Hugh Hewitt Storms Off Talk Show, Nobody Notices

I was a little surprised this morning to discover there had been some sort of non-event Friday where Hugh Hewitt, a talk show B-lister stormed off a Washington Post show,

“First Look,” the Post’s live show hosted by Jonathan Capehart, alongside Ruth Marcus, an associate editor and columnist at the Post, during a discussion over former President Donald Trump [sic] legal efforts in battleground states.

This happened Friday, but it didn't reach YouTube or the aggregators until this morning. It seems to me that this says something about Rush Limbaugh and the huge gap his departure has left in public discourse. Nobody has been able to replace him, least of all Hugh Hewitt, for all Hewitt seems to be trying. The whole episode has the air of something Hewitt cooked up to promote himself in the wake of Jeff Bezos's intervention at the Post:

“We are news people, even though we have opinions, and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story,” Hewitt added. “So yes, he’s upset about Bucks County, but he was right, and he won in court. That’s the story.”

Capehart replied: “I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when, Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t based in fact.”

“I will not come back, Jonathan, how’s that? I’m done,” Hewitt fired back as he stood up from his chair and removed his earpiece. “This is the most unfair election ad I have ever been a part of.”

“You guys are working, that’s fine, I’m done,” Hewitt said before walking off screen.

Boy, he quit his job over principle! What a sacrifice! Except,

After storming off the show, Hewitt confirmed to Fox News that he had parted ways with The Post.

“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt told Fox.

So this was a gig that paid him a few hundred bucks, if that, every six weeks or so. He could afford to lose it if he could get publicity for coming out on Jeff Bezos's side, or something like that, except it looks like nobody actually noticed. He made a statement about it on YouTube this morning:

At 6:07, he says,

On Friday I quit the Washington Post, and some of you will know that. But I want to make sure you understand -- thank you to all of you who've texted me and posted me and sent me your kudos, thank you Elon Musk, thank you President Trump, everybodyh who's said something or anything else -- I just want you to know. Ruth Marcus has nothing to do with this. Ruth Marcus is my friend, Ruth Marcus is a fabulous jo0urnalist, she has got legal chops the equal of anyone in the business. Ruth and I are the same age. . .

He then goes on and on about how wonderful Ruth Marcus is, and then he expands into all the wonderful editors he's had at the Post: "You can be wrong, but not rotten." He lists all the wonderful editors by name,

Michael Duffy, Michael Larrabee, David Von Drehle, Mark Laswell, many others, the New Boston editorial page, David Shipley is a wonderfully nice man. Ruth is the equal of any edifor I've had over alol these years. . . . I quit the Post for reasons unrelated to any of that. . .

So, after all this kissy-kissy, he never quite gets to why, precisely, he quit the Post. I think this is because the only reason he did it was to call attention to himself. Rush Limbaugh has been off the scene for nearly four years, and nobody has risen to anything like the status he had before his death, least of all Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt in fact had been almost completely unknown before he was made a moderator for the February 25, 2016 Republican primary debate, where he pestered Trump with gotcha questions, only to have Trump reply,

First of all, very few people listen to your radio show, that’s the good news, which happens to be true – check out the ratings.

Commentators then noted that it was in fact a real challenge to find Hewitt's show on the air. I suspect that Hewitt's aim at the time was to do what Megyn Kelly had been unable to do in August 2015, end Trump's candidacy by taking him down with le mot juste. Nobody should try this, Trump will win it every time. Hewitt's main gig has always been a syndicated show with Salem Media, a Never Trump outlet. He couldn't manage for Salem Media the task Megyn Kelly had been assigned by Fox, but at least he kept his job.

But none of his self-promotion has managed to make him anything more than a B-lister.

How Many Pet Ferrets Are In California?

California and Hawaii are the only states that make it illegal to own a pet ferret. The reasons have never been clear, but more important, according to California's own Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Published estimates for total numbers of pet ferrets in California for the last 3 decades range from 30,000 to 1,000,000, but most cluster around 100,000.

