Monthly Archives: November 2020

Minnesota Public Radio rebuts Jennifer Carnahan:

Minnesota Republican Party Chair Jennifer Carnahan claimed Thursday night that the state’s 2020 election showed “extreme abnormalities and statistical variations from Minnesota’s historic voter trends.” But her examples are either off-base, vague or flat-out wrong.

Carnahan begins with a general claim: It’s “unusual” that President Donald Trump did worse in Minnesota in 2020 than 2016, despite putting much more effort into winning the state this year. This is relatively vague, so it’s hard to firmly prove or disprove.

Still, while it’s true Trump put a lot more effort into Minnesota than he did in 2016, it’s also true that Joe Biden put more effort here than Hillary Clinton did. Combine that with a national collapse in support for third-party candidates, and national polling indicating that Biden as a Democratic candidate was more popular than Clinton was, and the idea that Biden might do better isn’t absurd.

MPR goes on with some discussions of long term trends, but, really, Carnahan and MPR are ignoring one signal event.

The 2018 election.

And all you really need to know are the names of these Representatives: Omar, McCollum, and Craig. These three women comfortably won their races, and for Craig, it was an achievement greater than simply oustering back-bencher Republican Rep. Jason Lewis. Minnesota’s Second Congressional District had been held by Republicans all the way back to 2000, which is far back as Ballotpedia goes.

And it wasn’t that Lewis had any new scandals attaching to him. It was that the Second District voters had had enough of the risible incompetence of President Trump, and Lewis did nothing to disassociate himself from Trump. He was a Trump adherent, having ridden in on Trump’s coattails in 2016, following the retirement of Rep Kline (R-MN). Craig’s win in 2020 indicates the continuing disgust with Trump present in the Second District.

The Twin Cities is the key to state-wide races, and Minneapolis & St. Paul had, by and large, become appalled by President Trump’s decisions and behavior. It made it easy to reject him by a large margin, as MPR points out.

Carnahan’s remarks may signal her strength of commitment to the Trump cult, but that doesn’t mean much when the cult leader is a pathological narcissist, and it gets worse when the realities of 2018 are resolutely ignored by Carnahan.

The MN GOP should immediately and forcefully require her resignation for its own good. And if it can’t bring itself to do that, it should take that as a signal that it is a broken and possibly irremediable organization, doomed to flounder more and more as the years pass and voters realize that their magical thinking does no one any good.

If you take this seriously:

Kenneth Copeland and followers put their hands on their heads, pray to God, "Bald spots I call you gone! Hair grow!" pic.twitter.com/EmDcda1rsH

— Christian Nightmares (@ChristnNitemare) November 19, 2020

However, at some point near the beginning I feel like he says “Here’s my latest schtick.” I’d hate to think he’s just sophisticated entertainment and not a grifter.

For those who can’t think of any reason not to have a theocracy, try this on for size:

Among the various ways a soul can be sucked out of a mere mortal, this one isn’t the worst.

Perhaps the worst part of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) is this ungainly title with which it is saddled, and, no, she does not have fifty feet. It is, otherwise, a noir karmic tale of what happens when a man listens to the devil on his shoulder and abuses a woman who loves him, and, in turn, what happens when a woman persists in loving a man she knows is cheating on her.

She becomes a 50′ tall woman and beats him to death. If only that happened more often.

Parts to look out for – and, in some cases, this is a warning – the papier mâché giant arm; the marvelously portrayed, even charming, giants; this guy with no sex appeal who’s being slobbered over by two women; the deputy sheriff who made my teeth itch; the escapee Rover from The Prisoner.

And the devil on the dude’s shoulder, who never pays for her evils. Which is rather how instigators of evil acts often end up – maybe disappointed, but punished? No, it’s the gullible who get the plunger up the kiester, don’t they?

Special effects range from bad to fab; the plot is good; acting is more than competent. I won’t recommend it, but this was far, far better than I was expecting.

