My last word on the debate...

I will offer no more words of wisdom or idiocy (depending on your viewpoints) on this debate. This includes within the comment threads, since apparently the minions on the left are pretty much only interested in rehashing the "good people on both sides" hoax and dishonestly demanding that the President won't condemn white nationalists.

I first want to point out that Donald Trump has been in four Presidential debates so far, and has seemingly had to deal with some last second "bombshell" in each of them. From the hot mike issue with Access Hollywood, to the so called non-release description of his tax returns just prior to last nights debate, there has usually been at least one question set aside designed specifically for Trump having to explain himself out of something. Neither of his opponents have ever had to deal with this.

Next I want to point out that we are in the middle of a world-wide pandemic, the likes of which has not been witnessed in our life times. At the same time, we are going through an extremely violent social unrest that has bitterly divided the nation. On top of all that, we have an economy that has has had to bear the brunt of both of these things. Donald Trump has been President for nearly four years, while Joe Biden has been out of politics for that same period of time. 

So this was a debate that clearly provided the challenger with the upper hand. Approximately half the questions were forgone to put the President on his heels, and provide an opportunity for Joe Biden to attack (in areas where he has very little to lose). By all accounts, if this was a race, Trump was hypothetically saddled with having to wear ankle bracelets, while having his right shoe lace tied to his left... at least if he allowed it to play out by conventional rules. 

So if people are shocked or surprised that Trump turned this into a knock down drag out brawl instead of engaging in a straight forward debate on the subjects being presented, then they probably don't understand Trump. As much as Trump is being criticized by people over his bullying tactics and obvious attempts to play alpha dog over the events, the question is whether or not this was the lesser of two unappealing strategies. 

Given how much it was apparent (even to people on the left) that Trump ended up debating both Wallace and Biden, imagine the scenario where Wallace would be provided with complete control and where the President would simply be asked to stand back and take attack after attack from two fronts on how many people have died from Covid, how it has to be his fault that people are rioting, or that the draconian lockdowns from our blue states creating economic hardship is all his fault. That would not have likely gone all that well for the President considering the circumstances.

But now certain things have changed. Expectations are different and if Biden shows up for the next debate, it might just be the President (not Biden) who might be provided with the benefit of lowered expectations. There should be no more talk of tax returns, and eventually we will get into subjects more favorable to Trump, such as explaining specific economic policies moving forward, trade deals, and foreign policy where Trump has just been nominated for his third Nobel Peace prize.  

If I was Donald Trump I would open debate two with a firm statement openly denouncing all hate groups and listing them by name (including antifa). Then he should challenge Joe Biden to do the same and denounce all groups (including antifa). That would put that issue to rest and place Biden on the defensive (because he will not denounce antifa in spite of the damage they have caused to the country). 

I will end with how I began all of this. Nobody won this "debate" because it really was never a "debate". It was clash of styles, a clash of personalities, and clash of ideologies. Both men had good moments and bad moments. But at the end of the day it was little more than a street fight and you can all determine for yourself who came out with the bloodier of noses. 

Biggest fact check so far?

Is on the liberal media reporting - who is surprised?

(two times in 16 seconds Trump agrees to condemn white supremacists)

WATCH: President Trump says TWO TIMES he's willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups.

"Sure, I'm willing to do that." pic.twitter.com/xWTVWxITNa

— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) September 30, 2020

Almost before Wallace's stupid question (because there is almost no actual real proof of White Supremacist's causing the violence) was finished, Trump had already shook his head yes and said "sure". Then right after Wallace was done, he states "Sure I am willing to do that". 

On the flip side, apparently the two billion plus dollars in damage, several dead cops, several dead civilians, and hundreds injured in blm and antifa rioting... is not worthy of demanding Joe Biden denounce either blm or antifa. In fact, he denied antifa even exists. 

If there is a prize for the most stupid question in a debate, Chris Wallace would win that one going away. 

Take the twitter poll from CSpan. How much more neutral can you get?

Who won the first presidential debate?#Debates2020 #debates

— CSPAN (@cspan) September 30, 2020

Social Media reactions and my thoughts...

Liberals are claiming that Trump was being a bully and that this won't win him any voters. According to Markos and others, the debate was an "ugly draw" that won't move the needle much. 538 suggesting that it might actually reduce voter turnout, which would be good for Trump and bad for Democrats overall. Many Biden supporters are suggesting Biden drop out of all the next debates.. 

Conservatives are arguing that Chris Wallace  became the true Trump debate partner, attempting to basically use his position of moderator to make points and challenge Trump when Biden didn't. Conservatives wonder out loud if it matters if Joe drops out of the next debates or not, because Trump will still have a debate, even if it's just him and a moderator.

Don't judge this as a debate. It was a street fight! 

From a personal standpoint, in many ways I think both candidates might have been better than feared but not as good as they hoped. The debate was more political mud-wrestling than a classic intellectual debate, and that obviously was one person's plan and what the other wanted to avoid. 

