hotair--2020-11-05--Wait, do Republicans actually have a chance of winning the House?

Last night in a letter to her caucus Pelosi called the election a “ challenging ” one for Democrats .
It may turn out to be more challenging than she thought .
I haven ’ t verified the following independently but Adrian Gray used to work at the RNC .
I doubt he ’ d tweet these numbers if he wasn ’ t sure about them : Would Biden even want to be president knowing he ’ ll have to negotiate with Mitch McConnell — and Kevin McCarthy ?
If those remaining districts flip red and the GOP gets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out today and say , “ Trump ’ s right , I cheated .
He won .
I ’ m going to go play golf.
” Don ’ t get too excited , as Gray notes that the math isn ’ t in Republicans ’ favor in those remaining districts .
But a verrrrry narrow Democratic majority in the House will make things hard on Pelosi .
Even if her party defies the odds and ends up with a 50/50 Senate plus a Biden administration , she ’ ll have no choice but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of Dem moderates is all it ’ ll take to torpedo any progressive legislation .
( And vice versa , without GOP help . )
WaPo has an enjoyable piece today about how Pelosi was so confident that Dems would have comfortable majorities in both chambers that she was plotting how to use budget reconciliation in the Senate to avoid a GOP filibuster of reforms to ObamaCare and pandemic relief .
In reality , it ’ s Democrats who are likely to be in the minority in the upper chamber .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muster the votes from her own caucus now for ambitious reforms .
The point was made yesterday but it ’ s worth making it again : A Biden win with a redder Congress is probably the worst possible outcome for the hard left .
They have no room to maneuver on policy now , and Trump ’ s defeat deprives them of a foil they ’ ve used to radicalize some mainstream liberals .
They would have relished total Democratic control of government provided that Dems had a big majority , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government as a rallying point for war against Trump .
But now they ’ re stuck .
Team Biden is already having to rethink some of its cabinet nominations , although I suspect they ’ re not having to think hard : Having to work with McConnell will be headache for Biden but it also cures him of a headache he was facing on the left .
Remember Bernie Sanders wanting to be Labor secretary and Elizabeth Warren eyeing the Treasury slot ?
If Sleepy Joe had denied them those slots despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the left would have revolted .
Now that it looks like McConnell will be in charge , he has a perfect excuse to go with the sort of mainstream centrist nominees whom he prefers anyway .
A week ago the expectation was that Republicans would be consumed today by bitter recriminations over how Trump ’ s presidency ended up torching the party nationally .
Instead it ’ s Democrats who are at each other ’ s throats — after an election in which they ’ ve probably won the presidency , retained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very outside chance at control of the Senate .
Dem House members are reportedly furious at the head of the DCCC , Rep. Cheri Bustos ( who just barely managed to hang on in her race ) , for their poor showing .
How could control of the House be in doubt when the party was expected to hold its 2020 majority and possibly add seats ?
“ We had all the money in the world , ” said one Dem strategist to the Daily Beast about the Democratic collapse .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just Bustos who ’ s under pressure .
Pelosi herself may be on the chopping block : “ Pelosi needed to hammer Trump but instead she chose to let him slide , ” said one former senior Democratic aide .
“ Last night should have been a bloodbath for Republicans.
” … “ It ’ s time for Democrats to elevate a new generation of leadership in both the House and the Senate , ” one of the Democrats told The Hill .
“ Americans are clearly afraid of ‘ socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to vote for people who they believe will help put more money in their pockets .
“ While Democratic policies can adequately address those issues , ” the lawmaker added , “ our messaging mechanism clearly can not .
” Supposedly there ’ s a coalition forming in the caucus to nominate Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker instead .
I wouldn ’ t get too excited about seeing Pelosi potentially ousted and humiliated : She ’ s faced insurgent challenges to her leadership before and always put them down easily , and Jeffries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested .
Rather , just enjoy the fingerpointing on Team Blue that ’ s happening on a day when Joe Biden will probably be projected to have won the presidential election by media outlets .
I recommend reading the Daily Beast piece in full , which has some fun quotes from Dem moderates complaining that the socialists scared off voters with their radicalism and progressives countering that wishy-washy centrist Democratic policies made voters more willing to stick with the populist Trump .
I ’ ll leave you with this , which gave Ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texted it to me earlier .
You remember what Robby Mook ’ s last job was , don ’ t you ?
Sure you do .
He ’ s got the Midas touch .

Last night in a letter to her caucus Pelosi called the election a “challenging” one for Democrats.
It may turn out to be more challenging than she thought.
I haven’t verified the following independently but Adrian Gray used to work at the RNC. I doubt he’d tweet these numbers if he wasn’t sure about them:
416 House races appear decided
Democrats 212
Republicans 204 (+10) 19 Seats remain, GOP lead in 10 To win 218 (and House majority), GOP would need to win all the districts they are leading in, plus:
CA-25
GA-07
PA-17
UT-04 — Adrian Gray (@adrian_gray) November 5, 2020
Would Biden even want to be president knowing he’ll have to negotiate with Mitch McConnell — and Kevin McCarthy? If those remaining districts flip red and the GOP gets to 218, he might as well walk out today and say, “Trump’s right, I cheated. He won. I’m going to go play golf.”
Don’t get too excited, as Gray notes that the math isn’t in Republicans’ favor in those remaining districts. But a verrrrry narrow Democratic majority in the House will make things hard on Pelosi.
The problem that GOP has, a number of the CD's they currently lead in (ie, NY-03, NJ-02) are likely to break away from them. — Adrian Gray (@adrian_gray) November 5, 2020
Any path to GOP House is also not at all likely. It looks like they will end up with 209-214 seats.
(The latter resulting in smallest House majority since New Deal). — Adrian Gray (@adrian_gray) November 5, 2020
Even if her party defies the odds and ends up with a 50/50 Senate plus a Biden administration, she’ll have no choice but to legislate from the center. A handful of Dem moderates is all it’ll take to torpedo any progressive legislation. (And vice versa, without GOP help.) WaPo has an enjoyable piece today about how Pelosi was so confident that Dems would have comfortable majorities in both chambers that she was plotting how to use budget reconciliation in the Senate to avoid a GOP filibuster of reforms to ObamaCare and pandemic relief. In reality, it’s Democrats who are likely to be in the minority in the upper chamber. And Pelosi may not even be able to muster the votes from her own caucus now for ambitious reforms.
The point was made yesterday but it’s worth making it again: A Biden win with a redder Congress is probably the worst possible outcome for the hard left. They have no room to maneuver on policy now, and Trump’s defeat deprives them of a foil they’ve used to radicalize some mainstream liberals. They would have relished total Democratic control of government provided that Dems had a big majority, and they could have lived with total Republican control of government as a rallying point for war against Trump. But now they’re stuck.
Team Biden is already having to rethink some of its cabinet nominations, although I suspect they’re not having to think hard:
Republicans’ likely hold on the Senate is forcing Joe Biden’s transition team to consider limiting its prospective Cabinet nominees to those who Mitch McConnell can live with, according to people familiar with the matter… A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no “radical progressives” or ones who are controversial with conservatives. The Biden agenda would be severely restricted by GOP control, the source added: “It’s going to be armed camps.”
Having to work with McConnell will be headache for Biden but it also cures him of a headache he was facing on the left. Remember Bernie Sanders wanting to be Labor secretary and Elizabeth Warren eyeing the Treasury slot? If Sleepy Joe had denied them those slots despite having a Democratic majority in the Senate, the left would have revolted. Now that it looks like McConnell will be in charge, he has a perfect excuse to go with the sort of mainstream centrist nominees whom he prefers anyway.
A week ago the expectation was that Republicans would be consumed today by bitter recriminations over how Trump’s presidency ended up torching the party nationally. Instead it’s Democrats who are at each other’s throats — after an election in which they’ve probably won the presidency, retained the House, and still have a very outside chance at control of the Senate. Dem House members are reportedly furious at the head of the DCCC, Rep. Cheri Bustos (who just barely managed to hang on in her race), for their poor showing. How could control of the House be in doubt when the party was expected to hold its 2020 majority and possibly add seats? “We had all the money in the world,” said one Dem strategist to the Daily Beast about the Democratic collapse. “It was incredibly disappointing.”
But it’s not just Bustos who’s under pressure. Pelosi herself may be on the chopping block:
“Pelosi needed to hammer Trump but instead she chose to let him slide,” said one former senior Democratic aide. “Last night should have been a bloodbath for Republicans.”… “It’s time for Democrats to elevate a new generation of leadership in both the House and the Senate,” one of the Democrats told The Hill. “Americans are clearly afraid of ‘socialism,’ want safe streets and neighborhoods and to vote for people who they believe will help put more money in their pockets. “While Democratic policies can adequately address those issues,” the lawmaker added, “our messaging mechanism clearly cannot.”
Supposedly there’s a coalition forming in the caucus to nominate Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker instead. I wouldn’t get too excited about seeing Pelosi potentially ousted and humiliated: She’s faced insurgent challenges to her leadership before and always put them down easily, and Jeffries has already said he’s not interested. Rather, just enjoy the fingerpointing on Team Blue that’s happening on a day when Joe Biden will probably be projected to have won the presidential election by media outlets. I recommend reading the Daily Beast piece in full, which has some fun quotes from Dem moderates complaining that the socialists scared off voters with their radicalism and progressives countering that wishy-washy centrist Democratic policies made voters more willing to stick with the populist Trump.
I’ll leave you with this, which gave Ed and I a good laugh when he texted it to me earlier. You remember what Robby Mook’s last job was, don’t you? Sure you do. He’s got the Midas touch.


hotair--2020-11-05--Fox News fans still furious at network for calling Arizona for Biden