Sidney Powell’s career is certainly up & down, isn’t it? Yesterday, she was linking Hugo Chavez and communist money to voting machines while working on the Trump Campaign’s legal team.

Today?

President Trump’s campaign said in a Sunday statement that Sidney Powell is neither a member of its legal team nor a lawyer for Trump in his personal capacity. [Axios]

Not precisely unemployed, but she appears to have lost a big client. Or never had him as a client. I’m going with the former, because she wouldn’t have allowed near the podium if she wasn’t a member of the team in the first place.

So what’s going on? Either Trump’s cult just couldn’t swallow that particular conspiracy theory – which I doubt – or Powell fufilled her role, and, in a classic passive-aggressive maneuver, she’s been discarded and the Trump Campaign, having injected yet more resentment into the cult, can now say that, no, they weren’t responsible, it wasn’t them, no no no.

I’m going for the second. I wonder if she received a bonus from the Trump Campaign – or was promised a bonus but won’t receive it.

I became curious as to how the popular vote gap vs Electoral College gap played out and charted it, starting with FDR’s last election:

First, I should note that the subjects of third party candidates and faithless electors are treated here by ignoring them for charting purposes, and removing their numbers for calculation purposes. In other words, all calculations are carried out with only those numbers won by the top two finishers. That said, there’s a surprising number of both in just the 20 elections recorded here.

So is there anything to learn here? Generally, the Electoral College acts as a magnifier of popular vote gaps; the Trump/Clinton contest, and to a much lesser extent, the Bush/Gore contest, are not a trend, but outliers. But it’s worth concentrating on them nonetheless, because they are also evidence that the Electoral College, slanted as it is toward giving smaller states more power than larger states through the inclusion of a mandatory two votes plus those votes for all Representatives, which can also be unfair in favor of the least populated states, should be replaced by a direct vote.

As this chart doesn’t track either Parties or ideologies, it’s hard to say if the electorate is changing over time all that much. Certainly, Reagan’s two elections were blowouts, but that appears to have been the high point of the Republican Party, and I doubt that it’s rational to suggest the Republicans of today would even recognize the Republicans of the 1980s as more than distantly related cousins – if that. I suspect that there’d be little respect for Republican President Abraham Lincoln, either.

And it’s fair to say that the Democrats have been on a Presidential hot streak beginning with the Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992. Since then, only Kerry’s loss in 2004 was a “real” loss. Clinton, Gore, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and now Biden have had substantial showings, which should have resulted in at least seven terms of the Democrats holding the White House – and the 2004 contest might have also gone Democratic if Bush (II) had lost the Electoral College in 2000.

That dwarfs the three Republican terms of Reagan and Bush (I).

Does this reflect an ideological shift in America, or lower-quality candidates offered by the Republicans? Trump certainly rings the bell for the latter category, but Presidential elections are not just about ideology, but swirls of personal reactions, religion, and many other factors make this a difficult analysis.

And one that I shan’t continue.

So, I made the chart mostly for my own amusement. If you extract something from it, let me know.

Mickey Kaus has run across an explanation for the divergence between Presidential election results and downballot results that is interesting:

Why did the Democrats win the Presidential vote but do so poorly in everything further down on the ballot — Senate, House, and state-level races? There are a lot of theories: a) Republicans liked Republicanism, and conservatism, even Trumpism, but they didn’t like Trump! b) Swing voters liked Biden but were turned off by left wing Democratic themes — “defund the police,” Medicare for All, cutting edge progressivism on gender dysphoria in 8-year olds, etc. c) Voters in general wanted Congress to be a check on a Democratic executive.

All plausible. But what if the explanation is something simpler and less profound — mechanical even? The essential idea was proposed by veteran campaign reporter Walter Shapiro. It’s based on the idea of “roll off,” the tendency of some voters to vote for candidates at the top of the ticket while leaving the nether regions of the ballot blank. Here’s Shapiro:

A tentative theory: Ballot-rolloff is greater than normal this year because the Biden campaign pushed early voting by mail — and a larger than usual number of voters didn’t feel that they knew enough about down-ballot races to vote on them.

