1. Never let a Covid crisis go to waste! Use the pandemic to push for a nation-wide vote-by-mail scheme. By now we’re all familiar with the inequities, even idiocies, of the Covid-19 lockdown rules. In many states and cities, it’s forbidden to have normal assembly for social gatherings, businesses, church services, and even hospital visits.
On the other hand, it’s okay to have massive Black Lives Matter protests, Antifa riots, and anything else the left approves of, at least tacitly. Obviously, such unequal treatment is a formula for societal frustration, rage, and, yes, chaos.
And what a friend the Democrats have in crisis and chaos!
In fact, Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris
has said that this sort of chaos is likely to continue—and
should continue—through the election. “Everyone beware because they’re not going to stop,” Harris said about the (
often violent) protests erupting in American cities. “They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day.”
But according to the Democrats, the only certainty in all of this chaos is that Americans—who are safe to take to the streets in mass protests and riots—are not safe to vote in person on November 3. We must vote by mail, they tell us.
Mail-in voting is “essential from a health reason because we want to keep people at home to vote without having them all collect on Election Day,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
said last month. “People should not have to choose between their health and their vote.”
If you’re still scratching your head wondering why it’s safe to riot but not to vote, veteran political consultant
Dick Morris explained the Democrats’ game plan: “If they feel they’re legitimately losing the election, [they] are going to use the excuse of the Covid virus—nobody can come out and vote in person, they claim … and they’re going to deliberately game the system by sending out millions and millions of mail-in ballots for people that don’t exist or have already voted.”
“And the states will not verify the [mail-in ballot] signatures because they are under the control of Democrats,” Morris added.
2. Enlist all the messengers at your disposal (Hollywood, Corporate Media, Big Tech, Pro Sports) to push for vote-by-mail. The Democrats are using every tool in their considerable arsenal to push the vote-by-mail messaging, including
multi-million-dollar super PAC ad campaigns. Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar
has teamed up with failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to mandate a national vote-by-mail system, and a group called
Stop Republicans has launched a digital blitz to push for the idea.
But the Democrats’ favorite tool is, of course, Hollywood and pop culture.
As early as April, about a month into the coronavirus shutdown, the Hollywood wing of the Democrat-Media Complex kicked into high gear to push vote-by-mail.
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, who were among the first big name figures to contract Covid-19,
teamed up with former First Lady Michelle Obama and former Obama White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in April for an ostensibly non-partisan virtual voter registration drive that encouraged states to loosen vote-by-mail requirements.
📷
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson joined former First Lady Michelle Obama for a virtual get out the vote event on April 20, 2020, to encourage people to sign up for mail-in voting. (YouTube)
In August, a group of A-list celebrities
hosted a virtual “United to Save the Vote” gala—which they claimed was “fiercely nonpartisan”—to raise money to “protect the 2020 election” by, in part, increasing trust in mail-in voting. The virtual roster included Jennifer Lawrence, Jamie Foxx, Dave Matthews, Ed Helms, Jennifer Lopez, Alicia Keys, Sia, Jake Johnson, Sarah Silverman, Kenan Thompson, Chelsea Handler, Gloria Estefan, Randall Park, Erich Bergen, Nick Kroll, Sophia Bush, Jonathan Scott, Kenny G., George Lopez, etc. You get the picture.
According to the event’s website,
these zealously anti-Trump “fiercely nonpartisan” celebs
gathered virtually to counter the efforts of “politicians who are undermining the security and validity of mail-in voting.”
Meanwhile, the Democrat-Media Complex is engaged in a bit of journalistic jujitsu churning out stories about how the
Republicans are the ones who plan to steal the election. Here’s a
headline from the
Washington Post: “Republicans’ long-term vote heist matters more than Trump’s tantrums.” And here’s
one from
Rolling Stone: “The Plot Against America: The GOP’s Plan to Suppress the Vote and Sabotage the Election.” But it’s hard to top this
headline from the Daily Beast: “This Is How Republicans Steal an Election, and Maybe Kill Some Dems in the Process.”