One of the silliest but most amusing stories of the election , just because Fox calling Arizona prematurely is almost completely meaningless .
The only risk it poses is to Fox ’ s own reputation .
In a healthy political culture , the universal reaction to them predicting on Tuesday that Biden would win there would be , “ Boy , they ’ re way out on a limb .
It ’ ll be hugely embarrassing for their decision desk if Trump pulls it out.
” In our deeply sick political culture , taking any risk that seems to benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betrayal .
To be fair to Trump here , he ’ s right that Fox called Arizona too soon .
Even pros not aligned with the GOP agree .
Steve Kornacki threw a scare into Rachel Maddow last night on MSNBC by running the numbers on the latest votes counted in Maricopa County and concluding that , yeah , there ’ s a path for Trump potentially .
It ’ ll be tough , but it ’ s possible .
Nate Silver agrees , going so far as to call on Fox to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MAGA fans aren ’ t blowing smoke in thinking FNC jumped the gun .
They ’ re just being weird in caring so much about it when it can only harm Fox ’ s own prestige .
The votes in Arizona will be counted , whatever Fox thinks is destined to happen .
But the president himself was reportedly irate when they made their call on election night : What ensued for Mr. Trump was a night of angry calls to Republican governors and advice from campaign aides that he ignored , leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made a reckless and unsubstantiated string of remarks about the democratic process .
Standing in the East Room at 2:30 a.m. , he dismissed the election as a “ fraud ” and claimed he wanted to stop the counting of votes and leave the results to the Supreme Court .
The Trump campaign knew Arizona could be up for grabs , but the Fox News call putting it in Mr. Biden ’ s column was symbolic , making it the first state that appeared to have flipped from the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Doug Ducey , Republican of Arizona , had been on the phone all night with administration officials and campaign staff members , adamant that there were still Republican votes to be counted in his state… Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser , was also in touch with Rupert Murdoch , the Fox News owner , as the night wore on .
One rumor circulating yesterday had it that Trump himself phoned Murdoch to demand that Fox retract the call .
To his credit , Murdoch refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed surrogates , including the governor of Florida , to go on air and complain about Fox ’ s projection : “ With Trump , they never want to call the state .
Biden , they will do it right away .
It ’ s inconsistent and unacceptable .
Look , North Carolina should be called for the president , for sure .
Arizona — Fox should rescind that call.
” Elsewhere DeSantis said of Fox ’ s decision to call Arizona for the Democrat , “ I don ’ t think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motive , whether it ’ s ratings , whether it ’ s something else.
” Not even Fox News is above suspicion in the alleged deep-state vote-counting hoax .
And so here was the scene last night in Maricopa County : Poll workers inside felt sufficiently threatened by the crowd outside , some members of which were armed , that they closed the building to the public and to the media to continue their work .
Cops were deployed to make sure things didn ’ t get hairy : Bear in mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump .
He ’ s trailing in Arizona and they were counting ballots that are expected to trend red and possibly close the gap .
Showing up with guns to chant “ count that vote ” at them , as if they were reluctant to do so , only made for a scene that the media was happy to circulate .
Meanwhile at Fox , hosts spent yesterday scrambling to undo the damage of the call of Arizona for Biden : Mr. Hannity did not appear on Fox News on election night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , echoing some of the president ’ s talking points about the integrity of the vote count .
He stopped short , though , of Mr. Trump ’ s baseless claim of outright “ fraud.
” “ Do you trust what happened in this election ?
” Mr. Hannity asked viewers .
“ Do you believe these election results are accurate ?
Do you believe this was a free and fair election ?
I have a lot of questions.
” Mr. Hannity had few specific arguments , tossing in a reference to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his monologue sounded like a regular episode of his program , not a postelection special .
His lead-in , Tucker Carlson , also spoke ominously about the vote results while avoiding an outright embrace of Mr. Trump ’ s baseless claims about winning states that had yet to be called .
There are three factors driving the grossly exaggerated backlash to Fox ’ s Arizona call .
One is that Trumpism , at least in its strongest form , is a cult of personality that requires absolute loyalty to the leader .
Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it made a call for Biden with the result seemingly still in doubt .
It ’ s an unforgivable breach of the norms that define the movement .
The second is the odd but persistent belief that partisan trends at different points of the vote-counting process are somehow inherently suspicious .
They aren ’ t .
I wrote about the blue mirage/red shift versus red mirage/blue shift yesterday .
Votes from different counties can lean very heavily towards one candidate or another depending on whether voters there are blue or red .
Same-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pronounced partisan leans this year due to Trump ’ s months of polarizing comments about the latter .
It ’ s totally possible that the votes in Arizona that were counted earlier had a bluish tint to them and that the last batches will have a red tint that ultimately hands the state to Trump .
If so , Fox shouldn ’ t have made an early projection .
But that ’ s an “ oops ” moment , not a “ I ’ LL NEVER WATCH THIS LIBERAL NETWORK AGAIN ” thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most sinister .
Trump was pissed off at Fox because his entire game plan in the event of a likely narrow defeat to Biden was to try to gaslight the country into believing that he ’ d won everywhere .
And that argument would have been a tiny bit easier if all major battlegrounds were either projected to go to him or too close to call on election night .
It still would have been feasible if only the “ bad ” networks , like CNN , had called a battleground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Trump as “ fake news.
” But for Fox to call Arizona for Biden shattered the lie that Trump was en route to a repeat of his showing four years ago such that any “ blue shift ” in the Rust Belt that ultimately delivered the presidency to Biden would be necessarily suspect .
It was an early statement by the most powerful right-wing media outlet in the country that this wasn ’ t 2016 .
One of Trump ’ s most famous quotes as president came when he told an audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , don ’ t believe the crap you see from these people , the fake news .
Just remember , what you ’ re seeing and what you ’ re reading is not what ’ s happening.
” That was his strategy this year to spin defeat , at least for MAGA Nation : What you ’ re seeing and what you ’ re reading is not what ’ s happening .
Fox popped that bubble in a small but meaningful way with their projection .
Some people will never forgive them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how the decision desk arrived at its dubious Arizona call is written someday .
I wonder if the fact that they *knew* this was Trump ’ s strategy — he ’ d been telegraphing it for weeks , if not years — informed their decision to roll the dice on their projection .
It ’ s unethical for an analyst to declare that they ’ re confident about an outcome if they really aren ’ t .
But I can imagine them talking themselves into believing that that was a venial sin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sin of the president trying to destroy the public ’ s confidence in the election results by claiming that the early state returns proved he had won everywhere .
I ’ ll leave you with this clip of two scenes , one from Arizona where Trump was behind and the other from Michigan where Trump was ahead ( at first ) .
There ’ s no principle at work here beyond “ do whatever helps Trump.
” Which is perfectly true to the leader ’ s own view of the world .

