The NYT's problem is it is run by the Sulzberger Family's DNA failure, A.G. Sulzberger, the self-entitled heir to the family fortune and one of the leading examples of why the inheritance tax needs to be 85% for inheritances over $10 million (figuring in the current housing bubble). This silver spoon halfwit, born on third base and convinced he hit a triple is "miffed" that President Biden has not treated him with the proper respect to which he was born entitled, and failed to bend the knee, kiss the ring and give an "exclusive interview" to the newpaper run by an editor who thinks "democracy" is just another "issue,' comparable to "inflation" and "immigration," according to a recent interview with the fucking moron. A.G. has ordered the "trust fund kids" he hires as "reporters" to boost Trump and denigrate Biden at every opportunity. This can be seen in today's reporting on this "poll" regarding the senate races in PA, WI, NV, AZ, where they take pains to report the Democratic Senate candidates are running ahead of Biden.
The proof these polls are the purest bullshit is that they measure the wrong demographic, "Registered Voters," 40% of whom don't vote - including, I am certain, 100% of the Homo Saps they ambush interviewed to find all the "ticket splitters" who will vote for Trump for President and the Democrat in their state for Senator. If you believe that happy horse hockey, I know of three bridges for sale at prices you won't be able to say "no" to.
The Times pointedly doesn't even mention the term "Likely Voters" since that screen has been trending to Biden incrementally since the SOTU. People come to different conclusions when they think about the actual result of the vote they will cast.
We have to face the fact that the mainstream media IS "the enemy of the people," just not for the reasons Humpty Trumpty says they are. Print media is on the way out, and the mainstream cable media is circling the bowl; they lost 1/3 of their viewership the day Trump left office, and are desperate to get the eyeballs back, since the Intergalactic Widget-Maker Overlords that own them want to make them "profitable" so they can be unloaded on the first rube to come along who thinks they still have value.
This is why they are valueless - a person who will tell you anything cannot be believed about anything. As Professor Harry G. Frankfurt observed in his essential book, "On Bullshit," a liar knows the truth and chooses not to tell it; a bullshitter doesn't care whether what is said is true or false.
Thanks, TC. This is very important "The Times pointedly doesn't even mention the term "Likely Voters" since that screen has been trending to Biden incrementally since the SOTU. People come to different conclusions when they think about the actual result of the vote they will cast."
These polls are big motivators to work hard and get out the vote. A big problem in 2016 was the certainty that Clinton will win. We should have all been very afraid of Trump winning.
I'll repeat what I've said in some Substack comments section earlier in this cycle: The whining about Hillary in '16 - "I don't LIKE her . . . " (often from women, I might add) elicited from me, regularly, the response, "Forget about Hillary!! Think about the Supreme Court!" We can see how that worked out. Not to mention that, empirically and from my point of view, Hillary was one of the best prepared candidates for the Presidency in my 76 year lifetime.
Actually, I think James Comey and his eleven-days-in-advance announcement that "oh wait! We have discovered another smoking gun!", and if you vote for her you might find out you'll have been responsible for having voted in a candidate that committed a crime (yeesh and ha ha) were the biggest reason that voters who might already have been less than enthusiastic just threw up their hands and stayed home. Unable to stomach voting for Trump, and no longer really feeling confident of supporting Hillary, they just... stayed home.
Polls remind me of people who bet on horse races. They avidly read available information, and then, place their bets, hoping to win big. Nine times out of ten, they win nothing. The polls are just as useful.
I made an online query and found the net worth of the New York Times is reportedly 7.17 billion dollars. I would like to propose an idea. Could a public fund be created to gather resources enabling a hostile takeover of the New York Times from the Sulzberger family and other current stockholders? The essential feature would be that donors would be STAKE-holders rather than STOCK-holders, with one vote regarding management PER PERSON, NOT per dollars donated. There would probably have to be some minimum donation, perhaps twenty dollars. For this idea to work, it would require publicly-minded wealthy donors who would accept that their management vote would be the same as that of the minimum donor. Such a wealthy person in fact would probably be the initiator of the project. That voting equivalence of all stakeholders would make it a democratic endeavor. This reborn New York Times with a democratic foundation would be beholden to NO one, and its reporting would reflect that. I would think it would prosper mightily with the reading public. It should be founded as a non-profit organization, with subscriptions used to pay for reporters, writers, editors, etc., and the physical process of printing and distribution. This should make it eminently qualified for a 501c3 tax exempt status. Without profit-taking the price should be very reasonable.
Question about A.G. Is this the same A.G. who's been running the NYT since, probably the early '80s or so, who I believe went to Tufts in the '70s, or is this his son? To put it another way, is this A.G. of Medicare age, or is he likely in his 30s?
Thank you, Mr. Hubbell. I am one of those women who came of age during the protests and social advancements of the 1960s and 1970s. I am heartsick at furious at the backlash that we have seen .. basically since Reagan. However, the rise of MAGA and 45 has almost knocked me over. I sincerely hope you are right that we stand on the threshold of re-claiming the rights and ethics that so many of us marched for, cried for, demanded, and attained.
Yet again, I go off topic from Today's Edition. Not on purpose, but because I find little to add to what Robert has already brilliantly covered.
Anyway, Democracy Docket posted this story that made my eyes go wide.