At the same time, the Democrat-Media Complex is also celebrating the
new wokeness of pro sports, which is busy helping Democrats win in November. On September 7, Politico
asked, “Could LeBron James Defeat Donald Trump?” As has been widely reported, the National Basketball Association has agreed to
set up a “social justice coalition” to help get out the (Democrat) vote.
3. Get millions of questionable mail-in ballots into the system. Here we might pause to note the distinction between the various kinds of voting by mail.
It is true that absentee voting by mail has been with us for many years. Even President Trump has
voted by mail, and our active duty military regularly
votes by mail. In fact, Republicans have been quite successful in the past with absentee voting. In Florida in 2016, for example, more Republicans
voted by mail than Democrats, and Trump carried the state. There is even
legitimate concern that any disparagement of mail-in voting could unintentionally hurt Republicans in November because their voters like voting by absentee ballots. Indeed, there are sincere and legitimate reasons for why absentee voting should be available during the pandemic.
However, there is a big difference between allowing absentee ballots as an option for people who are unable to make it to the polls and mandating that an entire election be done by mail-in voting.
And there is a really big
difference between the long-standing practice of sending absentee ballots to voters who take the initiative of requesting them and the new Democratic proposal to mail out unsolicited ballots (or applications for ballots) to every registered voter regardless of whether those voters are still alive or eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. And, as we shall explain, this new effort to mail out ballots to every registered voter is coupled with the left’s years-long fight to prevent these same voter rolls from being updated to remove dead and ineligible people from the lists.
And to make matters extra complicated and chaotic, every state has a different standard for mail-in voting. Some states have
more safeguards in place than others. For example, some states require that every mail-in ballot include a verifiable signature, additional witness or notary signatures, and even an enclosed copy of the voter’s photo ID. Some states have few, if any, such safeguards. Some states
are loosening or experimenting with the rules for the first time due to the coronavirus pandemic.
And then there is the issue of sending all these ballots through the mail. Can the U.S. Postal Service process them all in a timely manner? Every state has a different deadline for when these ballots need to be postmarked. What happens if they don’t arrive in time? Can election officials process them all in a timely manner? Counting mail-in ballots is much more
time-consuming. It can involve matching signatures, checking postmarks, flattening out ballots that were crumpled in the mail, etc. If the recent primaries in
Wisconsin and
New York are anything to go by, mail-in ballots will take weeks to process and that process will be fraught with problems and
potential for fraud.
(To give you a flavor of the postal chaos to come, the chief clerk for Brooklyn’s Kings County Board of Elections
testified in federal court last month that in 2018, the USPS delivered “several hundred absentee ballots from the previous November” — which was “five months after Election Day.” And in Wisconsin this week, three trays of mail, which included absentee ballots, were
found in a ditch.)
📷
Election officials take receipt of a dolly loaded with mail-in ballots at election offices in downtown Pittsburgh, PA, on May 27, 2020. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
There is also the issue of how voters can apply to vote by mail and who is eligible to do so. According to
FiveThirtyEight, nine states and the District of Columbia will simply mail every registered citizen a ballot. In another 14 states, authorities will mail everyone an
application to vote by mail. (Although, as we shall see, some states take a generous view of who, or what, might be eligible to receive such applications if outside interest groups decide to mail them out.) In 16 states,
nothing is automatically mailed to voters, although voters can apply online to vote by mail. In six states, voting by mail is permissible only with a “valid excuse.” And the remaining states are some hybrid of the preceding categories.
All of these different rules provide plenty of opportunity to game the system on questions ranging from the verification of identity, addresses, and signatures to the timeliness of postmarks and the ability of the postal service to deliver ballots in a timely manner. Because there are so many “moving parts” to the vote-by-mail process, mail-in ballots are fraught with the potential for fraud. Yes, we’ve seen voter fraud before, but we ain’t seen nothing yet. The further we get from requiring that voters go to the polls to vote in person, the more we expand the avenues for fraud.