According to this reddit thread,

I'm from California... Get them in Las Vegas, not Arizona. Just got to toss a blanket over them when you drive thru agriculture checkpoint.

Someone else posted,

[I]t only takes one assh* of a warden, AC, or cop to have your ferret confiscated, deported, or possibly euthanized. It's a risk, but there are supporters out there. Good luck!

Which brings us to the case of Peanut the Squirrel:

Peanut the Squirrel, a beloved pet who was an internet sensation before New York state officials confiscated and then killed it, is drawing even more social media attention after the rodent's death.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) seized Peanut and a raccoon named Fred from owner Mark Longo's home and animal sanctuary in rural Pine City, near the Pennsylvania border, earlier this week. The agency, which said it had received complaints that wildlife was being kept illegally, then euthanized the critters, to the horror of Longo and about 550,000 of Peanut's best friends. As word got out, the X memes went up.

. . . Longo told his followers that he had taken the rodent in after he witnessed the squirrel’s mother being hit by a car. The squirrel refused to return to the wild and became attached to the couple.

The legality of pet squirrels varies from state to state:

Squirrels are considered exotic animals and many Americans do enjoy keeping them as pets. In some states, you can own a pet squirrel with no paperwork or permits required. Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming all allow people to own pet squirrels.

Additionally, Nebraska requires that the squirrel wasn’t captured from the wild for it to be a legal pet. New Jersey allows red squirrels and flying squirrels to be kept as pets. South Dakota allows squirrels to be kept as pets as long as they were purchased from a state where they are legal. Massachusetts and Montana allow pet squirrels as long as they are flying squirrels.

Other states allow pet squirrels if a permit is obtained. These states are Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

Florida allows for many exotic animals to be owned, but squirrels are not specifically mentioned. It is unclear if squirrels can be kept as pets in Florida.

I haven't been able to find statistics on how many squirrels are kept as pets in states that prohibit the practice. Some states, including California, are especially strict about even feeding wild animals. In San Bernardino County:

§ 32.1301 Food Left Outside for Certain Mammalian Predators. (a) No person shall feed or in any manner provide food for one or more non-domesticated mammalian predators. A non-domesticated mammalian predator shall include coyotes, raccoons, foxes, opossums, bears, mountain lions, and bobcats.

§ 32.1302 Food Left Outside for Any Animal During Certain Hours. No person shall leave or permit to be left out-of-doors food for any animal between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of any one day and 6:00 a.m. of the following day, unless the area where the food is left is not accessible to non-domesticated mammalian predators.

My wife and I, had we lived there, would have been in violation of these ordinances simply by leaving bread out for our backyard birds if a possum had happened on it, or indeed, even if a bird had found it between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

Most of these laws are simply unenforceable. At best, they're equivalent to the current situation with marijuana laws: even in states where marijuana is still illegal, police will usually just seize it for destruction or stamp it out on the ground unless the quantity appears to be for sale; they'll usually either issue a citation or just a verbal warning. As a practical matter, officers have fairly wide discretion, and they recognize that when it's legal in one state but still illegal in their jurisdiction, the perception of fairness is important.

So it's particularly puzzling that the New York authorities treated Mark Longo so harshly:

Mark Longo, whose pet P’nut captured the hearts of 3 million social media users, was stunned when a convoy of vehicles carrying officials from the state departments of Environmental Conservation and Health arrived at his Pine City home Wednesday.

They served him with a surprise warrant allowing them to snatch away P’nut the squirrel and Fred, a raccoon he’d taken in.

“They treated me like I was a terrorist. They treated this raid as if I was a drug dealer. They ransacked my house for five hours,” Longo told The Post Saturday.

“They asked my wife, who is of German descent, what her immigration status was. They asked if I had cameras in my house. They wouldn’t allow me to go to the bathroom without a police escort, who then checked the back of the toilet to see if I was hiding anything there.”