"Patrick Braxton argued in a November 2022 complaint that after he was lawfully elected as mayor of Newbern, the white outgoing mayor Haywood Stokes and his town council changed the locks to the town hall, removed or destroyed town documents and denied Braxton access to the town’s mailbox and bank account." Here's the story:
I read about Braxton a couple of months ago and I was equally appalled what Alabama is doing and has done to him! Chutzpah is really too nice, Lynell, but I think there are other Yiddish words to use. Actually, these people, the obvious KKKers, are drek or paskudnik which means they’re disgusting pigs.
Exactly. Especially as chutzpah could also carry a certain sense of admiration. Stokes and his posse which obviously also includes the federal judge simply are racist shmocks.
Just another example of the Republican MO to rig the system. Remember when the voters in Wisconsin had the audacity not to re-elect Scott Walker in 2019? The Republican assembly during their lame-duck session went into overdrive to pass laws to severely curtail the powers of incoming Tony Evers.
Well, at least Evers was allowed to move into the Governor's office. The Alabama example is especially brazen, obvious and despicable. And, not to forget, egged on and supported by a corrupt, ineffective judicial system.
Why did Braxton wait 14 months to seek injunctive relief? When I file a complaint that includes a request for such relief I ask the court for a quick hearing on a preliminary injunction. (If faster action is necessary, I ask for a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction.). Sleeping on your rights can be fatal in a legal action.
The article addresses the delay in the next part of the piece, I think. But to your point it was delayed, therefore denied. From what I could glean, the election was in 2020 but the suit wasn't filed until 2022. Now we're in 2024 and they said something about a hearing is to be held in September 2024. IMO, lots of details are missing, like whether or not there was an opposing candidate running in 2020 who lost to Braxton.
What got me was the changing the locks, etc., that went on.
I don’t know if you’re always right regarding your sense of hope and optimism, but I do know you are hardly a “cheerleader” as some have suggested. Cheerleaders applaud heartily with an undying sense of loyalty to their team, regardless of facts. Your sense of hope and optimism are backed up with information, facts, knowledge and expertise. Therefore, I listen carefully to your words, and in this time of chaos, volatility and unrest, those words are a salve. When you’re angry, it is for good reason which you describe in detail. When celebrating victories, you elaborate the reasons why. All this makes an enormous difference. Thank you.
You nailed it, Robert. Not only are you 100% factually correct, but this time, the NYT was especially self-congratulatory about it. To add insult to injury, all the talking points in the piece I read (there were several, but I could only stomach one), there was a graph revealing a side-by-side comparison of registered vs. likely voters showing virtually the same numbers Simon Rosenberg has been talking about for several weeks showing all five states much closer than the accompanying text discussed. This was ignored in the text because it didn't fit the narrative.
The bottom line is that NYT has created a false narrative to sell papers and to get “clicks.” If that was ever in doubt, it no longer is. As Rosenberg points out in Hopium Chronicles, many polls tell a different story, and a critical analysis of those polls shows a margin of error race where you can imply that Dems have an edge in most cases. For instance, as Robert alludes to, it makes little sense in the NYT poll for Ruben Gallegos to have a seven-point lead in Arizona while Biden trails in their poll by six. The only sane answer here is that if you want to pay attention to polling, and there is no reason to do so if it's not your jam, simply ignore the NYT and polling aggregators and read Simon Rosenberg. Not to make the data tell a rosier story, but for it to make a more rational one.
My senior year of high school was 1965. I looked forward to a golden age of reason and good governance coming to the world and now have a mini version of PTSD at the state of things.
Re: mini PTSD - I've had the thought that the whole country (maybe part of the world as well) has been in an abusive "relationship" with the former president who is a malignant narcissist; abusing and gaslighting us all. A common aspect of an abusive relationship is the abusive person insisting that what they do is normal and not harmful, making it hard for the victimized person to understand their situation. Emotional abuse can play a part with insulting, humiliating, calling the other "crazy", calling names, make one feel guilty for normal behaviors. Other aspects as well. The solution: end the relationship/leave. So let's work hard to end this in November.
Many of us have a form of PTSD, Frankom! However, that's why this is where I look for my news and the analysis of it. I have friends who are nervous wrecks all of the time. If they read this, they would not be wrecks.
MSNBC boils liberal blood 24-7. An abomination. I try and stay within Hubbell, Robert Reich, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian and short forays into WAPO. We discontinued the NYT in protest.
The perception that Biden will lose will weaken his win in 2024 when Trump acolytes, Fox viewers, Joe Rogan listeners, and NYT readers cannot get over the mental hurdle that despite ALL they’ve ingested invested in all of 2024…. Biden got more votes. This will lead to a tsunami of election deniers that will become the first battle Biden undertakes before Dobbs, before climate action, etc.
Fight this misperception NOW. If you are all in for Biden — be visible. Wear a Biden shirt (like i do) on every grocery run. I promise, the reaction you get will be stunning. (For me… in south Florida… zero negative comments… dozens of “I love your shirt”)
Yes, yes, yes!!! Wear shirts, buttons, hats, and carry tote bags! Display yard signs and put bumper stickers on your cars! All of which you can buy directly from President Biden’s campaign at www.joebiden.com. I wear some kind of Biden gear almost every day. I’ll check out your sources too. I don’t think we can post photos here, or I’d show my really cool anti-Trump shirt I got from Progressive Left Designs on Redbubble. I wear that when the Biden shirts are in the laundry.
