Skip to content

Month: November 2022

Sadistic glee

And a spreading darkness

Leah Millis/Reuters

Victims of political violence may be found among both major U.S. political parties, David Frum noted last week (The Atlantic):

But if both Republicans and Democrats, left and right, suffer political violence, the same cannot be said of those who celebrate political violence. That’s not a “both sides” affair in 2020s America.

No, it isn’t, is it?

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) retweetwed this photo mocking Paul Pelosi having his head bashed in with a hammer.

Deny it as conservatives do, prominent figures among the Republican Party have made threats of violence against political opponents intergral to messages they send their supporters in speeches, political ads, and on social media. Republicans suggesting that if they don’t get their way democratically they’ll go guns and water the tree of liberty with the blood of their opponents has become Messaging 101 on the right.

Frum continued:

You don’t see Democratic House members wielding weapons in videos and threatening to shoot candidates who want to cut capital-gains taxes or slow the growth of Medicare. Democratic candidates for Senate do not post video fantasies of hunting and executing political rivals, or of using a firearm to discipline their children’s romantic partners. It’s not because of Democratic members that Speaker Nancy Pelosi installed metal detectors to bar firearms from the floor of the House. No Democratic equivalent exists of Donald Trump, who regularly praises and encourages violence as a normal tool of politics, most recently against his own party’s Senate leader, Mitch McConnell. As the formerly Trump-leaning Wall Street Journal editorialized on October 2: “It’s all too easy to imagine some fanatic taking Mr. Trump seriously and literally, and attempting to kill Mr. McConnell. Many supporters took Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about former Vice President Mike Pence all too seriously on Jan. 6.”

Right-wing figures will blame suspect David DePape’s hammer attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband last week in their home on mental illness. Yet….

“This was not a random act of violence. This was not a random residential burglary. This is something that was specifically targeted,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins on Tuesday.

Tom Nichols writes in The Atlantic that the snickering responses to the attack that landed Paul Pelosi in the ICU “marks a new level of depravity” for Republicans:

One might think that it would be easy for America, as one nation, to condemn an attempt to kidnap the woman second in line to the presidency that resulted in the beating of her husband with a hammer. As Ernest Hemingway would say: Pretty to think so. Instead, we have seen the dark heart of the Republican Party, with a reaction so callous, so flippantly sadistic, so hateful, that it all feels irredeemable.

The morning news broke of the Pelosi home invasion, I wrote that we are living through a period history will record as another mass insanity. That may depend on the numbers killed. History views the mass murder of demonized foes in Armenia, Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, Boznia, and Burma quite differently. (The last four occurred in my lifetime.) In Friday’s post, I cited the case of 55-year-old Scott Brian Haven, a Utah health-insurance salesman convicted of sending nearly 4,000 threatening messages to Democrats in Congress.

In “Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind,” Robert Draper explains that Haven specifcally targeted Maxine Waters, Dick Durbin, and Jerry Nadler:

He focused his attention on them because Limbaugh and Hannity had themselves done so—even going so far as to supply their Washington office numbers while on the air. Haven dutifully jotted them down. Then he began calling, sharing sentiments like the following:

“Tell the son of a bitch we are coming to hang the fucker!”

What we see today, Nichols warns, is sadistic glee among many conservatives in seeing violence done to their political enemies. “But it is also a social cancer, a rot that can spread quickly and kill the spirit of democracy.”

“The darkness is spreading,” Nichols warns.

Tomorrow belongs to them.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Please go vote and take family and friends.

Florida’s Pandemic

This is success?

Florida’s seniors lead nation in COVID deaths since April 2021; population can’t explain it

While Gov. Ron DeSantis prioritized immunizing “Seniors First” in the first three months of 2021, the coronavirus has since killed more people ages 65 and older in Florida than anywhere else in the nation. And Florida’s COVID death rate among the elderly is higher here than in most states. 

State health officials have logged 30,060 fatalities among seniors ages 65 and older between April 2021 — when adults 18 or older could readily get the shots — and September, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The disease has killed at least 82,065 Floridians overall since the pandemic began.  

The size of Florida’s elderly populace — 4.3 million — alone does not explain this. 

Californians 65-and-older outnumber those Floridians by about 1.3 million; its 85-and-older count is about 187,000 higher, U.S. Census Bureau estimates show. California, third behind Florida in elderly deaths, is the only state with more senior residents, but the virus killed fewer of them, more than 24,000.

Florida’s elderly COVID death toll since last spring is followed by Texas, which has tallied more than 27,000.