As I predicted, Trump was Trump was Trump was Trump, but he actually did seem very prepared, did his homework, and held up well working through debate topics that seemed purposely designed to keep him on his heels. Probably the best topic for Trump was the first topic regarding the Supreme Court nomination. Quoting Ginsburg herself regarding being President for four years and suggesting that "elections have consequences" while explaining the obvious (that Democrats would have done the same thing) was far more effective than Biden's politically motivated talking point. Moreover,  the first few minutes of the debate are always the most watched. On the flip side Trump being Trump means that he comes across as over the top and a bully. Personally I think he could have dialed it back a bit and let Biden ramble a little more. 

Biden had more than his share of rough moments and he really wasn't the calming influence that his team would have probably liked to have seen. Between odd laughter and intermittent scowling, along with his own interruptions and name-calling, Biden did actually end up down in the mud with Trump. Obviously that is not the fight he wanted, because Trump will beat you with experience when it comes to mud slinging and who can be more obnoxious. That being said, there were no complete meltdowns, and he seemed reasonably aware of where things were going. I would have liked to have seen Wallace allow Biden to defend himself. I don't believe that damsel in distress vibe is a good one for a Presidential Candidate. 

Bottom Line: Trump was Trump and turned things into a circus. This seemed to have pissed off more liberals than conservatives, which was probably his point. Wallace just furthered his reputation as having always been a closet liberal who is now openly out of the closet. He will take a lot of flack for his performance, from both sides. But I am not sure that the moderator being openly pro-Biden helps Biden with voters and I am not sure if Trump arguing with Wallace helped Trump. 

At the end of the day I don't believe there was a "clear" winner of the debate itself. You are going to like the talking points of the person you already like. But as a matter of true effectiveness in controlling the fight (ring control as it were) I would say Trump was a clear winner in those regards. He turned it into what he wanted it to be. Whether that helps very much is the big question.

I will say that of the few actual points being made, Trump appeared to have an upper hand of bringing up things that are not just talking points. On the flip side Joe was able to provide some portions of some of his talking points uninterrupted (or maybe I just imagined that). But I am not convinced that Biden showed himself to be the calming alternative to chaos. In some ways, by taking the bait and engaging the fight at times and at times looking to Wallace for help, he came out looking like a weaker of the two fighters. 

Because let's fact the fact. It was a street fight, not a debate. 

Let me be the very first to congratulate Joe Biden on his great debate performance!

 Best debate performance since Ronald Reagan!

Granted, the debate hasn't started yet, but I might as well jump on the bandwagon! 

We'll call this the great debate thread - have at it! 

Old man Biden wants breaks every 30 minutes - refuses to be checked for ear pieces?

 Apparently the debate negotiation are still in question?

But astonishingly, even given how short it is, Biden’s team is now reportedly fighting for two breaks, one every thirty minutes, to which the Trump team has so far not agreed, according to Fox producer Pat Ward.

The Trump team is asking that both candidates be checked for earpieces before the debate. One would think that simply a normal procedure. But guess who isn’t agreeing to it, at least so far? You got it, Biden.

Have we ever had a Presidential debate that included "breaks". This is scheduled for 90 minutes and there are not even any scheduled commercial breaks. If a man cannot stand and answer questions for 90 minutes without getting tired and needing a physical break, then that man cannot be the leader of the free world.

Why on god's green earth would you refuse to be checked for earpieces. Lord knows that this only creates the illusion that you are in requirement of assistance and that you are willing to cheat to get it. That talking point alone is a big problem.   

Biden will win these debates by staying awake and appearing relatively competent....

Or at least this is the conventional wisdom... I don't agree.

For a moment, we all might stop to consider whether or not conventional wisdom and insider political opinions actually represents the true feelings of the American electorate. Generally speaking the electorate pays very little attention to the political class and even less attention to the deep dive blogosphere style politics associated with those who are fixated on this stuff.

From what I have casually gathered from those who are Biden supporters, they truly believe that Biden is the superior candidate, the superior intellect, and they expect that Biden will wipe the floor with Trump in all of these debates. They believe this as much as they believed the same things to be true in 2016 with Hillary Clinton.  

I have yet to find anyone who believes that Biden is incompetent, losing his marbles, or is otherwise incapable of standing toe to toe with the President for 90 minutes... but still plans to vote for Biden for President and leader of the free world. While they hear the President call him Sleepy Joe and they hear murmurs of intellectual decline, they simply see that as just another unfair and unwarranted personal attack from the President and conservatives (who they believe did the same thing to Clinton in 2016).  

So unlike some of those who are responsible for the conventional wisdom, I do believe that a bulk of Joe Biden supports (or those leaning towards voting for Joe) do actually expect more out of him than not falling asleep or not soiling himself in the middle of the debate. They believe Joe is fully capable of debating for 90 minutes and that is what they expect to see.

