Monthly Archives: July 2024

What happens during vacation stays on vacation? One could wish.

How Will The Republican-animated Attempted Assassination Of Trump Affect the Senatorial Campaigns?

In short, it seems unlikely there’ll be a measurable effect, particularly as the Republicans don’t have a strong message to send when the alleged assassin was a twenty year old registered as a Republican with a weapon from a weaponry class legalized and promoted by the Republicans.

That said, there may be some minor shifts here and there. The MAGA base may be even more solid, but it was rather solid prior to this tragic incident. It’s worth keeping in mind most of these polls were completed before the assassination attempt.

Any Other Observations?

At least some of this edition’s polling results indicate that some pollsters, in previous reports, are trying hard to influence the voters, such as in Texas. It’s really quite patronizing to think voters will consider polling to be a source of authoritative voting directives, isn’t it?

And Onwards At A Gallop To The Watering Hole!

• Texas gets a respectable poll, and now it’s officially a race. YouGov and its near-the-top 2.9/3.0 rating gives Senator Cruz (R-TX) a three point lead, 47%-44%, over challenger Rep Allred (D-TX). In previous recent polling, Remington Research Group had given Cruz a ten point lead, while the Manhattan Institute had given Cruz a three point lead. Remington seems to be untrustable.

  Allred still has a mountain to climb, but this is also significant:

  23% of Texas likely voters don’t know enough about Allred to have an opinion about him, compared to only 3% who don’t know enough about Cruz to have an opinion about him.

  Allred’s team must keep working on getting their message out. And Cruz must keep clawing his way over 50%. Given Cruz’s reputation, I wonder how many Republican Senators are secretly hoping he fails to reach that plateau.

  Finally, Allred may gain some voters over the poor Texas government management of the emergency brought on by Hurricane Beryl. True, Cruz has responsibility only for requesting Federal assistance, but Texas is run by the Republicans, so Cruz may accrue some blame, unearned as it may be, from voters, who may then refuse to vote, or even choose to vote for Allred.

• North Star Opinion Research (1.2), once again working for right wing American Greatness, yields a surprising result in Wisconsin: Senator Baldwin (D-WI) continues to lead challenger Eric Hovde (R-WI), and by a substantial eight points, 49%-41%. Are they capitulating on Wisconsin? And KAConsulting (1.5) (see the Michigan entry, below, for caveats regarding this pollster) has given Wisconsin Senator Baldwin (D-WI) a four point lead over Eric Hovde (R-WI?), 46%-42%.
• In Pennsylvania, The New York Times/Siena College poll (top-rated at 3.0, even if it did incur wrath from various never Trumpers a month or two ago) gives Senator Casey (D-PA) an 8 point lead among likely voters, 50%-42%, over challenger David McCormick (R-PA?), and an 11 point lead among registered voters. Compare this to a recent Remington poll giving Casey a 1 point lead. And now KAConsulting (1.5) (see the Michigan entry, below, for caveats regarding this pollster) has given Senator Casey (D-PA) a 47%-37% lead, which is far more believable than a single point lead. Finally, The Keystone has published a report suggesting McCormick may have profited from investing in a Chinese company that supplied fentanyl to the black market. Given the sensitivity of some voters on this issue, this may be devastating for McCormick.For a State Republicans thought was up for grabs, it all appears to be slipping away.
• It appears Virginia’s Tim Kaine (D-VA) has a commanding lead over challenger Hung Cao (R-VA) of seventeen points, 53%-36%, according to The New York Times/Siena College (3.0). Virginia Commonwealth University L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs (2.1) gives Kaine a smaller lead of 11 points, 49%-38%., and Emerson College (2.9) gives Caine a 10 point edge at 49%-39%. I shan’t mention Virginia again unless something surprising emerges.
• New Jersey’s Senator Menendez (I-NJ, formerly D-NJ) was convicted on bribery charges on July 16th. He’s been convicted before a few years ago in a separate incident, but won on appeal, so he’s not necessarily trotting off to jail. However, this conviction probably terminates his political career, if not just yet, despite Majority Leader Schumer’s (D-NY) call for him to resign. Will he bow out of the Senate race and increase Democrats’ chances of holding this seat?
• KAConsulting (1.5), a Kellyanne Conway enterprise and thus allied with Mr Trump, and working for Vapor Technology Association, which appears to be an industry group promoting vaping, measures Rep Slotkin (D-MI) as having a 6 point lead, 43%-37%, over former Rep Rogers (R-MI) in the race for the open Michigan Senate seat. This is entirely reasonable. However, the link provided by FiveThirtyEight to the press release (see the numbers) has nothing to do with such a poll, and I cannot find a poll associated with KAConsulting for this race. I am taking this with a grain of salt. A largish grain.
• J.L. Partners (1.6), in a poll sponsored by prospective Republican nominee Kari Lake (R-AZ), gives Lake a 1 point lead over prospective Democratic nominee Rep Gallego (D-AZ) in Arizona, 44%-43%. A mediocre, or worse, pollster, and the candidate sponsored the poll. Think about it. Meanwhile, a couple of months ago top of the line pollster YouGov (2.9) gave Gallego a 13 point lead. Sure, maybe he’s collapsed that fast. But with primaries still to come and Lake facing other Republican Senator wannabes, this poll may simply be to persuade the base that Lake’s the best Republican candidate. Does this sort of thing work, though?
• But does it matter? NewDakota.com reports that underdog candidate for the North Dakota Senate seat currently held by Senator Cramer (R-ND), Katrina Christiansen (D-ND), has outraised her opponent in the last filing period:
  

  Katrina Christiansen has gained significant traction in North Dakota’s Senate race, surpassing incumbent Republican Senator Kevin Cramer in second-quarter fundraising by $30,000. Christiansen reported raising over $690,000, compared to Cramer’s $660,000.

  Christiansen’s campaign has seen widespread support from individuals across North Dakota, with donations pouring in from 52 of the state’s 53 counties. This contrasts sharply with Cramer’s funding sources, which heavily rely on PACs and Republican committees. In the last filing period, Cramer raised less than $100,000 from individual donors, while a substantial $354,771 came from PACs and political committees.

  I suspect this is a result of the Dobbs decision, but it’s also true that, unlike votes, money can pour across State borders, so this measure can be highly misleading insofar as using it for evaluating a race. There’s been only one poll, by a suspect pollster, for a right-wing organization, so while I expect Senator Cramer (R-ND) to be easily reelected, I suppose there’s always a chance that Christiansen could tighten up this race, even to single digits. But I doubt it.