Consider, for example, the fraud potential that comes with mailing ballots to every registered voter. Back in 2012, a Pew Center study
found that
1.8 million dead people were still registered to vote and that 24 million voter registrations were un-confirmable.
Though some states have made progress in updating their voting rolls since the 2012 Pew study, a comprehensive analysis
conducted this year by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) found that 349,773 apparently dead people still remain on the voter rolls across 41 states. And apparently the dead still
vote! The report also discovered a surprising number of people who apparently voted more than once.
The report
found:
During the 2018 General Election, 37,889 likely duplicate registrants are apparently credited for casting two votes from the same address, and 34,000 registrants appear to have voted from non-residential addresses. Additionally, 6,718 registrants were apparently credited for voting after death.
According to the
report, New York, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and California were the top five states with dead voters on the rolls, accounting for 51 percent of all the dead registrants. The crucial swing states of Michigan and Florida had 34,225 and 25,162 dead registrants respectively.
That would seem to be a serious indictment of the system and a warning against mailing unsolicited mail-in ballots or even mail-in ballot applications to everyone on the voter rolls. But Democrats are working hard to bulldoze the path for vote-by mail, or, as Breitbart News often calls it,
cheat-by-mail. Democratic governors in
New York and
Pennsylvania have already moved to ease vote-by-mail, as have local officials in
Harris County, TX, population 4.7 million. Oh, and did we mention that in Nevada’s June primary, more than
223,000 ballots in Clark County (Las Vegas) went to a bum address? That means almost a
fifth of all the ballots mailed out in the county went to a bum address.
📷
Election workers process mail-in ballots during a nearly all-mail primary election in Las Vegas, NV, on June 9, 2020. (AP Photo/John Locher)
But, you might ask, why don’t we just make sure the voter rolls are accurate by removing people who have moved or died? Why don’t we have a standardized signature verification protocol and a requirement for an additional witness signature and photo ID for mail-in ballots to ensure they are legit? Good questions. The answer is the left fights these reforms.
Left-wing groups want to
expand access to voting by
registering as many people as possible, but they also fight to
block meaningful efforts to ensure that only eligible American citizens are voting. When Republicans enact legislation to encourage transparency and accuracy in our voting process by removing dead or ineligible voters from the rolls or mandating some form of identity verification, left-wing activists challenge these initiatives in court to stop any reform.
Eric Eggers, the author of
Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election,
explained to Breitbart News how left-wing interest groups have fought for years to keep the loopholes that could potentially create a “tsunami of voter fraud” in November.
“Organizations that are funded by George Soros both fight to keep those vulnerabilities in place, as in Ohio, by trying to prevent efforts to pass voter-ID laws or to make the voter rolls more secure,” Eggers said. “But then they also — and this is really the insidious part — they fund organizations that go out and round up voters, regardless of legality of their status, and force them through the vulnerabilities in the system.”
“There are 248 counties in this country that have more registered voters than actual citizens of legal voting age,” Eggers said. “It’s a problem because it creates opportunity for organizations like the formerly known ACORN and La Raza — they’re all funded by [billionaire George] Soros — to go and figure out where the vulnerabilities are and force the voters — whether they’re legal or not — through the gaps.”
But according to the establishment media, the instances of mail-in voter fraud are “
infinitesimally small.” And to prove
this, the media loves to
quote the “non-partisan” Brennan Center for Justice. What the media fails to tell you is that the Soros-funded Brennan Center
is leading the charge to
expand mail-in voting. They don’t just have a dog in this fight — they have a whole kennel! Quoting the Brennan Center to deny the reality of mail-in voter fraud is like quoting Big Tobacco to deny that smoking causes cancer.