Florida has also become No. 1 for COVID deaths among seniors 85 and older with 9,828 fatalities, followed by California, Texas and New York. Scientists say decisions and policies by the DeSantis administration could explain why COVID has killed an exceptionally high number of Floridians in the age group most vulnerable to the respiratory disease.

“I think it was a rather laissez-faire approach to dealing with a rather aggressive virus,” former Harvard University epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina said. “I think Florida is reeling with that decision at this point.

Vaccinating seniors is not enough, University of Florida epidemiologist Dr. Frederick Southwick said. “It’s not just that the elderly become vaccinated, but everyone becomes vaccinated because that does reduce the spread.” About 21% of Floridians younger than 65 have gotten boosted, compared with 36% in California and 32% in New York and Illinois. The more young people who get their shots, Southwick said, the harder it is for the airborne pathogen to spread to their parents and grandparents and penetrate their immune systems.

But since early 2021, DeSantis has signed executive orders or legislation outlawing COVID vaccine requirements for businesses, schools and government agencies; and banning cities and counties from enacting widespread masking orders. “The problem is they’re ignoring science,” Southwick said. “Early on, (DeSantis) did promote the vaccine but later on, he did not.”

Most of Florida’s elderly died after April 2021, when vaccines became widely available. Not so for the rest of the country, where most died when the shots were scarce. From December 2020 until April 2021, when DeSantis pushed his campaign to inoculate “Seniors First,” Florida logged fewer COVID fatalities among retirement-age residents than California, Texas and New York.

To me, it’s obvious what happened in Florida,” Mina said. “We have low vaccination rates even after accounting for the excess fraction of older individuals in Florida. I think that’s a reflection of how Florida chose to deal with this virus. We saw the Florida surgeon general multiple times undermining efforts to combat this virus.”

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, a DeSantis appointee, is the only top health official of any state recommending large swaths of the population skip COVID vaccination. He has said children and men younger than 40 should not get inoculated.  

Ladapo has touted unproven COVID treatments such as an anti-parasitic livestock medicine called Ivermectin. Like New York, California and Illinois, more than 90% of Florida’s seniors have gotten the initial two-dose Moderna or Pfizer regimens, or the single-shot Johnson & Johnson.

But unlike those states, far fewer Florida seniors have gotten booster shots — about 60% — putting the state at No. 36 in the nation.

Even after accounting for population sizes, Florida seniors are more likely to die of COVID compared with the majority of elderly people in America. Since April 2021, COVID has killed about 691 Florida seniors for every 100,000 elderly residents, a death rate higher than 30 other states. 

Florida’s elderly COVID death rate is about 60% higher than California, 28% higher than New York and 25% higher than Illinois. Florida’s COVID death rate for seniors is also 42% higher than Maine’s, where, like the Sunshine State, about 1 in 5 residents is at least 65 years old.

The disease also has spread faster among Florida’s seniors than those in other states. 

While states do not uniformly report what share of people 65 and older have been infected, comparisons of Florida data to elderly population estimates show that 17% have been infected since April 2021. In California, it’s 11%. And New Jersey, 12%.

When The Palm Beach Post presented statistics to the Florida Department of Health showing that Florida has become No. 1 for senior COVID deaths and its per-capita death rate is higher than most states, department spokesperson Weesam Khoury called the analysis “illiterate.”

“The Department cannot confirm and will not respond to the data or patterns you are referencing because they seem to be ambiguous data correlations within random timeframes that somehow fit your intended narrative,” Khoury said in an email.

DeSantis’ office did not return requests for comment. But infectious disease specialists say that analyzing deaths after April 2021 is optimal because that’s when doses became readily available. “It’s a reasonable period of time to look at,” Mina said.

When vaccines first rolled out in December 2020, DeSantis prioritized the shots going to the elderly in his “Seniors First” campaign. Those 65 and older, along with health care workers, were eligible in the early days of the vaccine. Most victims were, and still are, elderly.

“Since he did not publicize or push the vaccine and has been very anti-mask … and really prevented local areas from mandating masks, that really has taken away one of the key interventions preventing the spread,”said Southwick, the UF epidemiologist.

DeSantis’ actions have hindered inoculation statewide.

Organizations that ask for proof of vaccination are subject to investigations by the state that could result in hefty fines. When the Special Olympics wanted to host games in Florida this past summer, the DeSantis administration threatened organizers with a $27.5 million fine for requiring COVID inoculation. The Special Olympics dropped the rule.