Final Thoughts, If Any?

So far it appears Democratic Senate candidates who are defending seats are doing well. West Virginia and Arizona have open seats, and so far West Virginia looks to move to the Republican side, while Arizona seems more likely to remain Democratic.

Battleground states, as they like to call them, with Senate seats up for grabs seem to be leaning Democratic. Some report I ran across somewhere states that the Republicans are, once again, supremely confident. Judging that requires context, and so far the context of weak candidates, plus the confidence, suggests the Republican Party is still a pack of fourth-raters who do not understand common American attitudes on key issues, such as abortion, taxation, gun laws, and several other issues.

This is not surprising. The Republicans have become a Party where advancement is not through merit, but through stands on issues, and it’s a Party whose members have learned that arrogant absolutism is the only acceptable attitude in connection with those issues. Compromise, competency, understanding the other side, humility? Those are no longer considered advantages, but negatives, even treachery. Having little need to possess those qualities while following ambition, when they do need to possess that understanding, well, that’s a skill they don’t have. In fact, they seem to substitute arrogance.

It’s still a long ways ’til November, and the Biden mess has yet to blow over. If you’re a Democrat, don’t worry about West Virginia, because, unless something very interesting happens, it’ll move to the Republicans. Worry about Montana and Arizona and Michigan and maybe Wisconsin.

I was troubled by this article in NewScientist (“Could paying people to lose weight help tackle obesity?” Grace Wade, NewScientist (29 June 2024, paywall)):

A growing body of evidence suggests that paying people to lose weight could be an effective treatment for obesity. While this seems to imply that the condition boils down to just lifestyle choices – an idea doctors have moved away from in recent years – it probably isn’t that simple.

Indeed, while it’s popular among the population and non-specialists to blame the obese, quite often they have little control over what their body does with consumed calories. From how the brain is trained in infanthood onwards to the content of their gut biome, there are many factors that affect body fat levels.

Can they be overridden? Not cured, I’m saying, but simply not fed? The body, from toes to brain, of an adult is accustomed to operating on its standard inputs, as mediated by the chemical that extract and transform food into something useful, and upsetting that balance can upset performance in their chosen fields.

And the use of a payment is a form of coercion, given the influence of wealth over most Westerners. Do we want to coerce folks into lowering their weights to healthier levels? Is this wise?

It’s not a rhetorical question. While an individualist might answer No, a communalist, someone who believes the best interests of society, which as a whole exists as a separate entity, must also be considered, might answer Yes.

And what are the numbers, anyways?

For example, a 2022 US study offered 660 people with obesity in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods the chance to take part in a one-year weight-loss programme, made up of a personalised nutrition plan. About a third of the participants could also receive up to $750, depending on how much weight they lost. After six months, about 49 per cent of those with the prospect of getting paid had lost 5 per cent of their body weight, which is often considered the benchmark for a successful weight-loss intervention. The same was true for only 22 per cent of the participants who were just given the nutrition plan.

A similar UK study published in May involved researchers sending daily text messages with weight-management advice and educational resources to nearly 400 men with obesity, of whom 196 were told they would get £400 ($490) at the end of the one-year trial. The catch? The sum would dwindle if they didn’t hit certain weight-loss goals. Weight fell by around 5 per cent, on average, in the financial incentive group, compared with about 3 per cent in the text-only group.

It’s something to think about.

Back from vacation, time to recover!

Serpopard:

The serpopard is a mythical animal known from ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian art. The word “serpopard” is a modern coinage. It is a portmanteau of “serpent” and “leopard“, derived from the interpretation that the creature represents an animal with the body of a leopard and the long neck and head of a serpent. However, they have also been interpreted as “serpent-necked lions”. There is no known name for the creature in any ancient texts. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Serpopards or Sauropods? ‘Dead Varmint Vision’ Makes Cats Look Like Dinosaurs,” Philip J. Senter, Skeptical Inquirer (July/August 2024, paywall):

Archaeologists use the term serpopard to denote a cat with an exaggerated neck, a motif that appears occasionally on ancient Sumerian and Egyptian artifacts. The term combines the words serpent and leopard. The former is a reference to the snake-like neck, and the latter acknowledges that apart from the neck, the animal is one of the big cats. It doesn’t have a mane, so it is not a male lion, but it could be meant as a lioness. The significance of the elongated necks in these feline images is currently a mystery.

Unfortunately, the balance of the article is a clumsy putdown of creationists. Rather than emphasizing that removing the elongated necks makes them cats, a virtually irrelevant point, Senter should have disproven the sauropod contention by noting the lack of dinosaur/sauropod features, then built up the cat contention by citing the various resemblances.

Still, an organic reference would have been better, but apparently nothing of the sort is available, which is not on Senter.

Radiosonde:

A radiosonde is a small weather station coupled with a radio transmitter. The radiosonde is attached to helium- or hydrogen-filled balloon, called variously a weather balloon or a sounding balloon, and the balloon lifts the radiosonde to altitudes exceeding 115,000 feet. During the radiosonde’s ascent, it transmits data on temperature, pressure, and humidity to a sea-, air-, or land-based receiving station. Often, the position of the radiosonde is tracked through GPS, radar, or other means, to provide data on the strength and direction of winds aloft. Thus the radiosonde flight produces a vertical profile of weather parameters in the area above which it was launched. [Radiosonde Museum of North America]

Noted in this xkcd comic. This image is from Radiosonde Museum of North America.

For our purposes, this is the Mystery Pollster edition!

But What About The Presidential Debate?

My night watchman.

Most of these polls were sampled just after the debate. My expectation, which is not met but also not disproven by these polls, since I don’t trust many of them to be honest, is that Senators are not going to be heavily impacted by their Party’s Presidential candidate performance, even among voters who barely pay attention to the election.

That said, their reactions may impact certain Senators. After all, even though President Biden technically won that debate, Senators who ignore his demeanour and initially wrong answers on the Democratic side may face criticism and a few lost votes, while those who do criticize Biden may lose the votes of those voters who value absolute loyalty. It’s a bit of a conundrum.