One of the silliest but most amusing stories of the election, just because Fox calling Arizona prematurely is almost completely meaningless. The only risk it poses is to Fox’s own reputation. In a healthy political culture, the universal reaction to them predicting on Tuesday that Biden would win there would be, “Boy, they’re way out on a limb. It’ll be hugely embarrassing for their decision desk if Trump pulls it out.”
In our deeply sick political culture, taking any risk that seems to benefit the “enemy” is an unforgivable betrayal.
To be fair to Trump here, he’s right that Fox called Arizona too soon. Even pros not aligned with the GOP agree. Steve Kornacki threw a scare into Rachel Maddow last night on MSNBC by running the numbers on the latest votes counted in Maricopa County and concluding that, yeah, there’s a path for Trump potentially. It’ll be tough, but it’s possible. Nate Silver agrees, going so far as to call on Fox to formally retract its call for Biden. MAGA fans aren’t blowing smoke in thinking FNC jumped the gun.
They’re just being weird in caring so much about it when it can only harm Fox’s own prestige. The votes in Arizona will be counted, whatever Fox thinks is destined to happen. But the president himself was reportedly irate when they made their call on election night:
What ensued for Mr. Trump was a night of angry calls to Republican governors and advice from campaign aides that he ignored, leading to a middle-of-the-night presidential briefing in which he made a reckless and unsubstantiated string of remarks about the democratic process. Standing in the East Room at 2:30 a.m., he dismissed the election as a “fraud” and claimed he wanted to stop the counting of votes and leave the results to the Supreme Court. The Trump campaign knew Arizona could be up for grabs, but the Fox News call putting it in Mr. Biden’s column was symbolic, making it the first state that appeared to have flipped from the president’s 2016 batch of winning states. Gov. Doug Ducey, Republican of Arizona, had been on the phone all night with administration officials and campaign staff members, adamant that there were still Republican votes to be counted in his state… Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, was also in touch with Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News owner, as the night wore on.
One rumor circulating yesterday had it that Trump himself phoned Murdoch to demand that Fox retract the call. To his credit, Murdoch refused to bow to the pressure. Trump then deployed surrogates, including the governor of Florida, to go on air and complain about Fox’s projection: “With Trump, they never want to call the state. Biden, they will do it right away. It’s inconsistent and unacceptable. Look, North Carolina should be called for the president, for sure. Arizona — Fox should rescind that call.” Elsewhere DeSantis said of Fox’s decision to call Arizona for the Democrat, “I don’t think that that was done without some type of motive, whether it’s ratings, whether it’s something else.”
Not even Fox News is above suspicion in the alleged deep-state vote-counting hoax.
And so here was the scene last night in Maricopa County:
“They’re actually chanting Fox News Sucks” pic.twitter.com/XqfiHln6Mt — Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2020
Poll workers inside felt sufficiently threatened by the crowd outside, some members of which were armed, that they closed the building to the public and to the media to continue their work. Cops were deployed to make sure things didn’t get hairy:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies now ready in tactical gear inside the elections center to potentially make a move on the protesters and demonstrators outside as the crowd continues to grow. #azfamily #arizona pic.twitter.com/XAhvE1hbIK — Briana Whitney (@BrianaWhitney) November 5, 2020
Staff at the @maricopacounty Elections Department will continue our job, which is to administer elections in the second largest voting jurisdiction in the county. We will release results again tonight as planned. We thank the @mcsoaz for doing their job, so we can do ours. — Maricopa County Elections Department (@MaricopaVote) November 5, 2020
Bear in mind, the work going on inside was favorable to Trump. He’s trailing in Arizona and they were counting ballots that are expected to trend red and possibly close the gap. Showing up with guns to chant “count that vote” at them, as if they were reluctant to do so, only made for a scene that the media was happy to circulate.
Meanwhile at Fox, hosts spent yesterday scrambling to undo the damage of the call of Arizona for Biden:
Mr. Hannity did not appear on Fox News on election night, but he returned on Wednesday evening, echoing some of the president’s talking points about the integrity of the vote count. He stopped short, though, of Mr. Trump’s baseless claim of outright “fraud.” “Do you trust what happened in this election?” Mr. Hannity asked viewers. “Do you believe these election results are accurate? Do you believe this was a free and fair election? I have a lot of questions.” Mr. Hannity had few specific arguments, tossing in a reference to “dead people,” and at times his monologue sounded like a regular episode of his program, not a postelection special. His lead-in, Tucker Carlson, also spoke ominously about the vote results while avoiding an outright embrace of Mr. Trump’s baseless claims about winning states that had yet to be called.
There are three factors driving the grossly exaggerated backlash to Fox’s Arizona call. One is that Trumpism, at least in its strongest form, is a cult of personality that requires absolute loyalty to the leader. Fox didn’t show that loyalty when it made a call for Biden with the result seemingly still in doubt. It’s an unforgivable breach of the norms that define the movement.
The second is the odd but persistent belief that partisan trends at different points of the vote-counting process are somehow inherently suspicious. They aren’t. I wrote about the blue mirage/red shift versus red mirage/blue shift yesterday. Votes from different counties can lean very heavily towards one candidate or another depending on whether voters there are blue or red. Same-day votes and mail-in votes also have very pronounced partisan leans this year due to Trump’s months of polarizing comments about the latter. It’s totally possible that the votes in Arizona that were counted earlier had a bluish tint to them and that the last batches will have a red tint that ultimately hands the state to Trump. If so, Fox shouldn’t have made an early projection. But that’s an “oops” moment, not a “I’LL NEVER WATCH THIS LIBERAL NETWORK AGAIN” thing.
The third reason for the backlash is the most sinister. Trump was pissed off at Fox because his entire game plan in the event of a likely narrow defeat to Biden was to try to gaslight the country into believing that he’d won everywhere. And that argument would have been a tiny bit easier if all major battlegrounds were either projected to go to him or too close to call on election night. It still would have been feasible if only the “bad” networks, like CNN, had called a battleground for Biden. That would be dismissed by Trump as “fake news.”
But for Fox to call Arizona for Biden shattered the lie that Trump was en route to a repeat of his showing four years ago such that any “blue shift” in the Rust Belt that ultimately delivered the presidency to Biden would be necessarily suspect. It was an early statement by the most powerful right-wing media outlet in the country that this wasn’t 2016. One of Trump’s most famous quotes as president came when he told an audience in 2018, “Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” That was his strategy this year to spin defeat, at least for MAGA Nation: What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening. Fox popped that bubble in a small but meaningful way with their projection. Some people will never forgive them for it.
I hope the story of how the decision desk arrived at its dubious Arizona call is written someday. I wonder if the fact that they *knew* this was Trump’s strategy — he’d been telegraphing it for weeks, if not years — informed their decision to roll the dice on their projection. It’s unethical for an analyst to declare that they’re confident about an outcome if they really aren’t. But I can imagine them talking themselves into believing that that was a venial sin in this case relative to the mortal sin of the president trying to destroy the public’s confidence in the election results by claiming that the early state returns proved he had won everywhere.
I’ll leave you with this clip of two scenes, one from Arizona where Trump was behind and the other from Michigan where Trump was ahead (at first). There’s no principle at work here beyond “do whatever helps Trump.” Which is perfectly true to the leader’s own view of the world.


hotair--2020-11-05--Hmmm: SCOTUS orders Pennsylvania to respond to GOP lawsuit by tonight; <span class='red'>Update: <s>

Hmmm: SCOTUS orders Pennsylvania to respond to GOP lawsuit by tonight; Update: <s>Dems</s> Philly appeals observer order?

Third time ’ s the charm ?
The Supreme Court has punted twice on the issue of Pennsylvania ’ s decisions to ignore statutory deadlines and signature requirements for ballot counting .
Republicans once again petitioned for their intervention after the state proceeded with the ballot counting while violating those statutes .
Late yesterday , the Trump campaign joined the lawsuit , and the Supreme Court instructed Pennsylvania to respond — and pronto , reports the Washington Times : The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania Democrats to respond by Thursday evening in a case challenging the state ’ s three-day extension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has moved to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans , arguing the state ’ s Democratic Party and Secretary of State violated the law by extending the time for counting mail-in ballots to Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. , despite the state legislature setting the deadline as Election Day .
That suggests that the now-complete court has at least four members who want to take these issues up a third time .
That ’ s no big surprise , since the earlier pass on the deadline issue came on a 4-4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supreme court decisions overriding the statutes .
Had John Roberts stuck with the conservatives/textualists on the court then , Pennsylvania could have avoided the issue altogether by instructing voters to walk in their ballots by Election Day instead .
That ’ s exactly what Minnesota did after the Eighth Circuit put the kibosh on a deadline extension issued by the Secretary of State , and Election Day went without a hitch here .
The deadline also suggests that at least four of the justices want a chance to rule on this before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the votes .
For the moment , those ballots are still being sequestered by order of the state supreme court .
The state is likely to commingle them after the deadline passes , so any action the Supreme Court takes will have to be decisive and quick .
But will it be decisive or quick ?
Legal observers are somewhat skeptical : “ The hope is that these Hail Mary legal plays could lead to court intervention to throw out votes and help Trump capture one of these states .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irvine law Professor Richard Hasen said Wednesday on his “ Election Law ” blog .
One reason , he said , is that even a Trump legal victory in Pennsylvania , the state whose case has already reached the high court , may not be enough to affect the results either statewide or nationwide .
If Democrat Joe Biden holds his lead in other contested states , including Nevada and Arizona , he would not need Pennsylvania to win the White House .
… Michael McConnell , a Stanford constitutional law professor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday he could not think of any valid legal argument to stop ballot-counting .
“ At most , courts might order that Trump representatives be permitted to observe if they are being wrongfully excluded , and perhaps even to review some of the ballots already counted , ” but not to halt the counts or discard the ballots , McConnell said .
“ If Biden wins without Pennsylvania , I think we will be spared the 2000 spectacle.
” Worth noting : McConnell was appointed to the appellate bench by George W , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leading contender for a future Supreme Court nomination .
He ’ s also an originalist , and an outspoken originalist at that .
Had Bush nominated McConnell instead of John Roberts , we might have a very different looking court today .
McConnell turned out to be prophetic about the issue of observers in Pennsylvania .
An appellate judge has ordered the state to provide access to the ballot counting : AND NOW , November 5 , 2020 , upon review of arguments contained in briefs submitted by Donald J. Trump for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Philadelphia County Board of Elections , and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party , it is hereby ORDERED that the November 4 , 2020 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ( trial court ) denying Appellant ’ s oral motion to allow closer observation of the canvassing of ballots is REVERSED .
The matter is REMANDED to the trial court to enter an ORDER no later than 10:30 a.m. today , November 5 , 2020 , effective immediately , requiring that all candidates , watchers , or candidate representatives be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process pursuant to 25 P.S .
§ 2650 and/or 25 P.S .
§ 3146.8 and be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet , while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols , including , wearing masks and maintaining social distancing .
Opinion to follow .
“ In a major victory for election integrity , election transparency , all Pennsylvania voters , and the rule of law , the Trump Campaign has prevailed in our suit challenging our Republican poll watchers ’ complete lack of any meaningful access to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The eyes of the country are on Pennsylvania , but Pennsylvania Democrats , led by their radical left Secretary of State whose only goal is to steal this election from President Trump , has kept eyes off of the absentee ballot counting process .
That ends now in Philadelphia .
“ As a result of this incredible legal victory , the lower court ’ s order has been reversed .
Now , according to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania , ‘ all candidates , watchers , or candidate representatives ’ shall ‘ be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process ’ and ‘ be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet , while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols , including , wearing masks and maintaining social distancing.
’ “ For the good of the nation , every Pennsylvania county should follow the lead of this judge and provide access for observers to ensure transparency and integrity in Pennsylvania .
That is the only way to ensure a fair , transparent election in which all Pennsylvania voters can have confidence their vote will count.
” Observers from both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process all along .
It won ’ t stop the process , though , so the impact of this victory will be limited to just information gathering for the big legal issue .
Stay tuned to see whether the Supreme Court ’ s originalists intervene … or agree with McConnell .
Update : Why are Democrats appealing an order to allow observers from both parties ?
That ’ s very odd .
If this halts the count , it makes it easier for the Supreme Court to intervene , too .
Update : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city of Philadelphia that appealed the decision , not the Democrats .
Supposedly it was over COVID-19 distancing : That doesn ’ t make a lot of sense , though .
The order explicitly required everyone to adhere to safety guidelines for COVID-19 .
They already are supposedly doing this in the counting rooms … so why appeal the order at all ?