What we saw in the Democratic Debates earlier this year is that while Joe Biden was certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed or a brilliant debater, he got away with being mostly competent in situations which demanded far less of him. I also recall that Biden had a tendency to "wear down" a little and become less sharp as the debates went on. This could play a factor in a one on one 90 minute debate.

Now the Biden team say they say he has been working several hours a day for weeks to prepare for this, while many from the Trump camp say that the President has almost flippantly disregarded debate prep (as he did in 2016). Traditionally incumbents struggle in the first debate for this very reason. Sitting Presidents likely believe they need less preparation and believe it or not being President of the United States is time consuming. Unlike Biden, Trump cannot repeatedly shut down his day at 10:00 AM to work on debate prep. 

Bottom line: This could go either way here folks. 

If I had to make a guess, I would say that Trump will be Trump will be Trump will be Trump and that Biden will appear "mostly" competent providing well rehearsed boilerplate bullet point answers to questions while possibly flailing a little with the follow up. But this will provide enough for the liberal media to declare Biden the winner. 

But it's also very possible that Trump gets under Biden's skin and traps the former VP into playing his game (as he has done with most everyone else). Biden has shown a quick temper and that would undermine his strategy of coming across as the calm alternative. It also is possible that Biden will lose his train of thought enough that it will not appear "normal". This is what the Biden team is preying doesn't happen and is probably why Joe Biden has been preparing rather than campaigning for the past few weeks.

What I don't accept, however, is the conventional wisdom that Biden has such low expectations that he has very little to lose. I believe that it's way more important for Biden to come across as in command and Presidential than many of these people want to believe. A bad performance for Biden will be exactly what would push the same sort of competency and health theories that plagued Clinton down the stretch. I simply don't believe that enough people will be willing to vote for a man who is nearly 80 if that age shows itself. 

There is no question that Biden is struggling with his cognitive abilities and health much more than Clinton ever was. If a 68 year old Clinton stumbling or needing help down a flight of stairs convinced people she had health issue, what happens if the 78 year old Biden forgetting his lines or requiring a teleprompter becomes a mainstream issue (rather than just conservative fodder)? 

 

If the bombshell reports that Trump took a huge loss and avoided taxes for years sounds familiar...

It's because the story was from 2016... 

Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years

By Steve Eder and Megan Twohey (Oct. 10, 2016)

Donald J. Trump explicitly acknowledged for the first time during Sunday’s debate that he used a $916 million loss that he reported on his 1995 income tax returns to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years.

Mr. Trump’s response — “Of course I do. Of course I do” — was the fullest the wealthy developer had provided since The New York Times reported that he had declared the loss, and that the tax deduction could have been large enough to allow him to avoid federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

Previously he had declined to comment on the documents, issuing a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

That's what it's come down to here folks. The Democrats and their media cronies are not capable of coming up with a good "new scandal" so they just refurbish an old story and pretend that it's a scandal. 

The bigger question here is how well is the NY Times capable of fooling their loyal (but not too bright followers)? Did our friendly liberals here believe this was a new bombshell as was being implied or where they smart enough (like most of us) to know that this was just another hoax?

BTW

Does it cross anyone's mind that the main reason people wanted Trump's tax returns was not to complain about how little he paid in taxes, which is quite literally all that has come from this? The only real question is whether to yawn once, twice, or three times.  

Does anyone even pretend to recall that Trump haters were sure that his tax returns would uncover ties to Russia, more corrupt details on non-disclosure-agreements, business interests that were corrupt or possibly put him in compromising positions... or ultimately that someone digging through ten years of Trump's tax returns would return smoking gun proof of something illegal. Yet, all it shows is that Trump hired likely the best tax accountants in the country and paid as little as possible in taxes? That doesn't make him anything other than a good businessman.

I think I will go with three yawns!

Latest polling - is the race tightening ahead of debates?

Hybrid average including four way polling when possible

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Biden (D)	Trump (R)	Spread
Average	9/14 - 9/27	--	--	48.7	43.4	Biden +5.3
Monmouth*	9/24 - 9/27	809 LV	3.5	50	45	Biden +5
Harvard-Harris	9/22 - 9/25	LV	--	47	45	Biden +2
NY Times/Siena	9/22 - 9/24	950 LV	3.5	49	41	Biden +8
The Hill/HarrisX	9/22 - 9/25	2768 RV	1.9	45	40	Biden +5
ABC News/Wash Post	9/21 - 9/24	739 LV	4.0	50	45	Biden +5
Emerson	9/22 - 9/23	1000 LV	3.0	48	44	Biden +4
Economist/YouGov	9/20 - 9/22	1124 LV	3.6	49	42	Biden +7
USC Dornsife	9/14 - 9/27	5253 LV	--	51	43	Biden +8
Reuters/Ipsos	9/18 - 9/22	889 LV	3.7	50	42	Biden +8
Rasmussen Reports	9/16 - 9/22	3000 LV	2.5	48	47	Biden +1

Thought for the day...

