७ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
"Weasels and chainsaws distracted me."
"As a young widower, he drove them to school, blasting Elton John’s 'Crocodile Rock' from the car radio, willing normalcy’s return."
"Two armed Virginia men who were arrested Thursday outside the Philadelphia Convention Center may have believed fake ballots were being counted there..."
"That’s the way the cookie crumbles and that’s the way the ball bounces are... the two commonest of a score of variant [catchphrases] for That’s fate–that’s the way things go..."
that’s the way (or that’s how) the cookie crumbles ... It has been a frequent c.p. in the US since the 1950s and in UK since the middle 1960s... in 1975, Prof. Emeritus F.E.L. Priestley spoke of ‘the now happily obsolete “that’s the way the cookie crumbles”’ and referred to ‘the lovely take-off line in the movie The Apartment [1960] when Jack Lemmon says, “That’s the way it crumbles cookiewise” ’–when he is also deriding ‘the horrible “-wise” jargon of about ten years ago’ (F.E.L.P.).
Continuing with the catchphrase dictionary:
In The Zoo Story, prod. in Berlin 1959, in New York 1960, and pub’d in 1960, Edward Albee employs the more usual form thus:
"To clarify, President Trump's press conference will NOT be held at Four Seasons Hotel Philadelphia. It will be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping- no relation with the hotel."
"The vote counting in Arizona and Georgia has seemed professional and transparent. The same can’t be said of Philadelphia..."
Sun! Sun! Sun!
A few seconds after that, they were playing The Beatles' "Here Comes the Sun."
The sun was first visible to me at 6:42:33:Weasels and chainsaws distracted me from getting to the obvious first thing I feel I'm supposed to blog this morning. That's how dull it is.
Biden tottered out onto the national stage last night and said some words. I was asleep, so good for him. The old man stayed up late. Or got up early, maybe. Ha ha. What was it, 11 p.m.?
Good evening, my fellow Americans. We don’t have a final declaration of victory yet but the numbers tell us it’s clear. They tell us a clear and convincing story we’re going to win this race....
So he came out, not to prematurely declare victory, but to tell us he sees it in the future. He uses the legal phrase "clear and convincing" — which is a standard of proof more than "preponderance of the evidence" and less than "beyond a reasonable doubt." He's assessing evidence and essentially asserting that if he had to decide whether he'd won based on the evidence before us right now, he'd say he did, and that he's telling us this opinion because the standard "clear and convincing" is good enough for the purpose of when it's a good idea to come out on the national stage and assert your opinion.
The evidence is still dribbling in, however, so he also could have waited. There must be some political advantage to claiming the stage and expecting us to listen to his prediction. I'm just guessing the reasoning had something to do with its being Friday. We need something semi-tangible to end Election Week.
And what’s becoming clear each hour is that a record number of Americans of all races, faiths religions chose change over more of the same. They’ve given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, climate change, systemic racism.
Oh, now that's a stretch. He's barely won, if indeed he's won. We still don't know. But if he's won, he wants you to know, that there's the mysterious thing called "a mandate." And he specifies the components of the mandate — "a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, climate change, systemic racism." Wasn't it more of a vote just to be rid of Donald Trump? But that's the claim, the 4 elements of what we supposedly want — do something about COVID, the economy, climate change, and systemic racism.
I say "we," but I see that Biden called us "they" — "They’ve given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, climate change, systemic racism." They've given us. I take it "us" is the Democratic Party, and "they" is the people. They the People of the United States...
They made it clear they want the country to come together not continue to pull apart.
Yeah, he meant to "they" us. And he pictures us agglomerating into a more perfectly manipulable blob. Don't pull apart! Get together so that We the Democratic Party can take action on the Big 4 — COVID, the economy, climate change, systemic racism. I'll call it "CECS" to be snazzy.
The people spoke, more than 74 million Americans and they spoke loudly for our ticket....
It was so loud we're still straining to hear it after 4 days.
"Chainsaw Gordy."
Denmark will kill its 15 million caged minks — and not save the furs — because it's found a mutated version of the coronavirus.
The coronavirus evolves constantly and, to date, there is no evidence that any of the mutations pose an increased danger to people. But Danish authorities were not taking any chances. “Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly,” said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark....
Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly. A scary adage, but probably the right attitude for this specific problem. You can't individually test 15 million Danish minks and wait for the results. By the way, there are 5.8 human beings in Denmark, so there are nearly 3 minks per person.