State laws allowing raccoons as pets vary as widely as those for squirrels. In addition, Longo was apparently working to obtain legal status for the squirrel:

State law requires people to get a license if they wish to own a wild animal. Longo has said he was working to get Peanut - also known as P'Nut or PNUT - certified as an educational animal.

Those who watch On Patrol: Live know that officers who stop motorists for registration irregularities are often lenient if the motorists can explain what they're doing to get the problem straightened out, recognizing that they need the car to get to work. I'm puzzled that the New York authorities couldn't take a similar position with Longo, considering the high public profile of the case. According to the link,

"We will make a stance on how this government and New York state utilizes their resources," Mark Longo said in a phone interview.

He declined to specify his possible next steps but said officials would hear from him soon about what happened to Peanut the squirrel and Fred, a rescued raccoon that was also confiscated and put down.

. . . Longo said Saturday that he didn't see Peanut bite anyone during what he described as an hourslong, heavy-handed search. The authorities haven't spoken with him since they left the property, he said.

. . . A request for comment was sent to the DEC on Saturday.

At best, it appears that the New York authorities displayed remarkably poor judgment, the sort of thing that could result in disciplinary problems for an ordinary police officer.

Games Are Being Played

NEW: Mark Halperin says his sources in both parties say Kamala Harris is not doing well in Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona.

Halperin says one Democrat source and two Republican sources say they would be “somewhere between surprised and shocked” if Harris won Wisconsin.

“It… pic.twitter.com/uAyqwKDXNY

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 2, 2024

I've already noted here that Mark Halperin, one of the most influential commentators on this year's campaign, is working hard to rehabilitate himself and get back into a cushy corporate media job. His selling point appears to be that he's got all kinds of contacts that he presumably developed the last time he was in a cushy corporate media job, before the unpleasantness, and he still strategically pulls the contacts out when it suits him. This he did yesterday, as shown above.

I've also already pointed out here that Nate Silver, who is frequently characterized as a "pollster", "statistician", or most recently "election guru", is none of the above; his background is in professional poker. For reasons that are unclear, he was eased out of his cushy corporate media job at FiveThirtyEight and, like Halperin, is trying to get himself another cushy corporate media gig to replace his old one.

All spring, Silver was building his reputation on pointing out that Joe Biden needed to make big changes, which made Silver a bit of a contrarian, and it got him a lot of attention. But by early August, after Harris became the Democrat pick, he was with mainstream media in giving her a 55-45 chance of winning the election. He stayed with Harris for much of the campaign -- so much for the contrariam, at least for the time being. Then a few weeks ago, he began cautiously realigning himself with Trump. Now all of a sudden, it's back to the full monty:

Polling guru Nate Silver lashed out at other survey junkies in his field for “cheating” in the final stretch of the 2024 presidential election — accusing them of recycling some results to keep the race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris close.

The FiveThirtyEight founder said irresponsible pollsters were “herding” their numbers, or using past results to affect current ones, to keep Vice President Harris and former President Trump within a point or two of each other each time.

“I kind of trust pollsters less,” Silver said on his podcast, name-checking Emerson College. “They all, every time a pollster [says] ‘Oh, every state is just plus-one, every single state’s a tie,’ no! You’re f–king herding! You’re cheating! You’re cheating!” he fumed.

“You are lying! You’re putting your f–king finger on the scale!'”

Silver’s own vaunted model puts Trump ahead of Harris, 55% to 45%, as voters prepare to head to the polls in just three days.

I can't see this as anything but a strategic move on Silver's part to position himself as an accurate predictor, hoping that the likely outcome of the election will make him look insightful -- although of course, there were smart people who never thought Kamala had much of a chance, just not many in corporate media.

But let's look at Mark Halperin's take in the post above.

Mark Halperin says his sources in both parties say Kamala Harris is not doing well in Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona.

Halperin says one Democrat source and two Republican sources say they would be “somewhere between surprised and shocked” if Harris won Wisconsin.