Democrats will spend the next few weeks trashing Amy Comey Barrett and railing against her nomination because she is Catholic, while propping up Catholic hair sniffer and serial assaulter Joe Biden for President. 

So Catholics should not be in positions of power?
Depends on what Party you belong to.

Of course, this isn't unusual for Democrats. You also cannot be Black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, or any number of things and be a Republican. You will likely be labeled, cancelled, and banned from social media for improperly mixing your creed, color, religion and political Party.

Covid in the upper midwest...

The Powerline had another update on the Covid situation up here in the upper midwest. It's an interesting take if someone wants to check it out. While I have  my own numbers, I do like the manner in which they show the mortality rates:

• Iowa: 0.00040
• Minnesota: 0.00036
• North Dakota: 0.00025
• South Dakota: 0.00023 
• Wisconsin: 0.00022  

The first thing that grabs you is that the mortality rates of Covid are very small. While people tend to like to bring up "big numbers" (like 200,000) without perspective, the fact is that Covid is still not a top killer in our country (and never will be). It doesn't compete with heart disease, cancer, or a variety of other causes of deaths and it is only marginally more dangerous than the flu and less dangerous than pneumonia.

But in the grand scheme of things, Minnesota and Wisconsin are the only states to have done any sort of lock down. However the lock down was cut short and ruled unconstitutional in Wisconsin. So basically Minnesota is the only state of the five to have used the draconian lock down measures associated with most Democratic run states. For what it is worth Minnesota is only doing marginally better than Iowa and considerably worse than the others. All of these states (btw) are under the national average by a considerable margin.

As has been pointed out, with the exceptions of a few states, the entire thing is sort of evening out as we move further into things. Covid (like any virus) will spread more quickly in higher density areas than in other areas. But the other factor that is coming into play here is that there appears to be almost zero empirical evidence across the country that lockdowns have or are working to reduce the spread in states that have used them. 

We can argue hypotheticals, predictions, models, and "expert" opinion all we want, but at the end of the day real science must rely on the real data (not opinions). Right now there still remains no real evidence of better Covid "results" for those states that would be deemed to have better Covid "responses". While this may be counterintuitive, it still appears to be the factual truth.

Lastly, while the cause and effect of Covid lock downs seem to have at best a mixed results in terms of controlling Covid, it has had a tangible effect when it comes to our economic situation. Of these states, Minnesota is the only state that has an unemployment rate over 7%.  

• Minnesota: 7.4%
• Wisconsin: 6.2% 
• Iowa: 6.0%
• North Dakota: 5.0%
• South Dakota: 4.8% 

The highest unemployment rates are all tied to Democratic Governors. Nevada (13.2%), Rhode Island (12.8%), New York (12.5%), Hawaii (12.5%), and California (11.4%) are the top five. Hawaii has had 132 deaths and one of the lowest rates of infection in the country? Do you supposed their lock downs were really worth the economic cost? 

The latest big no news... (just because some people will want to spam about this).

Who cares about Trump’s tax returns?

The New York Times’s big Trump tax files splash on Sunday is therefore something of a flop. It is well-timed — an election is fast-approaching and the story might give Biden a good attack line in the big TV debate on Tuesday night. The reportage is quite interesting, too, especially to those of us who take a sordid interest in how the richest among us can get away with paying so little to the government.

But there is no smoking gun. Despite clearly exhaustive efforts, the Times investigative team has failed to uncover any illegality or clear wrongdoing. In fact, the subtext of the story is a mounting frustration at the skill of Trump’s accountants in alleviating their man’s fiscal burden. The reporters seem particularly pained to note that a law passed under President Barack Obama enabled Trump to recoup more historic losses than he could otherwise have done.

Let's start with the fact that what the NYT is doing is not only unethical, but illegal. But it just goes to show that when it comes to trying to take down the "bad orange man" that the heroes in liberal land appear to be the one who break the law while trying (and failing) to prove that Trump was somehow breaking the law. That being said, this becomes second hand information, because the actual tax returns themselves are not actually being "released". It's the NYT word that Trump and his accountants took every available legal measure to avoid paying taxes. Big story? Yawn. The only real question is if Trump will sue the NYT over illegally accessing and releasing tax return information without consent. 

Sorry folks, but if Trump was breaking tax laws, the IRS would no about long before the NYT hack reporting staff would know. Not only that, but I sort of have to agree with the general concept that nobody really cares about this stuff. Everyone who files their own taxes takes the largest tax breaks they can find and would take even larger breaks if they could find them. Nobody chooses to not write things off that they are allowed to write off and nobody pays more taxes voluntarily than they otherwise have to. Do we expect that Trump should agree to pay more because he is Trump? 

Democrats down at least one more with their idea of eliminating the filibuster or packing the court...