Spring break hot spots such as Daytona Beach and Miami Beach experienced COVID infection spikes in March 2021, which their mayors blamed on DeSantis’ orders restricting them from enforcing masking rules.

When the coronavirus’ deadly delta variant swept the state in the summer of 2021, DeSantis sued the federal government to stop cruise ships from asking passengers to show proof of vaccination. Cruise lines supported the requirement.

DeSantis has also taken to badmouthing the vaccine. 

“The vaccinations are not preventing infection,” DeSantis said during a news conference in January in Fort Lauderdale.

Lisa Zoubek, 57, of Spring Hills, believes that her mother, Madelyn Wilder, died because she believed DeSantis’ message.

Zoubek suspects DeSantis’ anti-vaccine, anti-mask messages broadcast on Fox News or via live news conferences on local TV got to her mother. Wilder received her first dose of the vaccine, but not the second, her daughter said. A retired nurse, Wilder spent much of her time watching TV at her home in Citrus County, Zoubek said, more than an hour’s drive north of Tampa.

“Ron DeSantis was telling people, ‘Oh, you don’t need to wear masks. You don’t need to get vaccines,’ ” Zoubek said. “She wasn’t hearing anything on the TV saying, ‘This is horrible. You need to get a vaccine as soon as it comes out.’ ”

Wilder succumbed to COVID in August 2021, when Florida logged more COVID deaths than anywhere else in the nation for the second summer in a row.

“People are talking about, ‘Oh, we were able to keep our businesses open and go back to school and not force us to wear masks,’ ” Zoubek said. “Yeah, great. Your business is open, but my mom’s gone.”–

I doubt DeSantis will ever be held responsible for his policies which clearly led to a mass death event among the elderly that outpaces anywhere else in the country long after we knew what this virus could do. That he did this in a state with millions of elderly retirees makes it all the more grotesque. Indeed, his choice of that quack for surgeon general is says everything you need to know.

California has not had onerous mandates since early 2021. But we also haven’t had our political leaders insulting and mocking people for wearing masks if they chose to or suggesting that young people shouldn’t get vaccinated. I’m sure it all could have been done better but for a big unwieldy state, they did pretty well. Florida, which gets all kinds of credit for allegedly handling the pandemic better than anyone else was actually a dismal failure.

The latest Fox paroxysm is a doozy

They’ve lost their minds over cat petting

They laugh at the idea of an 82 year old man getting attacked with a hammer, but this really gets them steamed:

Fox News, as is their wont, found the latest inoffensive thing to be inexplicably angry about on Tuesday: A study showing cats on college campuses may provide a benefit to students.

The recent academic study in question found that petting cats could help relieve stress in students in similar ways that interacting with dogs can also be relaxing for some. Finding that most on-campus programs that provide students with stress-relieving animals just feature dogs, the study also revealed that “highly emotional” people and cat owners had positive associations with cats on campus.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of midday panel show Outnumbered—a frequent trafficker of Fox News’ latest outrage du jour—co-host Emily Compagno kicked off the show’s discussion about the study by first grousing about student debt forgiveness and campus protests, of course.

“College students have it so rough these days, from climate anxiety to just the idea of a conservative speaker on campus. It is all so stressful!” Compagno snarked. “Well now, thankfully, a new study finds intervention with cats on campuses may help stressed out students. I guess taxpayers picking up the student loan tab wasn’t enough.”

Fox News anchor Julie Banderas then took the proverbial grievance ball and ran with it, wondering why students would need cats when they “have the anxiety level of a protester where you’re out protesting about everything on campus.” She further grumbled that “this is another example of how we are raising snowflakes” before calling on these students to drop out of school.

Compagno then asserted that physical punishment is what is actually necessary. “I don’t think these kids need cats, I think they need discipline,” she exclaimed. “I think they need a slap in the face!”

Her outrage building, an animated Compagno continued: “These are the same kids that get a professor fired for being too hard on their way to medical school! These are kids that can’t even listen to a conservative viewpoint—they shout out speakers, they chase them off campus. But a cat will make everything better. That doesn’t work in the real world!”

The over-the-top indignation and lecturing “it’s the children who are wrong” tone about cats on campuses only increased as the segment continued. And it also got a lot weirder as the hosts further morphed the topic to fit within standard right-wing talking points.

“It’s also part of the indoctrination,” Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce huffed. “They’re being trained… and told effectively by the university, ‘No, you need a puppy. This is what you need!’”

Fox News contributor David Webb then seriously claimed that students petting cats would somehow destroy the entrepreneurial spirit.