Republican Senators may be less vulnerable to losing their base, but more vulnerable to losing the respect of independent voters, because they are loyal, regardless of inner turmoil, to Mr Trump. Independents who recognized the utterly despicable flow of mendacity from Mr Trump’s lips, his repeated inability to answer questions and to control himself, may find themselves unable to vote for those Republicans, incumbents or not.

What About Remington Research Group?

Or at least you’d be asking if you read ahead. Remington published a lot of polls on July 10, which explains why I’m including them. They have a FiveThirtyEight rating of 2.6, putting them in the top 30 of those ratings, which is nothing to sniff at.

That said, it’s worth noting the sponsor of all the Remington polls is American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). It takes very little imagination to think that FiveThirtyEight lists them as a Republican-aligned organization, as it’s the Democrats who lean heavily to disassembling the fossil fuel industry in response to the growing evidence of climate change. AFPM will not be in favor of Democratic governance, even if it means the destruction of humanity. And it might.

Remington’s poll samples are small, but not minuscule. I’d be far happier with samples twice as large, but maybe that’s just me.

Adding to that is the publishing media, an extreme-right platform called The Daily Wire. Written to make readers think they’re getting an exclusive insight, it discourages comparisons and critical thinking while trying to encourage sheep behavior following the Presidential debate. It feels very manipulative.

Past performance is not necessarily predictive of future accomplishments. Looking over the Remington results, with the possible exception of Ohio and maybe Michigan, all the results are far more in the conservatives’ favor than most other polls I’ve seen. The question in my mind, then, is whether Remington was bought to produce results, or if the other pollsters are just getting things wrong. While either remains possible, the fact of the matter is that, over the last 2-4 years, most conservative polls have proven painfully and inaccurately optimistic, while independent pollsters have been more successful.

So evaluating Remington will involve a lot of skepticism.

And Onwards Over Yon Cliff …

• In Texas, unknown pollster Manhattan Institute (which may be the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, but Wikipedia does not see it being a polling organization, and FiveThirtyEight just shrugs its shoulders either way – don’t visualize that) tries to give continued hope to Texas liberals by allowing that incumbent Senator Cruz (R-TX) has only a three point lead over challenger Rep Allred (D-TX), 46%-43%. Wikipedia lists Manhattan Institute as conservative, but perhaps the honest conservative sort, as they’ve been around since 1978; then again, other elderly conservative think tanks have recently turned turtle, losing their respectability credentials in a frenzied rush to build a position in the envisioned new conservative order called Trumpism, which I consider an exercise in futility, as this new order is all about fellating Mr Trump, and that’s it. As Manhattan Institute is new to me, I don’t know if they are respectable, still, or just another conservative organization looking for power and influence, and so I’m not sure how to weigh this somewhat surprising polling result.Something similar goes for Remington Research Group, which is giving Cruz a ten point lead over Rep Allred, 43%-53%. Is this their honest evaluation, or are they trying to protect the Senator?
• Mystery pollster National Public Affairs, again unknown to FiveThirtyEight, suggests Nevada’s incumbent Senator Rosen (D-NV) has an eight point lead, 41%-33%, over challenger Sam Brown (R-NV). National Public Affairs’ website suggests a conservative organization, citing as one client known extremist Rep Ronny Jackson (R-TX). If so, the Rosen lead may be a few points larger than eight, which would be broadly congruent with other pollsters. That doesn’t stop Remington Research Group from giving Senator Rosen only a 2 point lead over Brown, 48% 46%. Notably, while neither pollster is necessarily trustworthy, at least Remington puts Rosen at 48%, just two point away from the 50% goal, while National Public Affairs has the Senator 9 points from the goal.
• Another pollster living in the Great Unknown, SoCal Research, measures Wisconsin’s incumbent Senator Baldwin (D-WI) leading challenger Eric Hovde (R-WI?) by twelve points, 50%-38%. This is not the big breakthrough for Hovde previously mentioned, but it also may be a bit of an exaggerated lead for Baldwin. With no history to build an accuracy estimate, it’s a little hard to know how to assess a SoCal Research result.

  But a little waiting produces another poll, this one by the RepubliCratic (yes, yes, I mean two pollsters working together, with opposing alignments) pollster Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/Impact Research (1.7), and it gives Senator Baldwin a five point lead at 50%-45% as they work for the AARP. Despite the pollsters’ mediocre rating, this poll’s results seem well within the range of plausibility.

  And then the aforementioned Remington Research Group also has a poll for Wisconsin, having Baldwin and Hovde tied at 48%. While this is not outside the realm of possibility, it’s certainly farther to the conservative end of the spectrum than I would expect from a good poll.

• Remington Research Group finds Arizona’s Rep Gallego (D-AZ) even with prospective Republican nominee Kari Lake (R-AZ) at 47%. The only polls I’ve seen calling this potential contest close are from suspect pollsters. The primary is July 30, and Rep Gallego has no Democratic challenger at the moment, while Lake has two. Will election-denier Lake, who was booed at a Arizona Republican convention, still win the nomination? Stay tuned.
• In Michigan, Remington Research Group gives Rep Slotkin (D-MI) a four point lead, 47%-43%, over prospective GOP nominee and former Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI). Both still must survive their primaries on August 6, but they are the way to bet, so far.
• Montana voters supposedly favor challenger Tim Sheehy (R-MT) over incumbent Senator and farmer Jon Tester (D-MT) by five points, 50%-45%, at least according to Remington Research Group. Since most other reputable pollsters give Senator Tester the edge, albeit within the margin of error, this is where I figured the rat was residing for Remington.
• Ohio’s been a bit short of polls, but Remington Research Group gives Senator Brown (D-OH) a healthy 6 point lead, 50%-44%, over challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH). This is in line with other polls.
• In Pennsylvania, Remington Research Group has Senator Casey’s (D-PA) lead over David McCormick (R-PA?) down to one, 49%-48%. This is not in accordance with other polls, and I would disregard it until other pollsters come to the same conclusion. McCormick may also be facing a scandal made of false claims on his part.

And In Conclusion

Watching how Remington Research Group results played out against other pollster’s results so far, it strikes me that certain Senatorial seats are considered safe for Democrats, and so honest results are given, such as Ohio’s, but others, such as Texas’, Montana’s, and Wisconsin’s, are considered up for grabs, and so those results are skewed. Is this true? I dunno; only senior leadership at Remington Research Group can really answer that. But that’s the impression I get from looking at these results.