Well, Robert, let’s see what tidbits Cohen reveals tomorrow. I am assuming his attorneys have been preparing him for the cross-exam which I imagine lots of finger-pointing will be going on. I just hope Cohen keeps his head on straight and gives just the facts. It would be very interesting if Weisselberg is the last but surprise witness. I can’t imagine him giving up the money he’s receiving from the Trump Org. for not shooting his mouth off. My question to you is do you have any idea if Trump is pulling a lot of supporters in to the events he holds? Is it the same as before or is it less? I am just curious. The man is a demented rapist criminal.
Trump continues to draw sizable crowds to. his events; he certainly did to the New Jersey events--somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000. He has managed to market his rallies as "events" that draw caravans of loyalists traveling long distances to attend. RV communities pop up near the events. It has the feel of a festival. But Trump drones on for hours, and the people mill about, talking amongst themselves. People don't show up to hear what Trump says. They show up to be at a Trump rally.
Photos of the NJ rally from the air definitely challenge the claim by Mike Johnson that 100,000 people were in the crowd. The venue was also near a very crowded beach locality that may have contributed some mere curiosity seekers, and the portions of the crowd that travel with the rallies are not legitimately a part of local supporters and shouldn't be getting counted every time at every rally.
Cohen has read the reviews of his performance yesterday and he will remain cool because he is tougher than the defense lawyers and he is a street fighter with an opportunity to nail his former boss who screwed him.
I hope you're right. But I remember when I was involved a lawsuit. My husband at the time was a lawyer and answer the question. Even if you think what you have to say will explain it more. And then when it was his turn he couldn't stop talking. Afterwards he realized his mistake but at the time he was too involved. I hope Cohen can keep his cool.
I watched the entire footage so you don't have to. My takeaways:
1. The deeper into the video, the more MAGA hats, Trump t-shirts and Trump 2024 flags you saw leaving. Towards the end, there was a discarded red hat on the ground, no doubt left by a disgusted attendee.
2. There was very little cheering by the remaining crowd.
3. At one point, Trump complained about professionally printed signage held up by campus protesters, while fans behind him held up professionally printed signage.
4. It would have been enlightening if the videographers had stopped some of the masses and asked them why they were leaving.
On what the NYT's responsibility is, I recommend Michael Podhorzer, who argues that what the surveys should be asking is not who people would vote for if the election were tomorrow, but what people believe will happen if either candidate is elected. He writes "I don’t want or expect (Executive Editor) Kahn to “defend democracy” by putting a thumb on the scale for Biden. I’d be satisfied if Kahn simply stood by his own reporters and their reporting. I want to see him edit the Times as if he believed that his own paper’s groundbreaking stories were both true and important."
The thing I value the most about reading Robert’s newsletter is that he unerringly asks me to focus on the possible and the positive in our quest to save this country. It can be a bad habit to focus on gore, angst, hopelessness, anger, loss, etc. A very wise person once said to me, “ envision a positive outcome and be prepared for how life unfolds” it seems to me that Robert’s fierce and consistent focus on what Biden is doing well is exactly the medicine we need in our addiction to the drama we are living in. He asks us daily to dwell in the other side of doom with our president and country. Anyone who’s been in marriage counseling knows that focusing on one’s mates foibles is not a complete picture and won’t save a marriage.
I don’t always want to be cheerful as I read but by gosh, I am so grateful for Robert’s courage to stay the positive course and to research the supporting facts to back it up. It cannot hurt us to believe him and allow the tightly clamped fear to relax for a while each morning. There are…lots of good things happening. They are the correct fuel for us as we move forward in these times.
Question: The statute that you cite, 175.10, uses the language "when his intent to defraud includes the intent to commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" The words "intent" are so important, because it means that the prosecutors do not have to prove "another crime", actually occurred, but instead have to prove the "intent" to commit another crime in order to prove a felony.
Do the prosecutors also have to plead and prove violation of Section 152 as well, that is "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto...."?
I had thought that the defense could argue that Trump would have had to be charged and convicted of the other crime first, namely election interference, in order for Section 152 to be prosecuted as a felony. But in this case, the prosecutors only have to prove intent.
Sorry to be so legalistic, but I would love to read the jury instructions, which will tell me whether Trump can get out of this with only a misdemeanor.
And by the way, I have always felt that the only way out of this is to vote.
My understanding is that prosecutors don't have to prove the second crime--election interference--only that the first crime was committed with the intent to conceal or commit a second crime. So, one crime (falsification) with intent proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the second crime need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Daniel, are you saying that anything that is a misdemeanor by itself cannot be brought because of the Statute of Limitations, and that they only way this is able to be brought is because it is brought as a felony?
Do you know: is it a defense for Trump to claim that Sec. 152 must have been prosecuted in order to use it to elevate 175.10 to a felony?
My understanding is that the statute has run on the misdemeanor violation but not on the felony violation of falsification. It doesn't matter whether the statute has run on the election interference claim because that crime is not charged. Only relevant because of intent in falsification.