“These kids are the problem,” he proclaimed. “All joking aside, they’re the problem. If you need a cat or you need a puppy, you don’t belong in college.”

Webb added: “This is the idea of building a society of betas. We achieve because we are a society of people that look forward to our entrepreneurs that go out and find something. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, all of the innovators, Bill Gates, they founded something in a garage instead of petting a cat!”

You have to watch it to really grasp the sheer stupidity and bitchiness of this segment.What the hell is wrong with these people?

When they tell you who they are …

Believe them

The Washington Post reports:

Hinting at his plans to overhaul how elections are run, the Republican running for governor of Wisconsin this week said his party would permanently control the state if he wins.

“Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor,” construction executive Tim Michels told supporters Monday at a campaign stop.

Michels is seeking to unseat Gov. Tony Evers (D), who over his four years vetoed a string of Republican-backed bills that would have changed voting rules in a battleground state that Donald Trump narrowly won in 2016 and narrowly lost in 2020.

Michels has promised to sign similar legislation and has said he would restructure the state’s bipartisan elections commission. He has never spelled out what specific changes he would make to the commission, which is run by three Democrats and three Republicans.

Michels, who won his August primary with Trump’s endorsement, has left open the possibility that he would try to decertify the 2020 election in Wisconsin, which legal scholars say is impossible. He has declined to say whether he would certify the results of the 2024 election.

His spokesman said he meant that he would pass policies that would ensure no one would ever want to vote for a Democrat again.

Yeah, that’s the ticket…

In a way, it’s good to see them say it out loud. Why try to hide their plans? They’re being rewarded for their turn to fascism. Republicans voters love it. Why not just be out and proud?

It’s the terrorism, stupid

Lindsey Beyerstein at the Editorial Board makes the most important point about the Pelosi attack:

The suspect, David Wayne DePape, has been charged with a slew of state and local offenses, including attempted homicide and attempted kidnapping of a family member of an elected official. 

DePape allegedly smashed a back window of Pelosi’s San Francisco home early Friday morning, woke up her sleeping husband and demanded to speak with “Nancy.” The Speaker was not at home. 

DePape told investigators his plan was to hold “Nancy hostage and talk to her.” He came prepared with flex-cuffs, tape, rope and two hammers, according to police. He said he wanted to interrogate Nancy Pelosi, because she was the “leader of the pack” of the lying Democratic Party, according to the federal criminal complaint.

In the days following the attack, the political right has tried every bad faith deflection tactic imaginable, blaming DePape’s actions on drugs and mental illness. While DePape is likely mentally ill and may suffer from addiction, these factors are secondary at best.

DePape said he planned to let Pelosi go if she told him “the truth,” but that if she “lied,” he was going to break “her kneecaps,” the complaint said. DePape said he was certain that Pelosi would not have told the “truth.” This was an astute inference on his part seeing as the “truth” he was looking for probably had something to do with a cabal of satanist pedophiles. Pelosi’s wounds, DePape stated, would put Congress on notice that there are “consequences for actions.” 

That’s the classic logic of terrorism. 

DePape’s plan is reminiscent of another plan to kidnap and interrogate Democratic leaders. It’s what the Wolverine Watchmen militia were accused of plotting to do with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat. The men schemed and trained to kidnap her and “put her on a show trial” over covid regulations.

DePape embraced the Revolutionary War kitsch beloved of J6 insurgents. In an interview, he repeatedly likened himself to the American founding fathers. He claimed to be fighting tyranny without the option of surrender. 

Some of the most notorious J6 insurgents specifically targeted Pelosi during the J6 siege. 

Guy Reffitt said he wanted to drag Nancy Pelosi out of the building. He brought a semi-automatic handgun onto Capitol grounds. “I just want to see Pelosi’s head hitting every fucking stair of the building,” Reffitt said. Reffit also brought flex-cuffs.

Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, who is on trial for seditious conspiracy, said he wanted to see Pelosi’s head “rolling down the front steps” of the Capitol. Meggs and fellow Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson are accused of splitting off from the group to go “hunting” for Pelosi.

Insurgent Mark Mazza, who brought two loaded gunstold investigators that if he’d crossed paths with Pelosi “you’d be here for another reason.” 

Dawn Bancroft admitted on video that she and her friend broke into the Capitol and that they’d been “looking for Nancy to shoot her in the friggin’ brain.”

We now know, in the suspect’s own words, that he was specifically targeting Speaker Pelosi for political violence. In the days following the attack, the political right has tried every bad faith deflection tactic imaginable, blaming DePape’s actions on drugs and mental illness. While DePape is likely mentally ill and may suffer from addiction, these factors are secondary at best. 