Here’s an inspirational story:

A $1 billion gift to Johns Hopkins University from billionaire Mike Bloomberg will make medical school free for most students, and increase financial aid for those enrolled in nursing, public health and other graduate programs.

In a Monday letter in the Bloomberg Philanthropies annual report, Bloomberg addressed the twin challenges of declining health and education. The gift marks an emphatic endorsement of the value of higher learning at a time when academia has been increasingly under political attack. [WaPo]

I wonder how long before someone on the right starts screaming But that’s socialism!

Because you know someone will, and Bloomberg is a Democrat.

Still, it’s worth contemplating the fact that our society is in need of medical professionals, and education of same has been growing faster than inflation. The pandemic motivated quite a number of members of the allied professions (docs, nurses, aides, techs, etc) to die, retire, or transfer to other, less stressful professions, so we’re in need – and I have to wonder if the United States is an attractive professional destination for medical folks any longer, what with all the political uproar.

While it’s far afield from the academic definition of socialism, we could say that socialism is a bandage for repairing what capitalism cannot.

I suppose high tech industry claims it’s in a bit of shock because of Boeing’s agreement to plead guilty:

Boeing agreed on Sunday to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the government in a case linked to crashes of its 737 Max jets in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people — a stunning turn for the aerospace giant after the Justice Department determined that Boeing failed to live up to terms of a 2021 deal to avoid prosecution. [WaPo]

But so will be the US government. Along with being just about the only American commercial airliner supplier, Boeing is also big in Defense and NASA.

I blame this on a failure to enforce anti-monopoly laws. Such laws are all about guaranteeing^[1] competition in the marketplace, and, in limited circumstance, commodification of products that allows interoperation.

Of course, investor demands also contribute to the failures, I suspect. The continual demand for greater and greater dividends places c-suite executives in more and more difficult positions. Although it’s hard to envision a capitalist-type economy that functions well without investors, there’s definitely an urge to toss them out on their ears.

And this piques the interest:

Just trying to minimize damage to a favored contractor, or what?

¹ Guarantee is such a binary word, unsupportive of gradations. Its popularity makes it emblematic of a culture that, in large part, desires absolute, easy judgments. Members of that culture should go read H. L. Mencken: For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. In fact, a number of his quotes are applicable to today.

Glen of Glen and Friends Cooking claims he’s been running his channel on YouTube for 17 years, which I suppose makes him an institutional memory. Recently, content creators^[1] on YouTube have been required, or at least strongly encouraged, to produce “shorts,” which should be self-explanatory.

As you’ll see below, this is unprofitable for Glen, which he protests, and while he’s not dropping out, it’s interesting that he’s seen this sort of thing before. For me, it speaks to the diverging aims of the publisher, YouTube, and the content creators of the publisher. YouTube is doubtless driven by investor demands and the like, while the creators are driven by their own financial needs. Don’t gloss it over; the presence of financial terminology in both is at odds, rather than dovetailing, since the pie, while not a zero-sum pie, doesn’t expand easily. I might suppose the cost of making a video is proportional to the ln(video length), which would make short videos potentially unprofitable.

And so I wonder if YouTube is eating its own geese for breakfast. True, geese grow old and unproductive of eggs, but this isn’t a biological situation in which such a process is automatic and self-evident; such creators as Glen may have years of attracting and keeping audiences for YouTube to harvest still in them. Trying to squeeze yet more immediate profit by forcing, more or less, a format unsatisfying for both creators and their audience may result in a future failure, or at least downturn.

As Glen says he’s seen this sort of thing before, I wonder if YouTube has a new VP of content creation or somesuch, tasked with increasing revenues.

Here’s Glen:

¹ A thoroughly loathsome terminology, as it covers up critical differences in the output of the various creators; it’s a programming label, misapplied, if anything.

A lovely embroidered something or other at The Museum of Russian Art.

On display on the main floor. In case you’re concerned, TMORA is a firm backer of Ukraine.

Something on your mind, lass?

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010) features a 1900s Adèle striving to revive her beloved sister, Agathe, who appears to be brain-damaged in a most unfortunate manner. A horde of incompetent men hamper, pursue, and otherwise annoy Adèle – and the audience – as she searches for a solution in the ancient ways of the world. But will she find it, or will those ancient ways find her?

Gorgeously photographed and not badly acted, it is far less than the sum of its part. Buffoons as foils has its virtues, but sharply limited virtues; Adèle working in the company of competent men, good or evil, would last far longer as an entertainment mechanism.

And the pterodactyl, as much as a scene-stealer as it is, made little to no sense.

Sorry, I cannot recommend.

My Arts Editor, in her roles as sewist, tailor, and designer, checks out the work of the professionals on the Fashion Feed channel hosted by YouTube, and sometimes I join in, too. This one left us in stitches…

“Not a single tidy whitey, Paul?”

The Cheap Detective (1978) is a parody of a cross of two famous detective stories, The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Casablanca (1942), peppered with riffs on classic tropes, and laden generously with stars of the period, led by Peter Falk.

And that’s about it. The riffs carry the show, yet they don’t really reveal much more about the genre and its shared mythos. You laugh, but so quickly you forget.

Accrual tax:

But Biden’s third proposal — taxing unrealized capital gains as income — is just more trouble than it’s worth. Capital gains taxes are collected only when you sell an asset. This has long irked progressives, who grumble at the idea that rich people are seeing their wealth increase by leaps and bounds every year without being taxed a penny.

Biden’s plan would “fix” this problem by taxing asset appreciation before the assets are sold — an idea that’s sometimes called an accrual tax. But as I wrote in Bloomberg back in 2019, this could seriously hurt startup formation … [“Biden is right that we need to raise taxes,” Noah Smith, Noahpinion]

Rather like taxing someone’s imagination.

For those readers worrying about the fate of Speaker of the Wisconsin House Robin Vos (R-WI), you can put yourself at ease:

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday rejected an effort to force a recall election of the state’s top Republican after determining that not enough valid signatures were collected.

The vote by three Republican commissioners and one Democratic commissioner means Assembly Speaker Robin Vos will not have to stand for a recall election unless a court intervenes. Vos was targeted for recall by fellow Republicans and supporters of former President Donald Trump.

Recall organizers targeted Vos, the longest-serving Assembly speaker in Wisconsin history, after he refused calls to decertify President Joe Biden’s narrow win in the state. Biden’s win of about 21,000 votes has withstood two partial recounts, lawsuits, an independent audit and a review by a conservative law firm.