. . . And the focus has been on Pennsylvania. Here, on this platform, we did a two-hour show called 'It's All About Pennsylvania'. And what I'm here to tell you tonight, based on my reporting with both Democrats and Republicans, . . . that it could be that Kamala Harris wins Pennsylvania but loses the White House, because she loses Wisconsin.

Wait a moment. Halperin has all these great sources, Republican, Democrat, local, national, and in all the states, best sources you could possibly have, bunches of them, and they're calling North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona -- but none of those muiltitidinous and authoritative sources has told him anything about Pennsylvania? Whoa, that means the election is a tossup!!

In other words, Mark Halperin, whom a commenter on the thread says

has emerged as the most impressive source of election reporting this cycle. He has a really nice delivery style and somehow maintains an objectivity I’ve seen in almost no other journalist.

is almost certainly withholding information that could make things look much worse for Kamala. He's acting as if he's got the latest, breathless insider information, and it's that the race is a tossup?? Well, that's likely to make someone in corporate media decide all is forgiven as far as Halperin is concerned: he's the guy who can take the corporate line and make you think it's the latest skinny from behind the scenes.

I'm more with Mark Mitchell, the head pollster at Rasmussen Reports, speaking with Matt Margolis:

He told me he’s seeing an election comparable to 1980.

“I think this is Reagan/Carter,” Mitchell told me. “I think there are very specific reasons.”

He explained, “I thought this whole time that Trump would outperform my polling,” largely because voter loyalty has shifted, and traditional party affiliation “means a lot less.” To account for this, Mitchell adjusted Rasmussen’s polling method to “weight by recall vote,” which focuses on how voters cast their ballots in 2020, rather than relying solely on demographics like age, gender, or race.

Mitchell’s polling has shown Trump with a consistent lead, even “up two points nationally,” revealing a “mind change of about 6-7 points” from Biden to Trump from 2020 to 2024. He attributes this shift to “low propensity voters crawling over broken glass to vote Trump” while some Democrat-leaning voters stay “on the couch in traditional blue areas.” Mitchell argues that the polling industry is still “a little bit left” of reality and underestimates the enthusiasm among Trump’s base.

Nate Silver has been all over the place since Joe was edged out of the race, but it looks like he figures who's the winner at this point, and he's going to call it for Trump in hopes it will help his career. Mark Halperin is still tying to sell himself as the safer choice. Games are being played either way.

More On Authenticity

Yesterday I talked about Trump's authenticity, but I thinbk authenticity goes both ways. What aboslutely nbody has mentioned about Kamala is her forced upper-class style, fully visible in her Vogue cover last month. I did some web searching on "upoper class style" and got answers like this:

The biggest thing I learned about these kinds of women is that they signal their wealth to others in their social class through hair, skin, and nail care even more than clothing. Upper-class women go for natural and subtle. They want you to think their hair and skin are just naturally gorgeous.

So no loud or unnatural colored hair, and a great, simple, flattering cut. If you color your hair, find a skilled stylist who can make it look super natural with highlights and lowlights, and be willing to pay for their skills. Rich women will notice a poor dye job immediately and will perceive you as cheap. I am dead serious.

Fake nails are a big no-no, it's judged as trashy. I mean those super long, brightly colored, square-tipped nails that are big right now. The kind you see on women like Cardi B or Billie Eilish, with nail art and such. Instead, you want to keep your hands well-manicured at all times and looking as natural as possible. Very rich women often have their nails manicured bi-weekly (the manicurist comes to their home) and have them buffed to a shine instead of using polish of any kind.

Skincare is a big thing among these women. If you have great skin, show it off using just a little bit of subtle eye and lip products, and let your good skin glow. If you need something to cover imperfections, go for a high-quality BB cream rather than a foundation. Korean and French skin care brands are the most well-regarded.

In clothing:

Cultivate a high-end look through minimalist shapes, neutral colors, and quality fabrics. Look for clothing or accessories crafted from luxurious natural materials. Opt for simple yet classic designs with earth tones and neutrals like black, white, beige, and navy. Make your style exude sophistication and class.

