hotair--2020-11-06--Oh, great. Now we're catching COVID from minks?

As if you didn ’ t have enough to worry about already , right ?
This startling bit of news comes to us from Denmark , home to the world ’ s largest center of mink farming .
But they ’ ll be losing that title shortly , at least for a while .
Scientists there have found that the farm population of minks has become infected with a mutated version of the novel coronavirus .
What ’ s worse is that this strain is probably resistant to any vaccines currently in development .
And to top it all off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jump to at least a dozen human beings .
As a result , they ’ re about to exterminate every mink in the country , numbering around 17 million of them .
The Wall Street Journal has the details .
( Subscription required ) The novel coronavirus has found a new victim : Denmark ’ s entire population of farmed mink has been ordered culled after researchers discovered the animals harbor new mutations of the virus that threaten the effectiveness of a future vaccine and are now spreading to humans .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to 17 million of the animals , which are farmed for their fur , is a crippling blow to the world ’ s largest mink industry .
But officials say it is a necessary precaution to reduce the risk posed by the new mutations , which could change the gene structure in the virus in a way that could make it less susceptible to vaccines now under development .
“ Studies have shown that the mutations could affect the current candidates for a Covid-19 vaccine , ” Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least 12 Danes have been infected with a mutated coronavirus connected to mink , the government said .
The medical community is trying to help keep people calm as they sort this out .
Doctors in Denmark are saying that this mutation “ hits all the scary buttons ” but it ’ s not as terrible as it may sound .
Okay , but it ’ s still pretty bad .
Let ’ s consider that the virus didn ’ t show up there until a little more than eight months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jump from people to minks , mutated , and jumped back again .
And the new mutation appears to be at least as contagious as the previous editions , if not more so .
Add to that the belief that the vaccines we ’ re all waiting for probably won ’ t provide much protection and that sounds an awful lot like a bad situation .
If , as most medical experts believe , the novel coronavirus arose in bats or some other wild animal in China ( with or without the intervention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has evolved to affect human beings and now a member of the weasel family , that sounds like a pretty adaptable virus .
I ’ m left wondering about how this changes the game in the future .
It ’ s taken us almost a year to even come close to having a vaccine ready to come out of trials and the damned virus has already done an end-run around us ?
I ’ m no doctor , obviously , so keep an ear out for what the experts have to say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This news is also eerily similar to a new movie that ’ s being released in what may one of the worst decisions to come out of Hollywood since they greenlighted that remake of Ghostbusters .
It ’ s the next film from Michael Bay so of course , I wanted to see what he was up to .
The new film is called Songbird and it ’ s the story of a dystopian future set in 2024 .
The pandemic is still raging with a death toll in the hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a much higher mortality rate ) too quickly for vaccines to get it under control .
( Does any of this sound familiar yet ? )
At its center is a love story described as a modern-day Romeo and Juliette tale , but what ’ s keeping the lovers apart is “ her front door and the virus.
” I ’ m sorry , but who do they think wants to watch a movie like that now ?
If I want to be horrified in that fashion , I ’ ll just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here ’ s the trailer for the film , just in case you haven ’ t had enough self-abuse for one week watching the election results drag on .

As if you didn’t have enough to worry about already, right? This startling bit of news comes to us from Denmark, home to the world’s largest center of mink farming. But they’ll be losing that title shortly, at least for a while. Scientists there have found that the farm population of minks has become infected with a mutated version of the novel coronavirus. What’s worse is that this strain is probably resistant to any vaccines currently in development. And to top it all off, the mutated virus has already made the jump to at least a dozen human beings. As a result, they’re about to exterminate every mink in the country, numbering around 17 million of them. The Wall Street Journal has the details. (Subscription required)
The novel coronavirus has found a new victim: Denmark’s entire population of farmed mink has been ordered culled after researchers discovered the animals harbor new mutations of the virus that threaten the effectiveness of a future vaccine and are now spreading to humans. The Danish government’s decision to kill up to 17 million of the animals, which are farmed for their fur, is a crippling blow to the world’s largest mink industry. But officials say it is a necessary precaution to reduce the risk posed by the new mutations, which could change the gene structure in the virus in a way that could make it less susceptible to vaccines now under development. “Studies have shown that the mutations could affect the current candidates for a Covid-19 vaccine,” Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke said in a news briefing Wednesday. At least 12 Danes have been infected with a mutated coronavirus connected to mink, the government said.
The medical community is trying to help keep people calm as they sort this out. Doctors in Denmark are saying that this mutation “hits all the scary buttons” but it’s not as terrible as it may sound. Okay, but it’s still pretty bad. Let’s consider that the virus didn’t show up there until a little more than eight months ago, it’s already made the jump from people to minks, mutated, and jumped back again. And the new mutation appears to be at least as contagious as the previous editions, if not more so. Add to that the belief that the vaccines we’re all waiting for probably won’t provide much protection and that sounds an awful lot like a bad situation.
If, as most medical experts believe, the novel coronavirus arose in bats or some other wild animal in China (with or without the intervention of a lab in Wuhan) and has evolved to affect human beings and now a member of the weasel family, that sounds like a pretty adaptable virus. I’m left wondering about how this changes the game in the future. It’s taken us almost a year to even come close to having a vaccine ready to come out of trials and the damned virus has already done an end-run around us? I’m no doctor, obviously, so keep an ear out for what the experts have to say, but this doesn’t sound good.
This news is also eerily similar to a new movie that’s being released in what may one of the worst decisions to come out of Hollywood since they greenlighted that remake of Ghostbusters. It’s the next film from Michael Bay so of course, I wanted to see what he was up to. The new film is called Songbird and it’s the story of a dystopian future set in 2024. The pandemic is still raging with a death toll in the hundreds of millions and the virus is mutating (with a much higher mortality rate) too quickly for vaccines to get it under control. (Does any of this sound familiar yet?) At its center is a love story described as a modern-day Romeo and Juliette tale, but what’s keeping the lovers apart is “her front door and the virus.”
I’m sorry, but who do they think wants to watch a movie like that now? If I want to be horrified in that fashion, I’ll just turn on CNN, thanks. Anyway, here’s the trailer for the film, just in case you haven’t had enough self-abuse for one week watching the election results drag on.


hotair--2020-11-06--AOC and Democrats are eager to archive records, make lists to ensure Trump allies face 'accountabili

AOC and Democrats are eager to archive records, make lists to ensure Trump allies face 'accountability'

This afternoon , AOC tweeted out a desire to make sure someone was keeping track of Trump supporter ’ s tweets so they could be held accountable for them : Hmmm .
I guess she can ’ t see the difference between “ personal responsibility ” which means success or failure is largely on you and the desire to create a list of bad people so they can be collectively shunned and punished by others .
Cancel culture is not personal responsibility , comrade , it ’ s mob punishment .
In any case , someone is already on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling the Trump Accountability Project : Who is this person ?
She ’ s a former Buttigieg staffer : I really don ’ t want to go down this rabbit hole but it ’ s exactly what it sounds like : We must never forget those who helped further the Trump agenda .
We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically .
But the world should never forget those who , when faced with a decision , chose to put their money , their time , and their reputations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging racism and anti-Semitism , and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country ’ s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
This is the usual online mob of progressives looking to harass people but a little more organized .
It ’ s a concerted effort to make Republicans into untouchables .
The site is collecting email addresses for people who want to know more .
I wonder if they ’ ll send out alerts whenever a former Trump cabinet junior staffer shows up at Five Guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible explanation for why AOC seems so chippy today .
That ’ s not coming out of nowhere .
At least one moderate House Democrats had some choice words yesterday for her left flank : I don ’ t know what AOC is hearing in private but I think she ’ s a lightning rod and right now House Democrats are feeling stormy about the outcome .
There were certainly plenty of people outside Congress who felt some kind of way about this “ accountability ” project .
This tweet has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are literally thousands of responses to this , few of them favorable : As is often the case , Bret Weinstein nails it : At some point I ’ d like to think someone in the media will notice this is pretty creepy sounding but for the most part they only check in to celebrate her .