Vos further angered Trump supporters when he did not back a plan to impeach Meagan Wolfe, the state’s top elections official. [AP]

Described as an extremist (but not listed in On The Issues), Vos would have to be to be Speaker of the Wisconsin House. He refused to decertify the official Wisconsin electors to the Electoral College not because of personal foible or whimsical folly, but because Wisconsin law does not permit such an action by the Wisconsin Speaker, or so I read.

The law can function as an impermeable wall, and while the unelected can shriek, childishly, all they want about what they want, those who are staring penalties in the face, who suddenly discover reality is waiting to carry them away for a terrible day on the Antarctic continent, will, more often than not, change their tune; those who don’t more often find themselves running for refuge in the Cayman Islands, or sitting in the pokey, as they discover their elevated social position does not permit them to ignore the law.

I don’t write the above for my own amusement, but to make a point for the non-political reader who is uneasily trying to make sense of a political ocean suddenly awash in unfamiliar creatures talking about events from long ago (more than two years, that is), and weeping that they accomplished this or that and are not getting credit. Meanwhile, another set of creatures dispute the first set of claims.

Who to believe?

How about treat them like children? Those who behave like spoiled brats are disbelieved first, because, as we all know^[1], spoiled brats have no allegiance to truth and honesty, and that’s what most of us believe is necessary for good and effective government. The other kids are at least struggling to integrate an allegiance to truth with their natural narcissism, and some of them are doing admirably well.

In the above example, we can see the Republicans, both the unnamed managers of the Vos recall effort, as well as Mr. Trump, exhibit the behavior of spoiled brats, angrily demanding what they cannot have, and when told No!, screaming all the louder executing idiotic legal actions.

This emblematic action is why every voter who considers themselves a good person should not vote for Mr. Trump. Yes, both sides are flawed, but I believe the Democrats are better suited for governance than the current set of brats making up the Republicans, from dog-catcher to SCOTUS justice. They just need some correction.

¹ Or should know. Except for the spoiled brats who survived to childhood. Many of them cling to their anti-social personality, but learn to play nice with others. We normal types like to call them sociopaths, and, in our lazy moments, dream of permanently ridding ourselves of them.

Getting into the rhythm of the … OUCH. Faceplant! Medic!

Observed While Wilding

Over the last couple of weeks it sure seems like mediocre or worse pollsters are putting out numerous polls compared to highly rated pollsters, which means high-quality information is scarce on the ground relative to low-quality information. It leads to thoughts concerning intellectually despicable attempts to influence the electorate by dispensing polls which do not reflect the information collected as honestly adjusted.

And, while so far it mostly seems to be right-wing pollsters, there’s nothing to stop left-wing pollsters, excepting, of course, concern about their reputations. On the left, they try harder to select for the most vulnerable Republican candidates during primary voting, so nobody’s hands are clean.

And what is the percentage of the electorate paying attention to polls, anyways?

And Then Came The News

• How influential might USA TODAY be? Virginia’s GOP candidate for the Senate, retired Navy Captain Hung Cao (R-VA), may have been caught in a fit of exaggeration, according to the national news source:
  

  The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, a decorated Navy veteran, has made repeated references to becoming disabled after he was “blown up” in combat, and has stressed that he has scars from his military service while Democratic incumbent Sen. Tim Kaine got rich from the safety of Capitol Hill.

  Yet the Navy service record for Hung Cao, who won the GOP primary in June, does not show a Purple Heart award, the commendation given to troops who have suffered wounds from “direct or indirect result of enemy action” that required medical attention. Nor does his record indicate that he received the Navy’s Combat Action Ribbon, which requires that a sailor “must have rendered satisfactory performance under enemy fire while actively participating in ground or surface combat engagement.” USA TODAY obtained Cao’s record from the Navy.

  While I can see this excusing the claim as a bit of word play,

  The Navy designated him a “special operations explosive ordnance disposal/dive officer.”

  … this brings it all back into play, in Cao’s own words.

  “I’m 100% disabled, you know, because just from being blown up in combat many times and everything else, you know, knee, shoulders,” Cao said on April 22, 2022. “I’ve got more surgeries than you could possibly imagine.”

  Veterans in particular hate exaggeration and outright lying concerning military records, although I suspect the truth is more mundane: unfortunate minor incidents during training and the like, slightly amplified. But how many Virginia voters read USA TODAY? Or will other, more local news reporting sources pick this up?

• Much like Senator Tester (D-MT), Nevada’s Senator Rosen (D-NV) may benefit from a pro-choice initiative on the Nevada ballot:
  

  Supporters collected and submitted more than 200,000 signatures, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom President Lindsey Harmon told reporters. Proponents need 102,000 valid signatures by June 26 to qualify for the ballot.

  This was achieved May 20 and I missed it.

• Torchlight Strategies doesn’t appear to be in FiveThirtyEight’s ratings list, but it has a poll finding Republican Tim Sheehy (R-MT) well ahead of Montana’s Senator Tester (D-MT) at 47%-41%. That the sponsor of the poll is Common Sense for America, which FiveThirtyEight lists as a Republican-aligned PAC, simply reinforces my notion that this poll is not worth considering by serious analysts and concerned citizens. Or, if you prefer, visualize a John Cleese silly walk, performed while the walker holds a placard with the Torchlight results on it, but the ink is dribbling into incoherence, and the walker’s pockets spill dollar bills.
• co/efficient (1.2) is giving Rep Kim (D-NJ) a 7 point lead over Republican Curtis Bashaw (R-NJ), 41%-34%, for Senator Menendez’s (I-NJ) seat in New Jersey. If the Senator is included in the poll then he picks up 3% of the voters, Kim loses 2 points, and Bashaw loses 1. co/efficient has a very low rating, but it remains interesting that Menendez doesn’t score well in this poll. If co/efficient leans Republican then Rep Kim seems a safe bet.
• In Michigan EPIC-MRA (2.0) is giving Rep Slotkin (D-MI) a two point edge over former Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI), 44%-42%. With a margin of error of four points, it sounds like a dead heat, and a nail biter. It’s worth noting that in the last Michigan race for the US Senate, Peters (D) vs James (R) in 2020, the incumbent Peters beat the inexperienced James by less than two points. The Michigan non-dormant electorate is polarized, even if in the last election a lot of disgust was shown for the Republicans by electing Democrats to all the state-wide offices. The winner may be the candidate best able to wake up dormant voters, and Dobbs may do just that for Slotkin.
• We may be seeing deception in New Mexico, where 1892 Polling (1.4) is giving Senator Heinrich (D-NM) a mere four point lead, 46%-42%, over poll sponsor and Republican candidate Nella Domenici (R-NM). I report this poll not as an alarm signal, but as an instance of probable deception. Or it’s an example of the observer disturbing the observed to an unacceptable degree. The poll is probably not worth the time.
• Pennsylvania’s Senator Casey (D-PA) has a four point lead over challenger David McCormick (R-PA?), 46%-42%, according to Cygnal (2.1), an alarming measurement for Democrats, but notably out of line with other pollsters. I also notice the Cygnal press release was tootling its own horn: Cygnal, one of the nation’s fastest growing and most accurate private polling firms … I consider that to be a red flag, even if a 2.1 rating isn’t too bad. Another pollster, the unknown Bullfinch Group, gives Senator Casey a substantial 12 point lead, 48%-36%. This poll has a sponsor, Commonwealth Foundation, which may be Republican-aligned (“Defending Pennsylvania from Anti-Energy Policies” seems Republican to me), although I find that a bit puzzling, given the poll finding. Without a rating it’s not clear that any weight should be given to the Bullfinch Group’s poll.