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said Sunday he would not support adding justices to the Supreme Court or doing away with the filibuster if Democrats win a Senate majority and the White House.

“I'm not going to vote for anything that would cause, basically, not be able to work in a bipartisan way,” Manchin, likely the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” when asked about expanding the court.

Obviously you cannot pack the court without doing away with the filibuster. I strongly suspect that there are several more Democrats who would balk at the idea of turning the Senate into a different version of the House. What has always been the source of pride for Senators is the idea that it is a less partisan chamber and that Democrats and Republicans often work together to get things done. 

Moreover, I think many Democrats remember what happened when Harry Reid decided to do away with the filibuster for Judicial appointments. It came back and basically bit them in the ass. There is no reason to suspect that the same might not hold true for them if they attempted to do away with the legislative filibuster. 

Let's remember that this is a rule that has been in place since 1806, or over 200 years. To believe that somehow this rule should be changed now, because one side or the other gains the upper hand (probably by 50-50 split or 51-49 split) would be extremely egotistical and self-centered. Once it's gone, it forever changes our system of government. 

WaPo and NYT coordinated polling release?

Six Point lead in WaPo and eight for the NYT

Biden leads Trump by six points in the most recent ABC/WaPo poll (when all candidates are listed) and the NYT Siena poll shows Biden leading by eight. It seems like every time there are some pollsters (generally independent pollsters) that show the race tightening, the media polls come along and repute them. 

The ABC/WaPo poll is being headlined as a double digit ten point lead, which is hypothetically what Biden would have if there were no third Party candidates to choose from. But when you include the Libertarian and Green Party candidates many of the Independent Biden supporter appear to wander over to these candidates. It would be interesting to see if Kayne West actually would receive any polling support (as he will appear in several state ballots as a Presidential candidate) if he was also listed as a choice. 

Not sure why anyone would want to pretend that third Party candidates do not exist, but it would be very curious to see how many of these other polls would tighten if you allowed these other choices to exist. Many are still only polling a two way race. This was also a major factor in 2016 polling where Clinton similarly polled better when only two options were provided, while Trump polled better in a three or four way race.

What this strongly suggests is that there is plenty of independents who are very luke warm about voting for Joe Biden. Him winning them over for good might be the difference between another 2016 sort of election and the significant Biden victory that many polls suggest. 

Neither of these polls provided much for cross tabs and from what was provided it was difficult to mathematically tie those cross tabs to the top line being reported. What I can tell you in general with 2020 polling is that while there is a still a noticeable difference in the Demographic breakdown in comparison to historical precedent, the bigger difference between what I see in 2020 vs 2016 is the extremely wide range of how pollsters are seeing independents (which might be due to whether or not third Party candidates are listed).  

So far I have seen cross tabs showing Trump leading with Independents by a couple points more than he won them in 2016 to Biden winning them by twenty points or more (Trump won Independents in 2016 by four). We are literally seeing a spread between highs and lows of nearly thirty points as it pertains to independents. Which is correct? I don't have a difficult time believing that Independents might shift from election to election, such is the nature of that beast.  But I do find it difficult to believe that they would shift by as much as twenty five points (as some polls are suggesting). 

 

Sunday Funnies

Sorry: accidently left in draft rather than published status (updates to blogger.com)

 

Polling suggest public largely split on replacing Ginsburg before the election

In the latest Emerson College/NewsNation national poll of likely voters: 

  When asked if they think the Senate should confirm a Supreme Court Justice replacement nominated by President Trump now or by whoever wins the presidential election: 48% said they should vote to confirm now and 46% said they should wait till after the January inauguration. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans said they should vote now to confirm Trump’s nominee, and 82% of Democrats said they should wait till after the January inauguration. Independents were split: 45% said they should vote now to confirm Trump’s nominee, with 44% favoring to wait for the winner of the November election.

This is coming from a pollster that has a more realistic viewpoint of a Presidential election result, rather than the over the top media polling showing Joe Biden with double digit leads. Emerson has seen this race toggle between about a two point Biden lead and a six point Biden lead... which probably is fairly realistic at this point. So I would tend to believe this poll over any media based push poll that came out a day or two after the death.

We also had a poll that came out three days before Ginsburg passed that showed even a greater percentage of Americans felt that a USSC justice should be replaced by the sitting President (even close to an election). This is also not unlike 2016, when a majority of Americans disagreed with McConnell decision to not put the Merrick Garland nomination up for a vote.

Moreover, once you attach a name to the nomination, it no longer just becomes an "open seat" but also starts to represent the actual life of an American citizen caught on the political cross hairs of an angry minority Party. To some degree, the American public "will" take into consideration the qualification and (yes the feelings) of the nominee. If that nominee seems to have a valid claim for being on the high court, then should politics put a stop to someone's career advancement? We would never worry about who is President or when the next election is, when deciding who gets promoted to the CEO of some major corporation? Why does a Supreme Court candidate have to deal with that?

