to evacuate. Firefighters are dealing with steady winds of between 20 mph and 30 mph, gusting up to 65 mph, authorities said.
KTLA has more on how quickly this fire has grown:
The blaze, dubbed the Silverado Fire, erupted in the Santa Ana Mountains around 6:45 a.m. at Santiago Canyon and Silverado Canyon roads. The flames spread to the south and southwest as forecasters predicted gusts of up to 60 to 70 mph at the location. The fire was initially reported at 10 acres, but it had grown to 4,000 acres by 1 p.m., according to the Orange County Fire Authority. It’s 0% contained.
The Orange County Fire Authority has published some images and video of the fire this morning:
Mandatory evacuations for Orchard Hills on Irvine Blvd: From Bake to Jamboree. Ground and Air support are currently battling the flames. The 241 is closed from Santiago to the 133. Structures are threatened. #SilveradoFire Media staging at the entrance of Irvine Regional Park. pic.twitter.com/hpB6c2k0Cr — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 26, 2020
Flames have jumped the 241. #SilveradoFire Approximately 60,000 people are evacuating the Irvine area. Check your evacuation location here: https://t.co/gAGlMlPUL2 pic.twitter.com/RhVJu7g0us — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 26, 2020
In this clip you can really appreciate the strength of the winds that are driving the fire:
Road closures for #SilveradoFire:
•Portolla from 241 to Jamboree
•241 from the 133 to Santiago
•Santiago Canyon Rd from Cooks to the 241 pic.twitter.com/s7Gg1wjAvO — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 26, 2020
I live about half an hour north of the fires and the winds here have been gusting all morning. A couple of hours ago I took down the flag attached to the front of my house because I was concerned the winds were going to rip it off the house and send the flag and the pole into my neighbors cars.
#SilveradoFire Update:
• 4,000 acres
• 0% containment
• 500 personnel battling the fire For evacuation and shelter information visit https://t.co/B1Oah5k8G8 pic.twitter.com/PzxuixON5j — OCFA PIO (@OCFA_PIO) October 26, 2020
Police drove thru threatened neighborhoods this morning warning everyone to “leave now.”
One of the people trying to evacuate posted video of the traffic jam this caused. Toward the end of this clip you can see the trees on the side of the road blowing back and forth.
These winds are crazy! Never seen anything like it! People packed their cars with loved ones including pets. And of course we are stuck in traffic because everyone is trying to leave and not burn #silveradofire #SantaAnaWinds pic.twitter.com/BCvnw2JG0k — Thomas Anthony (@_thomas_anthony) October 26, 2020
Another view of the skyline:
North Irvine fire pic.twitter.com/Eo3W52wuEv — Thomas Meyer (@tmeyeratplay) October 26, 2020
And as mentioned above the fire is not at all contained and is still spreading into Irvine:
Silverado Fire has hit the heart of Irvine at the 133 & Irvine Blvd #SilveradoFire pic.twitter.com/mHuJ1VQyUG — Miron Lulić (@MironLulic) October 26, 2020
Unbelievable. HWY 133 shutdown in Irvine, California. Fire crews can’t get to the neighborhood on the other side as hurricane-force winds fuel a fire storm. @CBSEveningNews #SilveradoFire pic.twitter.com/DY6SEBv6wF — Jonathan Vigliotti (@JonVigliotti) October 26, 2020
In the 2nd clip below you can see some people are stopping to look:
https://twitter.com/shanermurph/status/1320822996727201792
Unfortunately, this story isn’t over yet. I’ll update this post as things develop throughout the afternoon.


hotair--2020-10-26--Netflix hemorrhaging subscribers after "Cuties" fiasco

As of a couple of weeks ago , the top management at Netflix was standing by their decision to stream “ Cuties , ” the bordering-on-child-porn film about prepubescent girls dancing in a provocative fashion to mimic YouTube “ influencers.
” This was being done despite the large amount of pushback they were receiving on social media and in more conservative press outlets .
So how has that choice been working out for them ?
Not well according to one recent report .
Cancellations of Netflix accounts have reportedly been rising that what should be alarming levels and new subscriptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will people voting with their wallets produce a change of heart at Netflix HQ ?
( NY Post ) “ Cuties ” turned out to be ugly for Netflix .
The streaming service has watched subscription cancellations skyrocket by 800 % after the French coming-of-age film triggered a boycott in early September , analyses show .