. . . Jewelry can be a trap. A little of it cries out "rich," but too much of it cries out "poseur." Think Jay-Z more so than Trinidad James, and Queen Elizabeth more than Snooki. A few pieces of stylish jewelry can give your look rich elegance.

Among Kamala's handlers must certainly be a fashion consultant. CNN describes her outfit:

Dressed in a mocha-colored sharp lapelled suit (a Gabriela Hearst piece from her own collection, according to Vogue) and a plum satin blouse, Harris assumes a relaxed yet considered power pose.

But there are also incongruities in her style that can't be fixed with a fashion consultant. Other upper class characteristics include:

A well modulated voice, devoid of too much emotion.

. . . We make certain assumptions about other members of our clubs. Private clubs are still socially homogeneous and there really is no way that middle or working class people can participate and consequently can’t learn club etiquette.

. . . There is a common thread and that’s that the mannerisms are learned from an early age and are natural, not artificial or obviously “learned”,

Her nasal voice and the cackle clearly don't fit, and no amount of coaching appears to have helped. This contributes to her overall air of inauthenticity, despite the effort her handlers put into her wardrobe and grooming.

But the biggest problem is her eagerness to talk in what she thinks are ethnic or working-clas accents:

Kamala Harris has raised eyebrows on the presidential campaign trail for using 'fake accents' that experts suggest could be a result of a confidence issue.

Harris, who was born in California and spent some of her childhood in Canada, has been accused of putting on Midwestern, Southern and even French accents during depending on who her audience is.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert, who owns a practice in New York, said there are two main reasons people alter their accents, which in psychology circles is known as 'mirroring' or the 'chameleon effect.'

. . . While her shift in policies has come under fire over the years, her 'fake accent' has taken center stage in the last few months and some Americans have viewed it as superficial.

'By altering her accent she might be perceived as inauthentic or manipulative and ultimately could undermine trust if the audience feels she is not genuine,' said Alpert.

This has become a particular problem with African-Americans, who see her as clearly affecting a white upper-class wardrobe and look, married to a rich white man who's suddenly decided to identify as an observant Jew in order to accuse Trump of being a Nazi, while variously adopting black and other ethnic speech patterns in an effort to appeal to the working class and minorities.

It's phony, and people notice. My instinct says that most people can't wait to get Kamala, her husband, and the Walzes out of the public eye, they're all so phony they're annoying.

Trump Puts On A Hi-Vis Vest

I don't think we've seen a presidential politician with a visual instinct like Trump's since either Roosevelt, and that includes Reagan. The harumphs from the corporate media have been non-stop, George Takei, Star Trek has-been, said, “In fairness, it’s not really a Trump garbage truck until it’s on fire.” Rolling Stone's headline was, "Bizarre: Billionaire Trump Awkwardly Dresses Up as a Garbage Truck Driver". Newsweek says, "Video of Donald Trump 'Struggling' to Enter Garbage Truck Goes Viral". CNN said,

Donald Trump broke out the props Wednesday in the final days of this chaotic campaign as the former president seized on a garbled remark by President Joe Biden that seemed to insult Trump voters as “garbage.”

Trump emerged from his plane ahead of a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, wearing a bright orange and yellow safety vest before climbing into a garbage truck – with a big “TRUMP” sign emblazoned on the side – to take questions from reporters.

. . . Still wearing the safety vest, Trump opened his Green Bay rally – one of his final chances to address Wisconsin voters before next week’s election – by speaking at length about the props. He praised his “very capable people” for getting it all together so quickly and then recapped their discussion beforehand.

“One of my people came in and said, ‘Sir, you know the word ‘garbage’ is the hottest thing right now. Out there, the hottest thing out there. Sir, would you like to drive a garbage truck?” Trump said. “They pulled up this garbage truck. I don’t know how the hell they did it so fast. I have very capable people. They put a big sign on the truck. Did you see it?”