If this is true, what more explanation do you need? Dems simply made a strategic mistake: They pushed early, mail-in and absentee voting, which may have won them the presidential election but which also brought them a bunch of voters who, in their rush to rid America of Trump, left the other parts of the ballot untouched — with the result that, below the presidential level, Dems got their clocks cleaned.

And that ties in with my own concerns that mail-in ballots that must, by law, arrive by Election Day in order to be counted are an impairment of voter’s rights in that those who can, and do, choose to vote at the election booth have more time to evaluate the candidates and whatever news comes forward late than do those voters who choose, or are constrained to using, mail for their ballots.

And, given my doubts that voters are that much into the political bloodstream, which Andrew Sullivan is unfortunately wont to believe, it’s more congruent with the facts on the ground than the grandiose reads of pundits of all persuasions. Voting one or two months before Election Day may make the Democratic challenger barely known, so when, say, Joni Ernst’s name pops up on the Iowan’s ballot, they know her as the incumbent Senator, while the challenger is hardly making ripples.

Despite what the polls say.

Combine this with tremendous turnout and answers that may have been random, and the down ballot disappointment for the Democrats may be better, if not perfectly understood.

Glenn Greenwald seems to be confused about how to label groups that transform from one ideology to another when it comes to a surge in calls for the suppression of certain books:

It is important to note that [ACLU lawyer Chase] Strangio’s views are mostly definitely not shared by everyone at the ACLU. Many of the group’s more traditional free speech advocates still prioritize its civil liberties principles over liberal politics and liberal political causes. As I noted when I defended the organization in 2017 for its free speech representation in Charlottesville, the ACLU has defended Milo Yiannopolous against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s refusal to allow ads for his book, and this year publicly defended the National Rifle Association against the efforts by New York State General Letitia James to disband it. …

But for numerous reasons, the ACLU — still with some noble and steadfast dissenters — is fast transforming into a standard liberal activist group at the expense of the free speech and due process principles it once existed to defend. Those reasons include changing cultural mores, an abandonment by millennials and Gen Z activists of the long-standing leftist belief in free speech and replaced by demands that views they dislike be silenced (which in turn causes Gen X and Boomer managers and editors fearful of losing their jobs or being vilified to succumb to this authoritarianism); and a massive influx of #Resistance cash donated to the ACLU not in the name of civil liberties but stopping Trump and the Republicans, much of which was used for political rather than legal staff-building.

I consider a commitment to free expression to be a core principle of anyone who is a member of a liberal democracy, so saying … is fast transforming into a standard liberal activist group at the expense of the free speech and due process principles it once existed to defend. … is really quite the contradiction in terms. A liberal group against free expression is not a liberal group; it is decidedly illiberal.

Is this important? Of course it is. Central principles motivate actions; actions define groups. If some liberal group no longer defends free speech, then it’s time to label them as illiberal. They don’t like that, then let them defend their actions. That very discussion, honestly undertaken, often serves to bring to the fore the problems that some position-of-convenience will bring to that organization’s accomplishment of its mission.

Liberal is not an empty label, it brings a large bowl full of meaning with it. Such words are often deployed with cunning care by the deceitful, and is probably one of the more enraging practices that humanity engages in.

That was one helluva of a party trick. Can you make my little brother reappear next?

Remember Me (2014) is a television mini-series which might as well be taken as a story, as it’s not episodic, but simply a longish movie. This is a cross-genre tale, combining elements of a murder mystery with the crotchety old man genre and the supernatural, and it uses these elements to gradually tell a story which doesn’t let on where it’s going, which is fairly delightful. Tom Parfitt is an old man who decides to fake a fall down the stairs at his house. Taken to the hospital, he begs his way into a retirement home, taking none of his possessions with him.