Wow, Robert! You really struck a chord in today's Concluding Thoughts! I'd already seen the Quadefendant's and current Republican's actions as setting us back more than 50 years, but I hadn't looked at the enormous progress we made in the 60s and 70s as resulting from the buildup of pressure from the couple of decades prior. Maybe that's the key to the 2020s and 2030s, as long as we recognize the true nature of the pressure. I really think this is something worth exploring.
Apropos of your point about activism from the 60s in Concluding Thoughts, this New Yorker cartoon from May 5, 2022 was spot on. In case the link does not work, it is of two young women in a cafe. One says to the other, "For Mother's Day, my mother would like the activism of her youth to not be for nothing".
When I commented after unsubscribing to the Times following their hyper-focus on Biden's age and posted my letter, many of my friends and family did the same. One reported that when he went to unsubscribe, he was offered a 40% discount and other "goodies" if they would not unsubscribe. Apparently there was enough to concern the Times. BUT, not enough to reinstruct Nate Cohn to conduct unbiased data and commentary. I suggest if you strongly prefer their "other coverage," perhaps subscribe to more of the Substack columnists or the Washington Post or even the Republican leading Wall St. Journal, both of which have considerably more integrity. If the separation is so horrific for you, perhaps resubscribe after the election so your current views for one of the most important elections in our time are not so consistently biased. You can vote with your dollars as well as your election vote itself.
I unsubscribed back before the Biden age coverage because they were platforming MAGAts to write editorials full of lies. I forget which straw broke the camel's back, but I have survived just fine without the NY Times. FYI, every since I unsubscribed, I have received almost daily "limited-time" offers to get a 1-yr subscription to the times for just $50.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have maintained my subscription to the WaPo, although I have considered dropping that one too!
Unlike many other Hubbell subscribers, I have maintained my NYT, WaPo, and Boston Globe subscriptions. I do get angry at their biased reporting on the Middle East (so I also subscribed to the Times of Israel, a politically middle-of-the-road publication) and domestic politics, but their articles also contain factual information I hope to store in my aging brain.
Far from being deeply angered by their more intelligent conservative writers (several are not very intelligent, but that also applies to some liberal/“progressive” writers), I simply take in what they say, consider it, and consign much of it to my mental trash can.
Don’t let the bast*rds get you down. In my opinion, avoiding them results from letting them get you down.
I like to make effective use of my time and other than Wordle (which I can do without a subscription), NY Times didn't make the cut. I have replaced it with several substacks that provide me with better insight. I have kept my susbscription to WaPo.
Dan Rather's column today has it just right: thinks of the polls as motivators not as misery. He points out that most folks don't start paying attention to the election until around Labor Day. (It used to be that people were awakened by the party conventions but they've become meaningless and boring.)
Trump lost in 2020. He has not gained supporters. Who answers polls? I think more Trumpers than Biden supporters are responding to polls. We are in for an exhausting 6 months but we can’t give up. Take a break if needed but never concede. Vote BLUE all the way down the ticket
Exactly. Who answers their phone when they see an unfamiliar number? The NYT explains that most of their calls were to cell phones owned by registered voters. How did they get those numbers?
There are companies whose whole business is to aggregate and sell data about people. In the voting context this is sold to campaigns to help them, reach out to voters and to target their messaging. In the sales context it is used to figure out what to pitch to you when. Voter rolls are available from one source, phone numbers are available are from another source., demographic information from other sources. Addresses can be used to try to reconcile. As a phonebanker, I can tell you that many lists have a lot of "dirty data" and part of our job is to clean up the list of wrong, disconnected numbers. Pollsters undoubtedly deal with similar data quality issues.
The NYT's problem is it is run by the Sulzberger Family's DNA failure, A.G. Sulzberger, the self-entitled heir to the family fortune and one of the leading examples of why the inheritance tax needs to be 85% for inheritances over $10 million (figuring in the current housing bubble). This silver spoon halfwit, born on third base and convinced he hit a triple is "miffed" that President Biden has not treated him with the proper respect to which he was born entitled, and failed to bend the knee, kiss the ring and give an "exclusive interview" to the newpaper run by an editor who thinks "democracy" is just another "issue,' comparable to "inflation" and "immigration," according to a recent interview with the fucking moron. A.G. has ordered the "trust fund kids" he hires as "reporters" to boost Trump and denigrate Biden at every opportunity. This can be seen in today's reporting on this "poll" regarding the senate races in PA, WI, NV, AZ, where they take pains to report the Democratic Senate candidates are running ahead of Biden.
The proof these polls are the purest bullshit is that they measure the wrong demographic, "Registered Voters," 40% of whom don't vote - including, I am certain, 100% of the Homo Saps they ambush interviewed to find all the "ticket splitters" who will vote for Trump for President and the Democrat in their state for Senator. If you believe that happy horse hockey, I know of three bridges for sale at prices you won't be able to say "no" to.
The Times pointedly doesn't even mention the term "Likely Voters" since that screen has been trending to Biden incrementally since the SOTU. People come to different conclusions when they think about the actual result of the vote they will cast.
We have to face the fact that the mainstream media IS "the enemy of the people," just not for the reasons Humpty Trumpty says they are. Print media is on the way out, and the mainstream cable media is circling the bowl; they lost 1/3 of their viewership the day Trump left office, and are desperate to get the eyeballs back, since the Intergalactic Widget-Maker Overlords that own them want to make them "profitable" so they can be unloaded on the first rube to come along who thinks they still have value.