I have a feeling Trump is minimizing his own role in the stunt here. Two weeks ago, I thought he couldn't possibly outdo the imagery from his McDonald's gig, but all of a sudden, he's done it. Before that, I marveled at how the image of his fist in the air under the flag at the Butler rally evoked the famous Iwo Jima flag photo, while the shot of the Secret Service agents helping him down from the stage there somehow brought Michelangelo's Pieta to mind.

This reflects Trump's instinctive ability to suck all the air out of public debate. His detractors call it narcissism, but the problem with that is that narcissists are phony, and many people instincively respond to phony. It's hard to find insightful disccussion of Trump's authenticity, but here's a take from a UK writer, Gunn Enli:

Trump’s perceived authenticity, a rarity in the polished realm of politics, has been a cornerstone of his unexpected 2016 triumph and remains a potent force as he positions himself at the forefront of the upcoming race. But what underpins this connection with voters, and why is it problematic for the health of our democracy?

At the heart of Trump’s relationship with his base is a performance that has been meticulously crafted to exhibit traits which are valued by his supporters: consistency, spontaneity, ordinariness, outspokenness, and outsider status.

. . . This strategic performance of authenticity is not without its perils. The problem arises when authenticity is conflated with virtue. Being perceived as authentic gives Trump a troubling latitude to engage in behavior and rhetoric that, under traditional scrutiny, would be considered unacceptable or even reprehensible. His ‘authentic’ persona allows him to navigate past scandals and missteps with an ease not afforded to traditional politicians.

Enli then worries that if his authenticity gives Trump a free pass to violate social boundaries, he might turn into Hitler, or something like that. I think there are key reasons why this won't happen. The first is that Trump has a sense of humor, even a self-deprecating one, when for instance he said he'd continue to wear the vest because it made him look slimmer. This isn't Hitler. Nazis didn't have a sense of humor.

The second is that Trump is a truthteller. By their nature, truthtellers violate boundaries. This is Groucho Marx's secret, and it's worth pointing out that Trump has a Hollywood sense of the visual and a comic's sense of timing. Like Marx, Trump often sneaks the truthtelling past the boundaries by dressing it up as humor.

The conventionally minded are having a difficult time wrapping their minds around the election outcome as things stand. Nobody seems to know quite what to do about Trump in a hi-vis vest -- Trump in a McDonald's apron was bad enough.

No One's Mentioning This In Corporate Media

Politico has a piece from yesterday that I can only call wishful thinking:

Kamala Harris is counting on suburban voters to do what they’ve done since Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016: reject him.

It may be the single most important piece of her electoral math. While Donald Trump has made inroads with Black and Latino men, polls in the late stage of the election show the suburbs could still power her to victory. The latest Wall Street Journal poll found Harris leading among suburban voters by 7 percentage points, while a Reuters/Ipsos analysis showed the vice president winning suburban households by 6 points.

. . . Inside the Harris campaign, aides said they believe they will improve on President Joe Biden’s performance with suburban voters in 2020, driven by college-educated voters and women who are turned off by the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Another piece there from yesterday claims this is in fact paying off:

There’s a new kind of gender gap in the 2024 election: Women are voting early in huge numbers, far outpacing men.

It’s giving anxious Democrats — who see female voters as key to a Kamala Harris victory — newfound hope heading into the final week of the campaign.

. . . It’s impossible to know who these women are voting for, including whether Democrats are winning over unaffiliated or moderate Republican women disillusioned with former President Donald Trump. But the gender gap has been one of the defining features of the 2024 campaign, and Harris allies see the lack of a surge of male voters as an encouraging sign.