Within two days of the movie ’ s premiere , # CancelNetflix became the top trending topic on Twitter and a petition on Change.org garnered hundreds of thousands of signatures .
Netflix ’ s chief financial officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuties ” in a third-quarter earnings call this week , instead focusing on the first half of the year , when coronavirus lockdowns nationwide drove subscriptions .
An 800 % increase in cancellations is nothing to sneeze at , particularly when you ’ re trying to explain it to your investors .
The number of new subscribers matched against account cancellations should provide another significant hint .
The data analytics firms Antenna and YipitData produced a report quoted in the Post showing that in the first two quarters of the year , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten million new subscribers respectively .
But in the quarter ending on September 30th , after the Cuties news went viral , they had only 2.2 million new subscribers .
( There is no data indicating how many of those were child porn aficionados . )
Meanwhile , Netflix lost five times as many subscribers in the first two weeks of September as they did in the entire month of July .
A subscription-based company like Netflix can only sustain those sorts of numbers for just so long before they begin to crater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there was a time when Netflix was the only game in town when it came to streaming movies and television shows .
But now they have a ton of competition including the increasingly dominant Amazon Prime .
Viewers have other options to explore if they find the Netflix offerings too offensive for their tastes .
The irony here is that we are currently living in a time where Netflix should be doing some of their best business ever .
All across the world , people are still locked down , movie theaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searching for other COVID-friendly entertainment options .
Netflix managed to profit handsomely from this situation in the spring and summer , but now their numbers are seriously tanking while outfits like Amazon are still going full throttle .
Can this really be written off as a coincidence ?
I ’ m not a supporter of cancel culture or boycotts , so at no point have I tried to whip people up into a fervor or drive them to drop Netflix .
But everyone has to make up their own mind as to how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with .
It sounds to me like there are enough people out there who object to the sexualization of young children and Netflix ’ s condescending attitude toward those who complained that it ’ s showing up in their bottom line .
If so , they have nobody to blame but themselves .

As of a couple of weeks ago, the top management at Netflix was standing by their decision to stream “Cuties,” the bordering-on-child-porn film about prepubescent girls dancing in a provocative fashion to mimic YouTube “influencers.” This was being done despite the large amount of pushback they were receiving on social media and in more conservative press outlets. So how has that choice been working out for them? Not well according to one recent report. Cancellations of Netflix accounts have reportedly been rising that what should be alarming levels and new subscriptions fell off dramatically from previous months. Will people voting with their wallets produce a change of heart at Netflix HQ? (NY Post)
“Cuties” turned out to be ugly for Netflix. The streaming service has watched subscription cancellations skyrocket by 800% after the French coming-of-age film triggered a boycott in early September, analyses show. Within two days of the movie’s premiere, #CancelNetflix became the top trending topic on Twitter and a petition on Change.org garnered hundreds of thousands of signatures. Netflix’s chief financial officer Spence Neumann didn’t mention “Cuties” in a third-quarter earnings call this week, instead focusing on the first half of the year, when coronavirus lockdowns nationwide drove subscriptions.
An 800% increase in cancellations is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you’re trying to explain it to your investors. The number of new subscribers matched against account cancellations should provide another significant hint. The data analytics firms Antenna and YipitData produced a report quoted in the Post showing that in the first two quarters of the year, the streaming service signed on 16 million and ten million new subscribers respectively. But in the quarter ending on September 30th, after the Cuties news went viral, they had only 2.2 million new subscribers. (There is no data indicating how many of those were child porn aficionados.)
Meanwhile, Netflix lost five times as many subscribers in the first two weeks of September as they did in the entire month of July. A subscription-based company like Netflix can only sustain those sorts of numbers for just so long before they begin to crater. It’s also worth remembering that there was a time when Netflix was the only game in town when it came to streaming movies and television shows. But now they have a ton of competition including the increasingly dominant Amazon Prime. Viewers have other options to explore if they find the Netflix offerings too offensive for their tastes.
The irony here is that we are currently living in a time where Netflix should be doing some of their best business ever. All across the world, people are still locked down, movie theaters are largely closed, and people are searching for other COVID-friendly entertainment options. Netflix managed to profit handsomely from this situation in the spring and summer, but now their numbers are seriously tanking while outfits like Amazon are still going full throttle. Can this really be written off as a coincidence?