And yet when Donald Trump or any Republican points out the obvious vulnerabilities in our voting system, the Democrat-Media Complex quotes biased sources to vilify Republicans. Nancy Pelosi actually
called President Trump and Republicans “enemies of the state” for expressing concerns about vote-by-mail’s fraud potential.
It seems fair to say that Democrats are making sure that the system works for
them. Recently, Politico
headlined a long piece, “Inside the Democratic Party’s plan to prevent vote-by-mail disaster,” detailing the efforts of the party, and its well-funded allies, to win the November mail war.
A key part of that plan is legal challenges. For instance, in Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union
accused the state government of wrongfully purging nearly 200,000 voters from the rolls. In this legal battle, the ACLU is joined by the
Palast Investigative Fund, one of the myriad “non-partisan” foundations that the Democrats always have at their side.
Yet in the meantime, the ACLU has nothing to say when we discover, for example, that during the 2020 Michigan primaries, the number of ballots counted in
72 percent of Detroit’s
absentee ballot precincts didn’t match the number of ballots cast. And the votes counted in 46 percent of all of Detroit’s precincts–both absentee and in-person–didn’t match the number of ballots tracked in the precinct poll books. For perspective on what such abnormalities might portend for the next election, we might observe that Detroit has a population of 670,000. In 2016, Donald Trump won Michigan by a mere 10,704 votes.
Oh, and did we mention that a federal lawsuit filed last year
alleged that the city of Detroit had over 2,500 dead people still registered on its voter rolls, and about 4,788 registered Detroit voters were flagged as having potentially registered to vote twice or even three times. But I’m sure none of those dead people will vote by mail, right?
Oh, and while we’re on Michigan, we should also mention that Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Democratic Secretary of State who was
endorsed by Joe Biden and was a featured
speaker at the Democratic National Convention, misprinted the ballots that were created for Michigan voters serving in the military overseas. Guess which candidate was listed incorrectly? You guessed it: Trump! The bad ballots list the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate as President Trump’s running mate instead of Mike Pence. But don’t worry. The spokesperson for Michigan’s Democratic-Biden-endorsed-DNC-speaking Secretary of State has assured us that clerks “will be instructed to duplicate a vote for Trump” for any military voter who mails in one of these misprinted ballots.
📷
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) speaking during the fourth night of the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 20, 2020. (DNC via AP)
In the face of all this potentially embarrassing data, the Democrats have decided that the best defense is a good offense. For instance, Joe Biden stays on the offensive, regularly
accusing President Trump of seeking to squelch vote-by-mail; but he never allows that vote-by-mail might need to be
reformed. Biden charged on September 7 that Trump “wants to make sure those mail-in ballots don’t get where they’re supposed to get.”
We might wonder: If Biden routinely accuses Trump of cheating, should we be surprised if Democratic activists get the hint and decide that they could, and should, cheat on Biden’s behalf? After all, they might rationalize these efforts as fighting fire with fire.
Cheat-inclined Democrats might draw inspiration from an anonymous Democratic consultant in New Jersey who recently
confessed to the
New York Post that “fraud is more the rule than the exception.” The consultant explained the various ways in which political operatives can harvest mail-in ballots, change them by inserting different ballots into the envelope, use friendly postal workers to disappear ballots in neighborhoods that lean Republican, and so forth. A few hundred bogus ballots here and there can change an election.
“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes — it can make a difference,” the Democratic operative said. “It could be enough to flip states.”
Indeed, even Democratic pets can make a difference—
and they don’t even have to be alive! Recently in Atlanta, a family got a voter registration application in the mail for their
deceased house cat named Cody.
How did that happen, you ask? Well, outside
third-party groups can rent mailing lists and randomly send everyone on the list an absentee-ballot application or voter registration application that they downloaded from the state’s election website. Have you ever used your pet’s name to subscribe to something because you didn’t want junk mail in your own name? If so, don’t be surprised if Fluffy or Spot gets a voter registration or absentee ballot application in the mail.