Yesterday was very nice for the clematis.

And then a bonus moth. Or butterfly. Painted lady?

So, considering the latest conservative wing of SCOTUS‘ attempt at, you know, actually thinking, I derive this suddenly probable scenario:

1. Your next autocratic President takes offense at some ruling of SCOTUS. Or, if you prefer, President Biden takes offense.
2. He marches over to see SCOTUS, currently in session.
3. He uses his handy-dandy Glock to shoot Chief Justice Roberts right between the eyes.
4. He proclaims it an official act – Correcting the judgment of the Chief Justice, as I recall the news networks later reporting. He is thus immunized from the consequences of his actions.
5. He returns to work in the Oval Office. Some reports had him grinning with glee.

A few years ago, Chief Justice Roberts proclaimed the Federal judiciary as politics free. It would appear that SCOTUS has now submitted to the conservative game plan. The Chief Justice’s place in history will not be hallowed, I fear. Rather, it’ll be covered in bullet holes.

Previously, on Dragnet …

Coattails

For those young readers who’ve not paid attention to politics – understandable, it’s a dreadful business, but part of your civic duty – past general election coverage has often featured the question of metaphorical coattails: how much the Presidential candidates’ popularity will enhance the election chances of other members of the Party, sometimes known as downballot influence. These are often overestimated, in my opinion, but this election cycle is certainly different from the general run of election cycles, as the switch from Biden to Harris by the Democrats gives an unprecedented opportunity for before-and-after polling. Unfortunately, President Biden failed to give the pollsters a full month’s warning.

That said, Mz Harris’ selection of Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) as her running mate (vice president for the first-time voter – we do like our political jargon here in the States) leads to similar questions. As a white, plump guy who grew up in a rural area and worked on a farm, graduated from Chadron State College (compare with Mz Harris’ degree from Howard, Mr Trump’s from Wharton, and Mr Vance’s from Yale), twenty four year career in the Army National Guard, including deployments, working in a factory and as a high school teacher and football coach, moving on to a successful political career as the Representative for for Minnesota’s 1st congressional district elected in 2006, and then elected Governor of Minnesota in 2018, Walz will have an outsized appeal to the white guy segment of the electorate.

He projects being plain-spoken, full of self-deprecating humor, and may have the most effective personal presence of the four. His résumê is just bang-on to appeal to the white guy segment of the electorate, a bare majority of which still lean towards Trump / Vance, some believing that Mr Trump is an iconic businessman and boss, others worried about Democratic policies, realized or potential, true or propaganda.

And how does this play into the Senate races that are still undecided? I think coattails can be effective. If Governor Walz avoids the various potholes certain to be strewn in his path by the Republicans, he may move some voters out of the Republican column, and some of those may even vote Democratic. His invention of the Republicans are weird meme has certainly been effective, and who wants to vote for the weird ticket?

Time will tell.

Republicans, of course, claim Walz is a terrible pick, a leftist who lies about his military record. Here, for instance, is WaPo’s Marc Thiessen rattling on about Harris’ “unforced error.” For very long-term readers, this would be the same Marc Thiessen who tried to make the case that Mr Trump was the most honest politician ever; I commented on that exercise in poor judgment in one of my more popular posts.

Yeah, he’s a real hack, like most conservative pundits these days.

Mz Harris, speaking of coattails, fared better than President Biden in the latest Marist College poll (2.9 in the FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings), taking a three point lead over Mr Trump, which is within the margin of error.

Primaries

There were several primaries since the last Senate campaign update, and I summarize them below. In case you were worried, no, there are still a few primaries in the future for this cycle.

Facts On The Ground, Please Do Not Trample

• Speaking of primaries, yes, it will be Rep Gallego (D-AZ) vs election-denier and former newscaster Kari Lake (R-AZ) in Arizona for its open seat in the US Senate. Democrat Gallego was unchallenged in the primary, while Republican Lake defeated Mark Lamb 53.8%-40.3%. Lamb can probably be considered to be to the right of Lake, since, as Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona during the pandemic years, he stated he would not enforce “stay at home” laws, but that doesn’t make Lake a moderate. The actual and also-ran Republican moderate, Elizabeth Reyes, won 5.9% of Republican primary votes, suggesting Arizona Republicans have, indeed, jumped off the cliff. Gallego won just short of 400,000 votes in the primary, but as an unopposed candidate interest may have flagged, while Lake and Lamb won an aggregate of just less than 500,000 votes. Can Lake attract Lamb voters, or are they too embittered to vote for Lake? Can she attract enough independent voters, given her well-displayed extremist tendencies? I tend to think not.

  In the only poll I’ve seen since the primary, HighGround (1.7) gives Gallego a big lead of 50%-39% over Lake, with independents stampeding to Gallego by 18 points. However, notably the sample size is only 500 likely voters. The same pollster gives Mz Harris a smaller lead over Mr Trump of less than three points, within the margin of error. The Senate result brings into question whether Arizona is still contested, or if it’s decided. It also brings into focus the question of the Arizona Republicans’ leaderships’ durability. Ever since the 2020 election it’s strongly resembled a tire fire built by squabbling fourth-raters.