Third time’s the charm? The Supreme Court has punted twice on the issue of Pennsylvania’s decisions to ignore statutory deadlines and signature requirements for ballot counting. Republicans once again petitioned for their intervention after the state proceeded with the ballot counting while violating those statutes. Late yesterday, the Trump campaign joined the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court instructed Pennsylvania to respond — and pronto, reports the Washington Times:
The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania Democrats to respond by Thursday evening in a case challenging the state’s three-day extension for counting mail-in ballots. President Trump has moved to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans, arguing the state’s Democratic Party and Secretary of State violated the law by extending the time for counting mail-in ballots to Nov. 6 at 5 p.m., despite the state legislature setting the deadline as Election Day.
That suggests that the now-complete court has at least four members who want to take these issues up a third time. That’s no big surprise, since the earlier pass on the deadline issue came on a 4-4 split that left in place the state supreme court decisions overriding the statutes. Had John Roberts stuck with the conservatives/textualists on the court then, Pennsylvania could have avoided the issue altogether by instructing voters to walk in their ballots by Election Day instead. That’s exactly what Minnesota did after the Eighth Circuit put the kibosh on a deadline extension issued by the Secretary of State, and Election Day went without a hitch here.
The deadline also suggests that at least four of the justices want a chance to rule on this before the state adds those ballots to the rest of the votes. For the moment, those ballots are still being sequestered by order of the state supreme court. The state is likely to commingle them after the deadline passes, so any action the Supreme Court takes will have to be decisive and quick. But will it be decisive or quick? Legal observers are somewhat skeptical:
“The hope is that these Hail Mary legal plays could lead to court intervention to throw out votes and help Trump capture one of these states. This is possible but very unlikely,“ UC Irvine law Professor Richard Hasen said Wednesday on his “Election Law” blog. One reason, he said, is that even a Trump legal victory in Pennsylvania, the state whose case has already reached the high court, may not be enough to affect the results either statewide or nationwide. If Democrat Joe Biden holds his lead in other contested states, including Nevada and Arizona, he would not need Pennsylvania to win the White House. … Michael McConnell, a Stanford constitutional law professor and former federal appeals court judge, said Wednesday he could not think of any valid legal argument to stop ballot-counting. “At most, courts might order that Trump representatives be permitted to observe if they are being wrongfully excluded, and perhaps even to review some of the ballots already counted,” but not to halt the counts or discard the ballots, McConnell said. “If Biden wins without Pennsylvania, I think we will be spared the 2000 spectacle.”
Worth noting: McConnell was appointed to the appellate bench by George W, Bush in 2002, and was considered a leading contender for a future Supreme Court nomination. He’s also an originalist, and an outspoken originalist at that. Had Bush nominated McConnell instead of John Roberts, we might have a very different looking court today.
McConnell turned out to be prophetic about the issue of observers in Pennsylvania. An appellate judge has ordered the state to provide access to the ballot counting:
AND NOW, November 5, 2020, upon review of arguments contained in briefs submitted by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (Appellant), the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, it is hereby ORDERED that the November 4, 2020 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) denying Appellant’s oral motion to allow closer observation of the canvassing of ballots is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED to the trial court to enter an ORDER no later than 10:30 a.m. today, November 5, 2020, effective immediately, requiring that all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives be permitted to be present for the canvassing process pursuant to 25 P.S. § 2650 and/or 25 P.S. § 3146.8 and be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols, including, wearing masks and maintaining social distancing. Opinion to follow.
Team Trump heralded this as a victory:
“In a major victory for election integrity, election transparency, all Pennsylvania voters, and the rule of law, the Trump Campaign has prevailed in our suit challenging our Republican poll watchers’ complete lack of any meaningful access to the ballot processing and counting process. “The eyes of the country are on Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania Democrats, led by their radical left Secretary of State whose only goal is to steal this election from President Trump, has kept eyes off of the absentee ballot counting process. That ends now in Philadelphia. “As a result of this incredible legal victory, the lower court’s order has been reversed. Now, according to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, ‘all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives’ shall ‘be permitted to be present for the canvassing process’ and ‘be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols, including, wearing masks and maintaining social distancing.’ “For the good of the nation, every Pennsylvania county should follow the lead of this judge and provide access for observers to ensure transparency and integrity in Pennsylvania. That is the only way to ensure a fair, transparent election in which all Pennsylvania voters can have confidence their vote will count.”
Observers from both parties should have had access to this process all along. It won’t stop the process, though, so the impact of this victory will be limited to just information gathering for the big legal issue. Stay tuned to see whether the Supreme Court’s originalists intervene … or agree with McConnell.
Update: Why are Democrats appealing an order to allow observers from both parties?
New update, via @MSNBC: Pa. Dems have gone to Pa. Supreme Court to appeal that observers case; Philly count has been halted as a result. — ByJohnLMicek (@ByJohnLMicek) November 5, 2020
That’s very odd. If this halts the count, it makes it easier for the Supreme Court to intervene, too.
Update: Micek corrects his reporting — it was the city of Philadelphia that appealed the decision, not the Democrats. Supposedly it was over COVID-19 distancing:
A new update from me: The city of Philadelphia filed the appeal, not Pa. Dems. Count was halted so that officials could determine the safe 6-foot distance to stand to observe the counting process, per Pa. Democratic Party. — ByJohnLMicek (@ByJohnLMicek) November 5, 2020
That doesn’t make a lot of sense, though. The order explicitly required everyone to adhere to safety guidelines for COVID-19. They already are supposedly doing this in the counting rooms … so why appeal the order at all?


hotair--2020-11-05--McCarthy and Stefanik: Election was the "Night of Republican women"

We can thank Rep. Elise Stefanik , a young New York Republican woman who just won her fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives for a wave of Republican victories .
Republicans picked up seats despite the fact we were told the election would be a blue wave election .
The newsworthy part of the story is that Republican seats were gained by women , minorities , and veterans .
Rep. Stefanik took a leadership role in the aftermath of the 2018 election when Democrats did see a blue wave in the House .
A large group of Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those Democrat women were the toast of the town .
The media wrote story after story about them and what a fabulous accomplishment it was to have them in the House .
Pelosi took several of them under her wing and gave them some plum committee assignments despite being freshmen members .
She put a freshmen Democrat woman from Houston , a Latina , on the House managers team during the Trump impeachment .
Have you been reading about the success of the GOP during this election cycle in recruiting and investing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very little coverage about it because it goes against the narrative .
The media do the bidding of Democrats and to hear them report , there are no women Republicans , just misogynist old white men .
Stefanik made it her mission to find and encourage conservative women to run for office .
The results speak for themself .
Now both she and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy call Election Night “ the night of Republican women ” .
We may end up with 25 Republican women in the House .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate , too .
Cynthia Lummis defeated Democrat Merav Ben-David in the race for Wyoming ’ s open US Senate seat .
Lummis will become the first woman to represent Wyoming in the Senate .
Lummis is a former member of the House .
There were six seats flipped from Democrat to Republican , thanks to these women .
The numbers of Democrat pick-ups in the House didn ’ t happen .
The Republican victories surprised the Democrats and their cohorts in the media , thanks to overly optimistic polling and Democrat talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such success , the news is muted .
When Democrat women won in 2018 , female news anchors and men gushed and gave them lots of air time .
There was a blue wave in Harris County ( Houston ) in 2018 and a large group of black Democrat women won judicial races .
The women were news all across the country and in magazines everywhere .
Do you think these freshmen Republican women will be given the cover of magazines and given the star treatment ?
Don ’ t hold your breath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t have to acknowledge the victories .
“ It was the night of Republican women , ” Stefanik told the Washington Free Beacon .
“ Despite the media and the [ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ] issuing demeaning comments and saying it wasn ’ t possible , look at the outcome .
We are going to have incredible women who have earned this victory themselves in these districts in the next Congress.
” Republicans may break their previous record of 25 Republican congresswomen in the House , a stunning turnaround @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its recruitment among minorities and women after it lost control of the lower chamber in 2018 .
Women played a major role in defeating several high-profile House Democrats .
Maria Elvira Salazar , a Cuban-American former TV anchor for Telemundo , defeated Florida Democrat Donna Shalala , a former Clinton White House official .
Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma and Yvette Herrell of New Mexico also won by ousting freshman Democrats .
I particularly relish the defeat of Donna Shalala , a Clinton administration member who decided she was entitled to a seat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the academic world .
Women are not single-issue voters , though to hear Democrats speak , the only issue that matters is abortion .
If abortion is the top priority for Democrats , though , the victories of these women were helped by strong support from pro-life organizations .
The victories doubled the number of pro-life female lawmakers in Congress , according to a count by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List .
The organization , which included races that have yet to be formally called , said that 13 pro-life women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 11 pro-life female representatives successfully defended their seat .
The ascension of pro-life women stands in stark contrast to the 2018 election , which propelled pro-abortion Democrats to power .
“ We expect when all votes are counted and the races are called , we will have a record number of pro-life women serving in the next Congress , ” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement .
“ These gains are a repudiation of abortion extremism and further evidence that life is a winning issue in politics.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Republican women won impressive victories .
Colorado ’ s Lauren Boebert , who unseated Rep. Scott Tipton in the Republican primary , is best-known as the owner of a pub in which waitresses openly wear firearms .
Marjorie Taylor Greene , a businesswoman from suburban Atlanta who once espoused the controversial QAnon conspiracy theory , won an open congressional seat .
In New York , state Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis and former Rep. Claudia Tenney took out Democrat incumbents .
Both were strong “ law and order ” advocates who fought Democrat Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation while serving together in the New York State Assembly .
Mary Miller , a businesswoman and farmer , who won the seat of Rep. John Shimkus , R-Ill. ( that was once held by President Abraham Lincoln ) , by running as an anti-establishment Trump-style Republican ; state Sen. Victoria Spartz , a Ukraine-born businesswoman and unabashed free marketeer , who won the Indiana-5 district of retiring moderate Rep. Susan Brooks ; and Diana Harshbarger , a millionaire pharmacist and “ Trump conservative , ” who defeated nine primary opponents to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kevin McCarthy said in an interview yesterday that he thinks having President Trump at the top of the ballot helped the women .
Unlike in 2018 when Trump wasn ’ t on the ballot and Democrats were successful , the Republican victories in 2020 were helped by enthusiast Trump voters who wanted to re-elect him .
He specifically mentioned the states of New Mexico , Minnesota , Florida , Iowa , and South Carolina as important GOP victories for the House .
Trump actually did better with white women in 2020 than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true that Trump did better with married women than Biden ( 54 – 44 ) .
Biden did better with single women ( 57 – 40 ) .
I ’ ll end with this little fun tweet .
Senator Susan Collins was victorious in her race in Maine , though the media and pollsters wrote her off .
She did a little celebrating with supporters yesterday .
We can all celebrate that the Senate will remain in Republican control , right ?