This is why they are valueless - a person who will tell you anything cannot be believed about anything. As Professor Harry G. Frankfurt observed in his essential book, "On Bullshit," a liar knows the truth and chooses not to tell it; a bullshitter doesn't care whether what is said is true or false.
Thanks, TC. This is very important "The Times pointedly doesn't even mention the term "Likely Voters" since that screen has been trending to Biden incrementally since the SOTU. People come to different conclusions when they think about the actual result of the vote they will cast."
Wow, TC. You hit that one out of the park!
These polls are big motivators to work hard and get out the vote. A big problem in 2016 was the certainty that Clinton will win. We should have all been very afraid of Trump winning.
I'll repeat what I've said in some Substack comments section earlier in this cycle: The whining about Hillary in '16 - "I don't LIKE her . . . " (often from women, I might add) elicited from me, regularly, the response, "Forget about Hillary!! Think about the Supreme Court!" We can see how that worked out. Not to mention that, empirically and from my point of view, Hillary was one of the best prepared candidates for the Presidency in my 76 year lifetime.
On paper, Hillary was “best prepared”. However, she had attitude problems that sank her candidacy and probably would have infected her presidency.
Actually, I think James Comey and his eleven-days-in-advance announcement that "oh wait! We have discovered another smoking gun!", and if you vote for her you might find out you'll have been responsible for having voted in a candidate that committed a crime (yeesh and ha ha) were the biggest reason that voters who might already have been less than enthusiastic just threw up their hands and stayed home. Unable to stomach voting for Trump, and no longer really feeling confident of supporting Hillary, they just... stayed home.
How did Hillary’s “attitude problems” compare to Trump’s or the entire MAGA menagerie?
Polls remind me of people who bet on horse races. They avidly read available information, and then, place their bets, hoping to win big. Nine times out of ten, they win nothing. The polls are just as useful.
I’ve been aware that some f*ckery has been going on at the New York Times regarding their polling. Thanks for filling in some of the details.
I made an online query and found the net worth of the New York Times is reportedly 7.17 billion dollars. I would like to propose an idea. Could a public fund be created to gather resources enabling a hostile takeover of the New York Times from the Sulzberger family and other current stockholders? The essential feature would be that donors would be STAKE-holders rather than STOCK-holders, with one vote regarding management PER PERSON, NOT per dollars donated. There would probably have to be some minimum donation, perhaps twenty dollars. For this idea to work, it would require publicly-minded wealthy donors who would accept that their management vote would be the same as that of the minimum donor. Such a wealthy person in fact would probably be the initiator of the project. That voting equivalence of all stakeholders would make it a democratic endeavor. This reborn New York Times with a democratic foundation would be beholden to NO one, and its reporting would reflect that. I would think it would prosper mightily with the reading public. It should be founded as a non-profit organization, with subscriptions used to pay for reporters, writers, editors, etc., and the physical process of printing and distribution. This should make it eminently qualified for a 501c3 tax exempt status. Without profit-taking the price should be very reasonable.
I like the out-of-the-box big thinking!
Question about A.G. Is this the same A.G. who's been running the NYT since, probably the early '80s or so, who I believe went to Tufts in the '70s, or is this his son? To put it another way, is this A.G. of Medicare age, or is he likely in his 30s?
TC, I wish we could have coffee at least once a week!
Here’s another endorsement of Harry Frankfurt’s small book.
Wow…and thank-you, TC
Thank you, Mr. Hubbell. I am one of those women who came of age during the protests and social advancements of the 1960s and 1970s. I am heartsick at furious at the backlash that we have seen .. basically since Reagan. However, the rise of MAGA and 45 has almost knocked me over. I sincerely hope you are right that we stand on the threshold of re-claiming the rights and ethics that so many of us marched for, cried for, demanded, and attained.
Beautifully and powerfully stated, Nancy!
Yet again, I go off topic from Today's Edition. Not on purpose, but because I find little to add to what Robert has already brilliantly covered.
Anyway, Democracy Docket posted this story that made my eyes go wide.
"Patrick Braxton argued in a November 2022 complaint that after he was lawfully elected as mayor of Newbern, the white outgoing mayor Haywood Stokes and his town council changed the locks to the town hall, removed or destroyed town documents and denied Braxton access to the town’s mailbox and bank account." Here's the story:
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-judge-in-alabama-denies-black-mayors-motion-to-force-white-town-leaders-to-allow-him-into-office/?
If I were Jewish, I would say this guy Stokes has a lot of chutzpah!
I read about Braxton a couple of months ago and I was equally appalled what Alabama is doing and has done to him! Chutzpah is really too nice, Lynell, but I think there are other Yiddish words to use. Actually, these people, the obvious KKKers, are drek or paskudnik which means they’re disgusting pigs.
Wait. What? Why are pigs disgusting? Domesticated especially, they can be very affectionate beings.
Ah, but notice she didn't say pigs are disgusting! She said they are disgusting pigs... as opposed Obviously, to being smart, affectionate pigs!
Morning, and thanks, Marlene! Always eager to expand my vocabulary.
Calling them "obvious KKKers" really hits the mark IMO.