• 

  On The Issues: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

  Tennessee’s Senator Blackburn (R-TN) won her primary against Tres Wittum (R-TN) with nearly 90% of the primary vote, amounting to 367,711 ballots. Her opponent will be Tennessee State Representative Gloria Johnson (D-TN), who beat three other candidates with 70+% of the Democratic primary vote, amounting to 143,904 ballots. These numbers are not favorable for the Democrats, and so it seems likely that Tennessee voters will reward Senator Blackburn for her far-right views once again.

• Senator Cantwell (D-WA) of Washington came out on top in the jungle primary used in the Washington Senate race, consisting of promoting the top two finishers to the general election. The Senator won 57.9% of the ballots. In second place, and her opponent in November, is Raul Garcia (R-WA), with 21.3% of the vote. Although Mr. Garcia will certainly pick up some of those votes garnered by candidates who didn’t qualify for the general, as well as those voters who didn’t participate in the primary, it seems unlikely he’ll surpass Senator Cantwell, barring a black swan event. I’ll desist from progress reports on this race unless a surprise occurs.
• Missouri’s Senator Hawley (R-MO) won his primary with 601,906 ballots, and he was unopposed. His opponent in November will be Lance Kunce (D-MO), who won his primary with 255,309 ballots and 67.7% of the votes. The total vote count for the Democratic primary? 377,321 ballots, split between Kunce and three other hopefuls.

  Will Missouri independents, outraged and appalled by the Dobbs decision, support Kunce in such numbers as to overrun Senator Hawley? It seems unlikely, although former Senator McCaskill (D-MO) did something similar in 2012, defeating the late Todd Akin (R-MO) after he expressed an appalling extremist opinion on abortion that Missouri voters simply could not accept. While Senator Hawley has stated extremist positions that outrage many people, I do not expect him to put his foot in his mouth to the extent that he follows Akin into a shocking defeat. I will desist from further reports on this race unless something interesting comes up.

• As expected, in Michigan the race for the open Senate seat will be between Rep Slotkin (D-MI) and former Rep and hard-liner Mike Rogers (R-MI). Slotkin had 80+% of the Democratic vote, or 528,099 ballots, while Rogers had 62.8% of the Republican votes, or 460,959 ballots. However, overall there were more Republican than Democratic ballots. Whether or not Rogers can attract enough votes to beat Slotkin remains an open question, and Slotkin has consistenly lead in polls, but often within the margin of error.

  The first poll of which I’m aware since the primary is from top-rated The New York Times/Siena College (3.0), giving Rep Slotkin a slender lead of 46%-43%.

• Ask and ye shall find … In Florida, the University of North Florida Public Opinion Research Lab, currently carrying a hefty 2.8/3 rating from FiveThirtyEight, gives Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) a 47%-43% lead over former Rep Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), no doubt in response to my pleas for more polls of Florida. Is Florida drifting away from the Democratic dream? Or are chronic young voter undercounts skewing the poll? That’s hard to say, but, speaking of coattails, the Miami Herald notes Mz Harris’ popularity is greatly overshadowing that of President Biden:
  

  Less than three weeks after emerging as the de facto Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris has opened up a double-digit lead over former President Donald Trump in Miami-Dade County, according to a new poll from a top Miami Democratic consultant.

  The survey, released Thursday by Democratic strategist Christian Ulvert, a top campaign adviser to several Miami-Dade candidates including Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, shows Harris notching the support of nearly 54% of Miami-Dade likely voters. Trump, a South Florida resident with an outsized business presence in the county, has just under 40% support. The poll’s margin of error is 4.6 percentage points.

  The poll of 1,071 of likely general election voters in Miami-Dade County, conducted over the first five days of August by Plantation-based MDW Communications, is likely to be touted as a sign of improving fortunes for Democrats, who have faced an increasingly difficult political terrain in Florida in recent years. Trump carried the state in both 2016 and 2020, while the 2022 midterm elections saw Republicans win supermajorities in both chambers of the state Legislature and clinch every statewide elected office. …

  While he’s already widely expected to win Florida overall in November, speculation has swirled among both Republicans and Democrats about whether Trump might be able to capture Miami-Dade. A survey commissioned by Ulvert last November found Trump leading President Joe Biden by 11 percentage points in the county.

  Can Mucarsel-Powell translate that movement into votes for herself in the Senate race? If so, that may push her over the top.

• In Pennsylvania, Susquehanna Polling & Research (2.3) gives Senator Casey (D-PA) a 47%-42% lead over challenger David McCormick (R-PA?). This race may still be hot. It is not clear if this pollster, unfamiliar to me but with a respectable FiveThirtyEight rating, has a bias, as they’re giving Harris a four point lead over Trump in the same poll.

  But for comparison, consider the poll numbers supplied by The New York Times/Siena College (top-rated 3.0): 51%-37%. That, folks, is almost unreal in comparison to other poll numbers, but despite the anger some progressives had with this pollster combination, it has to be taken seriously. Perhaps McCormick is finished.

• We haven’t heard about Ohio of late, so even the results of frankensteinian Fabrizio, Lee & Associates/Impact Research (1.7) are welcome. They show Senator Brown (D-OH) continues to lead challenger Bernie Moreno (R-OH?), 46%-42%.
• Pollage is now available for New York’s Senate race, and it’s not pretty for Republicans, as Siena College (2.7; this is not The New York Times/Siena College, which tops the FiveThirtyEight ratings at 3.0) gives Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) a 56%-33% lead over challenger Mike Sapraicone (R-NY), and unrated pollster ActiVote gives the Senator a bigger lead at 63%-37%. In the latter case, the margin of error is 4.9% due to the small number of voters (n=400) surveyed, while Siena College surveyed 1199 voters; I suspect ActiVote is cheaping out on actual data collection, which is understandable in an era in which good data collection is becoming increasingly difficult. I’ll desist from further New York reports unless something unusual occurs.
• The Massachusetts primaries are still a month off, and the Berkshire Eagle has a profile of two of the three Republicans who’ve entered the primary in order to challenge Senator Warren (D-MA); the third is a Trump groupie who does not have a chance in Massachusetts, according to profile author, local political columnist Bill Everhart. The other two, men named Deaton and Cain, according to Everhart seem to be moderate Republicans, perhaps even Republicans of the future, after the current dumpster fire that encompasses everyone from Vance to McConnell burns out. However, one aspect he mentions that troubles me is that both Deaton and Cain are connected to the cryptocurrency industry. Long-term readers know that, so far, my view of cryptocurrency is that it is an essential tool in the grifters’ toolbox, and that, as a whole, there is little wholesomely unique about it. Further, the cryptocurrency industry has been seeking to influence various members of Congress, generally in order to avoid regulation. So is Deaton and/or Cain a grifter? Or just another arrogant libertarian who thinks he’s found the cure for inflation, with little regard as to whether the cure has unintended consequences, never mind if it solves the putative problem.