This afternoon, AOC tweeted out a desire to make sure someone was keeping track of Trump supporter’s tweets so they could be held accountable for them:
Lol at the “party of personal responsibility” being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 6, 2020
Hmmm. I guess she can’t see the difference between “personal responsibility” which means success or failure is largely on you and the desire to create a list of bad people so they can be collectively shunned and punished by others. Cancel culture is not personal responsibility, comrade, it’s mob punishment.
In any case, someone is already on the job today, launching what they are calling the Trump Accountability Project:
https://twitter.com/emabrams/status/1324801501177499648
Who is this person? She’s a former Buttigieg staffer:
Former Buttigieg staffer here. What lovely people our political adversaries are. https://t.co/X5BNXFRKcu — Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) November 6, 2020
I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole but it’s exactly what it sounds like:
We must never forget those who helped further the Trump agenda. We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically. But the world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is the usual online mob of progressives looking to harass people but a little more organized. It’s a concerted effort to make Republicans into untouchables. The site is collecting email addresses for people who want to know more. I wonder if they’ll send out alerts whenever a former Trump cabinet junior staffer shows up at Five Guys. Who knows?
Reagan Battalion had a possible explanation for why AOC seems so chippy today.
There is a simple reason for those nutty @AOC tweets today. Most of the Democratic Party is blaming her for their loses in the house and she is desperate to change the conversation. https://t.co/lq6VoEo6Dh — Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) November 6, 2020
That’s not coming out of nowhere. At least one moderate House Democrats had some choice words yesterday for her left flank:
If we run this race again we will get fucking torn apart again in 2022, Spanberger says — Erica Werner (@ericawerner) November 5, 2020
I don’t know what AOC is hearing in private but I think she’s a lightning rod and right now House Democrats are feeling stormy about the outcome.
There were certainly plenty of people outside Congress who felt some kind of way about this “accountability” project. This tweet has been liked more than 6.4k times.
Fuck your "accountability," you petite tyrants. — James Lindsay, increasingly relevant (@ConceptualJames) November 6, 2020
Former Obama bros putting political enemies on lists? Really leaning into the brand. — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 6, 2020
There are literally thousands of responses to this, few of them favorable:
This is psycho https://t.co/FikGULPbaX — Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) November 6, 2020
Come and take it, Fascist. https://t.co/QsgOsP379P — Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) November 6, 2020
She’s keeping lists for her re-education camps https://t.co/zhHm3jMiCs — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) November 6, 2020
Contemporary Cancel Culture, finally, takes its place in Government. https://t.co/hunf14fPs0 — Benjamin🗣Boyce (@BenjaminABoyce) November 6, 2020
As is often the case, Bret Weinstein nails it:
You are an elected representative in a democratic republic and you are setting the stage for retribution against fellow citizens for the crime of holding a different opinion. It's un-American, you should stop it and council others to do the same. https://t.co/UN1tceoHVA — Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) November 6, 2020
At some point I’d like to think someone in the media will notice this is pretty creepy sounding but for the most part they only check in to celebrate her.
Update: There are more folks demanding lists today.


hotair--2020-11-06--Colbert chokes up during opening monologue, trashes Trump and GOP for "poisoning American democracy"

Stephen Colbert wants you to know that he is really upset about President Trump ’ s statements during his appearance in the White House press briefing room on Thursday .
Trump spoke to the White House press corps in response to the ballot counting process unfolding in several states .
Colbert choked up as he spoke and it was all very weird , even for the Trump deranged late-night show host .
Colbert recorded the opening monologue after he recorded the rest of Thursday night ’ s show .
His hyperbolic reaction to Trump ’ s statements is not funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the same level of derangement that he exhibits .
Just as Colbert says that Trump ’ s statements were to be expected , so was Colbert ’ s reaction .
Funny how the left is so lacking in self-awareness , right ?
Colbert ’ s hyper-partisan attacks on President Trump and Republicans might not be such a big deal if he didn ’ t have such a large platform .
Besides Late Night with Stephen Colbert , Colbert also created and produces a show built solely around the election of President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Showtime .
Like many anti-Trump grifters , he is making money off of spewing hatred while they gaslight everyone else .
The host was dressed all in black because he dressed “ for a funeral because Donald Trump tried really hard to kill something tonight.
’ He said Trump lied for 15 minutes in the press briefing room .
He mocked Trump ’ s assertions of voter fraud and shenanigans by Democrats .
He showed a video clip of Trump in 2016 where he said he ’ d accept the results of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colbert hung his head as he choked up .
It hurts so much , you see .
Yeah , it ’ s pretty lame .
He drones on in righteous indignation about Trump ’ s insistence that the process plays out .
He also drags in all Republicans .
He expects the entire party to cower to liberal demands that Biden ’ s victory is immediately respected and for Republican voters to denounce Trump ’ s behavior .
Everything Trump has done “ is now in some way presidential behavior , ” Colbert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejects what he just did.
” He continued , “ And that means , for all the predictable behavior of the last few days and the last four years , right now something unpredictable needs to happen .
Republicans have to speak up .
All of them .
Because for evil to succeed , all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing .
So , say something right now , Republicans.
” Turning his attention to the GOP , Colbert said it ’ s in their “ best interest ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ You only survived this up until now because a lot of voters didn ’ t want to believe everything that was obvious to so many of us : that Donald Trump is a fascist , ” the host added .
“ And when it comes to democracy versus fascism , there are not fine people on both sides .
So you need to choose : Donald Trump or the American people ?
” He sounds just like one of The Lincoln Project people , doesn ’ t he ?
He calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debunked lie that Trump called white supremacists “ fine people ” and then says a Trump supporter can not support both him and the American people .
He chastised Republicans for their silence up until now and demanded they speak up .
In case Colbert has been too subtle in his Trump hatred over the last four years , “ evil ” he refers to is Trump himself .
Some Republicans have jumped out in front and denounced the President and called for him to remain silent .
Remaining silent and passively allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s way .
The reason so many voters flock to him is because of his fighting spirit .
He fights for what he thinks is right .
He is doing that now and he also does it for his supporters .
A typical Republican running for president would be far more passive .
Status quo Republicans do not fight back – just ask President McCain or President Romney for comment .
Trump is allowed to question the results .
He is allowed to initiate legal action .
His supporters are entitled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering Democrat talking points in that monologue .
A tweet from Biden ( his staffers ) says “ no one will take our democracy ” which is Colbert ’ s slam against Trump .
Trump is destroying democracy .
We are a constitutional republic , though , and President Trump has rights , too .
There is a process for all of this .
We are in this spot right now because it was the Democrats ’ plan all along to use the coronavirus pandemic to push for universal mail-in voting .
Local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that across the country .
Republicans run many of these locales that are in question right now and they are as responsible for their part in the chaos as Democrats .
The legal process has to play out .
I ’ ll be honest , when I went to bed on Election Night , I thought I witnessed Democrats stealing a presidential election in real-time .
There was a whole lot of odd things happening , including the counting of ballots just randomly stopping .
Then batches of ballots would show up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure looked like ballot harvesting to me .
You can not convince me that if the shoe was on the other foot , the Biden campaign would not be contesting the results , too .
Just remember that it was Hillary Clinton who advised the Biden campaign to not concede to President Trump… ever .
Trump is not killing democracy .
This is what democracy looks like .

Stephen Colbert wants you to know that he is really upset about President Trump’s statements during his appearance in the White House press briefing room on Thursday. Trump spoke to the White House press corps in response to the ballot counting process unfolding in several states. Colbert choked up as he spoke and it was all very weird, even for the Trump deranged late-night show host.
Colbert recorded the opening monologue after he recorded the rest of Thursday night’s show. His hyperbolic reaction to Trump’s statements is not funny or entertaining to anyone who is not on the same level of derangement that he exhibits. Just as Colbert says that Trump’s statements were to be expected, so was Colbert’s reaction. Funny how the left is so lacking in self-awareness, right? Colbert’s hyper-partisan attacks on President Trump and Republicans might not be such a big deal if he didn’t have such a large platform. Besides Late Night with Stephen Colbert, Colbert also created and produces a show built solely around the election of President Trump – Our Cartoon President which airs on Showtime. Like many anti-Trump grifters, he is making money off of spewing hatred while they gaslight everyone else.
The host was dressed all in black because he dressed “for a funeral because Donald Trump tried really hard to kill something tonight.’ He said Trump lied for 15 minutes in the press briefing room. He mocked Trump’s assertions of voter fraud and shenanigans by Democrats. He showed a video clip of Trump in 2016 where he said he’d accept the results of the 2016 election if he won. Then Colbert hung his head as he choked up. It hurts so much, you see. Yeah, it’s pretty lame.
“I didn’t expect this to break my heart,” Colbert said in response. “For him to cast a dark shadow on our most sacred right, from the briefing room in the White House — our house, not his — that is devastating. This is heartbreaking for the same reason that I didn’t want him to get COVID, certainly wanted him to survive, because he is the President of the United States. That office means something, and that office should have some shred of decency.”
He drones on in righteous indignation about Trump’s insistence that the process plays out. He also drags in all Republicans. He expects the entire party to cower to liberal demands that Biden’s victory is immediately respected and for Republican voters to denounce Trump’s behavior.
Everything Trump has done “is now in some way presidential behavior,” Colbert remarked, “unless every single person rejects what he just did.” He continued, “And that means, for all the predictable behavior of the last few days and the last four years, right now something unpredictable needs to happen. Republicans have to speak up. All of them. Because for evil to succeed, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing. So, say something right now, Republicans.” Turning his attention to the GOP, Colbert said it’s in their “best interest” to “get off the Trump train.” “You only survived this up until now because a lot of voters didn’t want to believe everything that was obvious to so many of us: that Donald Trump is a fascist,” the host added. “And when it comes to democracy versus fascism, there are not fine people on both sides. So you need to choose: Donald Trump or the American people?”
He sounds just like one of The Lincoln Project people, doesn’t he? He calls Trump a fascist, conjures up the debunked lie that Trump called white supremacists “fine people” and then says a Trump supporter cannot support both him and the American people. He chastised Republicans for their silence up until now and demanded they speak up.
“For all the predictable behavior of the last few days and the last four years,” Colbert said, “right now, something unpredictable needs to happen. Republicans have to speak up. All of them.” “Because for evil to succeed, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing,” Colbert continued, paraphrasing British philosopher John Stuart Mill. “So say something right now, Republicans.”
In case Colbert has been too subtle in his Trump hatred over the last four years, “evil” he refers to is Trump himself. Some Republicans have jumped out in front and denounced the President and called for him to remain silent.
We want every vote counted, yes every legal vote (of course). But, if you have legit concerns about fraud present EVIDENCE and take it to court. STOP Spreading debunked misinformation… This is getting insane. — Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) November 6, 2020
Former Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum called Trump’s remarks “disappointing and shocking” during a Thursday appearance on CNN. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who also served as an adviser to Trump, criticized Trump’s comments on ABC News Thursday. “This kind of thing—all it does is inflame without informing,” Christie said.
Remaining silent and passively allowing events to unfold isn’t Trump’s way. The reason so many voters flock to him is because of his fighting spirit. He fights for what he thinks is right. He is doing that now and he also does it for his supporters. A typical Republican running for president would be far more passive. Status quo Republicans do not fight back – just ask President McCain or President Romney for comment.
Trump is allowed to question the results. He is allowed to initiate legal action. His supporters are entitled to fight back with him.
Colbert was delivering Democrat talking points in that monologue. A tweet from Biden (his staffers) says “no one will take our democracy” which is Colbert’s slam against Trump. Trump is destroying democracy. We are a constitutional republic, though, and President Trump has rights, too. There is a process for all of this.
No one is going to take our democracy away from us. Not now, not ever. America has come too far, fought too many battles, and endured too much to let that happen. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 6, 2020
We are in this spot right now because it was the Democrats’ plan all along to use the coronavirus pandemic to push for universal mail-in voting. Local election officials are not prepared to deal with that across the country. Republicans run many of these locales that are in question right now and they are as responsible for their part in the chaos as Democrats. The legal process has to play out. I’ll be honest, when I went to bed on Election Night, I thought I witnessed Democrats stealing a presidential election in real-time. There was a whole lot of odd things happening, including the counting of ballots just randomly stopping. Then batches of ballots would show up, all for Joe Biden. That sure looked like ballot harvesting to me. You cannot convince me that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Biden campaign would not be contesting the results, too.
Just remember that it was Hillary Clinton who advised the Biden campaign to not concede to President Trump… ever. Trump is not killing democracy. This is what democracy looks like.


