hotair--2020-11-11--John Bolton: For the sake of the party and the country, Republicans must stop coddling Trump on his

John Bolton: For the sake of the party and the country, Republicans must stop coddling Trump on his election fraud claims

Yeah , I ’ m not sure any righty anywhere on the pro- or anti-Trump spectrum wants a civic lecture from this guy , given that he was willing to rip Trump in his book but not to testify during the House impeachment inquiry .
Anyway .
Two weeks before the election , Bolton told CNN that he believed congressional Republicans would stand up to Trump if/when he lost and inevitably began claiming he was cheated .
Which leads one to wonder : Does Bolton understand the first thing about how his party works anymore ?
Bolton warned : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not leave graciously if he loses .
He will not leave graciously .
Whether he carries it to the extreme , I don ’ t think we know.
” … Ultimately , Bolton said , what happens will be “ on the leadership of the party , elected officials , private citizens .
If it is clear what the outcome [ of the election ] is , it is up to Republicans , not Democrats , to say , ‘ This is on us .
He ’ s got to go.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ ready ” to deal with Trump based on conversations he has had with many of them .
“ I don ’ t think they will stand ” for Trump refusing to step down if he loses , he added .
Eight days after Election Day , he ’ s back with an op-ed proclaiming his dismay at the completely foreseeable development in which congressional Republicans have not , in fact , stood up to Trump .
“ The long-term Republican interest emphatically involves … rejecting Trump ’ s personalized , erratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics and governance , ” Bolton writes at one point , not at all convincingly .
The country just got four years of the full Trump experience and yet the president ( a ) received more votes than any candidate in U.S. history apart from the man who defeated him , ( b ) saw his party do surprisingly well in House and Senate races , and ( c ) improved on his 2016 showing among every racial and gender demographic except white men .
We don ’ t need to rehash the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or not ; for our purposes here , it ’ s enough to say that the jury is out on whether Trumpist politics is a long-term loser for the GOP .
Bolton is spot on , though , that the party ’ s strategy of “ humoring ” Trump while the court farce plays out will backfire badly .
The president will try to get away with whatever he thinks he can get away with ; that ’ s his nature , and it ’ s why handing him a second term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry about electoral consequences for his actions would have been so dangerous .
The party believes , foolishly , that by lining up behind him on his “ I was cheated ” claims right now they ’ re giving him time to come to terms with the loss and putting courts in a position to let him down easy .
But what they ’ re really doing , intentionally or not , is telling him that he has their support in resisting transferring power to Biden .
Now he ’ ll feel emboldened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to push it .
And once they ’ ve climbed aboard that tiger , it ’ s hard to climb off .
With each passing day , Trump and his fans get more invested in the idea that there ’ s a chance he ’ ll be declared the winner after all .
As that investment deepens , it becomes harder for Republicans like McConnell to tell them , “ Okay , it ’ s time to come back to reality now.
” Telling them the day after the election that Biden had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Telling them a week after the election , when they ’ ve absorbed a thousand half-baked stories of massive fraud and have convinced themselves they ’ re on the cusp of victory , will be treated as treason .
Bolton : One approach holds that coddling Trump while he trashes the U.S. electoral system will help him get over the loss , thereby making it easier to reconcile him to leaving the Oval Office .
But this coddling strategy is exactly backward .
The more Republican leaders kowtow , the more Trump believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely he will do what normal presidents do : make a gracious concession speech ; fully cooperate with the president-elect in a smooth transition process ; and validate the election process itself by joining his successor at the Jan. 20 inauguration .
Coddling proponents plead that an enraged Trump will jeopardize the chances of victory in the Georgia runoffs .
But that is true only if party leaders do not speak up , explaining to voters what the real facts are .
Do we in the GOP not trust our own base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will find out in due course anyway if Trump ’ s election litigation indeed crashes into reality .
Once in court , state or federal , before judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats , actual witnesses will have to raise their right hands and tell the truth , and then face gale-force cross-examination from lawyers for President-elect Joe Biden ’ s campaign .
It ’ s one thing to tweet ; it ’ s another thing to testify .
Who is going to explain that to Georgia ’ s voters ?
Republican leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cede the field to a president whose interests directly contradict the party ’ s .
Otherwise , they will rue the day they stood silent .
“ Do we in the GOP not trust our own base enough to absorb the truth ?
” he asks , again leading me to wonder what year he thinks this is and what sort of person he believes defines the GOP base .
We had two Senate candidates in Georgia last month competing for the endorsement of a QAnon-er , not in spite of her affiliation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be clear : No , McConnell and other congressional Republicans don ’ t trust their base enough to absorb the truth because they know that that truth won ’ t be absorbed .
It ’ ll be replaced by Trump ’ s Orwellian version of truth in which the election was stolen from him because it ’ s more comforting to believe the lie .
And can this guy , a former National Security Advisor , really be so naive as to believe that the president ’ s failure in court will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his voter-fraud claims were without merit rather than as proof that the judges were in on “ the big steal ” or whatever ?
I almost — not quite , but almost — sympathize with McConnell and the rest of the cretins in his caucus who are biting their tongues right now as Trump goes around committing civic arson with loose talk of cheating .
What good would it do if they spoke out and affirmed that Biden won ?
Who would be convinced ?
They ’ re reduced to this , God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d need to want to be a senator to sacrifice this much dignity to keep your job : Bolton ’ s also right that the Georgia runoffs are driving the GOP ’ s “ coddling ” approach to Trump .
Republicans have freely admitted it to reporters .
“ We need his voters .
And he has a tremendous following out there , ” said John Thune to Politico about the upcoming races .
“ Right now , he ’ s trying to get through the final stages of his election and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s all said and done , however it comes out , we want him helping in Georgia.
” Another person involved in the race said of Trump , “ you don ’ t want him blowing you up in the runoffs ” and stressed that McConnell knows “ being successful in Georgia is to keep Trump under the tent.
” Cocaine Mitch thinks of only two things when he opens his eyes in the morning , confirming conservative judges and controlling the Senate .
If the price of the latter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans stammer “ j-j-just let the process play out , ” so be it .
The candidates in the runoffs are stuck too .
Remember that weird statement Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue issued a few days ago calling on Georgia ’ s Republican secretary of state to resign over the election while not actually accusing him or anyone else of wrongdoing ?
Turns out that was a hostage statement .
“ We ’ re told the president and his top allies pressured the two Republican senators to take this step , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and risk divorcing them from his base ahead of the consequential runoff , ” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday .
Again we have Republican senators playing ball with demagoguery because their jobs are more important to them than reassuring their constituents that they can trust their state ’ s electoral system .
It makes me wonder if Democrats secretly wish they ’ d lost the two Georgia Senate races on election night .
They ’ re very likely to lose them anyway in the runoffs ; meanwhile , the importance of controlling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus in Trump ’ s corner on the “ I was cheated ” campaign .
January 5 is a *long* way away , and in light of what I said in this post about the menacing second phase of Trump ’ s resistance to the election results that ’ s coming , we can only wonder how much more McConnell might let him get away with before acknowledging Biden ’ s victory .
If Trump starts calling on state legislatures in Pennsylvania , Georgia , and Arizona not to certify their elections but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tainted the results and therefore Trump should receive those electoral votes , what will McConnell do ?
If Georgia is all-important and winning Georgia depends on Trump ’ s cooperation , what leverage does he have to say , “ Sorry , Mr. President , but I can ’ t quite condone a g-ddamned coup to keep you in power .
Even if that costs me two Senate seats.
” Does anyone think McConnell has the basic ethical sense to do that , knowing that losing those seats would cost him a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it ?
Another way to approach the moment we ’ re in is this .
Over the last few days , a strongman president who was just defeated at the polls has denied the legitimacy of his opponent ’ s victory ; convinced the head of the Justice Department to change the rules so that federal prosecutors can start making noise about voter fraud ; has fired the head of the military and begun installing underqualified cronies in some key defense positions ; has apparently ordered arms of his administration not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in transitioning power ; and relished having his top diplomat half-joke , against all available evidence , that his boss had won reelection .
If all of that were happening in , say , Turkey with Erdogan or in Venezuela with Maduro , what would you think was going on in that country ?
Would you think the strongman was responding in a routine and credible way to a threat to his power ?
See , I think Mike Pompeo would be issuing statements denouncing those developments as anti-democratic and illegitimate .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even pass a resolution condemning them .
Especially if the heads of foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence were also rumored to be on the chopping block as part of the ongoing purge .
“ All transitions bring uncertainty , ” Bolton writes in today ’ s op-ed , “ but to decapitate substantial parts of the national-security apparatus during such a period for no reason other than personal pique is irresponsible and dangerous .
Republicans know this.
” They may know it but they aren ’ t saying anything about it .
Imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach the stage of this nightmare where the strongman calls on state legislatures to invalidate vote counts that went against him and commit their support to him — and Republicans don ’ t say anything about that either .
On the contrary , Lindsey Graham and Ron DeSantis have both explicitly entertained that idea lately .
The only reason we ’ re not having a giant national freakout because of Trump ’ s attempt to overturn the election is that he lost credibility with voters outside his own base ages ago .
Yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most everyone is being despite the president purging military leaders and flailing wildly about voter-fraud conspiracies .
“ Bizarrely , and quite troublingly , about 2/3 of the nation no longer takes Trump remotely seriously even when he makes the most dramatic and emphatic claims imaginable , while the remainder has never viewed him with more reverence now that he somehow overcame unprecedented efforts from liberal/media elites to oust him from power and still managed to get far more votes than any incumbent president in history , ” he wrote .
Among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit gauche and hysterical to worry about what he ’ s up to .
After all this time , don ’ t you know it ’ s all just a con and a grift ?
A show ?
Well , it is until it isn ’ t .
And Bolton ’ s point about Republicans “ coddling ” him for too long raises the chances that it isn ’ t .
I ’ ll leave you with this .
As our strongman crisis deepens , it ’ ll be fascinating — and terrifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson and Macron stop referring publicly to Biden as the president-elect at some point because they no longer have confidence that power will in fact be transferred to him .