  Warren is unchallenged in her primary.

• The Marquette University Law School (3.0 and #3 in the FiveThirtyEight rankings) has some bad news for Eric Hovde (R-WI?), challenger to Senator Baldwin (D-WI), issuing a 51%-45% ranking in favor of the Senator. It’s not just the 6 point gap, but that Senator Baldwin is in the magic land of 50+%. Removing the two non-major party candidates pushes Baldwin up to 52%.

  And the waves keep coming, as The New York Times/Siena College (top rated at 3.0) is giving the Senator a 51%-44% lead. That’s the third and fourth top pollsters to give the Senator a 50+% rating recently, meaning the Wisconsin race might not be worthy of further comment unless Senator Baldwin’s numbers dip. I’ll desist.

• In Montana, Republican Tim Sheehy (R-MT) has a small lead, 48%-46%, over Senator Tester (D-MT), according to Emerson College (2.9). If that holds up then it’s likely that the Republicans will take control of the Senate. In what seems a bit of unfair news, WaPo reports Sheehy’s business, a firefighting company, is losing money. While that’s applicable to any claims Sheehy makes to leadership, from the report it just seems that a quieter-than-expected fire season is to blame.
• Republicans looking to challenge Senator Murphy (D-CT) in Connecticut are profiled here; their primary is August 13th, coming right up.
• In Delaware the primaries for the Democrats and Republicans have been canceled due to lack of participants. Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) will be vying with Eric Hansen (R-DE) for retiring Senator Carper’s (D-DE) seat, and, while there are no recent polls of which I’m aware, Rep Rochester would seem favored to win.
• In New Mexico, challenger Nella Domenici (R-NM) has a nickname brought on by the bad behaviors and policies of Mr Trump:
  

  T.J. Trout, host of a show at KKOB, a commercial AM radio station licensed to Albuquerque, said he was not “trying to make you look bad” in reference to Domeneci’s cancelation [of an interview], who has been labelled in the past by Democrats in New Mexico as “No Answer Nella” for her refusal to answer tough questions in her quest to unseat Heinrich. …

  Trout said that the Domenici campaign had a problem with “at least the first three questions” which he labeled as “political questions” about former President Donald Trump.

  This could become a significant drag on Republican candidates who refuse to be associated with the former President. Voters will either feel the candidates are not candid, or are abandoning the former President. Republicans beware.

Now go relax.

Just think about all the snow you’ll be shoveling in a few months.

This is where awareness of confirmation bias must play into how one reads a post, as DoctorBeast68 on Daily Kos writes about the aftermath of the Presidential debate of last Thursday:

Amid all the handwringing and gnashing of teeth, something remarkable is happening in this country this week. While the MSM [Main street media, aka traditional media sources] all but coronated Trump following CNN’s televised Trump rally (aka “the debate”), their narrative is rapidly falling apart and they have no idea how to handle it. Post debate polls show Biden GAINING support while TFG is dropping. There are reports that Trump is furious over these post debate polls. Could it be that 90 minutes of deranged hyperbolic ugliness and utter nonsense spewed by Trump actually reminded Americans why we came to despise this convicted felon four years ago?

Written in typical Daily Kos patois, it’s a red flag that this sort of thing should be verified by the reader. But no links are provided to relevant polls. Now, I can believe what the writer is saying, and readers shouldn’t be surprised, given what I said Friday. But I’m wary.

And, yes, I know links may be provided in comments. I’ve read Daily Kos comments, though, and they generally just irritate me. And then I wonder how many are written by saboteurs and infiltrators.

But it’s telling that Erick Erickson doesn’t lead off his latest column with an attack on Biden concerning the debate. Oh, he gets to it, eventually, but the lead-off is basically him telling his fellow conservatives to … give up the self-delusion schtick:

Here’s my frustration with the state of conservative media and online punditry. You can conjure the most outlandish theories and never have to say you’re sorry. And you can conjure those theories while connecting dots to lead you out of the theory you know isn’t true and everyone just shrugs. And it is far easier to go with the herd than say what you know to be true.

I knew CNN would do a fine debate. Tapper and Bash are professionals. There was no delay in the feed. They were not going to edit Joe Biden both because they would not and it would be technically impossible while also distributing a live feed to other networks. But much of the conservative online space wanted to believe. It was far easier to attack CNN pre-emptively than say the truth. And even now, there’ll be those who defensively insist telling the truth was wrong, a lie, or only a lucky guess.

When truth and honesty are no longer the currency of the conservatives, this is what you’re going to see. This is why I don’t go to web sites with a reputation for conservatism very often, because whether it’s Alex Jones or Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, I know they will put no value on honest evaluations.

For all I know, Erickson may be the exception to the rule, but, in addition to often simply being wrong, he’ll nastily stretch a point. In this case, as with many others that I’ve noticed, he’s trying to keep the herd together by smearing various Democrats and, of course, President Biden:

But beyond everything above, if Biden leaves office where does he go? Does he go home to his two drug-addicted children with a dog that bites while his wife resents him for giving up the presidency? Biden would be sitting at home on election night watching a historically unpopular Kamala Harris lose every traditional swing state and put places like Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado in play.

Stretching reality to convince citizens to remain in the conservative circle runs the risk of distorting their grasp on reality beyond control – and your own grasp on reality.

But who doesn’t get the time of day from Erickson in this message? Mr. Trump. Just an oversight? Off in another message? Or is Mr. Trump’s slipping grasp on honesty and truth so unpalatable that Erickson doesn’t dare go near it? I mean this quite literally, as Erickson has a stock story about being implicitly threatened with one or more guns when he didn’t initially support Mr Trump back in 2015 or 2016. Maybe he has worries about the safety of his family. From his own people.

Tells you why most Republicans qualify as fourth-raters.