The pelts of the mink will be destroyed and Danish fur farmers have said the cull, which is estimated to cost up to 5 billion kroner ($785 million), may spell the end of the industry in the country.
Speaking of weasels, the NYT reports: "A nasal spray that blocks the absorption of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has completely protected ferrets it was tested on, according to a small study released on Thursday by an international team of scientists." It's the animals that might infect us that are useful for tests.
The nasal spray science is interesting:
६ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
"Wild accusations."
Glenn Reynolds says he's quit writing a column for USA Today.
He doesn't give the details, only directs us to a new column at the NY Post and says:
The left is again showing that it can’t stand anyone who disagrees. “Moral superiority is an addictive drug, and perhaps the most unfortunate legacy of the Civil Rights era is that it got people on the left dependent on moral superiority for their self-esteem.”
Are we supposed to read that as a statement why he's quit USA Today? The indented material above is all from the NY Post column, which isn't about leaving USA Today, of course. I'm just saying that, as it appears at Instapundit, with the news that he's quitting USA Today, it reads like a statement about why.
Here's the NY Post column. Excerpt:
This year’s presidential election hasn’t provided the catharsis that many on the left were awaiting. Instead of the hoped-for “Blue Wave,” we have a still-too-close-to-call presidential election, while Republicans picked up House seats and appear to have held on to the Senate. One response might be self-criticism: to wonder how, after four years of single-mindedly trying to get rid of Trump and marginalize his followers, things didn’t go better. Instead, Democrats’ thinkers seem to be asking themselves variations on “How can I live in a country where half the people supported Donald Trump?”...
Madison newspaper article tells us about a "group" that blocked the main highway "for hours" last night, but never says who they were or what they were protesting.
A group of about 20 people in cars shut down the eastbound Beltline in Monona and Madison for about four hours on Thursday night, authorities reported....
So... "people." This story has a front-page headline, and that says it went up 2 hours ago. If this happened last night, why is there no information about who these people are and why they're shutting down the Beltline?
The group has a barbeque set up...
Are we supposed to infer the identity of the "people" and their purpose by the fact that they've set up a barbeque on the Beltline?!
... similar to a protest on the Beltline in September that last [sic] several hours.
Okay, there's a link on that, so if I pick up a hint that these "people" must have the same purpose, I can click through and find out who they were and why they did this and then — if I chose — infer that last night's group had the same purpose. The linked article from September says: "The protest stemmed from police-involved deaths, including that of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, and the Black Lives Matter movement, but it was unclear Thursday whether the protest was the result of a specific incident." In that protest, they "set up grills on the highway."
Here's an idea. Let's call it "journalism." You employees of the Wisconsin State "Journal" could take it upon yourselves to walk up to the "people" who are barbequing on the Beltline and interview them about what they are doing and why. If you find yourself wanting to write something like "it was unclear... whether the protest was the result of a specific incident," you might see that as a clue that you ought to find someone who could clear that up for you.
Your potential informants were glaringly right out there in the most public possible location. Why didn't you walk up to them and ask?!
Last night's incident ended at 10:45. This is a front-page news story. Why isn't the "Journal" ashamed to have such an incomplete, uninformative story about an incident that disrupted the city for 2 hours?
Do they think they answered the question when they said that last night's "group" had a "barbeque," and the September protest — "stemmed from police-involved deaths" — had "grills on the highway"? You shouldn't leave factual questions hanging like that! It's really disrespectful!
ADDED: Please understand that what I am calling "disrespectful" is the nudging to the reader to think in terms of race without speaking directly about race. I only refrained from calling that racism because I think there is too much readiness these days to call things racist. And yet, I'm pretty sure that if anyone from the right wing wrote something with that many cues about race, it would be called racist.
Are we mocking religion?
You guys... https://t.co/oFUSmP7SX6
— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) November 6, 2020
Meanwhile in Philly https://t.co/zes4Oghuwb
— Amie Coleman (@amiecoleman) November 6, 2020
I think it's valuable to read the transcript and judge Trump's words on their merit, not just to remember how you felt as you heard this...
... (if you listened to the whole thing live) and what it seemed as though he was saying. This speech was, I presume, intended to cause intense emotion, and I think it did. I got the feeling he was making wild accusations and that he ought instead to stay very closely connected to the evidence.