This was exactly some of the arguments that made people feel a little bad for Merrick Garland back in 2016. He seemed well respected and qualified for the position, and many felt like he was a victim of the political fall out. In fact, the general argument for not sitting Merrick Garland is exactly the same for not sitting Amy Barrett, which is that they are nothing like the person they are replacing (and that the person who was being replaced would have preferred someone different).

Many of us made the argument in 2016 that to a large degree the public had provided the Senate Majority to the Republicans and therefore McConnell had some justification for doing what he was doing. After all it was President Obama himself who was fond of telling Republicans who didn't get their way that "elections have consequences". Well one of Obama's biggest legacies was squandering a 60-40 Senate majority for Democrats and turning it into a Republican majority. The various elections that put McConnel in charge offered the consequences of no vote for Garland in 2016 and a likely vote for the likely nominee Barret in 2020. 

Nobody really believes that if the situation was reversed that Democrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing in both 2016 and 2020. 

Two new polls suggests voters are not in favor or "expanding the court"

WaPo and Yahoo

A 54 percent majority of Americans oppose increasing the number of justices who sit on the bench in a way that would give the winner of the election more influence over the court’s makeup. About a third of Americans support adding justices, 32 percent, while 12 percent have no opinion.

About 6 in 10 Republicans and independents alike oppose increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, while Democrats are relatively split, with 45 percent supporting this and 39 percent opposing it.

__________

Only 32 percent support increasing the number of justices to the Supreme Court (39 percent oppose, 29 percent are unsure). Just 37 percent support abolishing the filibuster so that 40 senators cannot block legislation (23 percent oppose, 39 percent are unsure). And voters are divided 35 percent to 35 percent on whether it is a good or bad idea to expand the court “so that five justices are affiliated with the Republicans, five are affiliated with the Democrats, and five are apolitical and chosen by the other 10 justices.”

So if we are looking for the average here, a plurality of just under 50% are opposed to increasing the number of Justices, while only 32% in both polls are in favor of it, with a good portion of those in favor being Democrats. Either way, the plan is unpopular and is said to have considerable resistance within the Senate itself. 

Doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. But the likelihood of it happening in the aftermath of the next election is not very high, just as there is less than a good chance that you will see the Senate abandon the filibuster. These things have a habit of coming back to bite the Party that starts down these paths, and everyone at this point in time realizes that if Trump ends up with three young conservatives on the USSC, that he has Harry Reid to thank.

Amy Coney Barrett?!?!

 

24 Trump supporters arrested in Louisville while at White Supremacy rally in the name of Trump

Merely a coincidence that the Grand Jury very recently did not indict the police officers for the death of Breonna Taylor. 

Trump supporters and White Supremacist are involuntarily
 flamed by the President into committing violence!

Since the liberals here are too incompetent to do a simple bing search?

This is a video from CNN about the recent ad I described... It shows the ad (which I watched again - and it was exactly as I remember and maybe actually worse) and then some commentary which I did not watch. 

Biden campaign releases ad condemning protest violence but not blm or antifa - blames Trump and supporters.https://t.co/gmOGB4FsCI via @msnbc

— C.H. Truth (@C_H_Truth) September 25, 2020

• First you will hear Joe Biden condemning violence, but not stating anything about antifa or blm. Just that Trump is "fanning the flames" (which is to say that protests have nothing to do with blm or antifa or police action, but entirely about the President).
• Then as you watch his video of the typical riot, it will first show police officers in riot gear. Not actual protesters.
• Then you see a pick up truck with a Trump flag in the back with a caption underneath saying "Protests turn deadly" as if everything is about a couple of pickup trucks of Trump supporters.
• Then it shows white people marching and carrying torches (which of course is a dog whistle to suggest white supremacy) - and to be clear...  there is actually no real evidence that the march in question was from any recent protests.
• Then he goes on to claim that Trump is responsible for failing to call out his own supporters for their actions, even as Joe himself has made not a single reference to blm or antifa.
• Then as he closes it out, you see a series of destruction with a few more police officers in riot gear, suggesting once again that it's Trump supporters and police responsible. 
• He then talks about "lowering the temperature" which of course has worked so well in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and the other liberal communities who have embraced the blm and antifa movement with open arms.
• Lastly he actually quotes a pope?

Now for those of you who are Biden supporters, you probably are wanting to believe that Biden is speaking the truth here. But for anyone who is not a diehard Biden supporter and has been paying any attention at all to what is going on here, you will see a blatant attempt to "shift" the blame for the protests from blm and antifa and onto Trump and Trump supporters. 

Ironically, not even blm or antifa are suggesting that these riots are about Trump supporters or Trump, but rather are openly in favor of tearing down the police, police forces, and any real semblance of local law and order. Biden is quite literally putting his own "spin" on things to satisfy what is obviously a huge shift in how America is feeling about these protests and riots.

