Over the weekend, I wrote on why the doomsday scenarios about Trump trying to steal the election are largely misplaced. THREAD bostonglobe.com/2020/09/27/opi…
One point, in particular, featured in the recent piece by @bartongellman in the Atlantic, overstates the likelihood that Trump will be ahead on election night because of delays in counting mail-in ballots.
Since mail-in ballots are often reported first it's more likely that Biden Is ahead. There are only two battleground states - Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - where mail-in votes are not processed before Election Day.
Today, the Washington Post indirectly pokes another hole in the notion that Trump can steal the election. washingtonpost.com/politics/court…
The doomsayers' argument relies on the idea that Trump-friendly conservative judges will accept his campaign's dubious legal arguments about mail-in ballots being fraudulent. But the Post looked at 90 election cases that have been decided this year and found the opposite.
"A review by The Washington Post ... found that judges have been broadly skeptical as Republicans use claims of voter fraud to argue against such changes, declining to endorse the GOP’s arguments or dismissing them as they examined limits on mail voting."
Here's another key point: "The Post found that judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike have been dubious of GOP arguments that lowering barriers to mail voting could lead to widespread fraud."
The Post finds that the GOP's arguments against mail-in voting have been particularly unsuccessful.
Of course, things could change as these cases go to higher appeals courts or even the Supreme Court. But it's striking how little purchase GOP arguments against mail-in voting are receiving from state and federal judges.
If people want to argue that conservative judges will help Trump brazenly steal the election, that's fine. But why isn't it happening now? Why aren't Trump-friendly judges ruling in his campaign's favor?
If conservative judges wanted to help Trump's reelection effort the time to do it is now - before votes are counted, not after the election when there is a good chance that Biden will be leading in the vote count.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lots of people are analogizing Biden’s withdrawal to LBJ’s withdrawal in 1968 … they are very, very different situations. 🧵
When LBJ announced his departure from the race on March 31, 1968 no one saw it coming. There’d been virtually no speculation that LBJ might drop out and only a handful of people knew his plans before he announced them. There were no trial balloons.
Americans were stunned. Even though LBJ had barely won the NH primary over Gene McCarthy and RFK had entered the race about 2 weeks earlier, the reigning assumption in DC was that LBJ would run and be the Democratic nominee in November
CNN says Biden "has privately acknowledged that the next stretch of days are critical to whether he can save his reelection bid for president."
Why would the WH leak a story that feeds the narrative that Biden might drop out?
Because the WH is under enormous pressure, particularly from Capitol Hill, to "do something" to respond to Thursday's debate. They are getting slammed for being tone-deaf and gaslighting Congress about Biden's predicament.
This letter signed by journalism professors demanding that the NYT re-examine its 12/28 article chronicling the sexual assaults that took place on October 7 is as misinformed as it is shameful.
First, the letter ignores the multiple reports and journalistic accounts that back up the Times' reporting. That includes a UN report ... un.org/sexualviolence…
... and a report by the Association of Rape Crisis Center in Israel gov.il/BlobFolder/new…
Yesterday, @TheAtlantic published my piece on October 7 rape denialism ... and there are a few points I want to highlight.
The first is that, contrary to the skeptics and denialists -- widespread sexual violence took place on October 7. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel found "Hamas’s attack included brutal sexual assaults carried out systematically & deliberately against Israeli civilians and "sadistic practices aimed at intensifying the degree of humiliation and terror." gov.il/BlobFolder/new…
The UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General reached similar if more circumspect conclusions, “there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks.” un.org/sexualviolence…
Ok, time for some game theory ... for @ezraklein @NateSilver538 @DamonLinker and others who continue to argue that Biden should drop out of the 2024 race. What happens next? 🧵
If Biden withdraws the overwhelming likelihood is that he endorses Kamala Harris for president. Why? It would show loyalty to his running mate, ensure Biden's legacy, and, even more important, would block a divisive nomination fight.
With Biden's endorsement, plus access to money raised for the election and the campaign infrastructure that's already been built, Harris would have a huge edge over any other potential nominee. But there's an even bigger advantage ..,.
In this exchange, @RepThomasMassie says, "there's never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry."
I guess it depends on how one defines a teacher, but in the Parkland shooting, there was an armed officer present. He hid as 17 people were killed
THREAD
As far as shootings at schools where teachers carry weapons ... we don't know. That information isn't readily available. But very few teachers carry guns in schools. The last estimate in 2018 put the number at 2.6% of schools. nytimes.com/2022/07/31/us/…
And since it is such a small sample size (there are still very few school shootings in America) ... if one has not taken place in the tiny percentage of schools that have armed teachers, it's statistically irrelevant.