hotair--2020-11-06--2020 polling part 3: Bad polling shaped the election

If you missed part 1 or part 2 you should read those first .
Part one just argues that much of the polling was really bad again this year .
There doesn ’ t seem to be a lot of disagreement about that .
Part 2 argues that this year ’ s polling crisis , coming after the failure in 2016 , has created a credibility crisis for the pollsters and the media .
Again , there doesn ’ t seem to be a lot of disagreement about that .
I go on to argue that the only hope of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media to offer a convincing explanation .
Barring that , it ’ s fair to assume the partisan outcome may have had some partisan intent .
In this part I ’ m going to argue something which is more controversial but which seems fairly obvious .
The bad polling shaped the election .
Specifically , it likely helped the Democrats far more than any election interference dreamed up by the Russians or the Iranians .
It was a close election but it didn ’ t appear that way As I pointed out here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10-15 seats in the House .
In reality they have lost a net of five seats so far and may lose several more when the counting is done .
Polls consistently showed Biden leading nationally by 4-11 points .
Something like 24 separate polls conducted in October found Biden leading by 10 or more points .
But he currently leads nationally by less than 3 points .
That will increase as millions more votes come in from California , but it ’ s never going to get to 10 points .
So what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Senate races was a fairly divided race that was often presented by pollsters and the media as a possible blue wave election .
I ’ ve harped on this already in part 1 but Senator Susan Collins never led in a single poll and yet won by 7.5 points !
Trump is almost certainly going to lose the election but it really could have gone the other way .
The gap in Arizona is 40,000 and shrinking .
The gap in Wisconsin is 20,000 votes .
The gap in Nevada is similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14,000 votes and the gap in Georgia is currently less than 2,000 votes .
Yes , these numbers will change but at the moment , 100,000 votes spread over 5 states would change the outcome .
That ’ s about as close as it can get in an election where more than 145 million people voted .
The pollsters collectively produced a product which the media eagerly delivered to the American people .
And the message was that a “ repudiation ” of Trump was coming .
Since the election , several authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised repudiation didn ’ t happen .
This failure impacted both sides , but not equally My wife follows someone on Facebook who is a pretty outspoken Democrat .
He ’ s actually a wonderful person who I like a lot but since Tuesday he ’ s been complaining about how disappointed he is in the results .
Again , where is that repudiation that the polls and the media seemed to be promising ?
Today the Washington Post reported that Joe Biden ’ s camp was likely just as disappointed : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel let down at this point .
They were promised the moon and what they ’ ll end up getting is divided government with no way to claim a mandate .
That ’ s obviously not a great situation for a party that spent four years pretending they were the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars about to blow up the Death Star .
I can understand how they feel even if I ’ m not feeling that way myself .
Now let ’ s think about the impact bad polling had on Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling them one thing , consistently every single day : Trump was going to lose .
Not only that , but Republicans were going to lose the Senate and lose more House seats .
Democrats were ascendant .
The repudiation was coming .
Resistance was futile .
Every day for months , probably every hour of every day on some networks , this message was being hammered home .
And when there was occasionally a poll which maybe looked a bit better for the GOP , it was pronounced an outlier ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah , but most polls show… As this was happening , President Trump was saying the polls were wrong and was being endlessly ridiculed for it : Well , it turns out Trump was right .
Not about winning , which seems unlikely at this moment , but about many of the polls being off .
His campaign was right about the polls underestimating his chances just like they did in 2016 .
The point I want to make here is that both sides were influenced by the bad polling .
Democrats wasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have and wound up disappointed .
But I think the impact on Republicans has to be judged far worse .
Republicans were endlessly told they had no hope when in fact this was a pretty tight race .
For as long as there has been politics , there has been something referred to as the inevitability argument .
And even before Joe Biden entered the race , there were people arguing that he was likely going to run his campaign on the grounds of inevitability : Do you see how the inevitability argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an argument at all , it ’ s just a constant reference back to the polls showing your candidate is a fait accompli .
The pollsters and the media handed Joe Biden and his party an inevitability argument for month after month when it turns out wasn ’ t so inevitable .
In 2016 there was endless hand-wringing about the ways in which Trump garnered loads of free media coverage that probably boosted his campaign .
CNN , among others , was publicly shamed for covering his rallies .
And the media vowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kind of in kind contribution again .
This year the media gave Biden ’ s campaign a massive in kind contribution in the form of badly misleading polls that told one party to expect their heart ’ s desire and the other to expect defeat and nothing but defeat .
Yes , I know we can argue that maybe the polls were right until they suddenly shifted at the very end .
I have two responses for that .
• The national polls were pretty consistent .
They maybe showed some tightening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election were still way off in many places .
• If the truth of politics is that Americans frequently change their minds in the final 2-3 days of an election , what ’ s the point of doing polls at all ?
I mean , if it ’ s a given that even the final polls by the best pollsters will often be off by 5-7 points why are we bothering ?
It ’ s an admission that polls tell us nothing .
But getting back to my point , you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad polling played a role in shaping how the campaigns spent money and then , at the same time , deny that bad polling played a role in the outcome .
Decisions weren ’ t just being made by campaigns , they were also being made by voters .
Whether by incompetence or partisan intent , the pollsters and the media undeniably shaped this race in a way that hurt one party more than the other .
No election interference by Russia , Iran or China could ever come close to the impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be beaten soundly .
You literally can ’ t buy coverage like that .
Again , this is the point where I expect the partisans on the left will deny the obvious or shrug it off as whining .
But that ’ s just a dodge .
This stuff matters .
It has an impact .
The media daily acts as if that ’ s the case .
It ’ s pointless to deny it .
Like all counterfactual arguments , this one can ’ t be proven beyond all doubt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have happened if the polls had been much more accurate .
There is no Earth 2 we can compare this to in order to judge the outcome under slightly different circumstances .
But I think it strains credulity to claim that telling one party they are going to be big losers and the other they are going to be big winners didn ’ t impact enthusiasm , fundraising , maybe even turnout .
People don ’ t naturally rally to the loser ( or the expected loser ) in a contest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s only by sheer will and defiance on their part .
The media shouldn ’ t be allowed to shrug off their failure because the GOP didn ’ t completely crumble under the pressure of their false assumptions .
Again , as it stands now , this race could come down to 100,000 votes spread over 5 states .
Even if it ’ s double that in the end , is it really that hard to believe that if the entire country had seen this as a 4-5 point national race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it wouldn ’ t have mattered ?
I ’ m not even claiming Trump would have won .
Maybe Democrats would have redoubled their efforts or spent more carefully , or been less overconfident .
But it would have mattered .
And with a race this close it could have been decisive .
Americans deserve the chance to fight these battles in reality , not in whatever alternate universe the pollsters have , intentionally or not , created for us .