Not only will blm and antifa be alarmed that Joe Biden is condemning the violence, they might be upset that he is attempting to deride their "message" by claiming that blm and antifa are not actually responsible for any of it. Their entire point of blowing things up and inciting violence is to make people notice their "cause" - not have the Democratic nominee for President try to convince people that it's someone else and about something completely different. 

Problem for Biden? 

The most recent polling is now showing that a plurality of Americans are now against even the "protests". Not just the rioting, but the actual protests are now underwater. This is a huge shift in just the past few weeks from when a vast majority of Americans were supportive of protests (even if they condemned riots). 

Now what this is (regardless of your political affiliation) is a blatant disregard to the facts and truth and little more than childish finger pointing. This is what Joe Biden has been forced to become now that he finds himself on the wrong end of the politics of protests and riots. 

He not only has to switch his own position on the protesting and rioting... from what his positions were just a few weeks ago. But he has to desperately try to shift "reality" as well. I doubt very seriously whether this will work.

New Biden ad?

 Seriously... is anyone this stupid?

The rioting is being done by white supremacists fueled by Trump

• So the ad fades into a classic riot, then cuts to Joe Biden telling everyone that rioting is not protesting and that rioters should be arrested and held accountable...
• Then it cuts to a scene which shows people marching, but the people marching are obviously being depicted not as blm or antifa members, but as white supremacists.
• Then Joe Biden tells everyone that Donald Trump is to blame and that he refuses to call out his own supporters for these riots and their responsibility for them.
• He then explains how he will be able to barter an end to the violence and destruction, which is only apparently being caused by Donald Trump "fanning the flames" and his supporters causing all the problems.

Now I am not sure I understand exactly what the point here is, other than an attempt to convince people that Trump supporters are the ones rioting and that Trump is driving them to do so. But is there actually anyone in this country who truly believes this? Does he expect that people are not watching the news or actually privy to real information?

By creating an ad that blames Trump supporters and Trump for these riots and not mentioning either blm or antifa, Joe is quite literally doing what he is accusing Trump of doing. Not calling out his own side for their actions. 

Is this the new normal? 

Liberals openly lie and we demand that it's politically incorrect (or even racist) to call them on it? It's not just this ad, but it's everything having to do with blm and antifa right now. Literally nothing that happens anymore can be reported as it is. There seems to be a requirement of at least one big lie, which generally is the sort of lie that attempts to change complexion of the situation in order to shift blame. 

Whether that lie is  "hands up, don't shoot" or the "no-knock warrant" that wasn't a no-knock warrant, or calling a neck restraint a "choke hold", hiding drug toxicology reports from the public, or claiming Jacob Blake was just breaking up a fight rather than breaking into his ex's house or just wanting to peacefully drive off in his SUV rather than steal his ex's SUV... America apparently cannot just tell the truth anymore.

News flash: If the truth is not on your side, then justice can never be either.

Mail in balloting losing steam?

Polling has also suggested that many people are hedging on mailing in their ballots 

In Colorado, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who’s running against Sen. Cory Gardner, told Axios that he’s encouraging voters to physically take their mail-in ballots to a dropbox and to do so “early, really early.”

Paulette Jordan, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Idaho, told Axios that she’s encouraging voters to take their filled out mail ballots in person to the county courthouse.

Black PAC has moved from exclusively educating voters on voting by mail to informing about all available options: in-person, absentee, early voting and voting on Election Day.

The Collective PAC — the largest Black-led political action committee targeting Black voters and candidates — is pivoting, too. “We’re shifting away from making plans to vote by mail to voting early in person,” Quentin James, the group’s founder, told Axios.

Minnesota home targeted by Biden supporters because of Trump sign

Since certain people are too stupid to stay on topic there will be no comments on this post. Just think of what this actually says about 2020 Biden supporters. 

 

Two police officers shot

 Liberals cheer!

Another day... a few hundred million dollars more of America destroyed by liberals

No officers indicted for Breonna Taylor's death...

One officer was indicted for wanton endangerment, for firing his gun into a neighboring apartment. 

This is really quite simple and could apply to many different police complaints we have seen recently. In the late 1990's there was a case that went all the way to the USSC called County of Sacramento v. Lewis. In this situation there was a high speed chase involving a motorcycle and a police cruiser. The motorcycle eventually lost control, a passenger (not wanted by the police) was thrown into the path of the police car, and she was struck and killed. 

The family of the victim sued the police department, claiming that they were negligent and responsible for the death. The argument (which we are hearing a lot of today) was that while the police may have acted within the proper police guidelines provided, that their decision making was flawed and that better judgement suggested that pursuing the motorcyclist was dangerous and should have not been attempted. 

In a 9-0 decision written by Ruth Ginsburg, it was determined that there was no basis for a lawsuit against the police involved. The court ruled  that unless there was proof of improper police actions or a malicious intent, that suing law enforcement officers for what would amount to a lack of prudent judgement would be opening a whole can of worms that our justice system could not undertake. 