I’m not a supporter of cancel culture or boycotts, so at no point have I tried to whip people up into a fervor or drive them to drop Netflix. But everyone has to make up their own mind as to how much they’re willing to put up with. It sounds to me like there are enough people out there who object to the sexualization of young children and Netflix’s condescending attitude toward those who complained that it’s showing up in their bottom line. If so, they have nobody to blame but themselves.


hotair--2020-10-26--NYT/Siena poll: Trump edging Biden in Texas -- thanks to Hispanics

Oh , the irony .
If Donald Trump manages to get rescued by Hispanics next week , it might be the most # 2020 thing this year .
The New York Times credits a surge of support from Latinos for keeping Trump narrowly ahead of Joe Biden in Texas in their latest survey with Siena .
However , note when this survey was taken : President Trump maintains a narrow lead in Texas , according to a New York Times/Siena College poll on Monday , as he faces a rebellion in the state ’ s once overwhelmingly Republican suburbs but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hispanic voters .
Over all , Mr. Trump leads Joe Biden , 47 percent to 43 percent , among likely voters .
The majority of interviews were conducted before the final presidential debate on Thursday .
In the Senate race , the Republican incumbent , John Cornyn , holds a larger lead , 48-38 , over the Democrat , M.J. Hegar .
The news isn ’ t all good for the GOP , at least at the time the poll was taken : The findings suggest that Republicans face catastrophic risks down-ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Biden leads him by five percentage points , 48 percent to 43 percent , across the 12 predominantly suburban congressional districts that the Cook Political Report has rated as competitive .
These districts voted for the president by eight points in 2016 .
In these districts , Republicans face a combination of rapid demographic change and previously unthinkable Democratic gains among white college-educated voters .
Mr. Trump leads Mr. Biden by just two points among white college graduates in these districts , even though they say they backed Mr. Trump by 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re inclined to see the overall result as an outlier , you ’ d be … mistaken .
RealClearPolitics has an aggregate average for Trump at +3.2 over Biden , who scored a tie in Quinnipiac the week before , and a 3-point edge in the Dallas Morning News poll taken the same time .
Trump has led at or outside the margin of error in five polls in the past month , but the biggest lead among them is +7 from Rasmussen .
Texas looks close to all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State , at least for now .
And it does look like Biden is underperforming among Hispanics in Texas , just as he has in Florida .
Jacob Rubashkin notes that the data on this varies widely between pollsters , however : Fair enough , although it ’ s also clear that this is not the 2018 electorate either , at least overall .
Republicans have done a much better job registering new voters , thanks to a ground game that just doesn ’ t exist among Democrats .
That may play into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing just how much the electorate has shifted in two years .
Two years ago , Gallup had Democrats +6 and got an 11-point advantage among unaffiliated voters ; this year , Republicans are +1 and only trail by three among indie leaners .
Those are reasons to wonder about the models being used by pollsters in this election , especially with the huge disparity on GOTV investment by both campaigns and parties .
That may well be why Hispanics are shifting to Trump more than expected — because they ’ re being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these polls took place before Biden pledged to “ transition from oil ” as president .
I ’ ll have more on that later , but it ’ s already developing into a major headache for Democrats and a focus for Team Trump in swing states , especially Texas and Pennsylvania .
Texas Democrats are trying to distance themselves from that pledge , which indicates just how popular that will be among Texas voters .
This state won ’ t turn blue in this cycle , and maybe not for a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shut down energy production in Texas .

Oh, the irony. If Donald Trump manages to get rescued by Hispanics next week, it might be the most #2020 thing this year. The New York Times credits a surge of support from Latinos for keeping Trump narrowly ahead of Joe Biden in Texas in their latest survey with Siena. However, note when this survey was taken:
President Trump maintains a narrow lead in Texas, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll on Monday, as he faces a rebellion in the state’s once overwhelmingly Republican suburbs but survives with support from an unlikely ally, Hispanic voters. Over all, Mr. Trump leads Joe Biden, 47 percent to 43 percent, among likely voters. The majority of interviews were conducted before the final presidential debate on Thursday. In the Senate race, the Republican incumbent, John Cornyn, holds a larger lead, 48-38, over the Democrat, M.J. Hegar.