Exactly. Especially as chutzpah could also carry a certain sense of admiration. Stokes and his posse which obviously also includes the federal judge simply are racist shmocks.
Love it when you talk dirty.
MY best laugh of the week so far!!!
😄
Just another example of the Republican MO to rig the system. Remember when the voters in Wisconsin had the audacity not to re-elect Scott Walker in 2019? The Republican assembly during their lame-duck session went into overdrive to pass laws to severely curtail the powers of incoming Tony Evers.
Well, at least Evers was allowed to move into the Governor's office. The Alabama example is especially brazen, obvious and despicable. And, not to forget, egged on and supported by a corrupt, ineffective judicial system.
He knew he could get away with it.
Why did Braxton wait 14 months to seek injunctive relief? When I file a complaint that includes a request for such relief I ask the court for a quick hearing on a preliminary injunction. (If faster action is necessary, I ask for a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction.). Sleeping on your rights can be fatal in a legal action.
The article addresses the delay in the next part of the piece, I think. But to your point it was delayed, therefore denied. From what I could glean, the election was in 2020 but the suit wasn't filed until 2022. Now we're in 2024 and they said something about a hearing is to be held in September 2024. IMO, lots of details are missing, like whether or not there was an opposing candidate running in 2020 who lost to Braxton.
What got me was the changing the locks, etc., that went on.
I don’t know if you’re always right regarding your sense of hope and optimism, but I do know you are hardly a “cheerleader” as some have suggested. Cheerleaders applaud heartily with an undying sense of loyalty to their team, regardless of facts. Your sense of hope and optimism are backed up with information, facts, knowledge and expertise. Therefore, I listen carefully to your words, and in this time of chaos, volatility and unrest, those words are a salve. When you’re angry, it is for good reason which you describe in detail. When celebrating victories, you elaborate the reasons why. All this makes an enormous difference. Thank you.
You nailed it, Robert. Not only are you 100% factually correct, but this time, the NYT was especially self-congratulatory about it. To add insult to injury, all the talking points in the piece I read (there were several, but I could only stomach one), there was a graph revealing a side-by-side comparison of registered vs. likely voters showing virtually the same numbers Simon Rosenberg has been talking about for several weeks showing all five states much closer than the accompanying text discussed. This was ignored in the text because it didn't fit the narrative.
The bottom line is that NYT has created a false narrative to sell papers and to get “clicks.” If that was ever in doubt, it no longer is. As Rosenberg points out in Hopium Chronicles, many polls tell a different story, and a critical analysis of those polls shows a margin of error race where you can imply that Dems have an edge in most cases. For instance, as Robert alludes to, it makes little sense in the NYT poll for Ruben Gallegos to have a seven-point lead in Arizona while Biden trails in their poll by six. The only sane answer here is that if you want to pay attention to polling, and there is no reason to do so if it's not your jam, simply ignore the NYT and polling aggregators and read Simon Rosenberg. Not to make the data tell a rosier story, but for it to make a more rational one.
The only saving grace is the NYT poll only motivates us to work harder.
My senior year of high school was 1965. I looked forward to a golden age of reason and good governance coming to the world and now have a mini version of PTSD at the state of things.
Re: mini PTSD - I've had the thought that the whole country (maybe part of the world as well) has been in an abusive "relationship" with the former president who is a malignant narcissist; abusing and gaslighting us all. A common aspect of an abusive relationship is the abusive person insisting that what they do is normal and not harmful, making it hard for the victimized person to understand their situation. Emotional abuse can play a part with insulting, humiliating, calling the other "crazy", calling names, make one feel guilty for normal behaviors. Other aspects as well. The solution: end the relationship/leave. So let's work hard to end this in November.
This is a wonderful analysis and explains quite a bit about why Trump's followers respond the way they do.
You nailed it!
Many of us have a form of PTSD, Frankom! However, that's why this is where I look for my news and the analysis of it. I have friends who are nervous wrecks all of the time. If they read this, they would not be wrecks.
MSNBC boils liberal blood 24-7. An abomination. I try and stay within Hubbell, Robert Reich, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian and short forays into WAPO. We discontinued the NYT in protest.
The perception that Biden will lose will weaken his win in 2024 when Trump acolytes, Fox viewers, Joe Rogan listeners, and NYT readers cannot get over the mental hurdle that despite ALL they’ve ingested invested in all of 2024…. Biden got more votes. This will lead to a tsunami of election deniers that will become the first battle Biden undertakes before Dobbs, before climate action, etc.
Fight this misperception NOW. If you are all in for Biden — be visible. Wear a Biden shirt (like i do) on every grocery run. I promise, the reaction you get will be stunning. (For me… in south Florida… zero negative comments… dozens of “I love your shirt”)
Two great shirts online
DemsMakeLifeBetter.org
BeantownStrong.com.
Wear a shirt. Become more real than the poles in the eyes of the MAGA faithful.
Shawn encouraged me to wear the t . 4 months in with only positive responses…in my red, MAGA central Fl community. Join us !
🛒👕
In Florida! That’s awesome news!
So glad to hear it Kathy! Feels good, and so encouraging for 11/5, doesn’t it?