We can thank Rep. Elise Stefanik, a young New York Republican woman who just won her fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives for a wave of Republican victories. Republicans picked up seats despite the fact we were told the election would be a blue wave election. The newsworthy part of the story is that Republican seats were gained by women, minorities, and veterans. Rep. Stefanik took a leadership role in the aftermath of the 2018 election when Democrats did see a blue wave in the House. A large group of Democrat women won House seats.
The victories of those Democrat women were the toast of the town. The media wrote story after story about them and what a fabulous accomplishment it was to have them in the House. Pelosi took several of them under her wing and gave them some plum committee assignments despite being freshmen members. She put a freshmen Democrat woman from Houston, a Latina, on the House managers team during the Trump impeachment. Have you been reading about the success of the GOP during this election cycle in recruiting and investing in Republican women? There has been very little coverage about it because it goes against the narrative. The media do the bidding of Democrats and to hear them report, there are no women Republicans, just misogynist old white men.
Stefanik made it her mission to find and encourage conservative women to run for office. The results speak for themself. Now both she and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy call Election Night “the night of Republican women”. We may end up with 25 Republican women in the House. And, there is another Republican woman in the Senate, too. Cynthia Lummis defeated Democrat Merav Ben-David in the race for Wyoming’s open US Senate seat. Lummis will become the first woman to represent Wyoming in the Senate. Lummis is a former member of the House.
There were six seats flipped from Democrat to Republican, thanks to these women. The numbers of Democrat pick-ups in the House didn’t happen. The Republican victories surprised the Democrats and their cohorts in the media, thanks to overly optimistic polling and Democrat talking points. Yet, instead of celebrating such success, the news is muted. When Democrat women won in 2018, female news anchors and men gushed and gave them lots of air time. There was a blue wave in Harris County (Houston) in 2018 and a large group of black Democrat women won judicial races. The women were news all across the country and in magazines everywhere. Do you think these freshmen Republican women will be given the cover of magazines and given the star treatment? Don’t hold your breath. If they ignore Republican women then they don’t have to acknowledge the victories.
“It was the night of Republican women,” Stefanik told the Washington Free Beacon. “Despite the media and the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] issuing demeaning comments and saying it wasn’t possible, look at the outcome. We are going to have incredible women who have earned this victory themselves in these districts in the next Congress.” Republicans may break their previous record of 25 Republican congresswomen in the House, a stunning turnaround for a party that worked to improve its recruitment among minorities and women after it lost control of the lower chamber in 2018. Women played a major role in defeating several high-profile House Democrats. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Cuban-American former TV anchor for Telemundo, defeated Florida Democrat Donna Shalala, a former Clinton White House official. Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma and Yvette Herrell of New Mexico also won by ousting freshman Democrats.
I particularly relish the defeat of Donna Shalala, a Clinton administration member who decided she was entitled to a seat in the House after leaving D.C. and going to the academic world.
Don’t expect a million articles in the @washingtonpost describing how angry women are fighting back against being defined as single issue voters, you probably won’t see them on @TIME covers, but here is what you will see, at least a dozen NEW REPUBLICAN female faces in Congress! pic.twitter.com/AOavceYzfk — Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) November 4, 2020
Women are not single-issue voters, though to hear Democrats speak, the only issue that matters is abortion. If abortion is the top priority for Democrats, though, the victories of these women were helped by strong support from pro-life organizations.
The victories doubled the number of pro-life female lawmakers in Congress, according to a count by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. The organization, which included races that have yet to be formally called, said that 13 pro-life women won election to the lower chamber and all 11 pro-life female representatives successfully defended their seat. The ascension of pro-life women stands in stark contrast to the 2018 election, which propelled pro-abortion Democrats to power. “We expect when all votes are counted and the races are called, we will have a record number of pro-life women serving in the next Congress,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “These gains are a repudiation of abortion extremism and further evidence that life is a winning issue in politics.”
Besides the women mentioned above, other Republican women won impressive victories.
Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, who unseated Rep. Scott Tipton in the Republican primary, is best-known as the owner of a pub in which waitresses openly wear firearms. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a businesswoman from suburban Atlanta who once espoused the controversial QAnon conspiracy theory, won an open congressional seat. In New York, state Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis and former Rep. Claudia Tenney took out Democrat incumbents. Both were strong “law and order” advocates who fought Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s liberal abortion legislation while serving together in the New York State Assembly. Mary Miller, a businesswoman and farmer, who won the seat of Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. (that was once held by President Abraham Lincoln), by running as an anti-establishment Trump-style Republican; state Sen. Victoria Spartz, a Ukraine-born businesswoman and unabashed free marketeer, who won the Indiana-5 district of retiring moderate Rep. Susan Brooks; and Diana Harshbarger, a millionaire pharmacist and “Trump conservative,” who defeated nine primary opponents to win Tennessee’s heavily Republican 1st District.
Kevin McCarthy said in an interview yesterday that he thinks having President Trump at the top of the ballot helped the women. Unlike in 2018 when Trump wasn’t on the ballot and Democrats were successful, the Republican victories in 2020 were helped by enthusiast Trump voters who wanted to re-elect him. He specifically mentioned the states of New Mexico, Minnesota, Florida, Iowa, and South Carolina as important GOP victories for the House. Trump actually did better with white women in 2020 than he did in 2016. The same is true that Trump did better with married women than Biden (54 – 44). Biden did better with single women (57 – 40).
I'm sure this will drive the cable news conversation: Trump actually did better with white women in 2020 than he did in 2016. 2016: Trump 52-43 Clinton
2020: Trump 55-43 Clintonhttps://t.co/E2n1zuasI9 — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) November 4, 2020
I’ll end with this little fun tweet. Senator Susan Collins was victorious in her race in Maine, though the media and pollsters wrote her off. She did a little celebrating with supporters yesterday. We can all celebrate that the Senate will remain in Republican control, right?


hotair--2020-11-05--Breaking: Judge denies change-of-venue motions in George Floyd trial

For now , anyway , four former members of the Minneapolis Police Department will face a jury of their Hennepin County peers .
Despite massive riots in Minneapolis and a national spotlight on the death of George Floyd , Judge Peter Cahill rejected motions this morning from all four defendants to move the trial out of the Twin Cities .
Cahill also rejected separation motions , meaning all four will face trial together : A judge on Thursday declined defense requests to move the trial of four Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd ’ s death , and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a single proceeding .
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill ruled after defense attorneys had argued that pretrial publicity had made it impossible for the four men to get a fair trial .
They had also cited a Sept. 11 hearing in which the men and their attorneys were confronted by angry protesters outside the courthouse , saying it showed that holding the proceeding in the same area where Floyd died would be unsafe for participants .
Defense lawyers had argued that witnesses could be intimidated , and jurors could be affected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense attorneys had also argued that the men should face separate trials , as each officer tried to diminish their own role in Floyd ’ s arrest by pointing fingers at the other .
But Cahill rejected that too , saying the complications of separate trials were too great and that trying the officers together would “ ensure that the jury understands … all of the evidence and the complete picture of Floyd ’ s death.
” Cahill apparently said he might reconsider the venue-change ruling at a later time , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would serve .
Where would the trial move if the issue was solely pre-trial publicity ?
As the WCCO reporter notes , there ’ s not a corner of Minnesota where this case hasn ’ t received extensive coverage , especially after the riots in Minneapolis .
The rioting elsewhere in the country would make it impossible to find jurors anywhere who could reliably have avoided learning much about this case , even if a venue outside of the state were possible , which it is not .
Two other rulings from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasoning on the change-of-venue motions : Cahill also ruled the names of jurors will be kept confidential .
The jury will also be partially sequestered during trial and fully sequestered during deliberations .
Audio and video coverage will also be allowed .
The jurors will come from Hennepin County and only be partially sequestered ?
That seems like an odd ruling when the judge is already tipping his hat to the reality of the pretrial publicity in this case .
And adding in video coverage will only make that problem worse , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What happens when Hennepin County attempts to retry this case for one or more of the defendants ?
The national interest in this case will touch off a trial-watching industry the likes of which we haven ’ t seen since the OJ Simpson trial twenty-five years ago .
That circus is scheduled to arrive in the Twin Cities in March .
Set your DVRs accordingly .