The news isn’t all good for the GOP, at least at the time the poll was taken:
The findings suggest that Republicans face catastrophic risks down-ballot, even if Mr. Trump wins. Mr. Biden leads him by five percentage points, 48 percent to 43 percent, across the 12 predominantly suburban congressional districts that the Cook Political Report has rated as competitive. These districts voted for the president by eight points in 2016. In these districts, Republicans face a combination of rapid demographic change and previously unthinkable Democratic gains among white college-educated voters. Mr. Trump leads Mr. Biden by just two points among white college graduates in these districts, even though they say they backed Mr. Trump by 24 points over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
If you’re inclined to see the overall result as an outlier, you’d be … mistaken. RealClearPolitics has an aggregate average for Trump at +3.2 over Biden, who scored a tie in Quinnipiac the week before, and a 3-point edge in the Dallas Morning News poll taken the same time. Trump has led at or outside the margin of error in five polls in the past month, but the biggest lead among them is +7 from Rasmussen. Texas looks close to all of the pollsters playing in the Lone Star State, at least for now.
And it does look like Biden is underperforming among Hispanics in Texas, just as he has in Florida. Jacob Rubashkin notes that the data on this varies widely between pollsters, however:
Biden winning Hispanic voters just 57-34%. That would be a worse performance than Clinton in 2016. As the article notes, polls have been all over the place on Texas Hispanics lately. DMN/UT Tyler today had Biden 67-20 (48-45 overall), Quinnipiac had Biden 51-43 (47-47 overall). — Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) October 26, 2020
One final thing to remember: in 2018 NYT/Siena's last poll of Texas (Oct 8-11) had Cruz beating O'Rourke 51-43, with O'Rourke leading Hispanics 56-37. O'Rourke went on to lose 48-51, winning Hispanics 64-35, per CNN exit polls.https://t.co/bLB7VxLyYS — Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) October 26, 2020
Fair enough, although it’s also clear that this is not the 2018 electorate either, at least overall. Republicans have done a much better job registering new voters, thanks to a ground game that just doesn’t exist among Democrats. That may play into Gallup’s party-ID polling too, showing just how much the electorate has shifted in two years. Two years ago, Gallup had Democrats +6 and got an 11-point advantage among unaffiliated voters; this year, Republicans are +1 and only trail by three among indie leaners.
Those are reasons to wonder about the models being used by pollsters in this election, especially with the huge disparity on GOTV investment by both campaigns and parties. That may well be why Hispanics are shifting to Trump more than expected — because they’re being asked.
Finally, note that all of these polls took place before Biden pledged to “transition from oil” as president. I’ll have more on that later, but it’s already developing into a major headache for Democrats and a focus for Team Trump in swing states, especially Texas and Pennsylvania. Texas Democrats are trying to distance themselves from that pledge, which indicates just how popular that will be among Texas voters. This state won’t turn blue in this cycle, and maybe not for a long time to come while Democrats keep trying to shut down energy production in Texas.


hotair--2020-10-26--Atlantic: Progressive who label Trump a 'fascist' don't seem as upset by the real thing in China

The Atlantic published a piece this weekend that makes a point I think many people on the right have noticed over the past year or longer .
The progressive left loves to label their opponents “ fascists ” but when it comes to actual fascism in China , they don ’ t seem to react as strongly .
Case in point : Sen. Tom Cotton ’ s op-ed for the NY Times was deemed “ fascist ” by Times ’ columnist Michelle Goldberg .
But when the Times published a piece by a pro-China member of the Hong Kong Executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was little reaction .
In case you missed it , here ’ s a bit of that piece : The scale and frequency of antigovernment protests has now subsided — thanks to a national security law for Hong Kong promulgated in Beijing on June 30 .
Several prominent democracy advocates have since announced their retirement from politics , disbanded their parties or fled the city .
The West tends to glorify these people as defenders of Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , but they have done great harm to the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stirring up chaos and disaffection toward our motherland… To some , the new national security law is especially chilling because it seems simultaneously vague and very severe .
But many laws are vague , constructively so .
And this one only seems severe precisely because it fills longstanding loopholes — about subversion , secession , local terrorism , collusion with external forces .
One person ’ s “ severe ” is someone else ’ s intended effect .
This is what fascism sounds like .