Yes, yes, yes!!! Wear shirts, buttons, hats, and carry tote bags! Display yard signs and put bumper stickers on your cars! All of which you can buy directly from President Biden’s campaign at www.joebiden.com. I wear some kind of Biden gear almost every day. I’ll check out your sources too. I don’t think we can post photos here, or I’d show my really cool anti-Trump shirt I got from Progressive Left Designs on Redbubble. I wear that when the Biden shirts are in the laundry.
Well, Robert, let’s see what tidbits Cohen reveals tomorrow. I am assuming his attorneys have been preparing him for the cross-exam which I imagine lots of finger-pointing will be going on. I just hope Cohen keeps his head on straight and gives just the facts. It would be very interesting if Weisselberg is the last but surprise witness. I can’t imagine him giving up the money he’s receiving from the Trump Org. for not shooting his mouth off. My question to you is do you have any idea if Trump is pulling a lot of supporters in to the events he holds? Is it the same as before or is it less? I am just curious. The man is a demented rapist criminal.
Trump continues to draw sizable crowds to. his events; he certainly did to the New Jersey events--somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000. He has managed to market his rallies as "events" that draw caravans of loyalists traveling long distances to attend. RV communities pop up near the events. It has the feel of a festival. But Trump drones on for hours, and the people mill about, talking amongst themselves. People don't show up to hear what Trump says. They show up to be at a Trump rally.
Thanks, Robert. I guess I was hankering for a small crowd.
Photos of the NJ rally from the air definitely challenge the claim by Mike Johnson that 100,000 people were in the crowd. The venue was also near a very crowded beach locality that may have contributed some mere curiosity seekers, and the portions of the crowd that travel with the rallies are not legitimately a part of local supporters and shouldn't be getting counted every time at every rally.
Cohen has read the reviews of his performance yesterday and he will remain cool because he is tougher than the defense lawyers and he is a street fighter with an opportunity to nail his former boss who screwed him.
I hope you're right. But I remember when I was involved a lawsuit. My husband at the time was a lawyer and answer the question. Even if you think what you have to say will explain it more. And then when it was his turn he couldn't stop talking. Afterwards he realized his mistake but at the time he was too involved. I hope Cohen can keep his cool.
I hope you are right, Stephen.
This article is "all over the map" about crowd size, Marlene. However, most reports say the 100K estimate is grossly exaggerated.
https://nj1015.com/trump-rally-crowd-size-estimate/
Then there's this 33 excruciating minutes watching loads of people exiting rally while speech is ongoing. I gave up watching after about four minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypuff6LcU04
I watched the entire footage so you don't have to. My takeaways:
1. The deeper into the video, the more MAGA hats, Trump t-shirts and Trump 2024 flags you saw leaving. Towards the end, there was a discarded red hat on the ground, no doubt left by a disgusted attendee.
2. There was very little cheering by the remaining crowd.
3. At one point, Trump complained about professionally printed signage held up by campus protesters, while fans behind him held up professionally printed signage.
4. It would have been enlightening if the videographers had stopped some of the masses and asked them why they were leaving.
.
ETA the link.
Trump Supporters Walk Out of Rally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypuff6LcU04
ETA link to crowd remaining at rally's end.
https://twitter.com/zacjanderson/status/1789442982506066100
Your last comment is what I wished had happened also.
Thanks, David! Very enlightening analysis.
Well, that was fun.
LOL, Annie!
On what the NYT's responsibility is, I recommend Michael Podhorzer, who argues that what the surveys should be asking is not who people would vote for if the election were tomorrow, but what people believe will happen if either candidate is elected. He writes "I don’t want or expect (Executive Editor) Kahn to “defend democracy” by putting a thumb on the scale for Biden. I’d be satisfied if Kahn simply stood by his own reporters and their reporting. I want to see him edit the Times as if he believed that his own paper’s groundbreaking stories were both true and important."
https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelpodhorzer/p/does-joe-kahn-trust-the-new-york?r=fuzfd&utm_medium=ios
That article made some interesting points with a perspective that more people should give some thought to- and act on.
You’re asking people to think. Not going to happen
What are you doing besides simply dismiss as "not going to happen"? That's pretty lazy thinking itself, proving your own point.
Hi All,
The thing I value the most about reading Robert’s newsletter is that he unerringly asks me to focus on the possible and the positive in our quest to save this country. It can be a bad habit to focus on gore, angst, hopelessness, anger, loss, etc. A very wise person once said to me, “ envision a positive outcome and be prepared for how life unfolds” it seems to me that Robert’s fierce and consistent focus on what Biden is doing well is exactly the medicine we need in our addiction to the drama we are living in. He asks us daily to dwell in the other side of doom with our president and country. Anyone who’s been in marriage counseling knows that focusing on one’s mates foibles is not a complete picture and won’t save a marriage.
I don’t always want to be cheerful as I read but by gosh, I am so grateful for Robert’s courage to stay the positive course and to research the supporting facts to back it up. It cannot hurt us to believe him and allow the tightly clamped fear to relax for a while each morning. There are…lots of good things happening. They are the correct fuel for us as we move forward in these times.
Question: The statute that you cite, 175.10, uses the language "when his intent to defraud includes the intent to commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" The words "intent" are so important, because it means that the prosecutors do not have to prove "another crime", actually occurred, but instead have to prove the "intent" to commit another crime in order to prove a felony.