For now, anyway, four former members of the Minneapolis Police Department will face a jury of their Hennepin County peers. Despite massive riots in Minneapolis and a national spotlight on the death of George Floyd, Judge Peter Cahill rejected motions this morning from all four defendants to move the trial out of the Twin Cities. Cahill also rejected separation motions, meaning all four will face trial together:
A judge on Thursday declined defense requests to move the trial of four Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd’s death, and also ruled that all four would be tried in a single proceeding. Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill ruled after defense attorneys had argued that pretrial publicity had made it impossible for the four men to get a fair trial. They had also cited a Sept. 11 hearing in which the men and their attorneys were confronted by angry protesters outside the courthouse, saying it showed that holding the proceeding in the same area where Floyd died would be unsafe for participants. Defense lawyers had argued that witnesses could be intimidated, and jurors could be affected by chants from a crowd outside. … Defense attorneys had also argued that the men should face separate trials, as each officer tried to diminish their own role in Floyd’s arrest by pointing fingers at the other. But Cahill rejected that too, saying the complications of separate trials were too great and that trying the officers together would “ensure that the jury understands … all of the evidence and the complete picture of Floyd’s death.”
Cahill apparently said he might reconsider the venue-change ruling at a later time, but he raised a good point about what purpose it would serve. Where would the trial move if the issue was solely pre-trial publicity? As the WCCO reporter notes, there’s not a corner of Minnesota where this case hasn’t received extensive coverage, especially after the riots in Minneapolis. The rioting elsewhere in the country would make it impossible to find jurors anywhere who could reliably have avoided learning much about this case, even if a venue outside of the state were possible, which it is not.
Two other rulings from Cahill might raise eyebrows, considering the reasoning on the change-of-venue motions:
Cahill also ruled the names of jurors will be kept confidential. The jury will also be partially sequestered during trial and fully sequestered during deliberations. Audio and video coverage will also be allowed.
The jurors will come from Hennepin County and only be partially sequestered? That seems like an odd ruling when the judge is already tipping his hat to the reality of the pretrial publicity in this case. And adding in video coverage will only make that problem worse, especially if this results in a hung jury. What happens when Hennepin County attempts to retry this case for one or more of the defendants? The national interest in this case will touch off a trial-watching industry the likes of which we haven’t seen since the OJ Simpson trial twenty-five years ago.
That circus is scheduled to arrive in the Twin Cities in March. Set your DVRs accordingly.


hotair--2020-11-05--<span class='red'>Breaking:<span> Team Trump files suit in Nevada over alleged non-resident vote

This morning , Fox reports that Team Trump will announce a voter-fraud lawsuit in Nevada , a state that halted its reporting yesterday morning .
It ’ s the third state so far in which the campaign will ask for court intervention : Ric Grenell , the former acting Director of National Intelligence , is slated to hold a Thursday morning press conference in Las Vegas to announce the Trump campaign is filing a lawsuit that seeks to count every “ legal ” vote .
The Trump campaign is alleging that at least 10,000 people voted in the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least this says that the campaign wants votes counted , albeit restricted to only the “ legal ” votes .
Trump ’ s message this morning was a bit more broad : Before we get to the legalities , the messaging here is a bit … weird .
If we “ stop the count ” in place as it stands , that would make Joe Biden president , 270-268 , based on winning Nevada and Arizona .
In fact , Republicans are reportedly demonstrating in Arizona and chanting “ Count the Votes !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue in those two states , even as he might be getting a bit nervous about the counting in Pennsylvania and Georgia .
And how healthy will it be for Republicans to embrace a “ stop the count ” message in the future , anyway ?
Will courts back Trump ’ s call to “ STOP THE COUNT ” ?
Jonathan Turley thinks they might in Pennsylvania because of the unique issues presented in that state — and an earlier Supreme Court punt on them .
These are “ categorical ” issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on statute , and Turley thinks that the Trump team does have a case based on the statutory requirements being waived by the state in its counting process : As repeatedly recounted ( most recently , in Wednesday ’ s column ) , the state supreme court , by fiat , ordered a the three-day extension of the November 3 Election Day deadline for the state ’ s receipt of mail-in votes — i.e.
, until close-of-business November 6 .
I believe this was an unconstitutional usurpation of the state legislature ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If so , that would give the Trump campaign a basis to seek the Supreme Court ’ s intervention .
Indeed , four justices on the high court were poised to grant a stay against the state court ’ s order in mid-October ; and just last week , three of those justices induced Pennsylvania to agree to segregate the ballots received during the three-day extension , anticipating that the Court might review the matter on an expedited basis after Election Day .
In addition , the Trump campaign could also argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote fraud because of the presumption the Pennsylvania court imposed on its extension order : Ballots are to be deemed timely submitted even if they lack a legible postmark — or any postmark at all — proving they were mailed on or before November 3 .
Obviously , this creates the possibility that ballots could be harvested and submitted post-election without postmarks — theoretically , in large enough quantities to change the result that would have been obtained if only the ballots truly submitted by November 3 were tallied .
However , McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by either a Trump win , or the fact that relatively few ballots actually fall into that category : It is at least equally likely , though , that either 1 ) Trump will hold on and win the state , or 2 ) the vote will break so sharply for Biden that he ( Biden ) wins by one or two points .
In the first of those latter two scenarios , the likely illegality and potential fraud would be irrelevant .
And even if Biden wins ( the second of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many Biden ballots arrived between November 4 and 6 that they could have been the difference-maker , shifting the contest from Trump to Biden .
If it turns out that we are talking only about a few thousand late-arriving votes , and either candidate has prevailed by thousands more than that , it ’ s much ado about nothing .
Want to bet which way the Supreme Court hopes this turns out ?
What about the other lawsuits ?
Donald Trump ’ s legal team has already begun filing lawsuits in key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and absentee voting .
Courts are likely to take a dim view of intervention before the counting ends on those , or of throwing out already-counted votes .
The Washington Post ’ s Edward Foley explains why : Republicans have claimed that the state Supreme Court ’ s ruling violates the federal Constitution , which grants the power to write rules governing elections to state “ legislatures.
” The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide the question of what , if any , authority that leaves to state courts ; that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has ducked so far .
But even if the court were to agree with the Republicans on their federal constitutional claim , it is doubtful that a majority of justices — having allowed the state court extension to remain in place — would also agree to invalidate ballots that benefited from the extra time .
Courts often talk about reliance interests and have recognized that these are particularly important in the context of elections : the ability of voters to know what the rules of the road are and to act accordingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ’ s ruling were complying with the law as it existed and they reasonably understood it .
The justices could correct the state Supreme Court ’ s error for the future and still let these ballots be counted .
That might not be the slam dunk that Foley assumes .
If the Supreme Court finds the original order in error , then the clear presumption would be that voters should have relied on the statutory provisions on elections , not promises made by politicians .
Voters had plenty of time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline .
A failure to meet that deadline is their responsibility , not the court ’ s , and a failure to communicate the legal restrictions on voting is the responsibility of the officeholders in place .
Still , courts are almost always loathe to invalidate ballots , especially as broadly as Republicans are demanding in Pennsylvania .
Because of the clear-cut statutory issues , the Supreme Court might need to do it in that case .
In other cases , where there are no categorical issues but are instead murky issues of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a court rescue .
But Pennsylvania might be the only real intervention Team Trump needs .

This morning, Fox reports that Team Trump will announce a voter-fraud lawsuit in Nevada, a state that halted its reporting yesterday morning. It’s the third state so far in which the campaign will ask for court intervention:
Ric Grenell, the former acting Director of National Intelligence, is slated to hold a Thursday morning press conference in Las Vegas to announce the Trump campaign is filing a lawsuit that seeks to count every “legal” vote. The Trump campaign is alleging that at least 10,000 people voted in the state, despite no longer living there.
At least this says that the campaign wants votes counted, albeit restricted to only the “legal” votes. Trump’s message this morning was a bit more broad:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324353932022480896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1324353932022480896%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Faction%3Deditpost%3D4304852
Before we get to the legalities, the messaging here is a bit … weird. If we “stop the count” in place as it stands, that would make Joe Biden president, 270-268, based on winning Nevada and Arizona. In fact, Republicans are reportedly demonstrating in Arizona and chanting “Count the Votes!” Trump needs the vote counts to continue in those two states, even as he might be getting a bit nervous about the counting in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
And how healthy will it be for Republicans to embrace a “stop the count” message in the future, anyway?
Will courts back Trump’s call to “STOP THE COUNT”? Jonathan Turley thinks they might in Pennsylvania because of the unique issues presented in that state — and an earlier Supreme Court punt on them. These are “categorical” issues, such as postmark and signature enforcement based on statute, and Turley thinks that the Trump team does have a case based on the statutory requirements being waived by the state in its counting process:
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Andy McCarthy thinks there’s a case in Pennsylvania, too:
As repeatedly recounted (most recently, in Wednesday’s column), the state supreme court, by fiat, ordered a the three-day extension of the November 3 Election Day deadline for the state’s receipt of mail-in votes — i.e., until close-of-business November 6. I believe this was an unconstitutional usurpation of the state legislature’s power to set the rules for elections. If so, that would give the Trump campaign a basis to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention. Indeed, four justices on the high court were poised to grant a stay against the state court’s order in mid-October; and just last week, three of those justices induced Pennsylvania to agree to segregate the ballots received during the three-day extension, anticipating that the Court might review the matter on an expedited basis after Election Day. In addition, the Trump campaign could also argue that there was a significant potential for vote fraud because of the presumption the Pennsylvania court imposed on its extension order: Ballots are to be deemed timely submitted even if they lack a legible postmark — or any postmark at all — proving they were mailed on or before November 3. Obviously, this creates the possibility that ballots could be harvested and submitted post-election without postmarks — theoretically, in large enough quantities to change the result that would have been obtained if only the ballots truly submitted by November 3 were tallied.
However, McCarthy also thinks that this might be mooted by either a Trump win, or the fact that relatively few ballots actually fall into that category:
It is at least equally likely, though, that either 1) Trump will hold on and win the state, or 2) the vote will break so sharply for Biden that he (Biden) wins by one or two points. In the first of those latter two scenarios, the likely illegality and potential fraud would be irrelevant. And even if Biden wins (the second of those scenarios), it only matters if so many Biden ballots arrived between November 4 and 6 that they could have been the difference-maker, shifting the contest from Trump to Biden. If it turns out that we are talking only about a few thousand late-arriving votes, and either candidate has prevailed by thousands more than that, it’s much ado about nothing.
Want to bet which way the Supreme Court hopes this turns out?
What about the other lawsuits? Donald Trump’s legal team has already begun filing lawsuits in key states challenging the ballot-counting processes for mail-in and absentee voting. Courts are likely to take a dim view of intervention before the counting ends on those, or of throwing out already-counted votes. The Washington Post’s Edward Foley explains why:
Republicans have claimed that the state Supreme Court’s ruling violates the federal Constitution, which grants the power to write rules governing elections to state “legislatures.” The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide the question of what, if any, authority that leaves to state courts; that’s the difficult and important issue that it has ducked so far. But even if the court were to agree with the Republicans on their federal constitutional claim, it is doubtful that a majority of justices — having allowed the state court extension to remain in place — would also agree to invalidate ballots that benefited from the extra time. Courts often talk about reliance interests and have recognized that these are particularly important in the context of elections: the ability of voters to know what the rules of the road are and to act accordingly. Voters who relied on the state Supreme Court’s ruling were complying with the law as it existed and they reasonably understood it. The justices could correct the state Supreme Court’s error for the future and still let these ballots be counted.
That might not be the slam dunk that Foley assumes. If the Supreme Court finds the original order in error, then the clear presumption would be that voters should have relied on the statutory provisions on elections, not promises made by politicians. Voters had plenty of time to ensure their ballots arrived by the statutory deadline. A failure to meet that deadline is their responsibility, not the court’s, and a failure to communicate the legal restrictions on voting is the responsibility of the officeholders in place.
Still, courts are almost always loathe to invalidate ballots, especially as broadly as Republicans are demanding in Pennsylvania. Because of the clear-cut statutory issues, the Supreme Court might need to do it in that case. In other cases, where there are no categorical issues but are instead murky issues of handling, don’t bet on a court rescue. But Pennsylvania might be the only real intervention Team Trump needs.