The officials overseeing the counting in Pennsylvania and other key states are all part of a corrupt Democrat machine that you’ve written about. And for a long time, you’ve been writing about the corrupt Democrat machine. I went to school there and I know a lot about it. It hasn’t changed since a long time ago and hasn’t changed. It has gotten worse.
In Pennsylvania, partisan Democrats have allowed ballots in the state to be received three days after the election, and we think much more than that, and they’re counting those without even postmarks or any identification whatsoever. So you don’t have postmarks, you don’t have identification.
There have been a number of disturbing irregularities across the nation.
५ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
"I won."
"Could we maybe just accept that identity politics isn't an effective political strategy? And could Democrats just stop with it, like now?"
What did Michael Bloomberg get for his money? He spent more than $1 billion running as a candidate, completely and embarrassingly failed, and then spent over $100 million on Biden...
... in Florida and $15 million in Ohio and Texas — and Biden lost in all of those states, Business Insider reports.
What an astounding record of fruitless political spending! I was going to say, this record will last for ages, but then I realized... no. It will be smashed within the next 10 years. Don't you see why?
Bloomberg is super-rich with $55 billion, but that only puts him at #14 on the Forbes' list of richest people in America. Jeff Bezos — #1 — has more than 3 times that much money. Why wouldn't he spend $3 billion or more if he ran for President... or just wanted to back one party's candidates?
And since Trump won the presidency in his first run for office, spending his own money, why wouldn't other businessfolk think they have a shot? Just because Bloomberg failed so so badly? Some will resist the lure, but not all. Somebody's going to have the vanity and extra money to think they can be the next Trump and they're not going to be the next Bloomberg. In any case, Bloomberg was not a newcomer to politics. He'd been the NYC mayor for 12 years. He wasn't just parachuting in with his business expertise and money. He was more grounded in political reality. These other billionaires don't have that limitation. They can think, If Trump could do it....
"So much for the Democratic fantasy — the one that seemingly never dies — of unobstructed rule."
"White women. Again."
Making their own decisions on various issues, according to their own different beliefs and convictions. Why on earth is that a problem? It’s success! https://t.co/FWK0zHIWIS
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) November 5, 2020
"Whatever happens in the courts, Trump is all but certain to be his own vortex of uncertainty over the next couple of months, until the Inauguration..."
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?
That's a strong assertion that the President has the power, then an enigmatic question that contains another assertion — that he did nothing wrong. But it's obvious why someone who'd done nothing wrong might want a pardon. A President may have powerful enemies who are threatening to prosecute him even though — in his opinion — he did nothing wrong.
"Disappointed Democrats headed Wednesday toward renewing their control of the House... with a potentially shrunken majority as they lost at least seven incumbents without ousting a single Republican lawmaker."
The NYT mishandles a metaphor: "Democrats’ ‘Blue Wave’ Crashed in Statehouses Across the Country."
How can a wave crash in a building?
On Wednesday, the results were not yet final, but the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state-level races, said there were changes or potential shifts of control in just four chambers: the New Hampshire House and Senate, which Republicans took back from Democrats, and possibly the House and Senate in Arizona, though the contests for those chambers were still too close to call. He said it was the first time since 1946 that so few chambers were changing hands.
He? Who he?
“This is crazy in that almost nothing has changed,” said Tim Storey, an expert with the N.C.S.L.
Oh, him. Tim Storey.
४ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
"Biden looks screwed even if he wins/At a minimum, the lackluster performance of Democratic Senate candidates would hamstring a President Biden from Day One."
[T]his campaign was always a referendum on Trump, rather than an affirmative endorsement of Biden and his agenda. That dynamic already cut against Biden claiming a strong positive mandate. He needed a crushing rejection of Trump to strengthen his case. He also needed the Senate...
Final results that fall short of a massive rejection of Trump, as seems likely, would fail to trigger the repudiation of Trumpism in the Republican Party that many Democrats — and a minority of Republicans — had hoped for. As John Harris argues, whatever the final numbers, Trump’s appeal to half the country has proven to be durable....
The article doesn't even mention the role of Trump himself. As ex-President, he'll be liberated to speak, building some new media operation. He'll be the Democrats' nemesis. And won't he be the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2024?
House Democrats stunned that they didn't oust a single GOP incumbent.