If you missed part 1 or part 2 you should read those first. Part one just argues that much of the polling was really bad again this year. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of disagreement about that. Part 2 argues that this year’s polling crisis, coming after the failure in 2016, has created a credibility crisis for the pollsters and the media. Again, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of disagreement about that. I go on to argue that the only hope of restoring credibility is for pollsters and the media to offer a convincing explanation. Barring that, it’s fair to assume the partisan outcome may have had some partisan intent.
In this part I’m going to argue something which is more controversial but which seems fairly obvious. The bad polling shaped the election. Specifically, it likely helped the Democrats far more than any election interference dreamed up by the Russians or the Iranians.
It was a close election but it didn’t appear that way
As I pointed out here, Democrats were expected to pick up 10-15 seats in the House. In reality they have lost a net of five seats so far and may lose several more when the counting is done.
Polls consistently showed Biden leading nationally by 4-11 points. Something like 24 separate polls conducted in October found Biden leading by 10 or more points. But he currently leads nationally by less than 3 points. That will increase as millions more votes come in from California, but it’s never going to get to 10 points.
So what you had, especially in some states and Senate races was a fairly divided race that was often presented by pollsters and the media as a possible blue wave election.
I’ve harped on this already in part 1 but Senator Susan Collins never led in a single poll and yet won by 7.5 points!
Trump is almost certainly going to lose the election but it really could have gone the other way. The gap in Arizona is 40,000 and shrinking. The gap in Wisconsin is 20,000 votes. The gap in Nevada is similar. The gap in Pennsylvania is currently 14,000 votes and the gap in Georgia is currently less than 2,000 votes. Yes, these numbers will change but at the moment, 100,000 votes spread over 5 states would change the outcome. That’s about as close as it can get in an election where more than 145 million people voted.
The pollsters collectively produced a product which the media eagerly delivered to the American people. And the message was that a “repudiation” of Trump was coming. Since the election, several authors have written about their disappointment that the promised repudiation didn’t happen.
This failure impacted both sides, but not equally
My wife follows someone on Facebook who is a pretty outspoken Democrat. He’s actually a wonderful person who I like a lot but since Tuesday he’s been complaining about how disappointed he is in the results. Again, where is that repudiation that the polls and the media seemed to be promising? Today the Washington Post reported that Joe Biden’s camp was likely just as disappointed:
The election night party Joe Biden planned in Delaware was built for a blue tsunami, with front-row seats for VIPs and a giant flag hung between two cranes, as his campaign advisers ultimately could not resist planning as if the polls that suggested a quick and commanding defeat of President Trump might be right. Instead, Democrats endured the second polling shock in four years, with election returns frequently coming in more favorable to Trump than in public surveys, in some cases outside the margin of error… The Biden campaign appeared to place big bets late in the campaign in the hopes that the public polling would be right, expanding its television buy to states Trump would win easily. In the final week, Biden made appearances in Ohio, where he stands eight points behind with 93 percent of votes counted, and Iowa, where he lost by eight points with 92 percent of votes counted. “We were operating in a reality that wasn’t reality, and we were operating off numbers that just were clearly not reflecting what turnout would be,” said one Democratic consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.
It’s fair to say most Democrats feel let down at this point. They were promised the moon and what they’ll end up getting is divided government with no way to claim a mandate. That’s obviously not a great situation for a party that spent four years pretending they were the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars about to blow up the Death Star.
I can understand how they feel even if I’m not feeling that way myself.
Now let’s think about the impact bad polling had on Republicans.
For months the polls have been telling them one thing, consistently every single day: Trump was going to lose.
Not only that, but Republicans were going to lose the Senate and lose more House seats. Democrats were ascendant. The repudiation was coming. Resistance was futile.
Every day for months, probably every hour of every day on some networks, this message was being hammered home. And when there was occasionally a poll which maybe looked a bit better for the GOP, it was pronounced an outlier (which technically it was) and discounted. Yeah, but most polls show…
As this was happening, President Trump was saying the polls were wrong and was being endlessly ridiculed for it:
During the campaign, Trump complained repeatedly of “suppression polls” by the news media, which he argued were an effort to discourage his supporters from coming to the polls. His advisers warned privately and publicly that traditional polling methodologies were not correctly reading the president’s support by failing to capture their expected turnout. On the trail, Trump would cherry-pick and read out polls that were more positive for him than public polling averages and internal data the campaign was using, which continued to show trouble in the northern states that are now likely to prove decisive if Biden wins. But as the campaign closed, his top advisers sought comfort in the fact that Trump had beaten the polling data four years earlier.
Well, it turns out Trump was right. Not about winning, which seems unlikely at this moment, but about many of the polls being off. His campaign was right about the polls underestimating his chances just like they did in 2016.
The point I want to make here is that both sides were influenced by the bad polling. Democrats wasted money in places they shouldn’t have and wound up disappointed. But I think the impact on Republicans has to be judged far worse. Republicans were endlessly told they had no hope when in fact this was a pretty tight race.
The inevitability argument
For as long as there has been politics, there has been something referred to as the inevitability argument. And even before Joe Biden entered the race, there were people arguing that he was likely going to run his campaign on the grounds of inevitability:
Joe Biden isn’t running for president. Yet. But it’s already becoming clear what sort of campaign he will run when he officially enters the race sometime next month: One based on the idea of his inevitability… Major endorsements. An early VP pick. Both are clear signs that what Biden wants to do — from the second he enters the race — is make clear that the field is really him and then everyone else. That he isn’t just one of the many candidates running, but that he’s the heavy favorite. Polling, generally speaking, bears out the idea that Biden starts the race on top.
Do you see how the inevitability argument works? It’s not really an argument at all, it’s just a constant reference back to the polls showing your candidate is a fait accompli.
The pollsters and the media handed Joe Biden and his party an inevitability argument for month after month when it turns out wasn’t so inevitable. In 2016 there was endless hand-wringing about the ways in which Trump garnered loads of free media coverage that probably boosted his campaign. CNN, among others, was publicly shamed for covering his rallies. And the media vowed not to offer Trump’s campaign that kind of in kind contribution again.
This year the media gave Biden’s campaign a massive in kind contribution in the form of badly misleading polls that told one party to expect their heart’s desire and the other to expect defeat and nothing but defeat.
Yes, I know we can argue that maybe the polls were right until they suddenly shifted at the very end. I have two responses for that.
The national polls were pretty consistent. They maybe showed some tightening but polls ending just days before the election were still way off in many places. If the truth of politics is that Americans frequently change their minds in the final 2-3 days of an election, what’s the point of doing polls at all? I mean, if it’s a given that even the final polls by the best pollsters will often be off by 5-7 points why are we bothering? It’s an admission that polls tell us nothing.
But getting back to my point, you can’t on the one hand admit that bad polling played a role in shaping how the campaigns spent money and then, at the same time, deny that bad polling played a role in the outcome.
Decisions weren’t just being made by campaigns, they were also being made by voters. Whether by incompetence or partisan intent, the pollsters and the media undeniably shaped this race in a way that hurt one party more than the other. No election interference by Russia, Iran or China could ever come close to the impact of daily polls showing Trump was going to be beaten soundly. You literally can’t buy coverage like that.
Again, this is the point where I expect the partisans on the left will deny the obvious or shrug it off as whining. But that’s just a dodge. This stuff matters. It has an impact. The media daily acts as if that’s the case. It’s pointless to deny it.
Like all counterfactual arguments, this one can’t be proven beyond all doubt. We simply don’t know what might have happened if the polls had been much more accurate. There is no Earth 2 we can compare this to in order to judge the outcome under slightly different circumstances.
But I think it strains credulity to claim that telling one party they are going to be big losers and the other they are going to be big winners didn’t impact enthusiasm, fundraising, maybe even turnout. People don’t naturally rally to the loser (or the expected loser) in a contest. If Republicans overcame that obstacle this year it’s only by sheer will and defiance on their part. The media shouldn’t be allowed to shrug off their failure because the GOP didn’t completely crumble under the pressure of their false assumptions.
Again, as it stands now, this race could come down to 100,000 votes spread over 5 states. Even if it’s double that in the end, is it really that hard to believe that if the entire country had seen this as a 4-5 point national race which was razor thin in many battlegrounds that it wouldn’t have mattered? I’m not even claiming Trump would have won. Maybe Democrats would have redoubled their efforts or spent more carefully, or been less overconfident. But it would have mattered. And with a race this close it could have been decisive. Americans deserve the chance to fight these battles in reality, not in whatever alternate universe the pollsters have, intentionally or not, created for us.


hotair--2020-11-06--Is there still a glimmer of hope for Trump in Pennsylvania?