Georgia’s election officials
assure us that Cody the cat would not have been able to vote at the polls in the Peach State because the cat doesn’t have a license or state ID. But one wonders if he would be allowed to vote by mail, assuming his registration application cleared. And, of course, not every state
requires a photo ID to vote like Georgia does.
Speaking of Georgia, its Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger,
announced on September 8 that his office had identified 150,000 Georgians who had applied for an absentee ballot and then showed up at the polls to vote in person in the June primary; that is, they wished to vote, carelessly or purposefully, for a second time. This in a primary in which a little less than 950,000 people voted; in other words, the attempted (or at least potentially attempted) double voting accounts for around a sixth of total ballots cast. Of these 150,000, Raffensberger added that perhaps 1,000 had actually succeeded in voting twice.
Were these innocent mistakes? Simple confusion? Or guilty action? Whatever the truth about these would-be double voters and actual double voters, we should applaud Georgia authorities for minimizing what could have been a major electoral debacle; thanks to their good work, it was only a
minor electoral debacle. In any case, the Georgia ACLU has
nothing to say about that.
Voter fraud exists even when you vote in person, but mail-in voting blows the doors wide open in fraud potential. And the Democrats are ready to fight for every ballot—pets and all!
4. Send Democratic lawyers into key districts to fight for every challenged ballot. Use the courts and progressive election officials to keep the count going as long as possible with as little verification as possible. As we have seen, each mailed-in ballot has the potential to foment a legal fight over its validity. In fact, the
Washington Post reported on August 24, that more than 534,000 primary votes in 23 states have been rejected for one reason or another:
Democrats and voting rights groups are now waging court battles to ensure that absentee ballots are not discarded on technicalities, pushing to require that ballots postmarked by Election Day be counted and to make signature-matching laws more voter-friendly.
Meanwhile, in Indiana,
a federal judge ruled that Hoosier election officials cannot reject ballots for dissimilar signatures without notifying the voter and giving him or her—aided, of course, by partisan pals—a chance to “cure” the ballot. In fact, 20 states allow a voter to attempt to cure a faulty ballot so that it can be counted. That might be a good idea, but we can see that each “cure” will take a lawyer, not a doctor.
In fact, with such legal fights in mind, the Biden-Harris campaign has already built a SWAT team of
600 lawyers, expecting many more recruits to come.
And just on September 14 came this
headline, courtesy of the
New York Times: “Biden Creates Legal War Room, Preparing for a Big Fight Over Voting.”
According to the
Times, two Democratic legal veterans–Dana Remus, who has served as Biden’s general counsel in the 2020 campaign, and Bob Bauer, a former Obama administration White House counsel–will co-head this legal effort. Others involved include former Obama attorney general Eric Holder and two former solicitors general in Democratic administrations, Donald B. Verrilli and Walter Dellinger. In all, the
Times tells us that “hundreds of lawyers will be involved, including a team at the Democratic law firm Perkins Coie, led by Marc Elias.”
The name Marc Elias might ring a bell because, as Breitbart News has
reported, he was in the middle of the infamous fake-news Christopher Steele dossier, having retained the firm of Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democratic National Committee. And come to think of it,
Bob Bauer, mentioned above, was also a longtime Perkins Coie lawyer, having been there, alongside Elias, during the 2016 presidential campaign and its Steele-y aftermath.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris herself is keeping up the drumbeat,
warning Democrats of the many bad things
Republicans are thought to be doing.
“There will be many obstacles that people are intentionally placing in front of Americans’ ability to vote,” Harris said. “We have classic voter suppression. We have a president who is trying to convince the American people not to believe in the integrity of our election system and compromise their belief that their vote might actually count.”
By “voter suppression,” she means any effort to make sure that only eligible living non-pet American citizens are voting in November.