Yeah, I’m not sure any righty anywhere on the pro- or anti-Trump spectrum wants a civic lecture from this guy, given that he was willing to rip Trump in his book but not to testify during the House impeachment inquiry.
Anyway. Two weeks before the election, Bolton told CNN that he believed congressional Republicans would stand up to Trump if/when he lost and inevitably began claiming he was cheated. Which leads one to wonder: Does Bolton understand the first thing about how his party works anymore?
Bolton warned: “Let’s be clear: Trump will not leave graciously if he loses. He will not leave graciously. Whether he carries it to the extreme, I don’t think we know.”… Ultimately, Bolton said, what happens will be “on the leadership of the party, elected officials, private citizens. If it is clear what the outcome [of the election] is, it is up to Republicans, not Democrats, to say, ‘This is on us. He’s got to go.’”… Bolton said he believes Republicans are “ready” to deal with Trump based on conversations he has had with many of them. “I don’t think they will stand” for Trump refusing to step down if he loses, he added.
Eight days after Election Day, he’s back with an op-ed proclaiming his dismay at the completely foreseeable development in which congressional Republicans have not, in fact, stood up to Trump. “The long-term Republican interest emphatically involves … rejecting Trump’s personalized, erratic, uncivil, unpresidential and ultimately less-than-effective politics and governance,” Bolton writes at one point, not at all convincingly. The country just got four years of the full Trump experience and yet the president (a) received more votes than any candidate in U.S. history apart from the man who defeated him, (b) saw his party do surprisingly well in House and Senate races, and (c) improved on his 2016 showing among every racial and gender demographic except white men. We don’t need to rehash the argument over whether Trump was “repudiated” or not; for our purposes here, it’s enough to say that the jury is out on whether Trumpist politics is a long-term loser for the GOP.
Bolton is spot on, though, that the party’s strategy of “humoring” Trump while the court farce plays out will backfire badly. The president will try to get away with whatever he thinks he can get away with; that’s his nature, and it’s why handing him a second term in which he no longer had to worry about electoral consequences for his actions would have been so dangerous. The party believes, foolishly, that by lining up behind him on his “I was cheated” claims right now they’re giving him time to come to terms with the loss and putting courts in a position to let him down easy. But what they’re really doing, intentionally or not, is telling him that he has their support in resisting transferring power to Biden. Now he’ll feel emboldened to push it however far he wants to push it.
And once they’ve climbed aboard that tiger, it’s hard to climb off. With each passing day, Trump and his fans get more invested in the idea that there’s a chance he’ll be declared the winner after all. As that investment deepens, it becomes harder for Republicans like McConnell to tell them, “Okay, it’s time to come back to reality now.” Telling them the day after the election that Biden had won would have been an outrage. Telling them a week after the election, when they’ve absorbed a thousand half-baked stories of massive fraud and have convinced themselves they’re on the cusp of victory, will be treated as treason. Bolton:
One approach holds that coddling Trump while he trashes the U.S. electoral system will help him get over the loss, thereby making it easier to reconcile him to leaving the Oval Office. But this coddling strategy is exactly backward. The more Republican leaders kowtow, the more Trump believes he is still in control and the less likely he will do what normal presidents do: make a gracious concession speech; fully cooperate with the president-elect in a smooth transition process; and validate the election process itself by joining his successor at the Jan. 20 inauguration. Coddling proponents plead that an enraged Trump will jeopardize the chances of victory in the Georgia runoffs. But that is true only if party leaders do not speak up, explaining to voters what the real facts are. Do we in the GOP not trust our own base enough to absorb the truth? They will find out in due course anyway if Trump’s election litigation indeed crashes into reality. Once in court, state or federal, before judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats, actual witnesses will have to raise their right hands and tell the truth, and then face gale-force cross-examination from lawyers for President-elect Joe Biden’s campaign. It’s one thing to tweet; it’s another thing to testify. Who is going to explain that to Georgia’s voters? Republican leaders should lay that groundwork now and not cede the field to a president whose interests directly contradict the party’s. Otherwise, they will rue the day they stood silent.
“Do we in the GOP not trust our own base enough to absorb the truth?” he asks, again leading me to wonder what year he thinks this is and what sort of person he believes defines the GOP base. We had two Senate candidates in Georgia last month competing for the endorsement of a QAnon-er, not in spite of her affiliation with QAnon but *because of it*. To be clear: No, McConnell and other congressional Republicans don’t trust their base enough to absorb the truth because they know that that truth won’t be absorbed. It’ll be replaced by Trump’s Orwellian version of truth in which the election was stolen from him because it’s more comforting to believe the lie.
And can this guy, a former National Security Advisor, really be so naive as to believe that the president’s failure in court will be treated by fans as proof that his voter-fraud claims were without merit rather than as proof that the judges were in on “the big steal” or whatever? I almost — not quite, but almost — sympathize with McConnell and the rest of the cretins in his caucus who are biting their tongues right now as Trump goes around committing civic arson with loose talk of cheating. What good would it do if they spoke out and affirmed that Biden won? Who would be convinced?
They’re reduced to this, God help them. Imagine how badly you’d need to want to be a senator to sacrifice this much dignity to keep your job:
Moments ago on @NewDay… Sen. @ChrisCoons reveals what some of his Republican colleagues have said to him in private — "please convey my well wishes to the President-Elect, but I can't say that publicly yet." pic.twitter.com/lr6J2XigGa — Alisyn Camerota (@AlisynCamerota) November 10, 2020
Bolton’s also right that the Georgia runoffs are driving the GOP’s “coddling” approach to Trump. Republicans have freely admitted it to reporters. “We need his voters. And he has a tremendous following out there,” said John Thune to Politico about the upcoming races. “Right now, he’s trying to get through the final stages of his election and determine the outcome there. But when that’s all said and done, however it comes out, we want him helping in Georgia.” Another person involved in the race said of Trump, “you don’t want him blowing you up in the runoffs” and stressed that McConnell knows “being successful in Georgia is to keep Trump under the tent.” Cocaine Mitch thinks of only two things when he opens his eyes in the morning, confirming conservative judges and controlling the Senate. If the price of the latter is letting Trump burn down the country while Senate Republicans stammer “j-j-just let the process play out,” so be it.
The candidates in the runoffs are stuck too. Remember that weird statement Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue issued a few days ago calling on Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to resign over the election while not actually accusing him or anyone else of wrongdoing? Turns out that was a hostage statement. “We’re told the president and his top allies pressured the two Republican senators to take this step, lest he tweet a negative word about them and risk divorcing them from his base ahead of the consequential runoff,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday. Again we have Republican senators playing ball with demagoguery because their jobs are more important to them than reassuring their constituents that they can trust their state’s electoral system.
It makes me wonder if Democrats secretly wish they’d lost the two Georgia Senate races on election night. They’re very likely to lose them anyway in the runoffs; meanwhile, the importance of controlling the Senate is keeping McConnell and his caucus in Trump’s corner on the “I was cheated” campaign. January 5 is a *long* way away, and in light of what I said in this post about the menacing second phase of Trump’s resistance to the election results that’s coming, we can only wonder how much more McConnell might let him get away with before acknowledging Biden’s victory.
"The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpabale that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors,” Fox News’ John Roberts casually says on air — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) November 11, 2020
If Trump starts calling on state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona not to certify their elections but instead to declare that phantom fraud has tainted the results and therefore Trump should receive those electoral votes, what will McConnell do? If Georgia is all-important and winning Georgia depends on Trump’s cooperation, what leverage does he have to say, “Sorry, Mr. President, but I can’t quite condone a g-ddamned coup to keep you in power. Even if that costs me two Senate seats.”
Does anyone think McConnell has the basic ethical sense to do that, knowing that losing those seats would cost him a Senate majority? How much would you bet on it?
Another way to approach the moment we’re in is this. Over the last few days, a strongman president who was just defeated at the polls has denied the legitimacy of his opponent’s victory; convinced the head of the Justice Department to change the rules so that federal prosecutors can start making noise about voter fraud; has fired the head of the military and begun installing underqualified cronies in some key defense positions; has apparently ordered arms of his administration not to cooperate with the winner of the election in transitioning power; and relished having his top diplomat half-joke, against all available evidence, that his boss had won reelection. If all of that were happening in, say, Turkey with Erdogan or in Venezuela with Maduro, what would you think was going on in that country? Would you think the strongman was responding in a routine and credible way to a threat to his power?
See, I think Mike Pompeo would be issuing statements denouncing those developments as anti-democratic and illegitimate. I think Mitch McConnell’s Senate might even pass a resolution condemning them. Especially if the heads of foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence were also rumored to be on the chopping block as part of the ongoing purge.
“All transitions bring uncertainty,” Bolton writes in today’s op-ed, “but to decapitate substantial parts of the national-security apparatus during such a period for no reason other than personal pique is irresponsible and dangerous. Republicans know this.” They may know it but they aren’t saying anything about it. Imagine how disappointed Bolton will be if/when we reach the stage of this nightmare where the strongman calls on state legislatures to invalidate vote counts that went against him and commit their support to him — and Republicans don’t say anything about that either. On the contrary, Lindsey Graham and Ron DeSantis have both explicitly entertained that idea lately.
The only reason we’re not having a giant national freakout because of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election is that he lost credibility with voters outside his own base ages ago. Yesterday John Ziegler marveled at just how chill most everyone is being despite the president purging military leaders and flailing wildly about voter-fraud conspiracies. “Bizarrely, and quite troublingly, about 2/3 of the nation no longer takes Trump remotely seriously even when he makes the most dramatic and emphatic claims imaginable, while the remainder has never viewed him with more reverence now that he somehow overcame unprecedented efforts from liberal/media elites to oust him from power and still managed to get far more votes than any incumbent president in history,” he wrote. Among the professional commentariat, it almost feels a bit gauche and hysterical to worry about what he’s up to. After all this time, don’t you know it’s all just a con and a grift? A show?
Well, it is until it isn’t. And Bolton’s point about Republicans “coddling” him for too long raises the chances that it isn’t.
I’ll leave you with this. As our strongman crisis deepens, it’ll be fascinating — and terrifying — to see if foreign leaders like Boris Johnson and Macron stop referring publicly to Biden as the president-elect at some point because they no longer have confidence that power will in fact be transferred to him.