hotair--2020-11-05--NYC Mayor: No, I don't have a plan to fix things

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is preparing to enter his final year in office .
He ’ s limited to two consecutive terms so he can ’ t run again next November .
Judging by a recent interview he gave to local media outlets , Hizzoner is really just phoning it in at this point .
When confronted with questions about the current , dismal state of affairs in the Big Apple and what he planned to do about it , he didn ’ t have a single specific plan he could point to .
But he assured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
If Joe Biden is elected President , all of these issues will magically go away next year .
( New York Post ) Mayor Bill de Blasio confessed his utter incompetence this week in interviews with local media , admitting he has no plan to deal with the city ’ s mounting fiscal nightmare , surging violent crime or anything else — except to hope for a safe vaccine and a bottomless federal bailout .
When NY1 ’ s Errol Louis asked what he planned to do about murders ( up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 94 percent ) , the mayor simply recited his usual litany of excuses : “ global pandemic , ” “ perfect storm of negative factors , ” yadda yadda .
But if Joe Biden wins , “ we get a major stimulus , ” and “ that ’ s going to turn things around.
” Huh ?
How will a bailout reverse the crime spike ?
He ’ s surely not going to reverse his NYPD cuts .
Nor does a one-time bailout do a thing about the existential challenge to the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine , lots of folks no longer see New York as safe .
A real mayor would start dealing with such problems on his own .
When you ’ re the mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world and you ’ re asked what you ’ re going to do about soaring crime rates and new virus outbreaks , your first reaction shouldn ’ t be to make excuses .
Blaming the shootings on the pandemic is a complete copout .
Even if he ’ s facing a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he put it ) , that ’ s not the problem of the city ’ s residents .
Bill de Blasio asked for this job twice and it was given to him .
He ’ s the one who is supposed to come up with the answers .
This is pretty pathetic , to say the least .
The Mayor expects us to believe that a bigger relief bill is going to address the city ’ s many , mounting problems ?
The number of murders and other violent crimes across all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , de Blasio has cut funding to the NYPD and reduced the number of officers on the streets .
Sending more money to New York isn ’ t going to undo any of that .
The “ bail reform ” initiatives that de Blasio endorsed ensure that more criminals stay on the streets and those that the cops do manage to arrest are released in a matter of hours .
His supporters actually want more initiatives of that sort put in place , not fewer .
So any new federal funding coming into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t going to change that situation .
The city ’ s response to the pandemic was just about as bad as it could have been , particularly when it came to the situation in the nursing homes .
Shutting down all the schools hasn ’ t produced any measurable results , nor has restricting attendance at churches , synagogues and mosques .
The Mayor has delivered one gut-punch to the economy after another and he still hasn ’ t managed to figure out an effective response .
Bill de Blasio ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations ( and arrests and convictions ) of his political cronies over campaign finance irregularities .
The influence-peddling going on around his office has been obvious .
He ’ s allowed his wife to take over significant programs in the municipal government , none of which produced any measurable results .
He will be leaving New York City a less safe , less populated and more economically gutted place than when he found it .
And the worst part is that the denizens of Gotham are 100 % guaranteed to turn around and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not even worse .
Good luck , New Yorkers .
You ’ re going to need it .
This is the guy you chose to lead you and the responsibility rests on your collective shoulders .

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is preparing to enter his final year in office. He’s limited to two consecutive terms so he can’t run again next November. Judging by a recent interview he gave to local media outlets, Hizzoner is really just phoning it in at this point. When confronted with questions about the current, dismal state of affairs in the Big Apple and what he planned to do about it, he didn’t have a single specific plan he could point to. But he assured everyone that there was little to worry about. If Joe Biden is elected President, all of these issues will magically go away next year. (New York Post)
Mayor Bill de Blasio confessed his utter incompetence this week in interviews with local media, admitting he has no plan to deal with the city’s mounting fiscal nightmare, surging violent crime or anything else — except to hope for a safe vaccine and a bottomless federal bailout. When NY1’s Errol Louis asked what he planned to do about murders (up 37 percent) and shootings (up 94 percent), the mayor simply recited his usual litany of excuses: “global pandemic,” “perfect storm of negative factors,” yadda yadda. But if Joe Biden wins, “we get a major stimulus,” and “that’s going to turn things around.” Huh? How will a bailout reverse the crime spike? He’s surely not going to reverse his NYPD cuts. Nor does a one-time bailout do a thing about the existential challenge to the city’s business model: Even with a vaccine, lots of folks no longer see New York as safe. A real mayor would start dealing with such problems on his own.
When you’re the mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world and you’re asked what you’re going to do about soaring crime rates and new virus outbreaks, your first reaction shouldn’t be to make excuses. Blaming the shootings on the pandemic is a complete copout. Even if he’s facing a “perfect storm” of negative factors (as he put it), that’s not the problem of the city’s residents. Bill de Blasio asked for this job twice and it was given to him. He’s the one who is supposed to come up with the answers.
This is pretty pathetic, to say the least. The Mayor expects us to believe that a bigger relief bill is going to address the city’s many, mounting problems? The number of murders and other violent crimes across all five boroughs is skyrocketing. In response, de Blasio has cut funding to the NYPD and reduced the number of officers on the streets. Sending more money to New York isn’t going to undo any of that.
The “bail reform” initiatives that de Blasio endorsed ensure that more criminals stay on the streets and those that the cops do manage to arrest are released in a matter of hours. His supporters actually want more initiatives of that sort put in place, not fewer. So any new federal funding coming into New York City’s coffers isn’t going to change that situation.
The city’s response to the pandemic was just about as bad as it could have been, particularly when it came to the situation in the nursing homes. Shutting down all the schools hasn’t produced any measurable results, nor has restricting attendance at churches, synagogues and mosques. The Mayor has delivered one gut-punch to the economy after another and he still hasn’t managed to figure out an effective response.
Bill de Blasio’s entire tenure has been marked by endless investigations (and arrests and convictions) of his political cronies over campaign finance irregularities. The influence-peddling going on around his office has been obvious. He’s allowed his wife to take over significant programs in the municipal government, none of which produced any measurable results. He will be leaving New York City a less safe, less populated and more economically gutted place than when he found it. And the worst part is that the denizens of Gotham are 100% guaranteed to turn around and elect another Democrat just like him, if not even worse.
Good luck, New Yorkers. You’re going to need it. This is the guy you chose to lead you and the responsibility rests on your collective shoulders.