But while we’re on this topic, we should note that the Department of Justice
announced this week that it’s investigating reports that nine military mail-in ballots were discarded in Pennsylvania. Seven of the ballots
were cast for President Trump; the contents of the other two are unknown. Yes, it’s only nine ballots, but the campaign season is young, and there are lots of places where marked ballots can be discarded.
And the crickets you hear is the sound of Democrats, normally so up-in-arms about vote suppression, now being oh-so-quiet about vote
destruction.
Democrats are armed and ready for a vote-by-mail
total war. We can expect they will have a ground game in every district. Every disputed ballot will get its own Democratic lawyer. Every critical district and state will see litigation over signature-matches, addresses, postmarks, and anything else that might affect Democratic balloting.
In fact, the Democrats’ legal team has already scored potentially game-changing court victories in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina on how long ballots can be counted after Election Day.
In Wisconsin, a federal judge
ruled Monday that mail-in ballots can be counted up to
six days after Election Day, and a ballot can be
counted even if there is no “definitive” sign of a postmark on it.
In Pennsylvania, the state’s Supreme Court
ruled last week that mail-in ballots can be received up to
three days after Election Day; and, similar to the Wisconsin ruling, these ballots can be counted even if there is no evidence that they were postmarked on time. (The Pennsylvania court handed the Democrats a second victory by keeping the Green Party candidate off the ballot, thereby preventing the Greens from peeling off any progressive voters. We note that the court didn’t grant the GOP a similar favor by kicking the Libertarian Party off the ballot.)
The Pennsylvania Secretary of State also
issued an order last week instructing clerks not to conduct signature matches on the mail-in ballots – which means that Pennsylvania essentially nullified signature verification because the state’s election officials won’t be verifying anything.
In Michigan, a judge
ruled that postmarked mail-in ballots can be accepted up to
14 days after Election Day, and third parties are allowed to deliver these ballots. This fraud-friendly delivery service is commonly known as “ballot harvest.” It’s all the rage in
California and other
third world countries.
📷
A ballot drop box in Detroit, MI, on Sept. 24, 2020. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
In North Carolina, a coalition of Democrat-aligned special interest groups
got the state to agree to accept mail-in ballots up to
nine days after Election Day and to allow voters to “cure” any problems with these ballots. North Carolina election officials also agreed to create vote-by-mail ballot “drop-off” stations, which is essentially an invitation for “ballot harvesting.”
You’ll notice that these are all swing states, and three of them – Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan – were the Rust Belt blue wall states that put Trump over the top in 2016. He won them by
22,748 (WI);
44,292 (PA), and
10,704 (MI) votes. And the Democrats are stopping at nothing to win them back.
Of course, these court victories were concerned with when the mail-in ballot delivery window will close. Let’s not forget the question of when the in-person polls will close. It’s a safe bet that Democratic lawyers will argue—and even sue, as they have in the past—for extra hours in places where their voters might come straggling in late. After all, many protestors and rioters seem to be night people.
submitted by Hi folks. In the latest podcast episode (189) Harris made some comments about Michael Bloomberg and stop-and-frisk. Let’s first of all take a look at what Harris said:
“Let’s start with Bloomberg, because he’s someone who is getting, you know there’s at least an attempt to defenestrate him based on a few things he said as mayor which may have been politically imprudent or too candid by half, but in
many respects not obviously wrong. And the arguments against him really seem to be pseudoarguments. And so, at the time of recording this this is a fairly vivid scandal or pseudoscandal in journalism now. But, the Democrats are pillorying him over remarks he made that were just unearthed from the Aspen Institute in 2015 when he was talking about stop-and-frisk. And I have the quote here, so this is Bloomberg in 2015, after he was mayor. He was I believe mayor for 11 years of New York City, and the policy for those who don’t recall it, it’s been since more or less phased out, but, the cops were stationed more in minority areas and stopping and frisking people looking for guns, mostly, and crime rates plummeted. There’s some uncertainty about the causal factor there, but it was not irrational at the time to think that stop-and-frisk was part of the policy that was succeeding in causing crime rates to plummet. Anyway, so Bloomberg said:
'95% of your murders and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25. That is true in New York. That is true in virtually every city in America. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people who are getting killed. So you want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets. Put those cops where the crime is. Which means minority neighborhoods.'
