Now that I'm writing a bit more, switched my newsletter over to a custom domain.
It's free for now but it's still much appreciated if you sign up for the mailing list!
I don't know, but it sure seems to me like not calling the race when the outcome is obvious in states like PA and NV gives the president more time to spout misinformation.
Repeating myself and others here, but the reason Lindsey Graham won't get tested despite having been exposed to many COVID+ people is because if he reveals a positive test and has to quarantine the Amy Coney Barrett nomination could get scuttled. There is no other logical reason.
Gotta be honest: On a night like tonight, I'm still pretty pissed at those journalists and news organizations which treated Hillary Clinton's email server as a matter of apocalyptic importance.
Wait, so Trump not only rejects stimulus funds that would probably have helped his re-election chances, but *also* does so in a way to make sure that he personally will take blame for it?
Honestly the idea of Mike Pence being president for 12 hours or something, so that everyone who looks back at the list of U.S. Presidents generations from now is like "WTF happened there?", is another (small) reason to vote on removal *before* Trump leaves office.
If you're one of those news organizations that treated Clinton's private emails like they were a national emergency, the solution isn't to treat Ivanka's private emails like they're also a national emergency—rather, it's to acknowledge that you kinda fucked up on Clinton.
Anybody who's like "we'll that was a pretty good showing for Trump!" should consider how Hillary Clinton was treated as the World's Biggest Loser after an election with the same Electoral College margin as this one*.
* But where she won the popular vote instead of losing it by 5
3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000...
Worth mentioning that if you stopped counting ballots *right now*, Biden would win with this map. So Trump is reliant on ballots counted after Election Day for his comeback chances.
I'm not sure it's really sunk in yet, even among reporters, that we're probably going to get 2 runoffs in Georgia on Jan. 5 that will determine control of the Senate.
"RBG dies 6 weeks before the election and the ceremony at the White House to name her replacement turns into a COVID-19 superspreading event" is, on the one hand, a remarkably strange sequence of events, but on the other hand chock-full of foreseeable risks that went unprevented.
Reporter: "Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?"
President Trump: "We're going to have to see what happens."
This is obvious I guess, but if you want to cut down on bothsidesism, put people on TV who have subject-matter expertise acquired through reporting or research... not generalists who are asked to opine on a whole bunch of topics they don't really know anything about.
The one thing I have no patience for is dudes (it's almost *always* dudes) who spend 15 minutes on something you've been studying for 10+ years and act like they've solved Fermat's Last Theorm
So Trump operatives are bragging about how the news media has called Alaska and North Carolina for them... while refusing to accept that the same news organization have called Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and the presidency for Biden.
I'm too tired for long takes but on a scale from 0 to 10 on how bad this is for the GOP, it's maybe like a 9, not just because of the immediate implications, but also because it may imply that Trump is sort of a poison pill for how the party navigates its future.
This is not a subtweet of anyone in particular and it's going to annoy some people since I have a lot of PhD followers/friends and also I'm a stubborn guy myself but...one thing I'm noticed is that once someone gets a PhD, it become 10x harder to convince them they're wrong.
If there's a significant political backlash for impeaching Trump for **inciting an insurrection** then we're probably completely fucked no matter what.
No. 2 House Republican Rep. Steve Scalise: "I don't think anybody can look and say an impeachment of this president is the thing that's going to help unite and bring our country together."
Sorry if this point is a little obvious, but it's pretty hard for Trump to sustain an argument that the NYT taxes story is "fake news" when he won't release his taxes himself. Obviously the base will buy it but I'm not sure that anybody else does.
So apparently the candidate in 3rd place is a bigger story than the candidate in 2nd place, who in turn is a bigger story than the candidate in 1st place? OK.
Imagine being a political columnist who could write about literally any topic you wanted and, given everything going on in American politics these days, you decided to write about how a woman member of Congress used a swear word.
And just like that, an 80 percent chance for Democratic takeover of the House goes to 50-50. Nate Silver’s polling operation can’t survive a second embarrassment of the magnitude he suffered in 2016
So far, Parkland is *not* fading from the news the way that mass shootings usually do. (The graph shows Google searches for the term "gun control".) The students speaking out makes a pretty big difference.