Do the prosecutors also have to plead and prove violation of Section 152 as well, that is "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto...."?
I had thought that the defense could argue that Trump would have had to be charged and convicted of the other crime first, namely election interference, in order for Section 152 to be prosecuted as a felony. But in this case, the prosecutors only have to prove intent.
Sorry to be so legalistic, but I would love to read the jury instructions, which will tell me whether Trump can get out of this with only a misdemeanor.
And by the way, I have always felt that the only way out of this is to vote.
My understanding is that prosecutors don't have to prove the second crime--election interference--only that the first crime was committed with the intent to conceal or commit a second crime. So, one crime (falsification) with intent proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the second crime need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Statue of limitations have run on the misdemeanors, which are not lesser included offenses.
Daniel, are you saying that anything that is a misdemeanor by itself cannot be brought because of the Statute of Limitations, and that they only way this is able to be brought is because it is brought as a felony?
Do you know: is it a defense for Trump to claim that Sec. 152 must have been prosecuted in order to use it to elevate 175.10 to a felony?
My understanding is that the statute has run on the misdemeanor violation but not on the felony violation of falsification. It doesn't matter whether the statute has run on the election interference claim because that crime is not charged. Only relevant because of intent in falsification.
thank you. clears it up
IMHO because the statute of limitations has run, if he admitted he did it but it was only a misdemeanor would be a viable defense but for the ego.
Wow, Robert! You really struck a chord in today's Concluding Thoughts! I'd already seen the Quadefendant's and current Republican's actions as setting us back more than 50 years, but I hadn't looked at the enormous progress we made in the 60s and 70s as resulting from the buildup of pressure from the couple of decades prior. Maybe that's the key to the 2020s and 2030s, as long as we recognize the true nature of the pressure. I really think this is something worth exploring.
Apropos of your point about activism from the 60s in Concluding Thoughts, this New Yorker cartoon from May 5, 2022 was spot on. In case the link does not work, it is of two young women in a cafe. One says to the other, "For Mother's Day, my mother would like the activism of her youth to not be for nothing".
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/thursday-may-5th-mothers-day-activism
When I commented after unsubscribing to the Times following their hyper-focus on Biden's age and posted my letter, many of my friends and family did the same. One reported that when he went to unsubscribe, he was offered a 40% discount and other "goodies" if they would not unsubscribe. Apparently there was enough to concern the Times. BUT, not enough to reinstruct Nate Cohn to conduct unbiased data and commentary. I suggest if you strongly prefer their "other coverage," perhaps subscribe to more of the Substack columnists or the Washington Post or even the Republican leading Wall St. Journal, both of which have considerably more integrity. If the separation is so horrific for you, perhaps resubscribe after the election so your current views for one of the most important elections in our time are not so consistently biased. You can vote with your dollars as well as your election vote itself.
I unsubscribed back before the Biden age coverage because they were platforming MAGAts to write editorials full of lies. I forget which straw broke the camel's back, but I have survived just fine without the NY Times. FYI, every since I unsubscribed, I have received almost daily "limited-time" offers to get a 1-yr subscription to the times for just $50.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have maintained my subscription to the WaPo, although I have considered dropping that one too!
I still have WaPo as well. Like their columnists. Especially Jennifer Rubin and Eugene Robinson. But have considered giving them up.
Me too - plus Ann Telnaes for political cartoons
Unlike many other Hubbell subscribers, I have maintained my NYT, WaPo, and Boston Globe subscriptions. I do get angry at their biased reporting on the Middle East (so I also subscribed to the Times of Israel, a politically middle-of-the-road publication) and domestic politics, but their articles also contain factual information I hope to store in my aging brain.
Far from being deeply angered by their more intelligent conservative writers (several are not very intelligent, but that also applies to some liberal/“progressive” writers), I simply take in what they say, consider it, and consign much of it to my mental trash can.
Don’t let the bast*rds get you down. In my opinion, avoiding them results from letting them get you down.
I like to make effective use of my time and other than Wordle (which I can do without a subscription), NY Times didn't make the cut. I have replaced it with several substacks that provide me with better insight. I have kept my susbscription to WaPo.
Dan Rather's column today has it just right: thinks of the polls as motivators not as misery. He points out that most folks don't start paying attention to the election until around Labor Day. (It used to be that people were awakened by the party conventions but they've become meaningless and boring.)
Trump lost in 2020. He has not gained supporters. Who answers polls? I think more Trumpers than Biden supporters are responding to polls. We are in for an exhausting 6 months but we can’t give up. Take a break if needed but never concede. Vote BLUE all the way down the ticket
Exactly. Who answers their phone when they see an unfamiliar number? The NYT explains that most of their calls were to cell phones owned by registered voters. How did they get those numbers?
There are companies whose whole business is to aggregate and sell data about people. In the voting context this is sold to campaigns to help them, reach out to voters and to target their messaging. In the sales context it is used to figure out what to pitch to you when. Voter rolls are available from one source, phone numbers are available are from another source., demographic information from other sources. Addresses can be used to try to reconcile. As a phonebanker, I can tell you that many lists have a lot of "dirty data" and part of our job is to clean up the list of wrong, disconnected numbers. Pollsters undoubtedly deal with similar data quality issues.
I believe that registration lists are public information.