hotair--2020-11-11--Would Biden really try to tear down the border wall?

Few things drove liberals crazier during President Trump ’ s 2016 campaign and the past four years of his administration than his supporters ’ urgent desire to see him build a wall on the southern border .
The chants of “ Build the Wall !
” echoed at every rally and you could almost see the steam figuratively rising off the heads of his detractors .
But despite intense opposition from the Democrats and endless lawsuits , construction finally began .
Some significant sections of new or improved barriers now stand along the Mexican border , though much remains to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some reversal through the courts and/or recounts , the President ’ s time in office will be done and Joe Biden will be in charge .
This has led some progressives ( who will likely never find a cure for TDS ) to fondly dream of Uncle Joe not only halting construction on the wall but tearing it down to literally erase one of Trump ’ s accomplishments .
That seems to be the case with this recent editorial from Erik Ortiz .
( He ’ s a staff writer for NBC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social inequality.
” ) And what justification could a President Biden use for such an investment of taxpayer money ?
The wall is now supposedly “ a biohazard.
” But with Democrat Joe Biden ’ s projected win over President Donald Trump , Andrews and environmental activists and conservationists are pinning their hopes on a new administration ’ s reversing certain policies , halting construction and going as far as to rip down the new sections of border wall… Opposition to the wall in Arizona , which led to protests , road blockades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas on members of the Tohono O ’ odham Nation last month , is emblematic of battles waged across the country to preserve ecologically fragile areas and stave off projects that could do irreparable environmental and cultural damage , environmental justice advocates say .
Over the past four years , the Trump administration has approved oil and gas leasing in Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge , rolled back protections to allow commercial fishing at a marine conservation area off the New England coast and pushed for federal regulatory changes that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project that environmentalists fear could jeopardize Georgia ’ s Okefenokee Swamp , the largest national wildlife refuge in the eastern United States .
There ’ s plenty more where that came from .
To hear Ortiz tell the story , Trump ’ s wall has disrupted the migratory paths of various animals , torn down some cacti and impacted the lives of various species of birds and butterflies .
( If only the birds and butterflies had some way of lifting themselves up into the air so they could go over the wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument might hold a bit more water were it not for a few basic facts .
First of all , there were already hundreds of miles of border walls , fences and other barriers along the border before Trump arrived at the White House .
Some of them were constructed or improved while Barack Obama was in the Oval Office .
Where were all the objections to such construction then ?
Having a barrier intended to prevent the entry of illegal aliens into our country wasn ’ t some idea that Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was simply looking to finish the job and improve the system .
Another objection to these construction efforts was the money involved .
While barely a drop in the massive federal bucket , liberals still bemoaned the spending in a rare moment of fiscal conservatism on their part .
But now , I assume that Ortiz and his friends have no problem at all appropriating the money it would take to tear the wall down , right ?
Hey… as long as it ’ s Joe Biden doing the spending , everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , they won ’ t want to tear down the entire wall .
Just the sections built while Donald Trump was in office .
I ’ m sure the rest of it is fine .
In reality , every section of the wall that goes up makes it easier for border enforcement officials to do their jobs and harder for the coyotes to find places to sneak their illicit customers into the country .
Even if you objected to the wall going up , spending taxpayer money to tear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country less safe and charging the taxpayers for the privilege of doing so .
There ’ s nothing noble about this sort of proposition .
It ’ s just the seething hatred of the President driving his detractors to try to erase every memory of his presidency .
It ’ s petty and doesn ’ t present a good look for anyone suggesting such a thing .

Few things drove liberals crazier during President Trump’s 2016 campaign and the past four years of his administration than his supporters’ urgent desire to see him build a wall on the southern border. The chants of “Build the Wall!” echoed at every rally and you could almost see the steam figuratively rising off the heads of his detractors. But despite intense opposition from the Democrats and endless lawsuits, construction finally began. Some significant sections of new or improved barriers now stand along the Mexican border, though much remains to be done.
But now, barring some reversal through the courts and/or recounts, the President’s time in office will be done and Joe Biden will be in charge. This has led some progressives (who will likely never find a cure for TDS) to fondly dream of Uncle Joe not only halting construction on the wall but tearing it down to literally erase one of Trump’s accomplishments. That seems to be the case with this recent editorial from Erik Ortiz. (He’s a staff writer for NBC News, “focusing on racial injustice and social inequality.”) And what justification could a President Biden use for such an investment of taxpayer money? The wall is now supposedly “a biohazard.”
But with Democrat Joe Biden’s projected win over President Donald Trump, Andrews and environmental activists and conservationists are pinning their hopes on a new administration’s reversing certain policies, halting construction and going as far as to rip down the new sections of border wall… Opposition to the wall in Arizona, which led to protests, road blockades and federal agents’ use of tear gas on members of the Tohono O’odham Nation last month, is emblematic of battles waged across the country to preserve ecologically fragile areas and stave off projects that could do irreparable environmental and cultural damage, environmental justice advocates say. Over the past four years, the Trump administration has approved oil and gas leasing in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, rolled back protections to allow commercial fishing at a marine conservation area off the New England coast and pushed for federal regulatory changes that have benefited industrial companies, including a mining project that environmentalists fear could jeopardize Georgia’s Okefenokee Swamp, the largest national wildlife refuge in the eastern United States.
There’s plenty more where that came from. To hear Ortiz tell the story, Trump’s wall has disrupted the migratory paths of various animals, torn down some cacti and impacted the lives of various species of birds and butterflies. (If only the birds and butterflies had some way of lifting themselves up into the air so they could go over the wall. But I digress.)
This argument might hold a bit more water were it not for a few basic facts. First of all, there were already hundreds of miles of border walls, fences and other barriers along the border before Trump arrived at the White House. Some of them were constructed or improved while Barack Obama was in the Oval Office. Where were all the objections to such construction then? Having a barrier intended to prevent the entry of illegal aliens into our country wasn’t some idea that Donald Trump dreamed up out of the blue. He was simply looking to finish the job and improve the system.
Another objection to these construction efforts was the money involved. While barely a drop in the massive federal bucket, liberals still bemoaned the spending in a rare moment of fiscal conservatism on their part. But now, I assume that Ortiz and his friends have no problem at all appropriating the money it would take to tear the wall down, right? Hey… as long as it’s Joe Biden doing the spending, everything is all rainbows and unicorns I suppose.
Of course, they won’t want to tear down the entire wall. Just the sections built while Donald Trump was in office. I’m sure the rest of it is fine.
In reality, every section of the wall that goes up makes it easier for border enforcement officials to do their jobs and harder for the coyotes to find places to sneak their illicit customers into the country. Even if you objected to the wall going up, spending taxpayer money to tear it down is simply an exercise in making the country less safe and charging the taxpayers for the privilege of doing so. There’s nothing noble about this sort of proposition. It’s just the seething hatred of the President driving his detractors to try to erase every memory of his presidency. It’s petty and doesn’t present a good look for anyone suggesting such a thing.


hotair--2020-11-11--More Warnock oppo drop: Arrested in 2002 for obstructing a child-abuse investigation?