Here's the problem I see. Reports from the field, especially Pennsylvania, indicate that there are hours-long lines for early voting -- but local government operatives are trying to get people to leave before they vote. Farther down in the thread, a post noted that if people are in line before 8 PM, they're entitled to cast their votes. Elsewhere in suburban Bucks County, we see this:

DISENFRANCHISEMENT: At least 50 voters in Levittown, PA at the Lower Bucks Government Services Center were denied the opportunity to vote in person today. Throughout the afternoon, certain individuals paced the line of voters making statements like “oh the lines really long we… pic.twitter.com/zhuCEgCBWq

— Paul Giblin 🇺🇸 (@dreamlessod) October 29, 2024

Levittown is quintessentially suburban -- if the suburbanites waiting in line for hours to vote are there to support Kamala, as Politico claims they are, wouldn't the polling staff want to give them every chance to vote, sooner rathee than later? Elsewhere in suburban Bucks County, we see this:

🚨 ⁦⁦@TheDemocrats⁩ are running around in Bucks County, PA with badges trying to pretend like they are elections officials.

These people are not officials.

Intimidation tactics! pic.twitter.com/M3ILEEQPNg

— James Blair (@JamesBlairUSA) October 29, 2024

So operatives who aren't even election officials are trying to look like they are, and they're telling Bucks County suburbanites to go home and come back later, although as long as the voters are in line by 8 PM, they can cast their votes.

🚨 Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

There’s been lines like this for days across counties in PA. Only for elections officials to come out and push people out of line and tell them to come back.

Voter suppression! pic.twitter.com/aYrR1N1AeD

— James Blair (@JamesBlairUSA) October 29, 2024

As of this morning,

The Trump-Vance campaign has filed a lawsuit against Bucks County, Pennsylvania, accusing county election officials of obstructing GOP voters from participating in on-demand mail-in voting.

Speaking at a packed rally in Allentown, RNC Chair Michael Whatley emphasized the historic momentum of Republican voters across the state and blasted Bucks County officials for attempting to halt the red wave sweeping Pennsylvania.

“Now, I know that a lot of you today have seen these videos of people being turned away at the polls in places like Delaware County and Bucks County. And last night, we even saw one of our great local leaders, Val Biancaniello, arrested at the polls for telling people to stay in line. All she was doing was telling folks, ‘Stay and vote.’ They took her away in handcuffs,” Whatley said during the rally.

“Folks, here’s what’s happening: Democrat election officials are seeing our numbers. They’re seeing our turnout. They are seeing us breaking early vote records across Pennsylvania. They are terrified, and they want to stop our momentum. We are not going to let them suppress our votes. We are going to fight.

Lancaster County, which is rural Amish country and more traditionally Republican, also had long lines for early voting:

Voters attempting to vote early at the Lancaster County Elections office were met by lines that stretched out the door and out onto the sidewalk earlier this week.

Tuesday was the last day to apply for a mail-in ballot and take advantage of Pennsylvania’s version of early in-person voting for this year’s presidential election. Voters from across Lancaster county – many voting early for the first time – attempted to cast their ballot through an unfamiliar process.

. . . Her story was not uncommon among the voters gathered at the elections office Monday and Tuesday for early voting. Many had never done in-person early voting and were pushed toward this method by circumstances or a distrust of mail-in voting.

The post below is from a voter in Pittsburgh suburb Bethel Park, where again there are hours-long lines waiting to vote early. In this case, busloads of Spanish-speaking voters were escorted past the lines to vote ahead of the others, apparently faciolitated by poll workers -- but if the Harris campaign believes college-educated suburban women are going to tip the balance, why interfere with them this way?

BUSSES of non-english speaking "citizens" are guided past Americans who had been waiting in line for hours to cast their early votes. These people, all wearing Harris Walz stickers, were directed through the voting process by a handful of "translators". pic.twitter.com/AkHWWBHQ9e

— Emma Cawwod (@emmagcawood) October 27, 2024

This all has my contrarian instincts tingling.

If The Election Is So Close, Why Is The Smart Money Acting As If It Isn't?

Attribute whatever motive you want to Jeff Bezos, for instance:

ex washington post editor: “Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people,” he said on Saturday. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made."

The implication is that Bezos offered to squash a potential Washington Post endorsement of Harris in return for giving Bezos's Blue Origin favorable treatment for contracts in an upcoming Trump administration. Let's accept this -- Bezos has never had Rockefeller-level PR -- but then, let's also grant him the cupidinous instincts this implies.