Atlantic author Shadi Hamid asked the Times for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the piece : When I requested comment about the Times ’ decision to publish Ip ’ s op-ed , the acting editorial-page editor , Katie Kingsbury , responded in a statement that the paper had also published a variety of prodemocracy opinions , including from its own editorial board .
“ Regina Ip ’ s Op-Ed , ” the statement continued , “ allowed our readers to hear another side of the debate from a member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong.
” Yet Ip ’ s piece was less a reasoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right to repress .
This is not a debate that requires a careful exposition of both sides , in part because there isn ’ t another side to defend .
It is one thing for American news outlets to publish perspectives from authoritarian heads of state in the interest of informing .
It is quite another to publish actual , and not merely imagined , articulations of the kind of fascism and totalitarianism that the Chinese regime upholds daily .
Liberals and liberal institutions feel understandable discomfort in portraying China as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has done—often with considerable resort to xenophobia and without distinguishing between the Chinese regime and the Chinese people .
To attack and focus attention on China also runs the risk of boosting the Trump administration ’ s narrative that China is America ’ s new enemy .
That Trump might be right on one thing is certainly possible , but that doesn ’ t make the idea of agreeing with him any less uncomfortable .
This can sometimes lead to a moral equivalence , where the United States , under Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese regime on issues such as digital surveillance .
It follows , then , that trying to exclude Chinese technology from American networks and markets would be the height of hypocrisy , as Sam Biddle has argued in The Intercept .
This summer , Trump ’ s efforts to pry the popular app TikTok away from its China-based parent company prompted the writer ( and former Times editorial-board member ) Sarah Jeong to wonder , “ ‘ Is the United States better , worse , or the same as China ?
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a genuinely difficult question to answer.
” After all , Jeong reasoned , “ China brutally represses its political dissidents ; in America , law enforcement in military camouflage have grabbed protesters off the streets and shoved them into unmarked vans.
” I wrote a takedown of Sarah Jeong ’ s awful piece when it was published .
It ’ s an embarrassment to the outlet that published it but it really does show how utterly out of touch some in the progressive media have become when it comes to this kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadi Hamid reminds us what is currently happening in China : The Chinese regime ’ s totalitarianism is still more evident in Xinjiang , where the sterilization of Uighur women is systematic , with the intent to decrease the Muslim population .
Chinese companies have made beauty products for export with what appears to be the human hair of Uighurs in internment camps .
Chinese authorities have organized the “ Pair Up and Become Family ” campaign , in which more than 1 million party cadres have been dispatched to live in Uighur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with new male “ relatives ” sleeping with Uighur women and forcing marriage , while many of their actual male relatives are detained in the camps .
There is another name for this , and it ’ s rape .
Hamid concludes : “ A world where a Republican senator in a democracy—even a flawed democracy—is deemed fascist and therefore beyond the bounds of respectable discussion , while actual authoritarians , or worse , are free to propagate their views with little public censure is a world that is upside down.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a lot more you could say here .
After all , it ’ s not just progressives in the media that give China a pass , it ’ s also outspoken progressive celebrities and billionaires .
They hypocrisy on this point is widespread on the left .
Finally , there ’ s another element of this argument that Hamid doesn ’ t touch in his piece .
It ’ s not merely that some on the left give China a pass .
Some elements of the far left seem intent on emulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made the point that you can look at some of the campus takeovers by woke progressives in the past few years and see echoes of the Cultural Revolution .
Support for this kind of extremism is still relatively limited at this point in the U.S. , which is why so many attempts to cancel people fail .
Still , it ’ s not hard to imagine a toxic brew of the left ’ s current fixations , from cancel culture to violent antifascism , could develop into something like Chinese fascism over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s fascism , the far left is also leaving space for its own .

The Atlantic published a piece this weekend that makes a point I think many people on the right have noticed over the past year or longer. The progressive left loves to label their opponents “fascists” but when it comes to actual fascism in China, they don’t seem to react as strongly.
Case in point: Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed for the NY Times was deemed “fascist” by Times’ columnist Michelle Goldberg. But when the Times published a piece by a pro-China member of the Hong Kong Executive Council defending the draconian new security law, there was little reaction. In case you missed it, here’s a bit of that piece:
The scale and frequency of antigovernment protests has now subsided — thanks to a national security law for Hong Kong promulgated in Beijing on June 30. Several prominent democracy advocates have since announced their retirement from politics, disbanded their parties or fled the city. The West tends to glorify these people as defenders of Hong Kong’s freedoms, but they have done great harm to the city by going against its constitutional order and stirring up chaos and disaffection toward our motherland… To some, the new national security law is especially chilling because it seems simultaneously vague and very severe. But many laws are vague, constructively so. And this one only seems severe precisely because it fills longstanding loopholes — about subversion, secession, local terrorism, collusion with external forces. One person’s “severe” is someone else’s intended effect.