An interesting explainer from Steve Kornacki .
Watch it and then we ’ ll do some math to see how daunting the task is for Trump .
Note that Kornacki ’ s not saying that he expects a Trump comeback , he ’ s saying that so long as a Trump comeback is theoretically possible the networks will want to hold off on calling Pennsylvania for Biden .
After all , this isn ’ t any ol ’ state .
This is the big one , the one that makes Biden the next president even if all of the remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Got ta be sure before you call PA. ( Reminder : Decision Desk HQ says it ’ s sure . )
Watch , then read on .
Biden has a lead of about 13,000 votes per the count on the screen behind Kornacki .
There are about 100,000 mail ballots remaining and mail ballots lean heavily blue to the tune of 75/25 or so .
That ’ s a net of 50,000 votes for Biden , bringing his lead up to 63,000 votes .
There are also 100,000 provisional ballots outstanding and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , per Kornacki .
Provisional ballots from red counties are red .
Trump could cut into Biden ’ s lead via provisionals , potentially quite a lot depending on how they lean .
How red-leaning would they need to be to erase Biden ’ s 63,000-vote advantage ?
Answer : 82/18 or thereabouts .
Trump would have to utterly crush it among provisionals , even beyond the Democratic partisan lean in mail ballots to make up the gap .
*But* note what Kornacki says about some mail ballots potentially being thrown out due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enclose a ballot in an inner “ secrecy ” envelope before enclosing in an outer mailing envelope .
Let ’ s say , hypothetically , 10,000 votes for Biden end up in the trash for those reasons .
What margin does Trump need among provisional ballots in that case to erase a 53,000-vote deficit ?
Answer : 77/23 .
Not quite as steep as in the first hypothetical but … really steep .
Which , I assume , is why DDHQ called the race .
Higher-profile media outlets realize that Trump is highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that clip but none of them want to get the all-important call on Pennsylvania wrong .
You ’ ve got ta be absolutely sure Trump is out of gas before you declare PA , and thus the entire election , over .
And if you watch the clip closely , you ’ ll realize that Kornacki never claims that provisional ballots are trending overwhelmingly red .
He says the ones from red counties are trending red .
There may be *some* tilt towards Trump among the pool of 100K but he needs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why Nate Silver is skeptical that provisionals will save him : Note his point in the first tweet .
In red counties thus far , provisionals are actually slightly bluer relative to the Election Day vote .
That ’ s not the stuff of which 80/20 margins are made .
And logically , it seems you ’ d have a fair number of Democrats using provisional ballots this year for the simple reason that mail ballots were overwhelmingly favored by Dems .
Shouldn ’ t that mean a hefty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisionals ?
Seems that way : Trump ’ s big-picture problem right now is that he ’ s behind in multiple states , not just Pennsylvania , which means he ’ s playing whack-a-mole in hoping for a comeback .
As soon as he pins his hopes on one state , a new batch of blue-leaning mail ballots in another trickle in and make him a longer shot to win there too .
Obviously a big burst of Trump votes among those that are left in PA would be exciting , but PA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada go blue — and they ’ re on track to do so , as noted earlier .
Other analysts are feeling more confident in Arizona this afternoon as well : Biden could end up losing Pennsylvania and Georgia and still ( barely ) get to 270 with AZ and NV .
That ’ s what winning Michigan and Wisconsin did for him .
Exit quotation from Byron York , lamenting the problem Trump created for himself by steering Republican voters away from mail ballots : “ After all this is over and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly a lot of Republicans , are going to regret their strategy of denigrating mail-in voting so strongly… [ H ] e fostered distrust in mail-in voting and urged his voters to have a big red wave on Election Day .
Meanwhile , Democrats , day after day after day , had bagged hundreds of thousands and then millions of votes already in the bag by the time Election Day came around.
” Update : Via Silver , this local election analyst expects the remaining provisional ballots to trend somewhat blue , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump .
Some Democrats on social media are getting restless with the networks for not calling the race yet given how unlikely a Trump comeback is now , and fearing that every minute of uncertainty is making it easier for Trump to claim that something untoward is going on .

An interesting explainer from Steve Kornacki. Watch it and then we’ll do some math to see how daunting the task is for Trump. Note that Kornacki’s not saying that he expects a Trump comeback, he’s saying that so long as a Trump comeback is theoretically possible the networks will want to hold off on calling Pennsylvania for Biden. After all, this isn’t any ol’ state. This is the big one, the one that makes Biden the next president even if all of the remaining uncalled states break the other way. Gotta be sure before you call PA. (Reminder: Decision Desk HQ says it’s sure.) Watch, then read on.
Biden has a lead of about 13,000 votes per the count on the screen behind Kornacki. There are about 100,000 mail ballots remaining and mail ballots lean heavily blue to the tune of 75/25 or so. That’s a net of 50,000 votes for Biden, bringing his lead up to 63,000 votes. There are also 100,000 provisional ballots outstanding and those ballots don’t lean heavily blue, per Kornacki. Provisional ballots from red counties are red. Trump could cut into Biden’s lead via provisionals, potentially quite a lot depending on how they lean. How red-leaning would they need to be to erase Biden’s 63,000-vote advantage?
Answer: 82/18 or thereabouts. Trump would have to utterly crush it among provisionals, even beyond the Democratic partisan lean in mail ballots to make up the gap.
*But* note what Kornacki says about some mail ballots potentially being thrown out due to procedural irregularities, like failing to enclose a ballot in an inner “secrecy” envelope before enclosing in an outer mailing envelope. Let’s say, hypothetically, 10,000 votes for Biden end up in the trash for those reasons. What margin does Trump need among provisional ballots in that case to erase a 53,000-vote deficit?
Answer: 77/23. Not quite as steep as in the first hypothetical but … really steep. Which, I assume, is why DDHQ called the race. Higher-profile media outlets realize that Trump is highly, highly unlikely to win provisionals at that clip but none of them want to get the all-important call on Pennsylvania wrong. You’ve gotta be absolutely sure Trump is out of gas before you declare PA, and thus the entire election, over.
And if you watch the clip closely, you’ll realize that Kornacki never claims that provisional ballots are trending overwhelmingly red. He says the ones from red counties are trending red. There may be *some* tilt towards Trump among the pool of 100K but he needs a 80/20 tilt or something of that order. That’s why Nate Silver is skeptical that provisionals will save him:
So, I am open-minded but not super persuaded by this. There are a handful of counties to have counted provisional ballots so far and those ballots indeed went for Trump, but they came from counties where the rest of the vote was *even stronger* for Trump.https://t.co/DXMdQJyfS5 https://t.co/h3gyCwCeNK — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 6, 2020
Also, about 40K of the provisionals are in Philly County, which is a considerably higher proportion than Philly's share of the vote overall.https://t.co/Jx5M55Y4gz — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 6, 2020
Note his point in the first tweet. In red counties thus far, provisionals are actually slightly bluer relative to the Election Day vote. That’s not the stuff of which 80/20 margins are made. And logically, it seems you’d have a fair number of Democrats using provisional ballots this year for the simple reason that mail ballots were overwhelmingly favored by Dems. Shouldn’t that mean a hefty number of Biden votes among the remaining provisionals? Seems that way:
Furthermore, the universe of requested-but-unreturned mail ballots, which is where most of these provisionals originated from, was D +17 by party registration. Not as D as completed mail ballots, but obviously still quite D.https://t.co/sTPHw4KZsl — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 6, 2020
Trump’s big-picture problem right now is that he’s behind in multiple states, not just Pennsylvania, which means he’s playing whack-a-mole in hoping for a comeback. As soon as he pins his hopes on one state, a new batch of blue-leaning mail ballots in another trickle in and make him a longer shot to win there too. Obviously a big burst of Trump votes among those that are left in PA would be exciting, but PA doesn’t matter if Arizona and Nevada go blue — and they’re on track to do so, as noted earlier. Other analysts are feeling more confident in Arizona this afternoon as well:
Seeing no path to victory for Donald Trump, two prominent Phoenix polling firms said Friday they expect Democrat Joe Biden to win Arizona.https://t.co/8LJA5UVozw — KTAR News 92.3 (@KTAR923) November 6, 2020
Biden could end up losing Pennsylvania and Georgia and still (barely) get to 270 with AZ and NV. That’s what winning Michigan and Wisconsin did for him.
Exit quotation from Byron York, lamenting the problem Trump created for himself by steering Republican voters away from mail ballots: “After all this is over and if the president loses, he and certainly a lot of Republicans, are going to regret their strategy of denigrating mail-in voting so strongly… [H]e fostered distrust in mail-in voting and urged his voters to have a big red wave on Election Day. Meanwhile, Democrats, day after day after day, had bagged hundreds of thousands and then millions of votes already in the bag by the time Election Day came around.”
Update: Via Silver, this local election analyst expects the remaining provisional ballots to trend somewhat blue, not red, which would foreclose any path for Trump.
Lara Putnam, a University of Pittsburgh professor who studies the electoral landscape in Western Pennsylvania, said she expects the provisional ballots to “less Biden-heavy than mail-ins, but still net Biden more votes than Trump.” — Julian Routh (@julianrouth) November 6, 2020
Some Democrats on social media are getting restless with the networks for not calling the race yet given how unlikely a Trump comeback is now, and fearing that every minute of uncertainty is making it easier for Trump to claim that something untoward is going on.


hotair--2020-11-06--Rush Limbaugh: I didn't mean to say that Biden won the election