None at all.

So a junior retirement home employee, Hannah, takes it upon herself to bring him a few clothes from his nearby home. At the retirement home, his newly assigned social worker goes to his room to help settle him in, and, amidst what appears to be an earthquake, is flung bodily out the window. As she’s up a couple of floors, this all ends abruptly and unpleasantly for her.

And Parfitt isn’t too happy, either.

But things gradually become odder and odder. Why did Parfitt, who’s obviously not handicapped, looking to enter a retirement home?  Why do sea shells keep showing up? How much longer before Hannah explodes from the stress of a dead mother, alcoholic mother, and dependent brother?

And how long before the cop actually takes a swing at his boss?

But when an Indian lady keeps showing up in photos ranging over 130 years, that’s where we begin looking at the rents in the fabric of reality, who made them and who’s paying for them. And it keeps the audience’s interest right to the end, twist upon twist. Is old man Parfitt even a functioning adult?

Done by the BBC, it exhibits the quiet competency we expect from British productions, and the thoughtfulness that comes from eschewing crazy action movies. While it wasn’t so compelling as to rate a recommendation, as I can see some audience members finding it tiresome, we greatly enjoyed it and are happy we stumbled across it.

And now, for no discernible reason, a tree.

You’re welcome.

Scrofulous and twatwaffle:

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, “Donald Trump is a scrofulous twatwaffle.”

As a public service:

Scrofulous:

1. Literally, relating to scrofula (tuberculosis (or TB like bacteria) of the lymph nodes, particularly of the neck).
2. Figuratively, morally contaminated and corrupt.

twatwaffle (plural twatwaffles)

(slang, derogatory) A contemptible person.

H/T DB.

Or a better post title might be Cannibalism on the right.

Tucker Carlson

To summarize from yesterday, Fox News host and National Enquirer issue in human form Tucker Carlson expressed disappointment that Trump Campaign lawyer and specific story from the National Enquirer Sidney Powell, bold purveyor of bizarre campaign conspiracy theories, had not provided evidence for her bizarre claim concerning a conspiracy involving Dominion Voting Systems vote counting machines, the late Hugo Chavez, communist money, etc. All on its own, this is notable for Carlson actually trying to do professional journalism, rather than just making shit up.

Now comes the cannibalism.

Oliver Darcy notes the backlash for Tucker Carlson daring to inject the least little bit of actual mature judgment into his coverage:

Traitor. Globalist. Sellout.

Those weren’t the insults reserved for a CNN or MSNBC anchor on Friday. No, those were the insults aimed at conservative media darling Tucker Carlson. In what feels like the most severe moment of backlash since his Fox News show premiered in 2016, Carlson is fielding criticism from the right. …

But what is remarkable is that, ever since he called out Powell, Carlson has been the subject of denunciation by some on the right. His mentions on Twitter have been flooded with disappointed viewers saying that they feel betrayed by him. Right-wing websites have homed in on the controversy. And pro-Trump internet personalities have criticized him for having the nerve to challenge Powell.

Powell herself retweeted accounts attacking Carlson, including one that said Carlson had thrown “one of his Fox Globalist directed temper tantrums” and is “owned by The Syndicate.” During a Friday morning appearance on Maria Bartiromo’s show, Powell bashed Carlson as “insulting” and “rude.” [CNN/Business]

Of course, the first response is schadenfreude mixed with karma, but I think this is more important than just that. This is the reaction of people deep in the thrall of magical thinking. One of magical thinking’s distinguishing features is the excision of any requirement of actual evidence. There is usually some requirement of logic (the magic comes from bizarre assumptions) or adherence to an ideology or theology, but evidence? It is, at best, a subjective requirement, as in God told me to take child brides!