And then in a subsequent interview he said:
'One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying ‘Oh it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be, but it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the crime. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much, and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course, or a logic course.'
Alright so he’s clearly making it difficult for himself there, in hindsight, politically. But the reality is, all the data I’ve ever read about violent crime support what he’s saying here. The disproportionate number of perpetrators and the disproportionate number of victims are coming from minority communities. And what these communities suffer from is not too much policing, it’s been the wrong type of policing. There’s too much policing around petty crime, and not enough policing around solving murders, and how to get that right is a difficult question. But the people who are saying that the only way to have arrived at a stop-and-frisk policy was borne of racism, and not caring about the disparities of the way in which crime victimizes communities, that’s just clearly untrue. A completely rational and compassionate attempt to mitigate violent crime could have given you this policy. And it seems to me that the thing the Democratic party has to be able to admit at this point, in order to talk anything like sense on this topic, is that it’s a difficult social problem, that, the mayor was right in his diagnosis, that you could win money all day long in a casino that would allow you to place a bet on the age range and gender and minority identity of a perpetrator of a violent crime in New York City. You know, it’s not the ultra-Orthodox Jews who are mugging people in New York City. But that’s a politically toxic thing to make salient, and the remedy of stop-and-frisk became politically toxic, and probably wasn’t worth doing in hindsight. He could have figured that out earlier than he did, perhaps. But, the fact that he’s being castigated on the left as a racist monster, just seems to be emblematic of
all of the miscalibrations in our politics on the left, that the wokeness is ensuring. And it seems, above all, a recipe for giving us four more years of Trump in the end.”
Okay, well I have some thoughts about this. Let’s break this down into what was said, and what wasn’t said.
What was said.
Firstly, Harris is generally misrepresenting the situation when he says Democrats are ‘pillorying him’ over remarks he made. If you look at the transcripts of the
two recent debates, the comments aimed at Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy are generally not about the comments Harris quoted, but the policy itself.
From Nevada:
Sanders: ‘In order to beat Donald Trump, we’re going to need the largest voter turnout in the history of the United States. Mr. Bloomberg had policies in New York city of stop-and-frisk, which went after African American and Latino people in an outrageous way.’
Warren: ‘Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk.’
Biden: Well the fact of the matter is, he has not managed his city very, very well when he was there. He didn’t get a whole lot done. He has stop-and-frisk, throwing close to 5 million young black men up against a wall. And when we came along in our administration, President Obama and said, “We’re going to send in a mediator to stop it.” He said, “That’s unnecessary.”
Biden: ‘Yes. Let’s get something straight. The reason the stop and frisk change is because Barack Obama sent moderators to see what was going on. When we sent them there to say, “This practice has to stop,” the mayor thought it was a terrible idea. We send them there, a terrible idea. Let’s get the facts straight. Let’s get the order straight. And it’s not whether he apologize or not, it’s the policy. The policy was abhorrent and it was, in fact, of violation of every right people have. We are the one, our administration sent in people to monitor it. And the very time the mayor argued against that. This idea that he figured out it was a bad idea. He figured out it was a bad idea after we sent in monitors and said it must stop. Even then he continued the policy.’
Warren: ‘When the mayor says that he apologized, listen very closely to the apology. The language he used is about stop and frisk. It’s about how it turned out. Now this isn’t about how it turned out. This is about what it was designed to do to begin with. It targeted communities of color, it targeted black and brown men from the beginning. And if you want to issue a real apology, then the apology has to start with the intent of the plan as it was put together and the willful ignorance day by day by day of admitting what was happening. Even as people protested in your own street, shutting out the sounds of people telling you how your own policy was breaking their lives. You need a different apology.’