Memo to Georgia GOP : You might want to pace yourselves in the Raphael “ Ralph ” Warnock oppo drop .
Memo to Georgia Democrats : Are you sure they ’ re not pacing themselves ?
Or did anyone bother to vet their candidate for US Senate ?
Warnock ’ s ranting on Israel and Jeremiah Wright is one thing , but how do you miss an arrest in 2002 for obstructing a child-abuse investigation ?
Via Twitchy : Two Baltimore ministers have been charged with obstructing a police investigation into suspected child abuse at a church-run camp in Carroll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warnock , 33 , and Mark Andre Wainwright , 30 , of Douglas Memorial Community Church are accused in court documents of trying to prevent a state trooper from interviewing counselors at the church ’ s Camp Farthest Out in Eldersburg .
… The ministers interrupted a police interview of a counselor Wednesday in a room at the camp and , after investigators moved the interview to a nearby picnic area , interfered again and subsequently tried to prevent a camper from directing police to another potential witness , according to charging documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance like that at all , ” said Trooper Diane Barry of the state police Child and Sexual Assault Unit in Westminster .
Barry said the counselors consented to the interviews after being told they were free to go at any time and were not obligated to answer her questions .
To be clear , neither minister was the target of the abuse claims .
Can the obstruction charges be explained ?
Sure ; neither minister was apparently convicted of the charges , and it may not have even come to trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time that they didn ’ t want police interviewing their congregants without their counsel present .
They didn ’ t have any legal standing to interfere on that basis and that does amount to obstruction , but it ’ s also possible to make a civil-disobedience argument here too .
Warnock and Wainwright can , and did , stand on constitutional principles outweighing their standing to intervene , and that might be a sellable argument .
Still , it ’ s more than passingly strange that pastors at the camp would interfere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own facility .
And as Tom Cotton observed oh-so-quickly when this story emerged in the oppo drop , imagine if the party affiliations were reversed : Far more interesting here is the fact that today is the first time we ’ re hearing about any of these Warnock issues .
Did Democrats even bother to do any due diligence before lining up behind Warnock ?
It looks like they got caught with their pants down here , because even a simple Lexis-Nexis search would have turned this up already and given Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over it .
They should have disclosed this in December as an example of Warnock putting himself on the line for his flock , standing up for poor people against the police , etc etc etc .
This was a lot easier to explain than Warnock ’ s sermons too , which would be a PR challenge under any circumstances .
This looks like Democrats didn ’ t learn anything from previous Republican vetting failures — in the 2010 Tea Party primary choices , Todd Akin , and all the way to Roy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the GOP can define not just the one runoff election but both as a fight against radicals .
This is a basic political-party function , especially in high-level races .
How could they blow something this easy ?

Memo to Georgia GOP: You might want to pace yourselves in the Raphael “Ralph” Warnock oppo drop.
Memo to Georgia Democrats: Are you sure they’re not pacing themselves? Or did anyone bother to vet their candidate for US Senate? Warnock’s ranting on Israel and Jeremiah Wright is one thing, but how do you miss an arrest in 2002 for obstructing a child-abuse investigation? Via Twitchy:
Two Baltimore ministers have been charged with obstructing a police investigation into suspected child abuse at a church-run camp in Carroll County. The Revs. Raphael Gamalial Warnock, 33, and Mark Andre Wainwright, 30, of Douglas Memorial Community Church are accused in court documents of trying to prevent a state trooper from interviewing counselors at the church’s Camp Farthest Out in Eldersburg. … The ministers interrupted a police interview of a counselor Wednesday in a room at the camp and, after investigators moved the interview to a nearby picnic area, interfered again and subsequently tried to prevent a camper from directing police to another potential witness, according to charging documents. “I’ve never encountered resistance like that at all,” said Trooper Diane Barry of the state police Child and Sexual Assault Unit in Westminster. Barry said the counselors consented to the interviews after being told they were free to go at any time and were not obligated to answer her questions.
To be clear, neither minister was the target of the abuse claims. Can the obstruction charges be explained? Sure; neither minister was apparently convicted of the charges, and it may not have even come to trial. Warnock insisted to the Baltimore Sun at that time that they didn’t want police interviewing their congregants without their counsel present. They didn’t have any legal standing to interfere on that basis and that does amount to obstruction, but it’s also possible to make a civil-disobedience argument here too. Warnock and Wainwright can, and did, stand on constitutional principles outweighing their standing to intervene, and that might be a sellable argument.
Still, it’s more than passingly strange that pastors at the camp would interfere with a child-abuse investigation, especially at their own facility. And as Tom Cotton observed oh-so-quickly when this story emerged in the oppo drop, imagine if the party affiliations were reversed:
If a Republican helped run a camp for children that was investigated for child abuse—and then was arrested for trying to block the investigation—the media would be asking a lot of questions. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) November 11, 2020
Far more interesting here is the fact that today is the first time we’re hearing about any of these Warnock issues. Did Democrats even bother to do any due diligence before lining up behind Warnock? It looks like they got caught with their pants down here, because even a simple Lexis-Nexis search would have turned this up already and given Democrats a chance to pre-empt any GOP attacks over it. They should have disclosed this in December as an example of Warnock putting himself on the line for his flock, standing up for poor people against the police, etc etc etc. This was a lot easier to explain than Warnock’s sermons too, which would be a PR challenge under any circumstances.
This looks like Democrats didn’t learn anything from previous Republican vetting failures — in the 2010 Tea Party primary choices, Todd Akin, and all the way to Roy Moore. They now have a situation where the GOP can define not just the one runoff election but both as a fight against radicals. This is a basic political-party function, especially in high-level races. How could they blow something this easy?


hotair--2020-11-11--Clarence Thomas questions mask mandates

Clarence Thomas questions mask mandates

The newly refilled Supreme Court has been hearing arguments in a challenge to portions of Obamacare this week .
The normally silent Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has been a bit more chatty lately than we ’ re used to seeing and the current case was no exception .
Lest the title of this article create confusion , I should make it clear that Thomas wasn ’ t directly challenging mandates requiring the wearing of face masks .
He was using such mandates as an example in parallel to the current issue under debate When asking a question about the Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have health insurance or face a tax penalty , he asked the California Solicitor General ( who is defending Obamacare ) whether or not a person can claim to show damages if no actual penalty is applied .
This is interesting for a couple of reasons that I ’ ll get to in a moment .
( NBC News ) Justice Clarence Thomas turned to the ongoing pandemic when interrogating the issue of standing in the Affordable Care Act case at the Supreme Court on Tuesday .
“ Putting the Chief Justice ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during Covid , but there is some degree of opprobrium if someone does not wear it in certain settings .
What if someone violates that command — let ’ s say it ’ s in similar terms to the mandate here , but no penalty — would they have standing to challenge the mandate to wear a mask ?
” Michael Mongan , California ’ s solicitor general who is defending Obamacare in court today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there can be no harm .
If we only look at this exchange in terms of the actual case being argued , it makes perfect sense .
In order to prevail in an effort to strike down a law , the plaintiffs will have to show that they suffered harm in some form or another .
The “ harm ” from the Obamacare mandate was previously a tax penalty .
Congress didn ’ t get rid of the penalty , but they did lower the cost of it to zero dollars .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , don ’ t feel bad .
You ’ re not alone . )
So by not having insurance , you are subject to a penalty under the law , but the penalty now costs nothing .
The court will doubtless take that into consideration when determining if there ’ s a case to be made here .
It sounds as if Thomas might be leaning toward saying there is no harm without the threat of enforcement .
It ’ s quite interesting , however , that Thomas chose as a parallel example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that such mandates are clearly on his mind and he ’ s aware of the ongoing debate over onerous state and municipal mandates being issued in the name of taming the novel coronavirus .
This brings us back to a question we ’ ve wrestled with here before .
If the government at any level issues a face mask mandate but provides no enforcement provision , could a citizen challenge the mandate in court ?
Perhaps more to the point , why would anyone bother challenging a mandate when there are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor of your state says that you must always wear a mask when going outdoors and you respond by telling him to stick his mask where the sun doesn ’ t shine , what is he or she going to do about it ?
The answer is obviously nothing .
People who don ’ t wish to comply simply won ’ t .
And the general opprobrium that Justice Thomas mentioned isn ’ t going to be enough to change many people ’ s behavior , particularly in the current social and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a touchy position .
They ’ re made to look weak and ineffectual .
So just as some states have done in the past , they may decide to attach a penalty for noncompliance to the order .
And if they do that , it sounds as if Clarence Thomas is hinting that the court would be open to the idea that a plaintiff could indeed prevail in court when challenging such a mandate .
That could be particularly true when you consider the fact that at least Obamacare was passed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
These executive orders we ’ re discussing don ’ t have that sort of backing .

The newly refilled Supreme Court has been hearing arguments in a challenge to portions of Obamacare this week. The normally silent Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has been a bit more chatty lately than we’re used to seeing and the current case was no exception. Lest the title of this article create confusion, I should make it clear that Thomas wasn’t directly challenging mandates requiring the wearing of face masks. He was using such mandates as an example in parallel to the current issue under debate When asking a question about the Obamacare mandate saying that all Americans have to have health insurance or face a tax penalty, he asked the California Solicitor General (who is defending Obamacare) whether or not a person can claim to show damages if no actual penalty is applied. This is interesting for a couple of reasons that I’ll get to in a moment. (NBC News)
Justice Clarence Thomas turned to the ongoing pandemic when interrogating the issue of standing in the Affordable Care Act case at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. “Putting the Chief Justice’s question in today terms: I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during Covid, but there is some degree of opprobrium if someone does not wear it in certain settings. What if someone violates that command — let’s say it’s in similar terms to the mandate here, but no penalty — would they have standing to challenge the mandate to wear a mask?” Michael Mongan, California’s solicitor general who is defending Obamacare in court today, argued that without a threat of enforcement there can be no harm.
If we only look at this exchange in terms of the actual case being argued, it makes perfect sense. In order to prevail in an effort to strike down a law, the plaintiffs will have to show that they suffered harm in some form or another. The “harm” from the Obamacare mandate was previously a tax penalty. Congress didn’t get rid of the penalty, but they did lower the cost of it to zero dollars. (If you’re getting confused already, don’t feel bad. You’re not alone.) So by not having insurance, you are subject to a penalty under the law, but the penalty now costs nothing. The court will doubtless take that into consideration when determining if there’s a case to be made here. It sounds as if Thomas might be leaning toward saying there is no harm without the threat of enforcement.
It’s quite interesting, however, that Thomas chose as a parallel example a hypothetical face mask mandate. It shows that such mandates are clearly on his mind and he’s aware of the ongoing debate over onerous state and municipal mandates being issued in the name of taming the novel coronavirus. This brings us back to a question we’ve wrestled with here before. If the government at any level issues a face mask mandate but provides no enforcement provision, could a citizen challenge the mandate in court?
Perhaps more to the point, why would anyone bother challenging a mandate when there are no consequences for defying it? If the governor of your state says that you must always wear a mask when going outdoors and you respond by telling him to stick his mask where the sun doesn’t shine, what is he or she going to do about it? The answer is obviously nothing. People who don’t wish to comply simply won’t. And the general opprobrium that Justice Thomas mentioned isn’t going to be enough to change many people’s behavior, particularly in the current social and political climate.
But that leaves the government in a touchy position. They’re made to look weak and ineffectual. So just as some states have done in the past, they may decide to attach a penalty for noncompliance to the order. And if they do that, it sounds as if Clarence Thomas is hinting that the court would be open to the idea that a plaintiff could indeed prevail in court when challenging such a mandate. That could be particularly true when you consider the fact that at least Obamacare was passed by Congress and signed into law by a president. These executive orders we’re discussing don’t have that sort of backing.


hotair--2020-11-11--There's a poll of the Georgia Senate runoff races...should we look?

I saw this poll earlier this morning and my first reaction was : Really ?
Having just gone through months of bad polling are we ready to dive right back in and pretend polling is reliable ?
I don ’ t think so .
And yet , there ’ s no denying these races are critically important .
If Democrats somehow win both , they would control the Senate .
If Republicans win one or both , they will hold the Senate .
So let ’ s just say up front that this poll is probably not reliable , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly leading both Senate contests : The poll showed Kelly Loeffler at 49 % of the vote compared to Democrat Raphael Warnock ’ s 48 % showing – within the margin of error of 2.6 percentage points .
About 3 % were undecided .
In the other race , U.S. Sen. David Perdue had a 50-46 lead over Democrat Jon Ossoff , echoing the results of the November election when the Republican fell just under the majority-vote mark he needed to win outright .
About 4 % of Georgians were undecided .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that three of the candidates have roughly even favorability and unfavourability numbers .
The exception is Raphael Warnock who is +11 in favorability .
Why ?
Warnock was largely ignored during the election .
Expect that to change dramatically between now and Jan. 5 .
In fact , as Ed pointed out this morning , that has already changed with video of Warnock ’ s celebration of Castro being and defense of Jeremiah Wright already starting to make the rounds .
FiveThirtyEight takes a look at the Georgia runoffs today and suggests there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pessimistic : First , most of those rosy polls for Warnock were measuring support among the universe of likely voters for the general election , not the runoff .
( Monmouth was an exception , however ; it still found Warnock ahead , by 6 points , among likely runoff voters . )
But even if these polls are an accurate snapshot of the runoff right now , a lot can change in two months .
For example , supporters of Rep. Doug Collins , Loeffler ’ s main Republican rival in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told pollsters they would support Loeffler amid the fall ’ s incredibly bitter campaign , but they probably will come around to her now that she is the only Republican candidate on the ballot .
Remember , partisanship is a powerful indicator of vote choice .
Another reason Democrats might do worse in the runoff : It ’ s an off-cycle election that will no longer share the ballot with the presidential race .
Now that Biden is the president-elect , many Democratic voters may feel that their mission has been accomplished and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is exactly what happened in previous Georgia runoffs — whether for Senate or other statewide offices .
Since the late 1960s , the state has seen eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office , and as you can see in the table below , in seven of the eight runoffs , Republican vote share margins improved , sometimes substantially so , as turnout fell sharply from the general election vote in November .
The big caveat here is that this is a very special type of runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election and holding the keys to control of the Senate .
So I think it would be extremely unwise to assume Democrats will have lost interest by January .
Frankly , even if Georgia voters want to lose interest they won ’ t be allowed to .
The amount of money pouring into the state for TV ads by both parties is going to be astounding .
Stacey Abrams group Fair Fight has already raised nearly $ 10 million since Friday and on the GOP side : This is just the tip of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked if the combined totals spent on these runoff elections isn ’ t half a billion or more .
The point being that when you add in all the media , the political phone calls and barnstorming the state by all 4 candidates and their surrogates , it ’ s safe to say voters in Georgia are going to be allowed a nanosecond of peace until this is over .
And the national media will make sure no one outside of Georgia forgets about it either .
Think of it as election overtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help ?
Well , sorry but we ’ re stuck with it .

I saw this poll earlier this morning and my first reaction was: Really?
Having just gone through months of bad polling are we ready to dive right back in and pretend polling is reliable? I don’t think so. And yet, there’s no denying these races are critically important. If Democrats somehow win both, they would control the Senate. If Republicans win one or both, they will hold the Senate.
So let’s just say up front that this poll is probably not reliable, though in this case it does show Republicans narrowly leading both Senate contests:
The poll showed Kelly Loeffler at 49% of the vote compared to Democrat Raphael Warnock’s 48% showing – within the margin of error of 2.6 percentage points. About 3% were undecided. In the other race, U.S. Sen. David Perdue had a 50-46 lead over Democrat Jon Ossoff, echoing the results of the November election when the Republican fell just under the majority-vote mark he needed to win outright. About 4% of Georgians were undecided.
The other significant finding in the poll is that three of the candidates have roughly even favorability and unfavourability numbers. The exception is Raphael Warnock who is +11 in favorability. Why? Warnock was largely ignored during the election. Expect that to change dramatically between now and Jan. 5. In fact, as Ed pointed out this morning, that has already changed with video of Warnock’s celebration of Castro being and defense of Jeremiah Wright already starting to make the rounds.
FiveThirtyEight takes a look at the Georgia runoffs today and suggests there are plenty of reasons for Democrats to be pessimistic:
First, most of those rosy polls for Warnock were measuring support among the universe of likely voters for the general election, not the runoff. (Monmouth was an exception, however; it still found Warnock ahead, by 6 points, among likely runoff voters.) But even if these polls are an accurate snapshot of the runoff right now, a lot can change in two months. For example, supporters of Rep. Doug Collins, Loeffler’s main Republican rival in the first round, may not have told pollsters they would support Loeffler amid the fall’s incredibly bitter campaign, but they probably will come around to her now that she is the only Republican candidate on the ballot. Remember, partisanship is a powerful indicator of vote choice. Another reason Democrats might do worse in the runoff: It’s an off-cycle election that will no longer share the ballot with the presidential race. Now that Biden is the president-elect, many Democratic voters may feel that their mission has been accomplished and not bother to vote in the runoff. This is exactly what happened in previous Georgia runoffs — whether for Senate or other statewide offices. Since the late 1960s, the state has seen eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office, and as you can see in the table below, in seven of the eight runoffs, Republican vote share margins improved, sometimes substantially so, as turnout fell sharply from the general election vote in November.
The big caveat here is that this is a very special type of runoff, coming just two months after the election and holding the keys to control of the Senate. So I think it would be extremely unwise to assume Democrats will have lost interest by January.
Frankly, even if Georgia voters want to lose interest they won’t be allowed to. The amount of money pouring into the state for TV ads by both parties is going to be astounding. Stacey Abrams group Fair Fight has already raised nearly $10 million since Friday and on the GOP side:
Club for Growth Action announces it will spend upwards of $10 million to "educate the public about the policy positions of Senators Perdue and Loeffler" in #GASenRunoff. @club4growth pic.twitter.com/72cbL1YAdn — Evie Fordham (@eviefordham) November 11, 2020
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’ll be shocked if the combined totals spent on these runoff elections isn’t half a billion or more. The point being that when you add in all the media, the political phone calls and barnstorming the state by all 4 candidates and their surrogates, it’s safe to say voters in Georgia are going to be allowed a nanosecond of peace until this is over. And the national media will make sure no one outside of Georgia forgets about it either.
Think of it as election overtime. No? That doesn’t help? Well, sorry but we’re stuck with it.


hotair--2020-11-11--Trump: ABC/WaPo is guilty of having produced a "possibly illegal suppression poll"

Nothing portrays seriousness of purpose in alleging widespread voter fraud like pausing to fart out the idea that it should be against the law to publish an outlier poll .
I don ’ t know why he ’ s singling out ABC/WaPo .
Their margin was the most outlandish among the field surveying Wisconsin , sure , but every other poll of the state in the final weeks of the race besides Trafalgar ’ s had Biden winning in a walk .
Reuters had him up by 10 points in its final poll .
The New York Times had him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know why he ’ d assume that those garish leads hurt him more than they hurt the Democrat .
I won ’ t revisit the substance of this post at length here , but Trump had a more enthusiastic base than Biden did and thus Biden ’ s more lukewarm supporters in Wisconsin may have taken the polls there as evidence that they didn ’ t need to turn out for him after all .
Suppression polls versus complacency polls : Choose your own adventure .
We ’ re nearing the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face-saving “ I was cheated ” operation .
Phase one is the “ respectable ” phase , where he insists on recounts and uses the time to scrounge for evidence of actual fraud in hopes of making something happen in court .
He ’ s within his rights to do that , even if he ’ s acting in bad faith considering that most of the suits brought thus far are borderline frivolous .
In fact , some claims popular among the base are so frivolously conspiratorial that Trump ’ s lawyers aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and some of Trump ’ s own DHS employees are swatting them down ) .
“ [ T ] he Trump legal team isn ’ t presenting the arguments made by the super sleuths on twitter and they should probably ask themselves why that is , ” said Seth Mandel .
At the moment , most of the litigation involves penny-ante attempts to get 100 or so Biden ballots here or there thrown out .
The most ambitious effort so far would declare 10,000 or so ballots in Pennsylvania that arrived after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re meaningless to the outcome in the state — Biden will win by 50,000 votes or more even if those late-arriving ballots are trashed .
Then there ’ s this .
Think the Supreme Court ’ s gon na toss out 50 million votes or whatever based on this logic , which could have been litigated months or years ago ?
Jim Geraghty has a very good , clear-eyed round-up of where the litigation stands .
None of these suits are within a thousand miles legally of the sort of gamechanger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result and put Biden ’ s national victory in doubt .
The New York Times called around to election officials in all 50 states yesterday to ask if they ’ re aware of any irregularities that might have affected the outcome in their state .
They went 0 for 50 .
Increasingly officials around Trump are admitting to the media that yes , this legal effort is kabuki : Trump allies like Ted Cruz have begun complaining that Trump needs to bring in “ significant additional legal firepower ” to fight this battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be won while also conveniently sidestepping the fact that it ’ s the lack of evidence , not a lack of acumen among his attorneys , that ’ s hurting Trump ’ s “ voter fraud ” crusade .
All of which is a long way of saying that , for the moment , this is farce .
It ’ s a simulation of a serious legal effort to contest an election that appears incontestable in order to salve Trump ’ s hurt feelings , polish his brand as a “ fighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in from his fans .
The pretend skepticism being shown by Republicans doesn ’ t even have an internal logic : If widespread fraud elected Biden , we need to see those fraudulent ballots to make sure they didn ’ t fraudulently elect any Republicans too .
And if the outcome of the presidential election can ’ t be known until the states certify their results , there ’ s no reason for any congressional Republican to have declared victory yet .
So why did they ?
Conservative Henry Olsen points out another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic .
If you were going to rig an election for your side , says Olsen , logically you ’ d focus on swing states , not red or blue ones ; you ’ d run up the score in districts that are under your party ’ s control , where you have a better chance of hiding the evidence ; and the result of your fraud would show unusually large shifts towards your guy relative to trends in recent elections .
In reality , none of that was true .
Biden improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board , even in red states .
He didn ’ t have freakishly high turnout in blue districts relative to turnout for Trump in red districts .
( Trump actually improved on his 2016 showing in deep blue Philadelphia . )
And there are no unusual outliers in terms of patterns produced by the last few electoral cycles .
Biden continued a suburban trend towards Democrats in certain areas that had been trending blue in 2016 and 2018 .
Fox is so desperate for plausible claims of fraud to wow their viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
If you were going to rig an election on behalf of Biden and Harris , would you roll up to the polling place in … a “ Biden-Harris ” van ?
None of it makes any sense .
Fortunately for Trump , it doesn ’ t need to make sense to achieve his goal of giving fans a pretext to view him as the “ real winner ” of the election .
Unfortunately for him , judges are going to demand more .
As I say , this is the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court battle and the noise around it .
It ’ ll go on for the next week , until states move to certify their results .
Team Trump will try to halt that in court , but absent clear proof of fraud they ’ re not going to get a judge to do that .
That ’ s when we ’ ll begin the much more dangerous and illegitimate phase two , which is when Trump starts putting political pressure on state officials not to certify the results .
If Brian Kemp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania start scrambling to block the certification absent any credible evidence to doubt the result of the vote , this will shift suddenly from face-saving farce to nascent coup .
In fact , there ’ s already loose chatter about Pennsylvania ’ s state legislature possibly stepping in to declare Biden ’ s victory tainted and then sending their own pro-Trump slate of electors to the electoral college .
In September Barton Gellman wargamed the worst-case scenario for the election — one where Trump loses , predictably can ’ t accept it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cronies at the state level under a flimsy pretense of widespread fraud to declare him the winner no matter how the people of that state voted .
That would be an all-out coup against the duly-elected incoming government .
According to Gellman , some local Republicans had already discussed it : It ’ s true that the Constitution empowers states to choose their electors however they wish , although it ’ s debatable whether they can change their minds after they ’ ve already committed to letting voters decide .
( Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution permits the vice president and the cabinet to remove the president for “ incapacity ” subject to ratification by Congress .
I doubt Trump fans would have trouble calling that a coup even though it followed constitutional procedure . )
Some Pennsylvania politicians are already beginning to flirt with the coup scenario : One would think Pennsylvania ’ s legislators might grasp that invalidating an election to appease a strongman ’ s ego would be a declaration of out-and-out war , but the logic of Trump bootlicking requires prioritizing his feelings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
Then again , it ’ s worth an occasional reminder that PA alone can ’ t do it for Trump : He ’ d need to get Pennsylvania , Georgia , and one other state to pull a coup on Biden and their voters in order to push the Democrat below 270 electoral votes .
The fact that anyone is so much as idly speculating about states overturning their own elections today absent any proof of game-changing fraud is the surest sign yet that this country is on its way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it ’ s a process that happens “ gradually , then suddenly , ” as Hemingway famously described bankruptcy .
I think we ’ re still in the “ gradually ” phase but I wouldn ’ t bet a lot of money on it at this point .
Heath Mayo summed up my feelings about the past week better than I can : “ The vindication of the Never Trumpers wasn ’ t the election results .
It ’ s what ’ s happening right now.
” I ’ ll leave you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in the “ farce ” phase .

Nothing portrays seriousness of purpose in alleging widespread voter fraud like pausing to fart out the idea that it should be against the law to publish an outlier poll.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326519025552265216
I don’t know why he’s singling out ABC/WaPo. Their margin was the most outlandish among the field surveying Wisconsin, sure, but every other poll of the state in the final weeks of the race besides Trafalgar’s had Biden winning in a walk. Reuters had him up by 10 points in its final poll. The New York Times had him up 11. I also don’t know why he’d assume that those garish leads hurt him more than they hurt the Democrat. I won’t revisit the substance of this post at length here, but Trump had a more enthusiastic base than Biden did and thus Biden’s more lukewarm supporters in Wisconsin may have taken the polls there as evidence that they didn’t need to turn out for him after all. Suppression polls versus complacency polls: Choose your own adventure.
We’re nearing the end of phase one of Trump’s face-saving “I was cheated” operation. Phase one is the “respectable” phase, where he insists on recounts and uses the time to scrounge for evidence of actual fraud in hopes of making something happen in court. He’s within his rights to do that, even if he’s acting in bad faith considering that most of the suits brought thus far are borderline frivolous. In fact, some claims popular among the base are so frivolously conspiratorial that Trump’s lawyers aren’t even pushing them in court (and some of Trump’s own DHS employees are swatting them down). “[T]he Trump legal team isn’t presenting the arguments made by the super sleuths on twitter and they should probably ask themselves why that is,” said Seth Mandel. At the moment, most of the litigation involves penny-ante attempts to get 100 or so Biden ballots here or there thrown out. The most ambitious effort so far would declare 10,000 or so ballots in Pennsylvania that arrived after Election Day to be illegal. But they’re meaningless to the outcome in the state — Biden will win by 50,000 votes or more even if those late-arriving ballots are trashed.
Then there’s this. Think the Supreme Court’s gonna toss out 50 million votes or whatever based on this logic, which could have been litigated months or years ago?
The basic claim at the heart of Trump’s new PA lawsuit is that mail-in voting *itself* is unconstitutional. Never mind that we’ve had it for decades. Never mind that they’d had months to make this argument. Never mind that it would disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) November 9, 2020
Jim Geraghty has a very good, clear-eyed round-up of where the litigation stands. None of these suits are within a thousand miles legally of the sort of gamechanger that might invalidate a state’s result and put Biden’s national victory in doubt. The New York Times called around to election officials in all 50 states yesterday to ask if they’re aware of any irregularities that might have affected the outcome in their state. They went 0 for 50. Increasingly officials around Trump are admitting to the media that yes, this legal effort is kabuki:
“This is unsustainable,” a senior White House official tells me, emphasizing there’s no path to victory for Trump: “It’s not wrong for Biden’s team to call it ‘theater.’” https://t.co/7WPWAScn7J — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) November 11, 2020
A Republican source pointed out to me that Trump is doing to the entire Republican party — with a few exceptions — what he did to Sean Spicer the day of his inauguration: making them blatantly lie to protect his ego. Is Spicer'd a verb? — Jon Ward (@jonward11) November 10, 2020
Trump allies like Ted Cruz have begun complaining that Trump needs to bring in “significant additional legal firepower” to fight this battle, which correctly signals pessimism that it can be won while also conveniently sidestepping the fact that it’s the lack of evidence, not a lack of acumen among his attorneys, that’s hurting Trump’s “voter fraud” crusade.
All of which is a long way of saying that, for the moment, this is farce. It’s a simulation of a serious legal effort to contest an election that appears incontestable in order to salve Trump’s hurt feelings, polish his brand as a “fighter,” and keep the money flowing in from his fans. The pretend skepticism being shown by Republicans doesn’t even have an internal logic:
Last week’s Senate and Presidential races were decided on the same ballots. You can’t accept the results of one without the other. https://t.co/5qtzRY2QMF — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) November 10, 2020
Just leaving a reminder here that every single Republican Senator and Congressman currently in office claimed victory in their most recent campaign after ~the media~ called it for them. — Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) November 10, 2020
If widespread fraud elected Biden, we need to see those fraudulent ballots to make sure they didn’t fraudulently elect any Republicans too. And if the outcome of the presidential election can’t be known until the states certify their results, there’s no reason for any congressional Republican to have declared victory yet. So why did they?
Conservative Henry Olsen points out another silly flaw in the “conspiracy” logic. If you were going to rig an election for your side, says Olsen, logically you’d focus on swing states, not red or blue ones; you’d run up the score in districts that are under your party’s control, where you have a better chance of hiding the evidence; and the result of your fraud would show unusually large shifts towards your guy relative to trends in recent elections. In reality, none of that was true. Biden improved on Hillary Clinton’s showing across the board, even in red states. He didn’t have freakishly high turnout in blue districts relative to turnout for Trump in red districts. (Trump actually improved on his 2016 showing in deep blue Philadelphia.) And there are no unusual outliers in terms of patterns produced by the last few electoral cycles. Biden continued a suburban trend towards Democrats in certain areas that had been trending blue in 2016 and 2018.
Fox is so desperate for plausible claims of fraud to wow their viewers with that they resorted to this last night. If you were going to rig an election on behalf of Biden and Harris, would you roll up to the polling place in … a “Biden-Harris” van?
This is where we're at right now. Laura Ingraham brings on an unidentified "whistleblower" — with hidden face and altered voice — to claim that folks literally from a Biden-Harris bus were altering ballots in Nevada. pic.twitter.com/b8xGe8KXSb — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) November 11, 2020
None of it makes any sense. Fortunately for Trump, it doesn’t need to make sense to achieve his goal of giving fans a pretext to view him as the “real winner” of the election. Unfortunately for him, judges are going to demand more.
As I say, this is the “respectable” phase of the operation, the court battle and the noise around it. It’ll go on for the next week, until states move to certify their results. Team Trump will try to halt that in court, but absent clear proof of fraud they’re not going to get a judge to do that. That’s when we’ll begin the much more dangerous and illegitimate phase two, which is when Trump starts putting political pressure on state officials not to certify the results. If Brian Kemp, Doug Ducey, or state officials in Pennsylvania start scrambling to block the certification absent any credible evidence to doubt the result of the vote, this will shift suddenly from face-saving farce to nascent coup. In fact, there’s already loose chatter about Pennsylvania’s state legislature possibly stepping in to declare Biden’s victory tainted and then sending their own pro-Trump slate of electors to the electoral college. In September Barton Gellman wargamed the worst-case scenario for the election — one where Trump loses, predictably can’t accept it, and then tries to activate Trump cronies at the state level under a flimsy pretense of widespread fraud to declare him the winner no matter how the people of that state voted. That would be an all-out coup against the duly-elected incoming government. According to Gellman, some local Republicans had already discussed it:
In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign. “I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.
It’s true that the Constitution empowers states to choose their electors however they wish, although it’s debatable whether they can change their minds after they’ve already committed to letting voters decide. (Of course, it’s also true that the Constitution permits the vice president and the cabinet to remove the president for “incapacity” subject to ratification by Congress. I doubt Trump fans would have trouble calling that a coup even though it followed constitutional procedure.) Some Pennsylvania politicians are already beginning to flirt with the coup scenario:
PA's state senate majority leader, Jake Corman (R), has said for months that the state legislature plays no role in appointing electors, according to PA law. But now, facing "pressure" to overturn the results, he's hedging that statement, saying that's in "normal circumstances" pic.twitter.com/8mEnLcx86l — Andrew Prokop (@awprokop) November 11, 2020
One would think Pennsylvania’s legislators might grasp that invalidating an election to appease a strongman’s ego would be a declaration of out-and-out war, but the logic of Trump bootlicking requires prioritizing his feelings over the basic stability of the United States. Then again, it’s worth an occasional reminder that PA alone can’t do it for Trump: He’d need to get Pennsylvania, Georgia, and one other state to pull a coup on Biden and their voters in order to push the Democrat below 270 electoral votes.
The fact that anyone is so much as idly speculating about states overturning their own elections today absent any proof of game-changing fraud is the surest sign yet that this country is on its way to collapse. The collapse has already begun; it’s a process that happens “gradually, then suddenly,” as Hemingway famously described bankruptcy. I think we’re still in the “gradually” phase but I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it at this point. Heath Mayo summed up my feelings about the past week better than I can: “The vindication of the Never Trumpers wasn’t the election results. It’s what’s happening right now.”
I’ll leave you with this, since we’re still in the “farce” phase.


hotair--2020-11-11--AOC and Rashida Tlaib push back against Democratic moderates blaming them for House losses