This was a well-organized, premeditated attack. 

DePape allegedly assembled a restraint kit, bought hammers, pinpointed his target’s address, and broke into the home under the cover of darkness. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

The roots of this attack lie in toxic conspiracy theories that convince unstable people that their freedom is at risk and an insurrection that has gone largely unpunished. 

As president Joe Biden said in Delaware, “[i]t’s one thing to condemn the violence but you can’t condemn the violence unless you condemn those people who continue to argue the election was not real, that it’s being stolen.” 

Ask yourself how many Muslim men were tried and convicted on terrorism charges who were clearly mentally unstable (at the very least) and were radicalized by Islamic extremism online? A lot. We have no trouble calling that terrorism, do we?

The crime panic

I personally think the crime panic in cities is based upon the sense of chaos around homelessness on the streets and in rural areas around the fear mongering in right wing media. Pew did some polling on the issue:

Around six-in-ten registered voters (61%) say violent crime is very important when making their decision about who to vote for in this year’s congressional elections. Violent crime ranks alongside energy policy and health care in perceived importance as a midterm issue, but far below the economy, according to the Center’s October survey.

Republican voters are much more likely than Democratic voters to see violent crime as a key voting issue this year. Roughly three-quarters of Republican and GOP-leaning registered voters (73%) say violent crime is very important to their vote, compared with around half of Democratic or Democratic-leaning registered voters (49%).

Conservative Republican voters are especially focused on the issue: About eight-in-ten (77%) see violent crime as very important to their vote, compared with 63% of moderate or liberal Republican voters, 65% of moderate or conservative Democratic voters and only about a third of liberal Democratic voters (34%).

Older voters are far more likely than younger ones to see violent crime as a key election issue. Three-quarters of registered voters ages 65 and older say violent crime is a very important voting issue for them this year, compared with fewer than half of voters under 30 (44%).

There are other demographic differences, too. When it comes to education, for example, voters without a college degree are substantially more likely than voters who have graduated from college to say violent crime is very important to their midterm vote.

Black voters are particularly likely to say violent crime is a very important midterm issue. Black Americans have consistently been more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to express concern about violent crime, and that remains the case this year.

Some 81% of Black registered voters say violent crime is very important to their midterm vote, compared with 65% of Hispanic and 56% of White voters. (There were not enough Asian American voters in the Center’s survey to analyze independently.)

Differences by race are especially pronounced among Democratic registered voters. While 82% of Black Democratic voters say violent crime is very important to their vote this year, only a third of White Democratic voters say the same.

Kicker:

Annual government surveys from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show no recent increase in the U.S. violent crime rate. In 2021, the most recent year with available data, there were 16.5 violent crimes for every 1,000 Americans ages 12 and older. That was statistically unchanged from the year before, below pre-pandemic levels and far below the rates recorded in the 1990s, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey.

A chart showing that federal surveys show no increase in the U.S. violent crime rate since the start of the pandemic.

For each of the four violent crime types tracked in the survey – simple assault, aggravated assault, robbery and rape/sexual assault – there was no statistically significant increase either in 2020 or 2021.

The National Crime Victimization Survey is fielded each year among approximately 240,000 Americans ages 12 and older and asks them to describe any recent experiences they have had with crime. The survey counts threatened, attempted and completed crimes, whether or not they were reported to police. Notably, it does not track the most serious form of violent crime, murder, because it is based on interviews with surviving crime victims.

The FBI also estimates that there was no increase in the violent crime rate in 2021. The other major government study of crime in the U.S., the National Incident-Based Reporting System from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, uses a different methodology from the BJS survey and only tracks crimes that are reported to police.

The most recent version of the FBI study shows no rise in the national violent crime rate between 2020 and 2021. That said, there is considerable uncertainty around the FBI’s figures for 2021 because of a transition to a new data collection system. The FBI reported an increase in the violent crime rate between 2019 and 2020, when the previous data collection system was still in place.

The FBI estimates the violent crime rate by tracking four offenses that only partly overlap with those tracked by the National Crime Victimization Survey: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault and robbery. It relies on data voluntarily submitted by thousands of local police departments, but many law enforcement agencies do not participate.

In the latest FBI study, around four-in-ten police departments – including large ones such as the New York Police Department – did not submit data, so the FBI estimated data for those areas. The high nonparticipation rate is at least partly due to the new reporting system, which asks local police departments to submit far more information about each crime than in the past. The new reporting system also makes it difficult to compare recent data with data from past years.