hotair--2020-11-05--Scott Walker: Don't count on a recount rescue in Wisconsin

Take it from a man who ’ s been around the Wisconsin voting system a few times himself , including a recanvass or two .
Scott Walker explains the problems with scope and scale in recounts to CBS This Morning , and at the same time debunks a hypothesis floating around in social-media circles .
What might actually help is a recanvass , a check of numbers from each precinct that might have introduced error into the state voting counts .
Had he ever seen a recanvass correction on a scale that might overcome a 20,000-vote gap ?
Actually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Walker explains : “ Typically when you have problems out there , ” Walker explains , “ it ’ s not corruption .
It ’ s somebody made an error.
” A recount would correct that , but a recanvass would take place first , and that would correct it more easily .
How about a recount ?
“ Is there any record , ” Walker was asked , “ of any error large enough to actually change the outcome in Wisconsin ?
” “ Close as you ’ ve got in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was about 14,000 votes .
That ’ s shy of the 21,000 , but it ’ s at least in the ballpark.
” That came in a Wisconsin Supreme Court election , and it was an error that actually impacted the election outcome .
What about reports of votes in precincts exceeding the the number of registered voters prior to the election ?
Some people , including members of Donald Trump ’ s political team , point to those precincts as evidence of fraud .
The answer is likely much simpler ; as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration , so this may not even be an error .
Walker also points out that the Trump campaign really drove new voter registrations in their ground game and GOTV efforts , so that may in fact be part of where Trump ’ s strength originated in Wisconsin on Tuesday .
PolitiFact pointed out the same thing yesterday : Wisconsin is one of 19 states ( along with the District of Columbia ) that allow same-day voter registration .
That means the correct comparison is eligible voters , not registered ones .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote as of Nov. 1 , according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission .
That was two days before the election .
The number of people turning out across the state topped 3.2 million , the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported — the most votes ever cast in a Wisconsin election , with at least 71 % of the state ’ s voting-age adults casting ballots .
( Not quite the highest percentage-wise ) .
The Wisconsin Elections Commission weighed in on Twitter later in the morning , explaining that registration numbers reported by counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration .
In high-turnout , high-energy elections , more people will register for the first time , and likely that will result in votes exceeding the previous number of registered voters .
In same-day registration , we can be reasonably sure of 100 % turnout among those newly registered voters , after all .
There are reasons to worry about vote security with same-day registrations — say , people who are trying to vote twice or who are ineligible to vote at all casting ballots — but the above complaint is simply without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recounts , which are almost always extremely limited in terms of impact .
They do matter when gaps are in the hundreds , but rarely have an impact outside of that scope .
If a recanvass doesn ’ t turn up a data-entry error , don ’ t put much hope into a recount .
Even Al Franken couldn ’ t change more than 500 votes in Minnesota when Republicans were taken unaware by the aggressive ballot challenges his team made .
It ’ s just that 500 was all Franken needed @ @ @

Take it from a man who’s been around the Wisconsin voting system a few times himself, including a recanvass or two. Scott Walker explains the problems with scope and scale in recounts to CBS This Morning, and at the same time debunks a hypothesis floating around in social-media circles. What might actually help is a recanvass, a check of numbers from each precinct that might have introduced error into the state voting counts.
Had he ever seen a recanvass correction on a scale that might overcome a 20,000-vote gap? Actually, one did come close nine years ago, Walker explains:
The Trump campaign is calling for a recount in Wisconsin. Former Governor @ScottWalker is casting doubt about whether that would be enough to help President Trump change the outcome in the crucial battleground state. Walker joins us now with more. pic.twitter.com/VTXZpLLW0B — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) November 5, 2020
“Typically when you have problems out there,” Walker explains, “it’s not corruption. It’s somebody made an error.” A recount would correct that, but a recanvass would take place first, and that would correct it more easily.
How about a recount? “Is there any record,” Walker was asked, “of any error large enough to actually change the outcome in Wisconsin?”
“Close as you’ve got in 2011,” Walker replied, “was about 14,000 votes. That’s shy of the 21,000, but it’s at least in the ballpark.” That came in a Wisconsin Supreme Court election, and it was an error that actually impacted the election outcome.
What about reports of votes in precincts exceeding the the number of registered voters prior to the election? Some people, including members of Donald Trump’s political team, point to those precincts as evidence of fraud. The answer is likely much simpler; as Walker explains, Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration, so this may not even be an error. Walker also points out that the Trump campaign really drove new voter registrations in their ground game and GOTV efforts, so that may in fact be part of where Trump’s strength originated in Wisconsin on Tuesday.
PolitiFact pointed out the same thing yesterday:
Wisconsin is one of 19 states (along with the District of Columbia) that allow same-day voter registration. That means the correct comparison is eligible voters, not registered ones. More than 3.6 million Wisconsinites were registered to vote as of Nov. 1, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. That was two days before the election. The number of people turning out across the state topped 3.2 million, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported — the most votes ever cast in a Wisconsin election, with at least 71% of the state’s voting-age adults casting ballots. (Not quite the highest percentage-wise). The Wisconsin Elections Commission weighed in on Twitter later in the morning, explaining that registration numbers reported by counties can be off because of same-day voter registration.
In high-turnout, high-energy elections, more people will register for the first time, and likely that will result in votes exceeding the previous number of registered voters. In same-day registration, we can be reasonably sure of 100% turnout among those newly registered voters, after all. There are reasons to worry about vote security with same-day registrations — say, people who are trying to vote twice or who are ineligible to vote at all casting ballots — but the above complaint is simply without merit.
Let’s get back to recounts, which are almost always extremely limited in terms of impact. They do matter when gaps are in the hundreds, but rarely have an impact outside of that scope. If a recanvass doesn’t turn up a data-entry error, don’t put much hope into a recount. Even Al Franken couldn’t change more than 500 votes in Minnesota when Republicans were taken unaware by the aggressive ballot challenges his team made. It’s just that 500 was all Franken needed to change.


hotair--2020-11-06--Down goes Georgia? If so ...

Down goes Georgia? If so ...

.. then Pennsylvania might not matter .
The vote-counting trends became clear yesterday in both Georgia and the Keystone State , where the major urban centers still had most of the outstanding ballots , and most of which had been mailed .
Donald Trump ’ s lead had gotten whisker-thin in Georgia yesterday , and the overnight count put Joe Biden in the lead — but not by much : Democratic nominee Joe Biden has taken a lead in the vote count in Georgia and is gaining on President Trump in Pennsylvania , inching him closer to a win in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Georgia , Biden took a lead of more than 900 votes at about 4:30 a.m. Friday morning .
The lead has since grown to 1,096 votes .
His lead initially came after Clayton County in the Atlanta suburbs reported a bucket of ballots .
Biden had been winning a huge proportion of the votes in that area .
Other Atlanta suburbs are still reporting some votes .
In Philly , the votes have almost flipped Pennsylvania too , plus today Allegheny County finally begins to review its problematic 29,000 ballots from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s lead stood at 18,229 votes at 6 a.m. and was steadily shrinking .
More mailed-in ballots , which Biden is winning by a healthy margin , are still expected to be counted — many of them from the heavily Democratic city of Philadelphia and its suburbs .
More mailed-in ballots are also set to be counted on Friday in Allegheny County , where the city of Pittsburgh is located .
If Biden wins Georgia , then Pennsylvania doesn ’ t matter — and for that matter , neither does Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 48,000 votes overnight .
As long as Biden hangs on in Nevada , where the Democrat stronghold of Clark County still has a lot of uncounted votes , this is what the map would look like : That ’ s 275 Electoral College votes to Biden — and the ballgame , at least for now .
Without a doubt , Team Trump will demand recanvassing and recounts in all of these states ; they have already begun the process in Wisconsin and Michigan .
If the counts are off , the recanvass will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will follow , but margins matter in these cases , too .
If the margins get into the tens of thousands , it ’ s almost impossible for a recount or ballot-challenge process to make changes on that scale .
Do note , however , that if Trump wins Pennsylvania and then comes back in Arizona and Nevada , then he ’ s at 272 without Georgia .
That would make for a very weird map , but it ’ s still a possibility .
And for that matter , Trump could still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , but at the moment that seems unlikely .
It ’ s not over yet .
In fact , it might not be over for a while .
However , it gets more uphill from here on out for Team Trump .

.. then Pennsylvania might not matter. The vote-counting trends became clear yesterday in both Georgia and the Keystone State, where the major urban centers still had most of the outstanding ballots, and most of which had been mailed. Donald Trump’s lead had gotten whisker-thin in Georgia yesterday, and the overnight count put Joe Biden in the lead — but not by much:
Democratic nominee Joe Biden has taken a lead in the vote count in Georgia and is gaining on President Trump in Pennsylvania, inching him closer to a win in the tight race for the White House. In Georgia, Biden took a lead of more than 900 votes at about 4:30 a.m. Friday morning. The lead has since grown to 1,096 votes. His lead initially came after Clayton County in the Atlanta suburbs reported a bucket of ballots. Biden had been winning a huge proportion of the votes in that area. Other Atlanta suburbs are still reporting some votes.
In Philly, the votes have almost flipped Pennsylvania too, plus today Allegheny County finally begins to review its problematic 29,000 ballots from a printer error:
In Pennsylvania, Trump’s lead stood at 18,229 votes at 6 a.m. and was steadily shrinking. More mailed-in ballots, which Biden is winning by a healthy margin, are still expected to be counted — many of them from the heavily Democratic city of Philadelphia and its suburbs. More mailed-in ballots are also set to be counted on Friday in Allegheny County, where the city of Pittsburgh is located.
If Biden wins Georgia, then Pennsylvania doesn’t matter — and for that matter, neither does Arizona, where Trump narrowed the race to 48,000 votes overnight. As long as Biden hangs on in Nevada, where the Democrat stronghold of Clark County still has a lot of uncounted votes, this is what the map would look like:
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
That’s 275 Electoral College votes to Biden — and the ballgame, at least for now. Without a doubt, Team Trump will demand recanvassing and recounts in all of these states; they have already begun the process in Wisconsin and Michigan. If the counts are off, the recanvass will find it. Recounts and ballot challenges will follow, but margins matter in these cases, too. If the margins get into the tens of thousands, it’s almost impossible for a recount or ballot-challenge process to make changes on that scale.
Do note, however, that if Trump wins Pennsylvania and then comes back in Arizona and Nevada, then he’s at 272 without Georgia. That would make for a very weird map, but it’s still a possibility. And for that matter, Trump could still bounce back in the late ballots from Georgia, but at the moment that seems unlikely.
It’s not over yet. In fact, it might not be over for a while. However, it gets more uphill from here on out for Team Trump.