Sidney Powell

And that’s a marked characteristic of the far-right fringe that has taken over the conservative movement these days. They wish the societal narrative includes, say, Powell’s silly-ass theory constructed wholly in her imagination, and therefore it is. Someone popping their delusional bubble, even a personality generally considered friendly to the movement, marks them as a target.

Speaking of marking someone, this tendency to credit magical thinking over such mature thinking as requiring actual evidence really suggests people who’ve become unmoored from reality, people who’ve either never gained, or lost, a certain level of intellectual maturity.

Now, slipping into my own little puddle of conspiracy theory, I have to wonder if a substantial portion of those threats are coming not from sincere, earnestly believing people, but instead from provocateurs of either the foreign or domestic varieties. It’s not so much stirring the pot as in reinforcing a narrative, strengthening a fence that keeps the conservative movement under strict control. Someone said something about evidence, and if evidence is ever taken seriously, then those who are benefiting from the absurdity of the Trump Campaign claims will be in deep, deep waters. Their sources of income, power, even prestige might disappear.

And, therefore, Carlson becomes a target, using agent provocateurs to begin the harassment and discrediting. Indeed, it raises the question: is Carlson’s run as a Fox News host imperiled? If he apologizes and tries to rejoin the magical thinkers guild, as in fact he attempted to do already (“… [Carlson] pointed out his coverage of the Russia probe and how he never rules anything out — even UFOs.”), will he salvage his career?

Only time and his actions will tell. I have little doubt that he’ll drop his requirements of evidence if that’ll keep his career alive. But will that be enough?

Or will they be using a fine olive oil to sauteé Carlson’s ass for dinner?

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea in Psychology Today:

The Plural of Anecdote Is Misinformation

Remember Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn’s lawyer, who committed a lawyerly faux-pas at a hearing in early October? She admitted updating President Trump when, apparently, she should not have.

She’s now on the Trump Campaign’s legal team, and she’s managed to make Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson mad at her:

Back in the day, then-Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) became a canker on the hide of the skeptical community by using his position to promote, what is called in polite company, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, but is better known as a center for promoting medical quackery. Was Senator Harkin a scientist or medical doctor? No. He was trained in government and economics, which is good, but doesn’t qualify anyone for making judgments on medical science.

These days there’s lots of amateurs who couldn’t stand the professionals and are now mucking around like … well, there’s so many analogies. None of them complimentary. In any case, I’d like to point out that the particularly execrable Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has decided to partake of the Harkin platter:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is claiming the CDC & bureaucrats are "scaremongering" so that people won't use hydroxychloroquine. pic.twitter.com/cuf0IYf8id

— The Recount (@therecount) November 19, 2020

And, no, it’s not “Dr. Johnson, the prominent infectious diseases expert and epidemiologist.”

It’s “Ron Johnson, account.”

It’s hard to take that wailing seriously, unless you’re willing to go see if Johnson has any fingers in the hydroxychloroquine pie.

And I’m going to guess the skeptical community doesn’t have enough fingers to point at all the quacks, charlatans, ignoramuses, and the simply greedy who’ve wormed their way into government.

You may have heard it alleged that some Michigan precincts have been found to have had turnout in excess of 100%. There’s a teensy weensy little problem with that theory, and I’ll let John Hinderaker of the far-right Powerline elucidate:

Here’s the problem: the townships and precincts listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the affidavit are not in Michigan. They are in Minnesota. Monticello, Albertville, Lake Lillian, Houston, Brownsville, Runeberg, Wolf Lake, Height of Land, Detroit Lakes, Frazee, Kandiyohi–these are all towns in Minnesota. I haven’t checked them all, but I checked a lot of them, and all locations listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 that I looked up are in Minnesota, with no corresponding township in Michigan. This would have been obvious to someone from this state, but Mr. Ramsland is a Texan and the lawyers are probably not natives of either Minnesota or Michigan.