I didn ’ t hear his show this afternoon and nearly fell off the chair when I saw this tweet — not because I assumed it was true but because I knew it had to be false and was stunned that someone could have taken this meaning from something he ’ d said .
Conservative talk radio would never , n-e-v-e-r , cross its populist listeners at a moment when the stakes are as high as they are now .
They ’ d never cross their listeners , period .
Their business model is essentially a prisoner ’ s dilemma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the Trump loyalty to 11 or risk having his audience defect to some competitor .
There was no earthly way after the career he ’ s had that Rush was suddenly going to take it upon himself to try to deprogram righties who ’ ve bought the president ’ s “ I was robbed ” shtick .
Via Mediaite , here ’ s the quote that supposedly convinced Thomma — and Bret Baier — that Rush was admitting Biden had prevailed : The guy that won that did not have any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vessel .
He was just the recipient whatever anti-Trump sentiment there was .
He can tell himself all along he ’ s been elected president , because he has , but…there should have been away to counter that as part of the campaign .
But you ’ ll notice that the Republicans and the Democrats never once tried to properly categorized the Biden support but it ’ s a moot point now .
“ The guy that won.
” “ He can tell himself all along he ’ s been elected president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard that and sent a quick email over asking for clarity .
Was Rush claiming that it was all over ?
No , of course he wasn ’ t claiming that .
For cripes sake .
Even Mitt Romney hasn ’ t quite conceded the election yet .
More Rush : Follow the link above to Mediaite to listen to the clips .
Limbaugh blowing up the “ I was robbed ” storyline as it ’ s trying to get off the launchpad would have been roughly 8,000 times more scandalously “ disloyal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden on election night .
The entire point of talk radio is to amplify whatever message populists are pushing at a given moment .
Rush turning around and doing a hard reality check on the state of the election would have been like the Vatican newspaper running an editorial questioning the divinity of Jesus .
Not the right forum , whether there ’ s anything to that view or not .
The Occam ’ s Razor explanation for what he said is that of course he understands that Biden won — he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been covering elections for decades — but he forgot himself momentarily while following a train of thought and let the truth slip .
Either way , though , his underlying point is certainly correct : Biden was a mere recipient of anti-Trump sentiment .
I made that argument myself in yesterday ’ s post about whether the election was a “ repudiation ” of Trump .
I ’ m leery of calling it that because of how close the margin ended up being , how much Trump overperformed his polls , and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you define “ repudiation ” in terms of the winning margin and historic turnout having been due entirely to fervent dislike of the incumbent , then sure .
You can make the case that this was a repudiation .
Chris Cuomo ’ s catching flak today for having made the same point last night in his own goofy way .
After all , there are many presidential candidates who ’ ve been “ spanked ” worse than Trump was this year by common metrics : Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan by more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater .
Trump ’ s defeat wasn ’ t remotely in that class — except in one sense .
Biden ’ s going to end up with the most votes of any candidate in American history ( chiefly enabled , of course , by America ’ s population growth over time ) and , as Rush and I have both pointed out , he ’ s going to owe much of that vote to fear and loathing of the incumbent .
Remember all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Are you casting your vote for Joe Biden because you support Biden or because you oppose Trump ?
” I don ’ t know how you ’ d go about quantifying it , but it may well be that no president has ever had a larger percentage of his opponent ’ s vote haul cast against him instead of for that opponent .
If Cuomo wants to call that an unprecedented “ spanking , ” I guess he can .
I ’ ll leave you with this clip from GOP Rep. Clay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should probably quit Congress for a talk radio gig .
He ’ d be worth $ 100 million overnight .

I didn’t hear his show this afternoon and nearly fell off the chair when I saw this tweet — not because I assumed it was true but because I knew it had to be false and was stunned that someone could have taken this meaning from something he’d said.
Conservative talk radio would never, n-e-v-e-r, cross its populist listeners at a moment when the stakes are as high as they are now. They’d never cross their listeners, period. Their business model is essentially a prisoner’s dilemma in which each guy has to dial up the Trump loyalty to 11 or risk having his audience defect to some competitor. There was no earthly way after the career he’s had that Rush was suddenly going to take it upon himself to try to deprogram righties who’ve bought the president’s “I was robbed” shtick.
Via Mediaite, here’s the quote that supposedly convinced Thomma — and Bret Baier — that Rush was admitting Biden had prevailed:
The guy that won that did not have any kind of massive pro-support. He was just the vessel. He was just the recipient whatever anti-Trump sentiment there was. He can tell himself all along he’s been elected president, because he has, but…there should have been away to counter that as part of the campaign. But you’ll notice that the Republicans and the Democrats never once tried to properly categorized the Biden support but it’s a moot point now.
“The guy that won.” “He can tell himself all along he’s been elected president, because he has.” Baier apparently heard that and sent a quick email over asking for clarity. Was Rush claiming that it was all over?
No, of course he wasn’t claiming that. For cripes sake. Even Mitt Romney hasn’t quite conceded the election yet. More Rush:
I didn’t say that. I’m dealing in some hypotheticals here, but I’ve never conceded the election. I’ve never said that this was over. I’ve just finished saying Trump’s got legal options open to him…I’m sorry if anybody misunderstood me.
Follow the link above to Mediaite to listen to the clips. Limbaugh blowing up the “I was robbed” storyline as it’s trying to get off the launchpad would have been roughly 8,000 times more scandalously “disloyal” than Fox News calling Arizona for Biden on election night. The entire point of talk radio is to amplify whatever message populists are pushing at a given moment. Rush turning around and doing a hard reality check on the state of the election would have been like the Vatican newspaper running an editorial questioning the divinity of Jesus. Not the right forum, whether there’s anything to that view or not.
The Occam’s Razor explanation for what he said is that of course he understands that Biden won — he’s a smart guy who’s been covering elections for decades — but he forgot himself momentarily while following a train of thought and let the truth slip. Either way, though, his underlying point is certainly correct: Biden was a mere recipient of anti-Trump sentiment. I made that argument myself in yesterday’s post about whether the election was a “repudiation” of Trump. I’m leery of calling it that because of how close the margin ended up being, how much Trump overperformed his polls, and how poorly Democrats did downballot. But if you define “repudiation” in terms of the winning margin and historic turnout having been due entirely to fervent dislike of the incumbent, then sure. You can make the case that this was a repudiation.
Chris Cuomo’s catching flak today for having made the same point last night in his own goofy way. After all, there are many presidential candidates who’ve been “spanked” worse than Trump was this year by common metrics:
Chris Cuomo: "Huge Rejection for Donald Trump, Nobody has gotten the spanking that he is getting in the general right now" 😂😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/UXLqtdZ2A1 — Jeffrey Walizer Jr (@JWalizerJr) November 6, 2020
Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan by more than 500 electoral votes. LBJ took more than 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater. Trump’s defeat wasn’t remotely in that class — except in one sense. Biden’s going to end up with the most votes of any candidate in American history (chiefly enabled, of course, by America’s population growth over time) and, as Rush and I have both pointed out, he’s going to owe much of that vote to fear and loathing of the incumbent. Remember all those poll questions during the campaign, “Are you casting your vote for Joe Biden because you support Biden or because you oppose Trump?” I don’t know how you’d go about quantifying it, but it may well be that no president has ever had a larger percentage of his opponent’s vote haul cast against him instead of for that opponent. If Cuomo wants to call that an unprecedented “spanking,” I guess he can.
I’ll leave you with this clip from GOP Rep. Clay Higgins, who seems totally fine and should probably quit Congress for a talk radio gig. He’d be worth $100 million overnight.


hotair--2020-11-06--2020 polling part 2: Incompetence or partisanship? Pollsters need to explain their failure...again