The murder rate rose sharply during the first year of the pandemic (when Donald Trump was president, btw) but has leveled off. As Pew points out, it is still way below what it was in the past.

I think NextDoor.com is contributing to the problem. If you read the one from my neighborhood you’d think we live in Mad Max Thunderdome. (We don’t.) And it’s true that the homeless situation in LA is terrible, property crimes are up and there’s a lingering sense of chaos in some neighborhoods from both the pandemic and the protests in the summer of 2020. (Plywood has only recently come off of a lot of windows that went up after the mass looting that took place.) It’s been a crazy time. The country is suffering from mass PTSD and I’m not sure that politics is the path to solving that.

However, there is only one party that’s seeking to exacerbate these feeling, profit from them and seize power with false promises to “fix” everything. Now why anyone would look to Trump, who was in charge when everything went to hell, I don’t know. But he talks a tough game so I guess that’s all they want.

So much for Team Normal

This is from Charlie Sykes who has until now been holding out that there were still some good Republicans who are just being dominated by the bad ones. He was wrong:

Chris Sununu, the governor of New Hampshire, is one of the saner people in today’s Republican party. He concedes that the 2020 election was free and fair. He acknowledges climate change. He has criticized Republican leaders for ostracizing Rep. Liz Cheney and other principled dissidents while protecting the party’s worst extremists.

That’s why Sununu’s decision in the final weeks of the 2022 campaign to embrace election deniers is a particularly bad sign. Like other Republican officials, he has decided that sabotage of public faith in democracy doesn’t matter, as long as the saboteurs are Republicans. And he’s defending their reckless behavior with pernicious excuses.

On Sep. 13, election deniers won the Republican primaries for two of New Hampshire’s three federal offices. Don Bolduc, who has insisted that “Trump won the election” in 2020, captured the GOP nomination to face off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan. And Karoline Leavitt, who has said Trump “absolutely” won, got the nomination for one of the state’s two congressional seats.

Sununu could have said that he considered these nominees unfit for office. At a minimum, he could have kept his distance. Instead, he has endorsed Leavitt and praised Bolduc.

Last Tuesday, in a gubernatorial debate, Sununu was asked why he supported candidates who claimed “without evidence that elections were stolen.” He didn’t dispute that characterization of their views. Instead, he said endorsement decisions should be based on more than just “one issue,” as though election denial were no different from energy subsidies or water management.

Two days after Sununu’s comment, Bolduc—who had indicated after the primaries that he would tone down his allegations of fraud—again insinuated that elections were being stolen. In a Senate debate, he said the people of New Hampshire “don’t like the fact that they can’t trust the mail-in ballot system,” that there were “proven irregularities with voting machines,” and that “same-day voter-registration causes fraud.” He added: “We need to make sure that school buses loaded with people at the polls don’t come in and vote.”

The debate’s moderator, apparently taken aback, asked Bolduc whether he was “claiming that buses full of voters who are not permitted to vote here” were, in fact, showing up at polls in New Hampshire. Bolduc replied: “This is what Granite Staters are telling me. And I think it’s valid.”

Bolduc’s answer reflected a common tactic in today’s GOP. Investigations and fact checks have found no evidence to support the allegation about buses (which has been around for years) or claims of fraud in New Hampshire’s 2020 election. So instead of evidence, Bolduc invokes the misinformed opinions of ordinary people. These opinions, he insists, are inherently “valid.” Like liberals who pretend that every opinion on moral questions is equally sound—for example, that single-parent families are just as good for kids as two-parent families—many of today’s so-called conservatives are subjectivists about election fraud.

It’s bad enough that quacks like Bolduc peddle this nonsense. But now there’s a second tier of Republicans—Glenn Youngkin and Ron DeSantis, for example—who, while not affirming the lies about massive fraud, proudly campaign for election deniers. Sununu, like others, has joined this tier.

There’s no distinction, I’m afraid. If you walk with fascists ….

There was always a lot of talk about the so-called Team Normal in the White House saving us all from Trump’s excesses. To the extent there ever was such a thing, and from the accounting in various books they never had any power, it’s gone now. Once these people cross over into conspiracy-land they don’t come back. They get push-back from the libs and Never Trumpers, their feelings are hurt and that’s all it takes for them to jump onboard the Trump train. It’s where they wanted to be anyway. It’s where the “winners” are, at least in their own circles. And, at this point, you can’t argue that it’s a good career move for any Republican.