Evidently a researcher, either Mr. Ramsland or someone working for him, was working with a database and confused “MI” for Minnesota with “MI” for Michigan. (The postal code for Minnesota is MN, while Michigan is MI, so one can see how this might happen.) So the affidavit, which addresses “anomalies and red flags” in Michigan, is based largely, and mistakenly, on data from Minnesota.

This is a catastrophic error, the kind of thing that causes a legal position to crash and burn. Trump’s lawyers are fighting an uphill battle, to put it mildly, and confusing Michigan with Minnesota will at best make the hill steeper. Credibility once lost is hard to regain. Possibly Trump’s lawyers have already discovered this appalling error, and have undertaken to correct it. But the Ramsland Affidavit was filed in Georgia just yesterday.

Laughter. It seems like every time a conservative makes a legal move, it’s another candidate for the 2020 Presidential Election Blooper Reel. Seriously. See this Word Of The Day for more. See the results of their court challenges, even in front of Trump-appointed judges. See Dr. Scott Atlas’ crazed recommendations.

And that last one should clue every American in that incompetency isn’t confined to the Trump legal team, it’s a pandemic fully in its own right, infecting the far-right with the belief that amateurs such as Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, most of the GOP elected officials, can just do this sort of thing off the cuff.

They are proving that their only real competency is in marketing (see professional GOP marketeer Frank Luntz, who last I noticed seemed a bit aghast at the monster he’s helped create) and bullshitting. Or is that redundant?

But don’t worry, Powerline proves that they remain convinced that the Democratic Party is just as bad as themselves:

A postscript: has Mr. Ramsland inadvertently stumbled across evidence of voter fraud in Minnesota? I seriously doubt it. The venues in question are all in red Greater Minnesota, not in the blue urban areas where voter fraud is common.

Hinderaker, if you’ve got proof then present it in court. Maybe you can save Minnesota for Trump! (Says this Minnesota political independent in sickly horror.) Otherwise, just can it. And sell it as soda. It might taste good, but …

Affiant:

An affiant is someone who files an affidavit, which is a written statement used as evidence in court. In order to be admissible, affidavits must be notarized by a notary public.

The notary public is there to ensure the validity of the signature and guarantee that the signature was applied voluntarily and without coercion. Once the affiant acknowledges signing the document for its intended purpose and signs the affidavit, the document is notarized and becomes a sworn affidavit. [Notarize]

Noted in an Erick Erickson email:

In Michigan, upon examination of 234 pages of affidavits, a judge tossed the fraud claims. The claims amounted to no more than 1000 votes out of 148,000+ votes cast and, more importantly, upon the testimony of the affiants, it was clear they just didn’t understand the process and had not shown up for their training.

Which is what I would expect from the incompetency infecting what passes for conservatives these days. From the same email:

In Arizona, people filed scores of affidavits about the voting system there and the use of sharpie markers on the ballots. Not only was it physically shown that the ballots could be counted with sharpies and bleed-through of the markers was not an issue, but the affiants, under examination, all recanted their affidavits. That is important. All these people swore out affidavits and under examination walked back their claims.

I’ve certainly critiqued and even laughed at Erickson over the years, but at least, perhaps due to his training as an election lawyer, when an election isn’t going his way, he’ll admit it.

Unlike the clowns he favored in the election.

Rudy Giuliani really didn’t want to win in court today because, well, loyalties can be bought and delivered:

Earlier on Tuesday in an appearance on the Fox Business Network, Giuliani seemed to suggest the outcome of the hearing before Brann, an Obama appointee, was unimportant. He said the Pennsylvania case was a “vehicle” to get the election before the Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority, which Trump has long hinted should deliver the election to him.

“Frankly, this is a case that we would like to see get to the Supreme Court,” Giuliani said, suggesting the campaign might lose battles along the way due to Democratic-appointed judges. “We are prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal, and to get it to the Supreme Court.”  [MSN]

Or can those loyalties be bought?