If the Democratic Party wants a field that's representative of its members and its voters, it probably shouldn't have two states as white as Iowa and New Hampshire vote first every year.
Trump can still win. But on the other hand, if you're deriving a model from history, it implicitly presumes some baseline level of competence from a presidental campaign that may not be compatible with, say, getting into a public spat with Dr. Fauci 3 weeks out from the election.
You don't need a fancy algorithm to know that Trump is losing, pretty badly at the moment. The Supreme Court pick doesn't seem to be helping him. The COVID situation may be getting worse again. Maybe the debates will help. But the clock is ticking: people are already voting.
I've written and deleted a version of this tweet like 12 times, but I think overall people should direct more of their ire at governmental officials and less at random dumb individuals.
Just want to get this out of the way so I only have to say it once:
It's a big deal that an openly gay man is a serious contender for a major party's presidential nomination, and if you're liberal who wants to equivocate about that too much, you can pretty much fuck right off.
6 cases out of 7 million people. What a disaster. This is going to get people killed. And it's going to create more vaccine hesitancy. These people don't understand cost-benefit analysis. They keep making mistakes by orders of magnitude.
Personally, I'd say the candidate who won 1.5 states (Sanders) is the frontrunner over the candidate who won 0.5 states (Buttigieg), especially if that candidate is also leading national polls.
I’m not trying to be a jerk but the Times still owes its readers an explanation about what the f*** was going on with this vector of its reporting in 2016.
If Republicans have a good night on Tuesday and think they won the midterm on the basis of immigration/xenophobia/race-baiting, just imagine how much Trump is going to turn the dial up in 2020.
The thing about the Parkland students isn't that they're always spot-on—they've had better and worse moments as communicators. But they're at least as effective at politics as most professional pundits who have done it for years. Naturally, that's very threatening to the pundits.
What if—and hear me out because this will sound CRAZY—instead of interviewing a few voters at a time in a bar in Pennsylvania, we interviewed HUNDREDS of voters, chosen at random from all around the country. Furthermore, we'd ask them all the same questions to minimize bias.
You don't demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to renominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating who 75% of voters think is too old without giving anyone a choice because that's just how things are done.
Those warnings we gave you about not paying too much attention to results until you're sure a county is fully reported... you're already ignoring them!
But I'll say it again: don't pay much attention to results until you're sure a county is fully reported (mail, in-person, etc.)
There really needs to be a semi exclamation point for when a period conveys too little enthusiasm in a work-related email but using the full exclamation point makes you seem like a psychopath.
One shouldn't underrate how much the media's obsession with Clinton's emails stemmed from its obsession with fending off accusations of liberal bias. Trump had... LOTS of issues.... so there was tremendous weight put on this one Clinton issue to preserve "balance".
@jdawsey1
One thing you can say is that the sheer volume and intensity of coverage of Clinton’s use of private email was absolute malpractice by the media, given how common the practice is.
About 60 million people turned out to vote for Democrats for the House this year. That is a **crazy** number. (Republicans got 45m votes in the 2010 wave.)
And this was sort of missed. Why so many stories about Trump voters in truck stops and not so many about "the resistance"?
After the past 48 hours, I would not want to be one of those Republicans like Josh Hawley who hitched my star to the notion that I could offer some kindler, gentler, smarter version of Trumpism.
I know a Sanders win is somewhat priced in, but I'm not sure why the story is about who finishes in 2nd and 3rd place instead of him winning, especially if it looks like a decently clear win.
Biden has won the last 600k ballots counted in Pennsylvania by 40 points, which is much bigger than the 22-point margin he needs the rest of the way out.
I'm not sure why trying to fight the debate to a messy, unwatchable draw is supposed to be a good strategy for Trump when he's 7 points behind in the polls.
I'm not some sort of COVID alarmist... I've tried to stay pretty even-keeled and have been burned by being too optimistic at times... but I find the rising case rates in the US (and for that matter also Europe) pretty worrisome right now.
Tired of people framing "Trump will declare victory prematurely" as a media story. Most likely—in part because the White House has telegraphed it so much in advance—the media will be fairly well-prepared. Instead, it's a story about Trump seeking to undermine faith in democracy.
I'm not trying to piss people off but it's a little rich that some prominent voices who spent months saying how awful Warren was compared to Bernie are now furious at Warren for failing to endorse him.