Obviously if you cannot "sue" over what might be argued a lack of good judgement, then you certainly cannot file criminal charges since it's much easier to prove a civil case than a criminal case.  

For those who are not privy to the actual facts of the Breonna Taylor case, this was a situation where the police entered an apartment with a late night no-knock warrant. Taylor and her boyfriend refused to open the door and the police broke in. Taylor's boyfriend opened fire on the police officers (claiming self defense) and they shot back. Taylor was killed in the crossfire. The argument on behalf of the Taylor family was that there was a no-knock warrant that was dangerous, unwarranted, and that it should not have been attempted. Of course the police never actually served a no-knock warrant. Even neighbors testified to hearing them identify themselves. 

If this sounds dangerously close to the logic from the Lewis case, it's because it is. If you don't like that case, then you can blame RBG for her majority ruling. But I doubt seriously whether you can get the courts to turn this one around any time soon.

This particular case could apply to any number of recent situations. 

• Derek Chauven was following proper police procedure and there is no evidence (at least that we know of) of any malicious intent in that situation. Clearly it could be argued that it was not "necessary" to hold Floyd down for 9 minutes, but it was also not against procedure, much less against the law. 
• The shooting of Jacob Blake was very likely well inside the boundaries of proper police procedure and there is also no evidence (at least that we know of) of any malicious intent. While one could argue that the police had other options, that is irrelevant without improper procedure or malicious intent.
• Same would hold true in the Rashard Brooks Wendy's Parking lot shooting. Again, it can be argued that it would have been prudent to allow him to simply escape. The actions of shooting him (especially considering he stole a weapon and shot it back at the officer) appears within the boundaries of procedure and there is no evidence of malicious intent.

Yet, all of these police officers are being charged with crimes, when legal precedent probably dictates that no crime was actually committed. Time will tell if any of these prosecutions are successful. But if they are, look for an appeal and look for the Lewis case to be brought up. 

One of the funniest videos you will ever see!

Woman had a TDS meltdown over a MAGA street corner rally then proceeded to hit the vehicle in front of her while police were behind her 🤣pic.twitter.com/rEVEGeKNaj

— John D ● (@RedWingGrips) September 22, 2020

I double dog dare you to watch this video

Some points of fact:

• Kyle Rittenhouse was a trained lifeguard with first aid training, and had been administering first aid all day. 
• Moments before the first shooting, Joseph Rosenbaum was committing arson by starting fires. Kyle Rittenhouse was on his way to the fire with a fire extinguisher when he was confronted, chased, and eventually cornered by Rosenbaum and at least two other individuals carrying baseball bats. A gun shot was fired and Rosenbaum charged at Rittenhouse just prior to being shot.
• Moments before the second shooting, Rittenhouse was hit on the back of the head with the sharp edge of a skateboard and the person attempted to take the gun. Rittenhouse shot two warning shots into the air prior to shooting the person directly over him as he was being assaulted.
• A third attacker Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol, which he aimed at Rittenhouse right before he was shot in the arm.

Tucker Carlson airs never-before-seen footage from the deadly Kenosha shooting as lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse say he acted in self-defense. pic.twitter.com/XENuP9g1ih

— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) September 23, 2020

Democratic moderates are said to be against removing the filibuster and packing the court

This has been the quiet buzz lurking in the background, all the while we have been forced to listen to the heavy metal sounds of the angry progressives who have their amplifiers turned up to 11 on this one. It doesn't matter how badly a certain subset of the Party wants something to happen, there would have to be total buy in by all Democrats in the Senate for a move so drastic as to basically change the way that the Senate has done business for nearly 200 years.

Obviously there are traditionalists on both sides who have a tendency to put a wrench in otherwise drastic moves demanded by certain partisans on both sides. The amount of Democrats in the Senate who are against it is said to be "several" and include senior leadership.  Harry Reid is said to have opened the floodgates when he removed the filibuster from certain juridical nominees. Baby steps as it were. But removing it from legislation would only work to further a 50% plus one winner take all type of down your throat government that would lead to serious problems.

Most recently Diane Feinstein has openly expressed that she is both against the idea of killing the filibuster and packing the court. If Feinstein is against it, you can rest assured that other Democrats in the Senate are also against it. It's possible that someone like Chuck Schumer himself is actually against both moves and only sent out a thinly veiled threat as a bluff to try to prevent the process of replacing RBG from moving forward. 

All that being said, Democrats are putting the cart before the horse on all of this, very similar to how they behaved in 2016 when they believed that they would also be running the table. There were a ton of suggestions about all that would get done with full control of all branches of government. We had more of the same in 2018  when there were a ton of red state Senators who were supposed to be in serious trouble, only to hang on in the end. Everyone expected the Democrats to take control of the Senate and send Trump a message and Democrats ended up losing two seats.  

Those two seats won by Republicans in 2018 is the reason they have the votes to replace Ginsburg.