In the past two days I ’ ve written about Democratic moderates ’ criticism of the far left wing of the party , in particular AOC and the Squad .
Rep. Conor Lamb said that messages in support of “ defunding the police and banning fracking ” made it very difficult for him to win re-election in Pennsylvania .
Lamb said , “ the rhetoric and the policies and all that stuff — it has gone way too far .
It needs to be dialed back.
” Yesterday , House Majority Whip James Clyburn joined in that criticism : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The slogan he was referring to was “ defund the police.
” But the far-left wing of the party is not backing down .
Both AOC and Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib fired back at the moderates .
Last night Politico published a story focused on Rep. Tlaib ’ s pushback : Rashida Tlaib isn ’ t apologizing for wanting to yank money away from bad police departments .
She has no second thoughts about her embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement , or for wanting to aggressively fight climate change… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks people to sacrifice their freedom and their rights any longer , ” said Tlaib , whose Michigan district is among the poorest in the country .
“ And if we truly want to unify our country , we have to really respect every single voice .
We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters , but we don ’ t say that willingly for my Black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people.
” Tlaib and other top progressives have been circulating a memo with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memo was prepared by Justice Democrats , the Sunrise Movement and other far left groups .
It opens by acknowledging that progressives are being blamed for poor results : As we speak , Congressional Democrats are debating why they underperformed and some have been quick to blame progressives .
There is no denying Republicans levied salient rhetorical attacks against Democrats , but these will continue to happen as they do every cycle .
We can not let Republican narratives drive our party away from Democrats ’ core base of support : young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and social movements who are the present and future of the party… Scapegoating progressives and Black activists for their demands and messaging is not the lesson to be learned here .
It was their organizing efforts , energy and calls for change needed in their communities that drove up voter turnout .
This is a clever attempt to create a common enemy , i.e .
“ Republican narratives ” but what the memo overlooks is that the Republican narrative is effective because it ’ s true .
Saying that the left wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered an unfair attack by moderates Dems because Biden is against it .
But it ’ s a completely accurate description of what the Squad wants .
Voters simply aren ’ t on board with that and the result is that the far left creates an uphill battle for Democrats in swing districts .
Also , I ’ d like to see the authors of this screed tell Rep. Clyburn to his face that he ’ s “ scapegoating…Black activists.
” I think he ’ d have a strong reaction to that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NY Times piece advising progressives how to combine race-baiting and class warfare to create more effective attacks .
I mention it because the left is really invested in this idea so I think you ’ re going to see a lot more of this in the future .
Finally , we come to what I consider the truly clueless part of the memo .
In this section , the progressives argue that , hey , it ’ s not progressives losing seats in the House , it ’ s the moderates : This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these talking points into memes which she posted on her Twitter feed yesterday : I just want to highlight this one particular meme .
Notice that claim in the upper right corner : The claim that 2/3 of Americans support Medicare for All is intentionally misleading .
As the Kaiser Family Foundation pointed out , that ’ s only true until people learn about the actual trade-offs , including the fact that they won ’ t be able to keep their current insurance : KFF polling finds public support for Medicare-for-all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment ( Figure 9 ) .
KFF polling found that when such a plan is described in terms of the trade-offs ( higher taxes but lower out-of-pocket costs ) , the public is almost equally split in their support ( Figure 10 ) .
KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan , suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters ( 67 percent ) of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep their current health insurance coverage ( Figure 11 ) .
KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan ( Figure 12 ) .
Not even Democrats say they are eager for another remake of the health system .
AOC ’ s meme is intentionally trying to mislead people in that regard .
So pointing out that 8 Democrats who oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument for M4A .
It ’ s actually an argument in support of what Rep. Clyburn and Rep. Lamb have been saying , i.e .
when the far left talks up these extreme positions it ’ s the moderates who take the hit .
And this meme shows exactly that .
AOC is using the losses of moderates because of her rhetoric ( and others ) as proof that moderates are just losers .
What AOC is implying ( upper left portion of the meme ) is that if these moderates had only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , they ’ d have survived .
It would help to know exactly what swing districts she ’ s talking about but I don ’ t think that ’ s going to work in every case .
This really is the crux of the issue .
AOC runs in a far left district in New York and thinks that someone with her views could waltz in and win Conor Lamb ’ s reddish district in western Pennsylvania .
I don ’ t think that ’ s likely and her very mixed results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from a given but that ’ s what she ’ s pushing on the party .
This battle within the party between the left and the far left will continue until AOC and the Squad have wiped out all of the moderates .
By that point , Republicans may control the House again .

In the past two days I’ve written about Democratic moderates’ criticism of the far left wing of the party, in particular AOC and the Squad. Rep. Conor Lamb said that messages in support of “defunding the police and banning fracking” made it very difficult for him to win re-election in Pennsylvania. Lamb said, “the rhetoric and the policies and all that stuff — it has gone way too far. It needs to be dialed back.”
Yesterday, House Majority Whip James Clyburn joined in that criticism: “Stop sloganeering. Sloganeering kills people.” The slogan he was referring to was “defund the police.”
But the far-left wing of the party is not backing down. Both AOC and Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib fired back at the moderates. Last night Politico published a story focused on Rep. Tlaib’s pushback:
Rashida Tlaib isn’t apologizing for wanting to yank money away from bad police departments. She has no second thoughts about her embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement, or for wanting to aggressively fight climate change… “We are not interested in unity that asks people to sacrifice their freedom and their rights any longer,” said Tlaib, whose Michigan district is among the poorest in the country. “And if we truly want to unify our country, we have to really respect every single voice. We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters, but we don’t say that willingly for my Black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people.”
Tlaib and other top progressives have been circulating a memo with their takeaways from the election results. The memo was prepared by Justice Democrats, the Sunrise Movement and other far left groups. It opens by acknowledging that progressives are being blamed for poor results:
As we speak, Congressional Democrats are debating why they underperformed and some have been quick to blame progressives. There is no denying Republicans levied salient rhetorical attacks against Democrats, but these will continue to happen as they do every cycle. We cannot let Republican narratives drive our party away from Democrats’ core base of support: young people, Black, Brown, working class, and social movements who are the present and future of the party… Scapegoating progressives and Black activists for their demands and messaging is not the lesson to be learned here. It was their organizing efforts, energy
and calls for change needed in their communities that drove up voter turnout.
This is a clever attempt to create a common enemy, i.e. “Republican narratives” but what the memo overlooks is that the Republican narrative is effective because it’s true. Saying that the left wants to “defund the police” is considered an unfair attack by moderates Dems because Biden is against it. But it’s a completely accurate description of what the Squad wants. Voters simply aren’t on board with that and the result is that the far left creates an uphill battle for Democrats in swing districts.
Also, I’d like to see the authors of this screed tell Rep. Clyburn to his face that he’s “scapegoating…Black activists.” I think he’d have a strong reaction to that.
The memo goes on to highlight this NY Times piece advising progressives how to combine race-baiting and class warfare to create more effective attacks. I mention it because the left is really invested in this idea so I think you’re going to see a lot more of this in the future.
Finally, we come to what I consider the truly clueless part of the memo. In this section, the progressives argue that, hey, it’s not progressives losing seats in the House, it’s the moderates:
Four of the six House Democrats who lost rank among the ten most conservative Democrats in the House (Peterson, Brindisi, Cunningham, Horn). All six rank among the 22 most conservative… All of the Democrats in swing districts who are Medicare for All co-sponsors won their re-elections, and all-but-one of the Democrats in swing districts who are Green New Deal co-sponsors won their re-elections.
This brings us to AOC who has turned some of these talking points into memes which she posted on her Twitter feed yesterday:
I just want to highlight this one particular meme. Notice that claim in the upper right corner:
The claim that 2/3 of Americans support Medicare for All is intentionally misleading. As the Kaiser Family Foundation pointed out, that’s only true until people learn about the actual trade-offs, including the fact that they won’t be able to keep their current insurance:
KFF polling finds public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 9). KFF polling found that when such a plan is described in terms of the trade-offs (higher taxes but lower out-of-pocket costs), the public is almost equally split in their support (Figure 10). KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan, suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 11). KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12).
Not even Democrats say they are eager for another remake of the health system. AOC’s meme is intentionally trying to mislead people in that regard.
So pointing out that 8 Democrats who oppose M4A lost their seats is not an argument for M4A. It’s actually an argument in support of what Rep. Clyburn and Rep. Lamb have been saying, i.e. when the far left talks up these extreme positions it’s the moderates who take the hit. And this meme shows exactly that. AOC is using the losses of moderates because of her rhetoric (and others) as proof that moderates are just losers.
What AOC is implying (upper left portion of the meme) is that if these moderates had only embraced M4A (and defunding the police), they’d have survived. It would help to know exactly what swing districts she’s talking about but I don’t think that’s going to work in every case.
This really is the crux of the issue. AOC runs in a far left district in New York and thinks that someone with her views could waltz in and win Conor Lamb’s reddish district in western Pennsylvania. I don’t think that’s likely and her very mixed results in the primaries suggests it’s far from a given but that’s what she’s pushing on the party.
This battle within the party between the left and the far left will continue until AOC and the Squad have wiped out all of the moderates. By that point, Republicans may control the House again.