If you missed part 1 , in which I highlighted some of the worst polling we saw in 2020 , it ’ s here .
Now let ’ s move on to something which I don ’ t think is terribly controversial at this point .
Having done this 2 elections in a row , the media ’ s credibility is pretty well shot .
You don ’ t have to take my word for it .
Plenty of observers on the left are saying it right now .
Writing at the Atlantic , David Graham has a piece whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy : This is a disaster for the polling industry and for media outlets and analysts that package and interpret the polls for public consumption , such as FiveThirtyEight , The New York Times ’ Upshot , and The Economist ’ s election unit .
They now face serious existential questions .
But the greatest problem posed by the polling crisis is not in the presidential election , where the snapshots provided by polling are ultimately measured against an actual tally of votes : As the political cliché goes , the only poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The real catastrophe is that the failure of the polls leaves Americans with no reliable way to understand what we as a people think outside of elections—which in turn threatens our ability to make choices , or to cohere as a nation .
In short , there ’ s no reason anyone should trust the polls or the media that relies on them at this point .
NPR ’ s media analyst David Folkenflik reached a similar conclusion : Hard not to conclude that it ’ s another black eye for polling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
And why do I say that ?
Well , most of these polls , you read them in newspapers , you see them on TV , you might hear them on our network .
They have media branding on them , even those done by colleges or private firms .
The polls and the medias are intertwined on this stuff .
So when you see a lot of wrong results , that reflects on us , too , regardless of whether Biden or Trump ultimately wins .
And it looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction .
That huge blue wave , I don ’ t think we ’ re seeing it .
The Dems were projected pick up seats in the House .
They ’ re losing seats in the House… People thought 2016 was a hot mess , and this may end up being worse for polling .
I like the bit about polls and the media being intertwined .
Another way to put it is that pollsters produce a product and the media distributes that product .
In fact , in many cases , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s worth noting that early on election day David Folkenflik published a story at NPR headlined “ Down In The Polls , Trump Seeks Familiar Embrace of Conservative Media.
” Maybe David needs to do some reflection of his own on the ways in which polling and his own work are intertwined .
Finally , even at Jacobin , a socialist/communist online magazine , the conclusion is that “ polling is dead.
” After the debacle of the 2016 election — when polls were off by an average of 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some started dialing more cell phones .
Others shifted focus toward swing states .
Many began weighting responses by education .
“ Perhaps , after four years of hand-wringing , the polls will show they were all right after all , ” FiveThirtyEight surmised after conducting its own survey of leading pollsters less than a month before the 2020 general election .
So far , the error rate looks the same .
Bookmakers , looking at the polls , put their money on Democrats taking back the Senate .
That now seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue wave that would expand the Democratic majority in the House .
The Democrats lost seats .
If 2016 didn ’ t prove it , 2020 certainly did : the polling industry is in crisis .
This will make the media ’ s pre-existing credibility problem worse Let ’ s not dance around the elephant in the room here .
Trust in the media is largely divided by political party .
Republicans have always trusted the media less than Democrats ( and for good reason ) but GOP trust in the media took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling is from Gallup ( yes , I ’ m relying on polling to criticize polling , but what else can you do ) : Note also that Democrats trust in the media seemed to take off shortly thereafter .
Twenty years ago you had 5-15 point media trust gap .
Since 2016 you have a 50 point trust gap .
There is now a pro-media party ( 70+ % ) and an anti-media party ( 10-20 % ) .
And all of that was true before this election where polling was once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical swing states and in important Senate elections .
Not all of those errors favored Democrats but most of them did .
So there ’ s every reason to think trust in the media will decline further , especially on the right .
Why did this happen…again ?
I ’ ve seen various attempts to explain how the media-polling industrial complex got this wrong for a second election in a row .
One leading theory is that “ shy ” Trump voters are not sharing their real preferences with pollsters .
Does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Jacobin points out , people don ’ t have to lie when they can simply chose not to answer the phone .
In fact , that ’ s increasingly what happens : Some more transparency about the actual process might help .
Is it really true that pollsters are calling 20 people to get one response ?
And if so , doesn ’ t that suggest a kind of self-selection among respondents ( most people can see who is calling ) that renders the polls suspect .
A Washington Post piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force pollsters to make a lot of guesses about the shape of the electorate .
And those guesses may be as significant as the data they actually collect : “ Where polling is fundamentally broken now is these guys have to guess at what the electorate will look like and sometimes guess at how the electorate feels , ” this person said .
“ So we are piling guesses upon guesses upon guesses.
” Is this incompetence or partisanship ?
I ’ ve seen and heard plenty of people from the president on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” i.e .
that the pollsters are intentionally shifting things in such a way that Democrats hear what they want .
I don ’ t think that kind of intentional malfeasance can be ruled out because , frankly , we see it happen in the rest of the media as well .
What makes pollsters any different ?
In any case , the only people who could potentially rule out partisanship are the pollsters themselves and why would anyone believe them ?
They have an obvious vested interest in protecting their brands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , they owe us an explanation for this failure .
If polling , collectively , were any other industry , they would have gone out of business by now .
If TV manufacturers got the size of the screens wrong by 5-10 % ( is this 60″ TV actually a 54″ TV when you unbox it ? )
, people would bring their own measuring tapes to Best Buy .
If a carpenter ’ s measurements were often 5 % off and your living room turned out to have 7 1/2 foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ceilings , you ’ d demand a repair or a refund .
If your lawyer suddenly announced your share of the settlement would be 10 % less than he ’ d said previously , you ’ d demand to know why and maybe think about reporting him .
Professionals in every industry are expected to be more reliable than this and to explain when they get it wrong .
So if these pollsters are professionals ( not partisans actively working toward an outcome ) , where is the public explanation of how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not talking about a TV or a settlement here , we ’ re talking about an industry that plays a key role in our entire democracy .
To the extent the pollsters at Quinnipiac or some of the others who were badly off won ’ t explain precisely what went wrong , people should be able to infer certain things from that .
When a man on trial for a crime won ’ t take the stand or pleads the 5th rather than face questions , there ’ s probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , that partisanship may have invaded the process in some way and no one wants to admit it .
There ’ s a clear partisan bent to the polling .
To restore any confidence the industry needs to offer a convincing non-partisan explanation .
And along with that , how about an apology to all of the Americans around the country who , intentionally or not , were badly misled by this industry ’ s product ?
That will be subject of part 3 of this series .

If you missed part 1, in which I highlighted some of the worst polling we saw in 2020, it’s here.
Now let’s move on to something which I don’t think is terribly controversial at this point. Having done this 2 elections in a row, the media’s credibility is pretty well shot. You don’t have to take my word for it. Plenty of observers on the left are saying it right now. Writing at the Atlantic, David Graham has a piece whose headline calls it a catastrophe for American democracy:
This is a disaster for the polling industry and for media outlets and analysts that package and interpret the polls for public consumption, such as FiveThirtyEight, The New York Times’ Upshot, and The Economist’s election unit. They now face serious existential questions. But the greatest problem posed by the polling crisis is not in the presidential election, where the snapshots provided by polling are ultimately measured against an actual tally of votes: As the political cliché goes, the only poll that matters is on Election Day. The real catastrophe is that the failure of the polls leaves Americans with no reliable way to understand what we as a people think outside of elections—which in turn threatens our ability to make choices, or to cohere as a nation.
In short, there’s no reason anyone should trust the polls or the media that relies on them at this point. NPR’s media analyst David Folkenflik reached a similar conclusion:
Hard not to conclude that it’s another black eye for polling and for the news organizations that rely on them. And why do I say that? Well, most of these polls, you read them in newspapers, you see them on TV, you might hear them on our network. They have media branding on them, even those done by colleges or private firms. The polls and the medias are intertwined on this stuff. So when you see a lot of wrong results, that reflects on us, too, regardless of whether Biden or Trump ultimately wins. And it looks like Biden – things are going in his direction. That huge blue wave, I don’t think we’re seeing it. The Dems were projected pick up seats in the House. They’re losing seats in the House… People thought 2016 was a hot mess, and this may end up being worse for polling.
I like the bit about polls and the media being intertwined. Another way to put it is that pollsters produce a product and the media distributes that product. In fact, in many cases, the media is directly funding the product.
But it’s worth noting that early on election day David Folkenflik published a story at NPR headlined “Down In The Polls, Trump Seeks Familiar Embrace of Conservative Media.” Maybe David needs to do some reflection of his own on the ways in which polling and his own work are intertwined.
Finally, even at Jacobin, a socialist/communist online magazine, the conclusion is that “polling is dead.”
After the debacle of the 2016 election — when polls were off by an average of 5 points — polling institutions revised their methods. Some started dialing more cell phones. Others shifted focus toward swing states. Many began weighting responses by education. “Perhaps, after four years of hand-wringing, the polls will show they were all right after all,” FiveThirtyEight surmised after conducting its own survey of leading pollsters less than a month before the 2020 general election. So far, the error rate looks the same. Bookmakers, looking at the polls, put their money on Democrats taking back the Senate. That now seems vanishingly unlikely. Polling outfits divined a blue wave that would expand the Democratic majority in the House. The Democrats lost seats. If 2016 didn’t prove it, 2020 certainly did: the polling industry is in crisis.
This will make the media’s pre-existing credibility problem worse
Let’s not dance around the elephant in the room here. Trust in the media is largely divided by political party. Republicans have always trusted the media less than Democrats (and for good reason) but GOP trust in the media took a steep dive in 2016. This polling is from Gallup (yes, I’m relying on polling to criticize polling, but what else can you do):
Note also that Democrats trust in the media seemed to take off shortly thereafter. Twenty years ago you had 5-15 point media trust gap. Since 2016 you have a 50 point trust gap. There is now a pro-media party (70+%) and an anti-media party (10-20%). And all of that was true before this election where polling was once again badly off both nationally, in critical swing states and in important Senate elections. Not all of those errors favored Democrats but most of them did. So there’s every reason to think trust in the media will decline further, especially on the right.
Why did this happen…again?
I’ve seen various attempts to explain how the media-polling industrial complex got this wrong for a second election in a row. One leading theory is that “shy” Trump voters are not sharing their real preferences with pollsters. Does that mean respondents are lying? Not necessarily. As Jacobin points out, people don’t have to lie when they can simply chose not to answer the phone. In fact, that’s increasingly what happens:
In 2019, Pew Research reported a continuation of the long drop in response rates to a new all-time low: six responses in every one hundred contacts. Commercial pollsters are thought to receive even lower response rates, but they decline to publish that figure. The sampling pool for opinion polling techniques has become so small that it fundamentally skews the data they return. Surveyors know this well and are doing what they can to compensate, but the truth is that random selection polling methods have been obsolescing for decades.
Some more transparency about the actual process might help. Is it really true that pollsters are calling 20 people to get one response? And if so, doesn’t that suggest a kind of self-selection among respondents (most people can see who is calling) that renders the polls suspect.
A Washington Post piece on polling suggests that inconsistent response rates force pollsters to make a lot of guesses about the shape of the electorate. And those guesses may be as significant as the data they actually collect:
The Democratic consultant who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that pollsters, both inside and outside of campaign efforts, have been forced to increasingly make estimations because of an inability to get consistent responses across all voter groups.


hotair--2020-11-06--"She never takes any responsibility": House Dem backbiting of Pelosi, leadership continues