Why would Bezos see the point in making this deal? If the election were flip-a-coin close, which among other things might imply that a WaPo endorsement could tip it to Kamala, why change course? I think a reasonable conclusion is that insiders seem to think it's not close at all. Here's the headline at CEO Today: Trump’s VIP Tech List: CEOs Scramble to Suck Up to the Ex-President!

In a series of recent statements, Trump asserts that several tech CEOs are actively reaching out to him. Prominent figures like Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, and Mark Zuckerberg, head of Meta, have faced criticism from Trump in the past, particularly regarding what he perceives as the suppression of conservative voices on their platforms. Yet, as the polls tighten in the race against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump claims these leaders are becoming more favorable toward him, aligning their interests with the possibility of a Trump victory.

According to reports from the Washington Post, influential business leaders are adopting a cautious approach, potentially recognizing the implications of Trump’s return to power. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has made his support for Trump explicit, contributing financially to his campaign.

The link goes into more derail on Bezos's business interests as they relate to Trump:

Former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has recently faced scrutiny for the Washington Post’s decision to refrain from endorsing presidential candidates, which Trump criticized. According to Trump, Bezos called him after the assassination attempt, expressing amazement at the unfolding events. Trump noted, “Despite the fact you own the Washington Post, I appreciate it.” Bezos' connection to government contracts, particularly through Amazon Web Services and Blue Origin, adds another layer of complexity to his relationship with Trump.

A Trump presidency could lead to significant changes in how Amazon operates, particularly regarding government contracts. Historically, Trump has leveraged federal contracts as a tool for both rewarding and punishing companies based on their alignment with his administration’s agenda. If Trump were to regain office, Amazon might find itself navigating a landscape with more direct ties to the federal government, influencing everything from regulations to contract awards. Additionally, Trump’s focus on domestic manufacturing could pressure Amazon to adjust its logistics and supply chain strategies to prioritize U.S.-based operations.

Again, if the election were the tossup we're being told it is, why would people like Zuckerberg, mentioned here, Bezos, or Warren Buffett, via Business Insider, suddenly be hedging their bets?

Warren Buffett has not endorsed Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and made it clear this week he will not publicly back either presidential candidate.

. . . The Berkshire CEO's reticence may seem surprising as he's previously thrown his weight behind Democratic presidential candidates. He organized fundraisers for Barack Obama in 2011 and stumped for Hillary Clinton in 2016, even walking on stage at a rally to hammer Donald Trump over his bankrupt businesses, reluctance to publish his tax returns, and rude treatment of others.

Yet the 94-year-old billionaire explained why he's now keeping his mouth shut during Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting in 2022. Buffett said he'd learned that "you can make a whole lot more people sustainably mad than you can make temporarily happy by speaking out on any subject."

Translation: Buffett doesn't want to make Trump sustainably mad at him, when it's not worth making Harris temporarily happy, because it's certain Trump will win on November 5, and she will lose. His BNSF Railway won big when Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, because it meant oil shipments from Canada would continue to come by rail. It was to his advantage to support Biden early in 2020; now he needs to appease Trump early in 2024, because he needs to control the damage when Trump reverses this policy.

Yet the Wall Street Journal, thought to be the organ of plutocracy, still feigns obtuseness:

A week from the election, we have bipartisan consensus on two points regarding Pennsylvania.

The first is that the presidential contest is way too close to call. The second is that only one contender has coattails. Both candidates for Senate—Republican challenger Dave McCormick and Democratic incumbent Bob Casey—agree on who that is: Donald Trump.

If the election were really "way too close to call", why is Casey acting as though Trump is going to win? Now we even have Alan Dershowitz saying he can't vote for Harris:

Like everyone else here, he won't say he's voting for Trump, but if he;'s saying he won't vote for Harris, that's the same thing. I think he's too smart to throw his vote away by voting for Jill Stein.

November 5 isn't going to be cloae at all.