It reads like pop [Joe Biden] was taking half of his son's sweethart deal salary. The most direct evidence of corruption spelled out in an email (lol again the emails).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZasrHQeKiY

Meanwhile Jack from Twitter to had apologize for censuring that story and locking Press Sec. McEnany

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1316528193621327876?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

My mom and dad were having an discussion the other day where she said that half of his salary was paying for my and my brother's tuition. Not going to disclose salary and tuition costs, but it's not literally half of his salary or even close. Not saying it can't mean that, but it seems more of an expression than a business arrangement. I'm more certain that he did not pay for everything for the family. That seems obviously hyperbolic, which in context makes the conclusion that "half his salary" was literal questionable.  

Moreover, this story is confusing. If Joe was pulling the strings and got his son the job so he could make millions and give it back to Joe, then why did the VP need Hunter to make the introduction? It's possible that Burisma hired him in an effort to make that connection, but that would seem to show that Biden didn't pull strings to get him the position. 

And it seems like this was an ongoing thing in the family for 30 years, not anything directly related to Burisma. Even if we take the statements at literal face value, it doesn't say that it was specifically related to this deal. That seems like a family issue. Would be useful for Rudy to present some other texts for more context. The fact that he's not showing them would warrant what legally would be called an "adverse inference". If he's choosing only to show that one text, when presumably he should have more, it is reasonable to assume that the others are not helpful to his case.

So, I'm not really 100% sure what this proves. At most, it shows that Burisma hired Hunter Biden for political reasons and that he accepted... neither of those being crimes. The part that would have to be proved is that this actually had the effect of the US making policy decisions based on that influence, which would be a crime, but the Senate investigation, which presumably would have included this material which was subpoenaed in December of last year found no evidence that was the case. Firing the Prosecutor was an objective that was shared by the EU, who had no reason to do so for the sake of Hunter Biden. Ukranian prosecutors, who have no real incentive to keep protecting Hunter, have repeatedly found no evidence of wrongdoing. Nor has the report from the Republican Senate.

This is of course assuming that the texts or emails are legitimate. I'll let the FBI determine that, since I have no means by which to do so. 

So I dunno what the actual crime being alleged here is. If the prosecutor's ouster was based on a desire to protect Hunter Biden, and every other national and international party was playing along and still continues to do so... Then sleepy Joe is incredibly fucking persuasive. 

Generally, the right has to figure out who this is. He can't be a dementia riddled old man who can't string together a sentence, and the mastermind of a vast and ongoing international conspiracy. He can't be a weak puppet who will simply rubber stamp the agenda of the radical left, but also a ruthlessly self-interested individual who can bend the international community to his whim for his own nefarious ends. Can be one, or the other, or neither, but not both. 

As you may have noticed, I cited 538, not NYT. 538 gave Trump an about one third chance. That is a decent chance of winning. This time it is half of that.

Yeah, I was pretty grossed out by this frankly disgusting, off-topic post. Just smearing people for political gain. Then again, that is in the republican rulebook!

It is also worth noting that there are additional factors in regards to polling which make a larger margin of error less likely. One of those is that many of these polls in 2016 had a blindspot to White Non-College educated voters, which emerged as a strong predictor of voting preference. Polls have since ensured that they are accounting for this demographic. Additionally, we have a lot more polls in some of the states which had large error margins in 2016. 

Further, outside of the polling improvements, we are also seeing a lot of shifts from 2016 which indicate that a Biden victory would not be solely driven by turnout. Large portions of Trump's base have eroded and we see fairly strong trends in regards to vote switching, which make predictions more robust than simply modeling for turnout. With how thin the margin of victory was in 2016, even a small shift flip the election and we are seeing a shift paired with increased favorability for Biden and strong early turnout numbers.

We are also seeing a broader coalition for Biden than for Clinton in 2016. Some examples: North Carolina (2016 Trump +3) is leaning toward Biden by 3 points (6 point swing). Georgia (2016 Trump +5) is leaning toward Biden by 0.5 points (5.5 point swing). Arizona (2016 Trump +3.5) is leaning toward Biden by 3.5 points (7 point swing). Polling error in a few key states won't be enough, and even a regional error wouldn't be enough. Ohio (2016 Trump +8) is leaning toward Biden by 0.6 points (8.6 point swing).

Again, that isn't to say that Trump can't win, just that the odds are worse than 2016, which required a perfect storm of sorts to get him into office. 

When posting videos include a brief summary of the key points, and a little about the source.

I felt the header image gave a pretty good explanation. It's a video about how you should Vote for Biden, even if he sucks, because he's still infinitely better than Trump. It then goes on to explain in detail and with examples as to why Biden sucks but is still better than Trump. 

and Cody up there does a lot of political commentary. Used to be a part of the Cracked team but moved on to do his own thing. He's basically an angrier version of John Oliver, given his reporting style.

Town Hall Questioner askes Trump why he didn't take any measures besides travel ban in response to Covid.  Trump answers with a long rant about travel ban. Ok... no reason to watch more of this.

Edit: And put it on again. Should have listened to my own advice. Asked about DACA "You're going to be very happy with what we're going to do with DACA". I learned nothing.

Biden town hall is completely the opposite. He comes off as incredibly knowledgeable on the topics to the point where he comes off as rambling. Not like he's confused, but kind of like when you ask someone how one of their favorite game is and they start telling you where to find piece of armor X in world 4. But, he's at least giving straight and on topic answers.

Anyway...

On polling news. Same old same old, but a few tidbits.

Monmouth University has Biden up by an average of 4.5 in Arizona. Monmouth hasn't been as positive towards Biden so that's a decent figures. What's worth noting is that their study is based on two different turnout models. One showing Biden up 2 and one up 7.

Two polls out in Virginia show Biden up by 13 and 15. Biden is projected to win by 13.6%. In 2016 Clinton was up by 5 did in fact win by about 5%. In Colorado, Clinton was expected to win by 4 and won by 5. Biden is up by 11.4%. 

This speaks to the "polls were off in to 2016 argue". In Colorado we're seeing a swing of 8 points, and about 7%. So then, based on only that, what should we expect in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, traditionally purple states where Trump won by about 1%? Well, we'd expect Biden to lead by about 4-6%. What we see is Biden up by 6 in Pennsylvania, 7.6 in Michigan, and 7 in Wisconsin. This is also what we should expect with a national swing about 8 points. How to explain these numbers? Two possible explanations. 

a) Numbers in the rust belt are still just as off as they were in 2016. In addition, the national polls, polls in Colorado and Virginia, and other states like Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. have also gotten about as bad as the rust belt polls in 2016.

or

b) The national polls, and polls in those states are still about as good as they were in 2016, and the errors in the few states that were way off have been corrected.

Second seems more likely to me, but believe what you will.

I haven't watched either town hall tonight, but apparently there are a lot more fireworks than I was expecting:

Holy Hell...