Democratic turnout is up

ICYMI on Monday

Pay no attention to disinfo about a red wave, Susie Madrak advises:

Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg breaks it all down. He says that Republicans have been flooding the news with marginal polls, and the media consumes them without question. And of course, those polls will feed the narrative that the election was stolen, because “Look at the numbers!”

“Hello media friends, You’ve been played by the GOP,” tweets Rosenburg.

Bob Kutner adds at The American Prospect:

As of October 30, Democratic early voting for 2022 was exceeding early voting in the Democratic wave election of 2018, while Republican early voting was lagging it.

Now, early voting is so much easier than in 2018 in most of the country, and the pandemic upended so many voting habits, that it’s hard to extrapolate very much from those statistics. But [Democratic pollster Anna] Greenberg says her polls and other proprietary polls suggest that women intend to vote in large numbers next week. In the five states that report early voting by gender (Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and North Carolina), 54.4 percent of the early voters have been women, while 44.3 percent have been men.

Tom Bonier of TargetSmart, who has been vocal about women’s turnout since Dobbs, points out that women’s requests for vote-by-mail ballots have far exceed those by men, and that the statistics probably understate the energy of younger women.

There was a huge surge in women’s registration after the Dobbs decision. And Greenberg adds this subtle insight: “From what I’ve seen from my polls,” she says, “it isn’t that the impact of Dobbs has faded. It’s that there are diminishing returns.” By that, Greenberg means that women who have been motivated to vote because of abortion rights are already pretty locked in. Other voters, such as college-educated men (who tend to be anti-MAGA but not primarily moved by reproductive rights) need to be motivated to turn out based on other issues.

Lately, two-thirds or so of our final vote in North Carolina is cast by Election Day. But I warn first-time candidates that they cannot bank on early vote leads. Republicans bat last. This year, if you have not heard, the GOP is advising their voters to vote in person on Election Day and to hold their absentee ballots ballots until Nov. 8 (Associated Press):

The plan is based on unfounded conspiracy theories that fraudsters will manipulate voting systems to rig results for Democrats once they have seen how many Republican votes have been returned early. There has been no evidence of any such widespread fraud.

If enough voters are dissuaded from casting ballots early, it could lead to long lines on Election Day and would push back processing of those late-arriving mailed ballots. Those ballots likely would not get counted until the next day or later.

Donald Trump recently recommended voting on Election Day, saying, “it’s much harder for them to cheat that way.” If Republicans vote as late as possible on Election Day, those wiley, communist Democrats won’t know how many ballots they need to stuff, dontcha know?

So, MAGA Republicans are ignoring the advice of GOP leaders about getting in their votes early.

The strategy push by conservatives comes after the use of mailed ballots soared during the 2020 election amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The end of pandemic restrictions, Trump’s attacks on mailed ballots and new voting restrictions in some Republican-led states has led to a decline in the use of mailed ballots this year, but it still remains a popular option for many voters.

Experts say a last-minute crush of ballots could end up creating delays that can be used by a bad actor to undermine confidence in the election.

“It’s an opening for people to begin questioning and stoking mistrust and distrust,” said Chris Piper, former commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections.

That’s MAGA Republicans’ plan.

How often do battleground states see cold temperatures, rain, or snow on Election Day? Wisconsin and Michigan have already seen snow. And northeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. But you do you, GOP.

SCOTUS and “educational benefits that flow from diversity”

Conservatives see no value in it

A Mercedes convertible with German grille badges pulled into the parking lot of the early voting location where I electioneered Monday. A trim, attractive woman in workout gear stepped out. I offered her some Democratic candidate information. She waved me off saying, “I worked for my money.”

“Hey, me too! I designed factories where thousands got jobs!” I might have said. But I refrained and replied, “Thanks for voting.”

It’s almost as if we’d had very different life experiences. She had no conception of mine even though we are both white. And the appreciation gap between her and non-whites?

That gap not just in lived experience is at the heart of the affirmative action cases involving college admission at the University of North Carolina and Harvard. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday.

Eugene Robinson observes (Washington Post):

The fact is that universities have admissions policies that greatly favor wealthy White applicants — “legacies” whose parents attended the school; sons and daughters of major donors; applicants who are good at arcane sports not offered at the high schools most minority students attend. One of the court’s most conservative members noted this reality. If those preferences were ended, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch observed, “We just would have a crummy squash team and no art museum. Then what?”