This is what fascism sounds like. Atlantic author Shadi Hamid asked the Times for an explanation of its decision to publish the piece:
When I requested comment about the Times’ decision to publish Ip’s op-ed, the acting editorial-page editor, Katie Kingsbury, responded in a statement that the paper had also published a variety of prodemocracy opinions, including from its own editorial board. “Regina Ip’s Op-Ed,” the statement continued, “allowed our readers to hear another side of the debate from a member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong.” Yet Ip’s piece was less a reasoned argument than an explicit assertion of Beijing’s right to repress. This is not a debate that requires a careful exposition of both sides, in part because there isn’t another side to defend. It is one thing for American news outlets to publish perspectives from authoritarian heads of state in the interest of informing. It is quite another to publish actual, and not merely imagined, articulations of the kind of fascism and totalitarianism that the Chinese regime upholds daily. Liberals and liberal institutions feel understandable discomfort in portraying China as an enemy, since this is what Trump has done—often with considerable resort to xenophobia and without distinguishing between the Chinese regime and the Chinese people. To attack and focus attention on China also runs the risk of boosting the Trump administration’s narrative that China is America’s new enemy. That Trump might be right on one thing is certainly possible, but that doesn’t make the idea of agreeing with him any less uncomfortable. This can sometimes lead to a moral equivalence, where the United States, under Trump, is relegated to the same plane as the Chinese regime on issues such as digital surveillance. It follows, then, that trying to exclude Chinese technology from American networks and markets would be the height of hypocrisy, as Sam Biddle has argued in The Intercept. This summer, Trump’s efforts to pry the popular app TikTok away from its China-based parent company prompted the writer (and former Times editorial-board member) Sarah Jeong to wonder, “‘Is the United States better, worse, or the same as China?’ … In 2020, this is becoming a genuinely difficult question to answer.” After all, Jeong reasoned, “China brutally represses its political dissidents; in America, law enforcement in military camouflage have grabbed protesters off the streets and shoved them into unmarked vans.”
I wrote a takedown of Sarah Jeong’s awful piece when it was published. It’s an embarrassment to the outlet that published it but it really does show how utterly out of touch some in the progressive media have become when it comes to this kind of moral equivalence with China. Meanwhile, Shadi Hamid reminds us what is currently happening in China:
The Chinese regime’s totalitarianism is still more evident in Xinjiang, where the sterilization of Uighur women is systematic, with the intent to decrease the Muslim population. Chinese companies have made beauty products for export with what appears to be the human hair of Uighurs in internment camps. Chinese authorities have organized the “Pair Up and Become Family” campaign, in which more than 1 million party cadres have been dispatched to live in Uighur households, monitoring families’ every move, with new male “relatives” sleeping with Uighur women and forcing marriage, while many of their actual male relatives are detained in the camps. There is another name for this, and it’s rape.
Hamid concludes: “A world where a Republican senator in a democracy—even a flawed democracy—is deemed fascist and therefore beyond the bounds of respectable discussion, while actual authoritarians, or worse, are free to propagate their views with little public censure is a world that is upside down.”
He’s right but there’s a lot more you could say here. After all, it’s not just progressives in the media that give China a pass, it’s also outspoken progressive celebrities and billionaires. They hypocrisy on this point is widespread on the left.
Finally, there’s another element of this argument that Hamid doesn’t touch in his piece. It’s not merely that some on the left give China a pass. Some elements of the far left seem intent on emulating elements of Chinese fascism. Many have made the point that you can look at some of the campus takeovers by woke progressives in the past few years and see echoes of the Cultural Revolution.
Support for this kind of extremism is still relatively limited at this point in the U.S., which is why so many attempts to cancel people fail. Still, it’s not hard to imagine a toxic brew of the left’s current fixations, from cancel culture to violent antifascism, could develop into something like Chinese fascism over time. By making space for China’s fascism, the far left is also leaving space for its own.