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:
0-1 points: just 6%!
1-2 points: 22%
2-3 points: 46%
3-4 points: 74%
4-5 points: 89%
5-6 points: 98%
6-7 points: 99%
Hawley seems like the sort of politician who will be heralded by pundits as the new GOP frontrunner in some future election year and then will finish in 5th place in Iowa.
It's hard to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, pointing out how the erosion of democratic norms around accepting election results is highly concerning in the long run, and, on the other hand, pointing out how desperate and pathetic this all is.
I don't want to speculate *too* much about the political ramifications of…this…but that there apparently was a superspreading event, and that there are photos from the event of people hanging out indoors and outdoors in close proximity without masks on, is not great for the WH.
Welp. The behavior of a certain cadre of scientists who used every trick in the book to suppress discussion of this issue is something I'll never forget. A huge disservice to science and public health. They should be profoundly embarrassed.
It's for extremely understandable reasons, but people seem to be sleeping on the significance of the fact that Democrats **just won two runoffs in Georgia** to **claim control of Congress**.
If you just go by what ABC News has called (we're on the conservative side tonight)... Biden's win probability would go from 69% to 85% based on NE-2 being called! That one electoral vote makes a huge amount of difference.
Former
#CLTCC
candidate Pete Givens confirmed to Channel 9 that Mark Harris introduced him to McCrae Dowless. "Mark told me about this guy's process... that he had a process." Harris is Givens' pastor
First reported by
@theobserver
#NC09
#ncpol
Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but Romney actually has a decent amount of leverage, if he and one of Collins, Murkowski, etc. threatened to become "Independent Republicans" or what have you who caucused with the Democrats.
I understand he wants to project strength, but polls show that a large majority of the public doesn't think Trump took COVID seriously and that colors their response to his illness. So even apart from putting Secret Service members in danger, etc., not sure it's wise politically.
Sorry if this is a bit random, but the fact that Biden easily won the Democratic primary despite having little support from blue-checkmark liberal elites is something that ought to have been a pretty big wake-up call but doesn't seem to have been.
I'm too tired to make this point eloquently, but part of what happens at the end of a not-especially-close election is that there's a lot of effort to create ambiguity, and you have to be pretty steadfast to see through that ambiguity.
The recent rhetoric from Trump, and often other Republicans, trying to delegitimize election results is awfully dangerous. Maybe the most openly authoritarian move he's made so far.
From
@TomPepinsky
, an expert on authoritarian politics: "In a month of harrowing news, this development is still almost incalculably bad for American democracy."
This is so refreshingly honest. The Bad People thought the lab leak might be true, therefore as journalists we couldn't be expected to actually evaluate the evidence for it.
I don't want to be too snarky but Trump needs to close a big polling deficit and this is the message on a day with 80k new COVID cases and a 940 point decline in the Dow.
It's hard to tell whether GOP leaders are being strategic and cynical (e.g. hoping to keep their base excited) when indulging claims of election-rigging, or are just wholly disconnected from reality. But in some ways I wonder if it's even possible to distinguish between the two.
There's this dumb argument circulating that if you'd known in advance what would happen—i.e. Trump beating his polls—you shouldn't have Biden e.g. a 90% chance of winning. Actually, if you'd known in advance what would happen, you should have given Biden a 100% chance of winning!
I don't know, I watch these clips where Ocasio-Cortez is supposedly making huge gaffes and it seems like her policy knowledge is...probably about on par with or maybe a bit ahead of the average member of Congress.
Everybody is too risk-averse to write the "actually, Trump is terrible at politics" hot take but it will instantly be presumed to be *incredibly obvious* if polls are roughly correct on Nov. 3.
Seems to me that if Biden is at 51% in polls but his supporters aren't super vocal and don't have a ton of yard signs out there and stuff, then Biden voters could make a good claim to being the "silent majority".
The day a twitter mob can change a headline on the New York Times this paper is truly finished and replaced by a new kind of 1984 Ministry of Truth. The news is now what people say it is.
Georgia, which has a Republican Secretary of State, has probably been the most transparent state in the country with respect to its vote counting process, with precise updates on exactly how many ballots were left to count in which counties. There is a lot of doublespeak here.