The answer: Universities might have more room in their freshman classes to address alleged discrimination against qualified Asian American applicants. Fairness would suggest that ending preferences for the wealthy and well-connected is a better remedy than ending policies designed to provide opportunity for underrepresented applicants.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explain at Slate:

The history of affirmative action at the Supreme Court is not particularly complicated. In 1978’s Bakke decision, a majority found that universities could consider race to build a diverse student body, identifying educational benefits that flow from diversity. At the same time, a majority prohibited quotas and other rigid metrics that reduced applicants to their race, requiring universities to undertake a holistic review of each applicant. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger and again 2016’s Fisher v. Texas.

Although these cases involve both public and private institutions, the Supreme Court has consistently held that federal law simply applies the equal protection clause to private universities that receive federal funds. So, in theory, the justices should’ve been debating the meaning of the Constitution. Instead, the conservative justices continually reverted to free-floating policy discussions about how affirmative action makes them feel. (Hint: they feel bad.)

Lithwick and Stern explain that in the conservatives’ view, “the 14th Amendment was not a breakthrough because it granted Black Americans equal citizenship, but because it made race irrelevant to the government.” It is another example of the sort of “ahistorical nonsense” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attacked in hearing Merrill v. Milligan earlier this month while schooling the court’s originalists in originalism. “The 14th Amendment was a color-conscious effort to give Black Americans all the rights and privileges enjoyed by white Americans,” write Lithwick and Stern.

Conservative justices focused instead on when affirmative action should sunset and on whether race-consciousness is even necessary anymore.

Perhaps they slept through the nationwide protests to police killings of black men and women in 2020.

“When is your sunset?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “How do you know when you’re done? I appreciate that you’re undertaking all those efforts, but when is the end point?”

Robinson suggests:

How about when the racial wealth gap is closed? As a report last year by the Federal Reserve pointed out, “the average Black and Hispanic or Latino households earn about half as much as the average White household and own only about 15 to 20 percent as much net wealth.” What about when the mean SAT scores for Black, Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native high school students consistently are on par with those of White and Asian students? Maybe when we are a generation removed from the vast racial inequities of mass incarceration?

That’s the honest answer: Affirmative action is a very late-in-the-game intervention to try to prevent larger inequities from replicating themselves inside a small number of elite institutions. Affirmative action will no longer be necessary when the larger conditions that make it necessary have been done away with.

But consider again the “educational benefits that flow from diversity,” a concept Justice Clarence Thomas questioned as meaningless. Thomas likened arguments for it to arguments favoring segregation.

Justice Elena Kagan argued that universities are “pipelines to leadership” and should reflect American values of pluralism:

Your brief says it just doesn’t matter if our universities look like America. I’m asking you — doesn’t it? These are the pipelines to ledership in our society. It might be military leadership, it might be business leadership, it might be leadership in the law… Universities are the pipeline to that leadership. If universities aren’t diverse,  and your rule suggests that it doesn’t matter, well then, all of those institutions aren’t going to be racially diverse either.

How then is that “more perfect union” to which the Constutition aspires to come about without effort? Indeed, one can argue that stark political divisions in this country have led to recent violence. And that violence is a result of grotesque misunderstanding among us exacerbated not only by disinformation in broadcast and social media, but by urban-rural, racial, and other cultural divisions. Diversity in college admisssions strives to address those divisions where communities have not. The military serves a similar function, although it may not be a specific goal.

I shared a story by a playwright friend, David Castro, who grew up in the Bronx:

Castro: I grew up in lower-middle class/working class diversity in the Bronx and I’ve often joked that I grew up among the 5 major food groups of NYC at the time – Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks and Puerto Ricans. And it was an education. By the age of 10-12 I’d eaten at everyone’s house, stayed over, went to their churches and synagogues for confirmations and bar mitzvahs, weddings and funerals, listened to their music and saw with my own eyes, as my first generation American mother said, “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that so-and-so’s parents don’t work as hard as anyone else. EVERYBODY HERE WORKS HARD.”

What’s more, David said once, although the foods and religious iconography changed from house to house, growing up none of that was threatening. They were just your friends’ parents.

“Racial discrimination in housing, education, and many other aspects of American life persist,” write Lithwick and Stern. The court’s conservatives would rather wish them away than make efforts at perfecting the union even in the face of mass protests and political violence. They like the country just as it is because it suits them.

In electioneering, it is not unheard of for Republicans to attempt to start arguments by issuing challenges to liberal policies they perceive as offensive. I recommend our people not engage.

What’s notable is how threatening they consider my mere presence. I’m secure in my world view and feel no need to challenge theirs unprompted. But Republicans? Not so much. Their ideological bubbles are rather fragile. Like the woman’s in the Mercedes.