This is an echo of President Trump’s proclamations over the last few months, not to mention the spike of hypocrisy displayed by the Republican Senate in getting Barrett confirmed. My suspicion is that Trump, who continually gives off clues concerning his limitations, believes human behaviors are a constant.

They are not.

In Trump’s private sector world, loyalty is bought as a transaction: place someone in a place of power and prestige and they’re forever loyal. Or at least until they get stepped on by the guy who doesn’t follow the rules. Like, say, Trump.

And, it is true, some of this has leaked into the government sector, much to its detriment. But this leakage is not wholesale, and in SCOTUS it may be the least effective. Justice Gorsuch, IJ^[1], has displayed a great deal of independence in his decisions, such as this potentially monumental Oklahoma decision, while Kavanaugh has also shown some independence; Barrett remains an unknown.

Keep in mind that SCOTUS is the crown jewel of the judiciary, and a Justice tarnishing that jewel through adhering to political party loyalty regardless of the weakness of the Trump case in front of them, risks tarnishing their name, their legacy, the names of their clerks, and everything about them. That will be out in public for one hundred years and more, embarrassing descendants and relatives.

It’s not much like the private sector. You have to scrabble to get publicity in the private sector. In the public sector, it can descend on you like a vulture.

It doesn’t hurt to remember that SCOTUS ruled 8-0 against Nixon when it came to whether or not he had to give up the White House tapes in his possession, despite three of the Justices being Nixon appointees (a fourth appointee, Rehnquist, equally honorably recused himself). It’s an implicit precedent and reminder that raw party loyalty should take a back seat at SCOTUS.

If Trump gets a case to SCOTUS and it’s as weak as the lower courts have suggested, I’d expect to see at least 5-4 against – and possibly 8-1, with either Alito or Thomas in dissent.

And it would pay Rudy dividends to remember that not everyone in the judiciary can be bought.

¹ “Illegitimate Justice,” for newer readers. If I make a case for Gorsuch, then I cannot for Barrett. Neither’s dog sled trail getting into SCOTUS is admirable.

Arizona Secretary of State’s statement on the election includes this:

This should be a time for thanking voters and election workers for their incredible commitment during unprecedented challenges. In that spirit, I offer my gratitude and express my admiration for the Arizonans who inspire trust in our democracy.

And so do I! While the election in Minnesota appeared placid and untroubled, those election workers in the closely contested states have had to work hard in difficult conditions, sometimes shamefully harassed by partisans. The latter should not happen, and it’s worse when it’s encouraged by political “leaders” of any stripe.

Kudos to the election workers! They are one of the last bastions of democracy!

Heard during The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last night:

Colbert: Mr. McConaughey, will you run for Governor of Texas?

Matthew McConaughey: … Politics seems to be a broken business. Politics needs to redefine its purpose. …

And that’s certainly worth talking about. To me, the Democrats are interested in governance; the Republicans these days are, at their most innocent, only interested in winning a trophy to put on their mantlepiece, and those who are not so innocent are doing their damndest to monetize politics, or, as the rest of us know it, corruption.

There was a time when the Republicans believed in governance. That time seems to have passed.

And what would that be?

First predicted in the 1980s, Mercury’s tail was discovered in 2001. Its source is Mercury’s super-thin atmosphere. Mercury is so close to the sun, pressure from sunlight itself can push atoms out of the atmosphere and into space. The escaping gas forms a tail more than 24 million km long.

The tail is rich in sodium–a substance sputtered from Mercury’s surface by solar wind and micrometeorite impacts. That’s why [Dr. Sebastian] Voltmer’s yellow sodium filter did such a good job revealing the gaseous stream. [spaceweather.com]

There’s a lovely backyard picture of it at the above link, but I shan’t steal it.

It makes sense, of course, but that with the addition of a yellow filter your telescope can see it caught me by surprise. And pleases me.