I ’ m skeptical of this Fox News analysis that Pelosi might be toppled as Speaker in the next leadership election , but there ’ s no denying their math .
Democrats may end up with something like 221 seats .
All it would take is four stubborn defectors to make her unelectable .
The pressure on the caucus not to humiliate a respected elder statesman — not to mention the first woman Speaker ever — by ignominiously overthrowing her after a poor election showing would be tremendous .
Even if the effort succeeded , Pelosi would have powerful allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defectors later .
But the party ’ s showing on Tuesday was so underwhelming that an extreme gesture of accountability may be necessary .
( DCCC chair Cheri Bustos will probably end up paying the price instead of Pelosi . )
God knows , the caucus must be ready for change .
Pelosi ’ s been in charge for 17 years and is now 80 years old .
Steny Hoyer , her longtime number two , is 81 .
Jim Clyburn , the majority whip , is 80 as well .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a hook for younger Dems to insist that it ’ s time for fresh blood at the top .
The old guard is out of touch and minority voters can no longer be taken for granted .
I gave you two posts yesterday in the “ Dems in disarray ” genre , one about the near-death experience their House majority ended up having on election night , the other about that sh*show caucus conference call in which centrists and lefties started pointing fingers at each other .
Pelosi held her weekly press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the whole thing with dubious claims that Biden had secured a “ tremendous mandate ” by … barely winning while his party underperformed in the Senate and the House : Think she ’ ll be able to talk her caucus into believing they actually had an awesome night on Tuesday ?
Me neither .
New from CNN : “ She never takes any responsibility , ” one House Democratic member , asking for anonymity to candidly discuss the powerful speaker , told CNN .
“ We blew it.
” … Some Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer of police reform and the latest round of economic stimulus , which has stalled amid broken-down talks between the speaker and the Treasury secretary .
In particular , one Democrat argued that their party ’ s push to make it easier to sue police officers in civil court — known as qualified immunity — allowed Republicans to demonize Democrats on the issue and make them appear soft on law enforcement .
“ She made everyone walk the plank on qualified immunity , didn ’ t cut a deal on Covid , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank God for Biden or we would have gotten wiped out.
” … “ There needs to be an attitude in leadership in getting legislation passed — and not messaging bills .
I keep telling people you know how much money the Heroes Act got to my district ?
Zero , ” the second Democratic member said , referring to the $ 3 trillion-plus Democratic bill passed in May that Republicans refused to take up in the Senate… One Democratic House member said that Pelosi is “ strategically and tactically unmatchable , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports playbook but we can not understand what play she is calling.
” The point about the stimulus is interesting .
It could be that Trump ’ s failure to make a deal ended up hurting him enough to tip the election to Biden , but that wouldn ’ t be inconsistent with voters also punishing House Dems for Pelosi ’ s hardball negotiations .
It *would* be a little inconsistent with a surprisingly strong showing by Senate Republicans , who were the biggest obstacle to a robust compromise .
I wonder if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking Trump ’ s and Mnuchin ’ s final offer , which was in the ballpark of what House Dems wanted .
( Remember , some progressives like Ro Khanna encouraged her to make a deal , believing that the urgency of the economic situation made a deal necessary . )
If she and the White House had come to terms , it *might* have helped Trump enough to get him over the finish line — or it might not have , while also hurting McConnell and the Senate GOP by forcing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure to get anything passed .
Anyway , it ’ s probably going to get worse for her and the party before it gets better : The left is hitting back today too .
After centrist Abigail Spanberger complained on the caucus conference call yesterday of progressives ’ poisonous “ defund the police ” messaging ( you can listen to the full audio here ) , AOC rode to the rescue with a counterargument .
The real reason the party underperformed , she insists , was poor organizing tactics .
Yeah , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would help any candidate , but Ocasio-Cortez would get obliterated in the sort of R+6 district that Spanberger has to contend with no matter how good her digital might be .
And that ’ s really the crux of Spanberger ’ s and the centrists ’ complaint : Thanks to the high profile of progressive bombthrowers like the Squad , AOC ’ s on the ballot everywhere .
Even in purple districts .
I ’ ll leave you with this clip of former Dem candidate Andrew Yang that ’ s gone viral overnight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it about how Dems might make gains in 2022 .
Exit quotation from another unhappy member of Pelosi ’ s caucus , complaining to CNN : “ I think the issue is that Democrats are not hanging out with working class voters enough .
”

I’m skeptical of this Fox News analysis that Pelosi might be toppled as Speaker in the next leadership election, but there’s no denying their math. Democrats may end up with something like 221 seats. All it would take is four stubborn defectors to make her unelectable.
The pressure on the caucus not to humiliate a respected elder statesman — not to mention the first woman Speaker ever — by ignominiously overthrowing her after a poor election showing would be tremendous. Even if the effort succeeded, Pelosi would have powerful allies at the top willing to punish the defectors later. But the party’s showing on Tuesday was so underwhelming that an extreme gesture of accountability may be necessary. (DCCC chair Cheri Bustos will probably end up paying the price instead of Pelosi.) God knows, the caucus must be ready for change. Pelosi’s been in charge for 17 years and is now 80 years old. Steny Hoyer, her longtime number two, is 81. Jim Clyburn, the majority whip, is 80 as well. Trump’s strong showing with Latinos and African-Americans is a hook for younger Dems to insist that it’s time for fresh blood at the top. The old guard is out of touch and minority voters can no longer be taken for granted.
I gave you two posts yesterday in the “Dems in disarray” genre, one about the near-death experience their House majority ended up having on election night, the other about that sh*show caucus conference call in which centrists and lefties started pointing fingers at each other. Pelosi held her weekly press conference this morning and decided to paper over the whole thing with dubious claims that Biden had secured a “tremendous mandate” by … barely winning while his party underperformed in the Senate and the House:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "I wish we weren't wearing masks so we could see how exciting it is to come before you today with Joe Biden having the tremendous mandate that he has …"#election2020 pic.twitter.com/F6BKbnjGVd — The Recount (@therecount) November 6, 2020
Think she’ll be able to talk her caucus into believing they actually had an awesome night on Tuesday? Me neither. New from CNN:
“She never takes any responsibility,” one House Democratic member, asking for anonymity to candidly discuss the powerful speaker, told CNN. “We blew it.”… Some Democrats complained about Pelosi’s handling this summer of police reform and the latest round of economic stimulus, which has stalled amid broken-down talks between the speaker and the Treasury secretary. In particular, one Democrat argued that their party’s push to make it easier to sue police officers in civil court — known as qualified immunity — allowed Republicans to demonize Democrats on the issue and make them appear soft on law enforcement. “She made everyone walk the plank on qualified immunity, didn’t cut a deal on Covid,” said the first Democratic member. “Thank God for Biden or we would have gotten wiped out.”… “There needs to be an attitude in leadership in getting legislation passed — and not messaging bills. I keep telling people you know how much money the Heroes Act got to my district? Zero,” the second Democratic member said, referring to the $3 trillion-plus Democratic bill passed in May that Republicans refused to take up in the Senate… One Democratic House member said that Pelosi is “strategically and tactically unmatchable,” but added: “She knows the sports playbook but we cannot understand what play she is calling.”
The point about the stimulus is interesting. It could be that Trump’s failure to make a deal ended up hurting him enough to tip the election to Biden, but that wouldn’t be inconsistent with voters also punishing House Dems for Pelosi’s hardball negotiations. It *would* be a little inconsistent with a surprisingly strong showing by Senate Republicans, who were the biggest obstacle to a robust compromise. I wonder if Pelosi is second-guessing herself today for not taking Trump’s and Mnuchin’s final offer, which was in the ballpark of what House Dems wanted. (Remember, some progressives like Ro Khanna encouraged her to make a deal, believing that the urgency of the economic situation made a deal necessary.) If she and the White House had come to terms, it *might* have helped Trump enough to get him over the finish line — or it might not have, while also hurting McConnell and the Senate GOP by forcing them to reject the deal and own the failure to get anything passed.
Anyway, it’s probably going to get worse for her and the party before it gets better:
lots and lots of midwestern counties that Trump flipped from Obama in 2016 that didn't flip back this time. tough road ahead for House Dems in 2022. — Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) November 6, 2020
The left is hitting back today too. After centrist Abigail Spanberger complained on the caucus conference call yesterday of progressives’ poisonous “defund the police” messaging (you can listen to the full audio here), AOC rode to the rescue with a counterargument. The real reason the party underperformed, she insists, was poor organizing tactics.
Underinvestment across the board. Some campaigns spent $0 on digital the week before the election. Others who spent did so in very poor ways. If I spent only $12k on TV the week before an election & then blamed others after, you’d ask questions. That’s how it looks seeing this. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 6, 2020
Also, the decision to stop knocking doors is one people need to grapple with and analyze.@IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib never stopped and may very well have helped delivered a Biden Presidency bc of it https://t.co/5nweAADmIF — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 6, 2020
So the whole “progressivism is bad” argument just doesn’t have any compelling evidence that I’ve seen. When it comes to “Defund” & “Socialism” attacks, people need to realize these are racial resentment attacks. You’re not gonna make that go away. You can make it less effective. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 6, 2020
Yeah, I don’t know. Better organizing would help any candidate, but Ocasio-Cortez would get obliterated in the sort of R+6 district that Spanberger has to contend with no matter how good her digital might be. And that’s really the crux of Spanberger’s and the centrists’ complaint: Thanks to the high profile of progressive bombthrowers like the Squad, AOC’s on the ballot everywhere. Even in purple districts.
I’ll leave you with this clip of former Dem candidate Andrew Yang that’s gone viral overnight. Perhaps there’s a clue in it about how Dems might make gains in 2022. Exit quotation from another unhappy member of Pelosi’s caucus, complaining to CNN: “I think the issue is that Democrats are not hanging out with working class voters enough.”