[B]y Wednesday morning, party officials and the rank and file were in panic mode as they awaited the results of nearly 20 members of the Democrats’ historic freshman class that handed the party control of the House just two years ago. And already they were saying goodbye to at least a half-dozen of their centrist Democratic colleagues, who were stunned by GOP challengers on Tuesday, including Abby Finkenauer in Iowa and Donna Shalala in Florida....
“It’s a dumpster fire,” said one lawmaker, who declined to be named.... Democrats were already engaging in rapid-fire finger-pointing... Several centrist Democrats blamed their more progressive colleagues, saying moderates in Trump-leaning districts couldn’t escape their “socialist” shadow....
"Can you tell me please, who won?"
An obvious point.
Obvious point here but: media quickly calling states in Biden's favor, when they're actually close, and slow-walking the announcements of Trump's clear victories is not a good look for being trusted or fighting a narrative of an election being stolen from the voters.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 4, 2020
"The Remaining Vote in Pennsylvania Appears to Be Overwhelmingly for Biden/The president leads by nearly 700,000 votes, but there are 1.4 million absentee votes outstanding."
So far, Mr. Biden has won absentee voters in Pennsylvania, 78 percent to 21 percent, according to the Secretary of State’s office. The results comport with the findings of pre-election surveys and an analysis of absentee ballot requests, which all indicated that Mr. Biden held an overwhelming lead among absentee voters. If Mr. Biden won the more than 1.4 million absentee votes by such a large margin, he would net around 800,000 votes — enough to overcome his deficit statewide.
Biden needs to get 700,000+ more votes than Trump out of a pile of 1.4 million ballots. If 78% of the uncounted ballots are for Biden, he can close the gap. But keep doing math. If the Biden percentage is 75%, it's dead even (with those big round numbers). Fall below 75% and Trump wins.
ADDED: Does "1.4 million absentee votes outstanding" refer to the number of ballots that have been received within the required time frame or the number that were sent out but not yet included in the count? If the latter, we don't know that there will ultimately be what I called "a pile of 1.4 million ballots." Not everyone who received an absentee ballot will have returned it. And not all returned ballots will be received in time and properly filled out. So I doubt that 1.4 million is the right number to use in this calculation.
I'm back from my stoical walk — 3.4 miles, 60°, down by the lake and over to State Street...
"Don’t set your mind on things you don’t possess as if they were yours, but count the blessings you actually possess and think how much you would desire them..."
"Your patience is commendable. We knew this was going to go long, but who knew we’re going to go into maybe tomorrow morning, maybe even longer. But look, we feel good about where we are."
I’m here to tell you tonight, we believe we’re on track to win this election. We knew because of the unprecedented early vote and the mail-in vote it was going to take a while. We’re going to have to be patient until the hard work of tallying the votes is finished. And it ain’t over until every vote is counted, every ballot is counted. But we’re feeling good. We’re feeling good about where we are....
As I’ve said all along, it’s not my place or Donald Trump’s place to declare who’s won this election. That’s the decision of the American people. But I’m optimistic about this outcome.... Keep the faith guys, we’re going to win this.... Your patience is great.
Does he really believe it's not his place or Donald Trump’s place to declare who’s won this election?
Just yesterday, I read in Axios: "If news organizations declare Joe Biden the mathematical president-elect, he plans to address the nation as its new leader, even if President Trump continues to fight in court." That's not leaving it to "the American people," but to the news organizations who have been bending over backwards to help Biden.
Unlike Trump, Biden doesn't need to declare his own victory.
The elite media will declare it for him if they can, but Biden wasn't planning to wait until the entire process of ballot-counting ended. He was planning to seize strategic advantage in the ballot-counting battle and "address the nation as its new leader" — and that's more than Trump has done.
"And we were getting ready for a big celebration. We were winning everything and all of a sudden it was just called off."
The results tonight have been phenomenal and we are getting ready… I mean, literally we were just all set to get outside and just celebrate something that was so beautiful, so good... We won the great State of Ohio. We won Texas, we won Texas. We won Texas. We won Texas by 700,000 votes and they don’t even include it in the tabulations. It’s also clear that we have won Georgia.... They can’t catch us. Likewise we’ve clearly won North Carolina....They can’t catch us.... We’re up 690,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 690,000. These aren’t even close. This is not like, “Oh, it’s close…” With 64% of the vote in, it’s going to be almost impossible to catch....
Almost impossible. He's not lying and saying his victory is certain. He's giving a dramatic speech that makes you feel that a great victory has been won, but he still acknowledges that the outcome could change.
I'm collecting old headlines like "Biden Will Win. Republicans Should Understand Why."
Joe Biden is going to win.
I have been wrong before. I will be wrong again. And maybe I’m wrong today. But we do not have any significant data to suggest Donald Trump was ever in a position to win reelection, or that he is closing the campaign with any sort of momentum needed for a come-from-behind victory.
We were patronizingly informed that we need to understand this news from the future. How biased was the information we were fed? The polls? The elite media? We knew they were biased, but they seem to have been far more biased this time around.
Four years ago, we did have such data. In the RealClearPolitics national polling average, Hillary Clinton’s lead shrunk nearly six percentage points between Oct. 18 and Nov. 3, before ticking up a bit at the end....
Were the polls more wrong this time? With so much pressure to get it right after failing last time, the polls were even more wrong, and the commentators leaned into lecturing us about how Trump is toast, rejected forever, by a new America that wasn't going to stomach that nasty Trumpism anymore.
३ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
Night falls... the election results should be coming in soon...
"We all had fun."
The "Little Pimp" gaffe.
To be fair to Trump, there is a movie "Li'l Pimp." It looks truly atrocious, but maybe Trump has watched it:Lil Pump takes the stage at the Trump rally shortly after 1amET on Election Day. Trump introduces him as "Little Pimp" pic.twitter.com/cS7yqT7c5Q
— Brandon Wall (@Walldo) November 3, 2020
There's a point where I said "That's what a Hitler ad would look like."
Good morning. Today is the first day of the rest of America’s life.
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) November 3, 2020
Voiced by Martin Sheen. pic.twitter.com/JCaj5IyZnr
The important thing.
The important thing is that we all had fun, didn't we?
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 3, 2020
Axios seems to invent the concept of "the mathematical president-elect" as it treats Biden's plan to declare early victory as wise when just yesterday it treated the same plan from Trump as devilish and deceitful.
Biden advisers learned the lesson of 2000, when Al Gore hung back while George W. Bush declared victory in that contested election, putting the Democrat on the defensive while Bush acted like the winner. So if Biden is declared the winner, he'll begin forming his government and looking presidential — and won't yield to doubts Trump might try to sow.
ALSO: The "mathematicians" are there to protect you in case you were counting on there being no math...NEW: Our first round of exit polling, taking a look at voters who've already cast their ballots.
— Eli Yokley (@eyokley) November 2, 2020
Who are they? Women, older people and Democrats are among the most likely Americans to have voted early, per our polling. https://t.co/E4nKsTte9E pic.twitter.com/s6bOzlTzzo
SNL-No-Math from Dez on Vimeo.
Meade votes... second in line.
Look how the Pennsylvania polls ended.
"From March to June 2020, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, which has endorsed Biden and skewed coverage in his direction, saw his wealth rise by an estimated $48 billion to an estimated $183 billion, making him easily the world’s richest man."
If these Democrats win both houses of Congress as well as the White House, things could get far worse for the already beleaguered middle class, which has been rocked by the pandemic, with an estimated 100,000 small firms going out of business. Particularly hard-hit by the recent urban unrest are inner city and minority businesses.
"I'll just say this once, Althouse. Abstaining from voting is neither courageous nor principled."
२ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
At the Morning Moon Café...
"Galumphing toward the apocalypse."
Me, I don't even answer the phone if I don't recognize the number, but my husband is answering calls now in the hope that it's a Biden phone bank person.
I thought it was quite something that he talked to a phonebank woman for 21 minutes yesterday, and then just now, he talked to a different phonebank women for 42 minutes — only ending the call when she said she had to go.
"It makes strategic sense that the Biden campaign would not draw attention to the bundlers who have helped him turn a lagging fundraising operation into a surprising powerhouse."
"Fifty years ago in Guzhen, China, a 15-year-old Red Guard called Zhang Hongbing heard his mother denounce Chairman Mao."
I see Matt Yglesias is doing a sunrise picture... but it's for politics, not, apparently, for any love of nature.
I've got 2 poetry posts this morning, and I thought Yglesias's quote might be another poem... Maya Angelou, perhaps? But, no, it's Benjamin Franklin:“I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.” pic.twitter.com/tKtzHmJ2gO
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 2, 2020
On the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin observed that he had often wondered whether the design on the president's chair depicted a rising or a setting sun. "Now at length," he remarked, "I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."
It's okay to use nature metaphors in politics. Reagan has his "Morning in America." It's nice to see the optimism, even though, I assume, Yglesias's optimism is an expression of the belief that Biden will win. If Trump wins, it will be... I had the transitory glimmer of happiness believing I was looking upon a rising sun, but no, no, it was a setting sun and darkness has fallen upon us once again.
Ah, whatever. Here's the sunrise I saw this morning — witnessed and loved purely as a sunrise and not any sort of metaphor:
Weird WaPo headline catches my eye: "Kamala Harris knows things no vice president has ever known."
I have not read this piece yet. I'm just trying to observe my understanding as it dawns on me. My first thought was: What kind of fawning bullshit is this? I was just complaining that the mainstream media hasn't subjected Kamala Harris to any serious testing, and now here's this ludicrous headline ascribing special powers of knowing to her.
I see it's in the "Style" pages, which is what we have in the newspaper today instead of what used to be called the "Women's" pages. So now I'm thinking of the old concept "Women's Ways of Knowing." Have you heard of these 5 "ways of knowing" — something about "women's cognitive development, dependent on conceptions of self (self), relationship with others (voice) and understanding of the origins and identity of authority, truth and knowledge (mind)"?
Is that what this WaPo thing is onto? Harris "knows things no vice president has ever known" because no vice president has ever been a woman? And extend that to no vice president has ever been black.
The piece is by Monica Hesse.
I keep thinking about how, at some point in Kamala Harris’s life, she has painstakingly reviewed her office wardrobe with the understanding that the difference between “slut” and “feminazi” is a few inches of worsted-wool hemline. At some point, she has approached a stranger in a public bathroom because the Tampax machine is broken again, and she has said, I’m so sorry, but do you have — and then she didn’t have to finish the question because women in bathrooms know that there is only one end to that question.
You know, I went through an entire life's worth of menstruating and never once asked as stranger in a public bathroom for a tampon. It's not something that just has to happen to every woman. Nor did I ever even consider whether clothes I wore to the office needed to get between “slut” and “feminazi.” I don't even know now which one is shorter, but why would it matter, since neither message is office-appropriate? Wouldn't you just be picking your length and deciding how much you cared about being appropriate?
I'm not buying Hesse's portrayal of the necessary experience of a woman, but in any case, who cares whether vice presidents know these things, and didn't Hesse already go through this collection of thoughts when she contemplated a first woman president 4 years ago?
"And then, this week, we got the big reveal. 'Anonymous' was Miles Taylor — a name that is likely literally anonymous to you to begin with."
"We don't want to have Pennsylvania, where you have a political governor, a very partisan guy. ... We don't want to be in a position where he's allowed, every day, to watch ballots come in. See if we can only find 10,000 more ballots."
Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 — a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats — are evidence of election fraud.... Trump's team is preparing to claim baselessly that if that process changes the outcome in Pennsylvania from the picture on election night, then Democrats would have "stolen" the election. Trump's advisers have been laying the groundwork for this strategy for weeks, but this is the first account of Trump explicitly discussing his election night intentions....
Boldface added. Trump's strategy is quite ordinary, merely politically strategic, as is the effort to portray it as devilish and alarming.
"But many of our relatives accused us of aping the West. They phoned us to ask what was the need for this? They said, have you forgotten our culture?"
BBC headlines "Biden and Trump criss-cross the US" when Biden only went from Delaware to Philadelphia yesterday and Trump flew 3,000 miles and rallied in 5 states.
Subheadline mostly concedes the embarrassing truth: "President Trump visits five states on Sunday while his rival Joe Biden campaigns in Pennsylvania." I say "mostly" because the geographical range of Biden's campaigning is muted by referring to the state, which is rather large, when Biden confines himself to the extreme southeast corner of the place, Philadelphia, which is an easy commute from his home in Wilmington, Delaware.
"It was the exact same feeling. It was amazing. When I came in from Columbus Circle into the park? I just started crying. The exact same emotions."
Even without the race banners lining city streets and ubiquitous advertisements on subway cars, taxis and billboards, New Yorkers knew the significance of the weekend, perhaps even more so this year. And many took note. They put up signs, cheered for runners in homemade marathon race bibs and wrote encouraging words with chalk on the sidewalk.
To make a prairie it takes a clover and one bee,One clover, and a bee.And revery.The revery alone will do,If bees are few.
Melania tells a joke in West Bend, Wisconsin.
Much as that deserves mockery, perhaps it's so absurd it comes all the way back around to decent respect. The dashing of the nearly full beer can onto the ground might be the equivalent of a wink. I'm kidding! But the truth is Lady Gaga really does drive a truck — a 1993 Ford SVT Lightning pickup.I’m voting for America #vote #election2020 pic.twitter.com/bspDNkxnhJ
— Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) October 31, 2020
१ नोव्हेंबर, २०२०
"Only in it for the money."
If he doesn't win, it won't be because he didn't try hard enough.
"Since the beginning, Greenwald had been separated from The Intercept’s U.S.-based newsroom, having lived in Brazil for over a decade."
"This newspaper has not supported a Republican for president since 1972. But we believe Mr. Trump, for all his faults, is the better choice this year."
"At the center of much of this creative coordination is Wisconsin’s Ben Wikler, chair of the state party Democrats, who was focused on comedy two decades ago, writing for the Onion and working for Al Franken..."
"And yesterday, he had the gall to suggest that American doctors, people who are putting their lives on the line, on the front lines to save other lives..."
Nate Silver says "Trump Can Still Win, But The Polls Would Have To Be Off By Way More Than In 2016," but there's good reason to believe the polls are more off.
Biden is unambiguously ahead in the polls. The Normal-Polling-Error Zone is a place we talked about in 2016, when we told you that Trump was only a normal-sized polling error away from beating Hillary Clinton.... The Zone of Plausibility...is where we are this year. I think of the Zone of Plausibility as extending out to reflect an error of up to two standard deviations — so, it’s a race where the favorite has somewhere from an 84 percent to 98 percent chance of winning. You wouldn’t consider the underdog winning in an election like this to be a routine occurrence. But, well, it’s plausible, and it isn’t that hard to find precedents for it.... At the same time, though, a 2016-style polling error wouldn’t be enough for Trump to win.... A Trump win remains plausible.... Polls can be wrong — indeed, the whole point of our probabilistic forecast is to tell you the chances of that — but they’re more likely to be wrong when a candidate’s lead is narrower....
Unless I missed something buried in all that statistical wonkery, Silver doesn't talk about why the polls might be more wrong in 2020 than they were in 2016. Here's what I'd say about that.
First, there might be more reason this time around for Trump supporters to avoid talking to pollsters or to give dishonest answers to pollsters. Not only is there fear of economic and social consequences for supporting Trump, there's open advocacy of the practice of lying to pollsters. I don't think there's anything like that on the Biden side.
Second, if pollsters are at all inclined to skew their numbers to manipulate opinion, they may have been more motivated to do so in 2020. What Trump did in 2016 was a massive surprise, and the defenses against him were lower. There was complacency at the time. Smug confidence. In 2020, there has been endless anxiety and hyper-alertness. I think that may have led pollsters to provide better numbers.
Third, if pollsters plumped up the numbers for Biden to feed the emotional and political needs of Democrats, then that may backfire as confidence based on polls leads some Democrats not to bother to vote, especially if they don't feel too great about Biden.
Fourth, we've got coronavirus this time, and anti-Trumpsters seem to be way more worried about it than Trumpsters. So more Trumpsters will show up in person to vote. More anti-Trumpsters have turned to mail-in voting, but who knows how well they've filled out the forms and whether they've put their envelopes into mailboxes in time to get counted?
Is he taking off the mask or putting it on? That's not like asking whether a glass is half full or half empty. Do you see why?
"The New York Post articles based on the contents of the mysterious hard drive delivered by Mr. Giuliani failed to drive a broader narrative about Mr. Biden in the way that WikiLeaks did with the Clinton materials."
While highlighting questions about the business activities of Hunter Biden and the former vice president’s brother James Biden, Mr. Giuliani and his allies have failed to prove that Joe Biden was involved in or a beneficiary of them. And they have distracted from the documents about which there are fewer questions related to the chain of custody by making unsubstantiated claims and publishing salacious pictures and videos that have no apparent relevance to Mr. Biden’s candidacy....
[Tony] Bobulinski says he met twice with the former vice president after he left office. The [Wall Street] Journal dug into Mr. Bobulinski’s account, and in the end reported that corporate records showed “no role for Joe Biden” in the deal and that the documents provided by Mr. Bobulinski “don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”....