Closing up this thread, Georgia has concluded its President Election recount:

The state of Georgia announced Tuesday that an official audit of its voting machines found no evidence of fraud or foul play during the 2020 elections.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who had ordered a certified testing laboratory to conduct an audit of a random sample of Georgia’s machines, said that the probe was both complete and successful in ensuring that the machines hadn’t been manipulated.

“We are glad but not surprised that the audit of the state’s voting machines was an unqualified success,” Raffensperger, a Republican, said in a press release. “Election security has been a top priority since day one of my administration.”

No surprises, no drama. Then again, the deviance of the President election from the polls in Georgia was well within the margin of error. It’s too bad Florida or Ohio, also considered close by pollsters, but not in the final result, are not also doing a hand recount to verify their machines are not corrupted.

And – I’m relieved. The anger and violent threats Raffensperger reported receiving was appalling and shameful. If he had found the machines had been corrupted towards the Republicans rather than the Democrats, well, I suspect he’d be the victim of violence.

Victor Davis Hanson engages in the age old practice of frightening the partisans, a practice not unique to conservatives:

If Democrats pick up both seats, first anticipate the end of the Senate filibuster. With its disappearance after 180 years will go the last check on hard-Left power. Then expect a 15-person Supreme Court. With the end of that 151-year tradition will come the birth of a new “living” and fluid Constitution.

Watch for novel efforts, by hook or crook, to navigate around the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution to end the 233-year-old Electoral College. With all the reins of power, perhaps the Left will figure out a way, on Obama’s prior prompting, to admit two new states (and thus four more reliably Democratic senators).

Don’t count out efforts to see congressional legislation to override state legislatures’ voting laws and enforce on the states lunatic new protocols of the sort we saw this November. The effort will be to “broaden” the electorate, discourage “voter suppression,” and enhance “equity and inclusion” — everything from enfranchising 17-year-old voters, ex-felons, and legal non-citizen residents to mandated early and mail-in voting and rules against requiring an ID to vote.

Georgia’s outcome will determine whether federal legislation will likely smother gun rights akin to Europe’s restrictions, strangle the First Amendment to prevent “hate speech,” and re-create an open border and with it hundreds of thousands of new illegal aliens — future progressive constituents all in need of amnesties. Knocking down the wall seems absurd, but such nihilism may offer powerful iconic and psychological relief to the unhinged Trump-hating Left and their Never Trump allies. [National Review]

With nary a mention of the extremism and incompetency displayed by the Trump Administration. Balance, shmalance, eh?

If the Democrats do win the Georgia Senate races – a feat I consider unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility, especially given the recent concerted effort of the Georgia GOP to melt down, as noted by Hanson’s colleague Rich Lowry – then this will be an opportunity for the conservative reader to evaluate their pundits and leadership. I say both because Hanson’s piece is not an outlier, but a nearly iconic example of how both conservative categories manipulate their readers.

As I was saying, the first step is to either print out Hanson’s article, or, preferably, extract from it all of his prophecies of doom, and print those out. Find a magnet and place it prominently on your refrigerator. Now, the important part: as each prophecy is fulfilled, put a checkmark next to it. You’re always passing by the refrigerator, so you’ll often be reminded of the burning skies that must surely be descending upon you.

At the end of 2022 or, if you feel the Democrats need more time, 2024, tot up all the fulfilled prophecies. For those so checkmarked, if any, evaluate whether the United States is a smoking ruin.

Or just seems to be the same, or even better.

The conservatives love to manipulate emotions, so it’s important to be methodical when examining their claims. Hey, I’ll be even-handed – most political parties manipulate emotions, and, while subjects differ – libertarians find taxation terrifying, but don’t seem to care much about abortion, which can obsess both Democrats and Republicans – the methods are often the same.

The question is whether the facts on the ground match the shrieks of apocalypse in the pages of the writers and leaders.

And then whether the audience has the intellectual honesty to demand change, or leave.

This has been causing quite a lot of chatter: