I don’t think I’m interested in seeing another Quinnipiac poll anytime soon🗑. And it seems like the extent to which RCP battleground averages are not embarrassing in certain places, it’s because RCP included polls widely ridiculed by many ‘smart setters.’
Also LOL at ABC/WAPO in WI (Biden +17) and even NYT/Siena (B+11). Many way off in OH, IA (PPP missed by 9 points) and elsewhere. We’ll see how it shakes out, and some are better than others, but some wildly rampant problems remain in the polling industry. Still. Undeniable.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but Quinnipiac face-planted badly in a number of places in 2018 (FL!), yet pundits salivated over their bullshit again this year.
Lowlights: Biden +11 nationally, Biden +5 in FL (drink!), Biden +4 in OH (off by 12!), Trump +1 in IA (off by 7)...
Polls even worse in some Senate races. Final polls had Graham clinging to lead. He’s up 13. Not one single poll at RCP had Collins ahead all year. She’s up 8. NBC poll had Tillis down 10. He’s up 2. 13 of last 14 polls has Tillis losing. Exception were those yahoos at Trafalgar.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We will not stand for gaslighting and revisionism. Recall:
Bork ‘87
Thomas ‘91
Estrada, et al ‘01-‘05
Nuclear ‘13
Kavanaugh ‘18
These are the relevant, seismic events that brought us to this moment. Every single one represented a consequential Democratic escalation.
And don’t counter with ‘Merrick Garland.’ That withholding of Senate consent aligned w/ the clear historical norm under divided power in a presidential election year. Tonight’s confirmation vote does the same, under united control of the WH & Senate.
Dems’ victimhood narrative is 💯 false. They feel entitled to power. But they lost the relevant elections for three constructive cycles. No rules were violated, the constitution was followed & norms were maintained—including new standards imposed by Dems in previous power grabs.
Doing my job properly requires intellectual honesty, which sometimes entails saying things that I believe are true — even if they criticize ideological allies, and even if they risk angering part of my audience. With that said...
(1) The media has done a lot to crush trust and credibility, and I frequently talk about how and why that’s the case. But today isn’t on them. The shoddy WH clown show of obfuscation, misinformation & ‘clarification’ has been embarrassing and unacceptable...
(2) I still do not have confidence that we know the full and true story, or timeline of events. I still do not have confidence that we have a solid grasp on the president’s condition. We need precision, clarity and transparency...
Thread🧵 : Some people have challenged me over ACB & the courts, asking why I’m so supportive of a nomination that would ostensibly make it likelier that my own (same-sex) marriage would be invalidated. Short answer, among other factors...I am convinced that will not happen...
I think a (hypothetical) challenge to Obergefell would be an extreme long shot, for all sorts of reasons — standing, new equal protection issues for the many thousands of Americans in existing same-sex marriages, precedent & the justices’ prudential judgments...
I’ve spoken to a number of scholars and court-watchers I respect who’ve unanimously told me they believe the Court wouldn’t even take up such a challenge, and that if they somehow did, a (possibly sizable) majority would uphold Obergefell...
I respect David, but disagree w/ his conclusion. There is *zero* comparison between the GOP exercising clear constitutional prerogative, while adhering to strong historical norms/precedent...and Dems’ deeply radical threatened power grabs like *adding SCOTUS & Senate seats.*
Also, some of these proposed “bargains” I keep reading about are very strange to me — and I was a big Gang of 14 guy back in like ‘05. I like to find off-ramps and seriously consider reasonable compromises. I’ve been called a squish etc...
But “if you don’t fill a SCOTUS seat in a fully authorized & heavily precedented manner, we won’t...blow up multiple longstanding institutions with radical power grabs” isn’t a “deal.” It’s extortion...
NOW: Senate voting to proceed to a COVID relief package — which includes assistance for small businesses, unemployment benefits, safe reopening of schools, testing/tracing & a raft of other provisions.
Needs 60 votes to avoid filibuster & begin debate on the bill.
It’s shaping up to be a party line vote. Manchin, Jones, Sinema have all voted to filibuster COVID relief.
There’s the 41st vote. Senate Democrats have used the filibuster to block debate on a new COVID relief package. They recently did this on police reform, too.
(Reminder: They are openly discussing eliminating the tool they’re currently using if they gain power in November).