From South Carolina:
King: ‘Mayor Buttigieg, mayor to mayor, mayor to mayor, you've certainly had your issues with the black community as well. Do you think the New York City's implementation of stop and frisk was racist?’
Buttigieg: ‘Yes, in effect, it was. Because it was about profiling people based on their race. And the mayor even said that they disproportionately stopped white people too often and minorities too little. ’
O’Donnell: ‘Senator Klobuchar, was the way that the mayor implemented stop and frisk racist?’
Klobuchar: ‘Yes, and I think that what we need to do instead of just reviewing everything from the past is talk about where we're going to go forward.’
So we can see that generally, the comments being made by Democratic rivals are about the policy, how it was implemented, or how Bloomberg responded to criticism of the policy. Ditto comments made in
the press:
Repeating the phrase, “We will not beat Donald Trump with,” Sanders ticked off the issues that have dogged Bloomberg for a week: a “racist” policy like stop-and-frisk that “caused communities of color to live in fear,” his past opposition to raising the minimum wage and that he “blamed the end of racist policies such as redlining for the financial crisis.”
Biden slammed Bloomberg’s record on policing in New York and other issues important to African American voters, a crucial demographic for the Democratic nomination -- and especially for Biden, who has lost black support as Bloomberg’s support among blacks has picked up.
“You take a look at the stop-and-frisk proposals. You take a look at his ideas on redlining he’s talking about. You take a look at what he’s done relative to the African American community,” Biden said. So the idea that the criticism is simply about remarks Bloomberg made is either a misrepresentation or is misleading commentary.
Secondly, ‘the arguments against him really seem to be pseudoarguments’. Which arguments? Because lots of arguments have been made about stop-and-frisk as it relates to Bloomberg, and we’ve already seen that the criticism of Bloomberg isn’t narrowly lazered in on some comments he’s made about it, but is about the policy itself as implemented and handled by Bloomberg. Without specifying the arguments that have been made, or the people who have made them, this is just a lazy and vague assertion. Nevertheless, we can actually look at some arguments against Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy:
- It was ruled unconstitutional in how it was being carried out, violating the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. I presume Harris wouldn’t consider this a ‘pseudoargument’.
- It has probably had lasting harmful effects:
evidence has emerged of the harms created by the strategy. We now know that students heavily exposed to stop-and-frisk were more likely to struggle in school, that young men were more likely to experience symptoms of anxiety and depression, that this exposure fostered cynicism in policing and government writ large, and that it made residents more likely to retreat from civic life.
In effect, Mr. Bloomberg’s policing record — one of his greatest liabilities as voters begin to appraise him at the ballot box — may have clouded the other accomplishments that form the strongest case for his bid as president, in areas like education, public health and good government.
Recent research by Mr. Bacher-Hicks and Elijah de la Campa found that black middle-school students exposed to more aggressive policing were more likely to later drop out of school and less likely to enroll in college.
The researchers looked at parts of New York that had many stops, not necessarily because those places had high crime or other correlated factors, but because they happened to be assigned a precinct commander who was more likely to advocate frequent stops. Within these neighborhoods, students may not have been stopped themselves. But they went to school in communities where this kind of policing was pervasive.
The negative effects on education appeared for girls, too, even though they were far less likely to be stopped by police than boys or young men. That implies, the researchers suggest, that something deeply embedded in the girls’ environment — like fear or distrust of authority that students learned from it — might have hindered their education. More police stops, the researchers found, were also associated with chronic absenteeism.
That study adds to other research in New York finding that black male students who were more exposed to stop-and-frisk had lower test scores. And other research using surveys about experiences with the police has found that students around the country who were arrested or stopped, or who witnessed these encounters or knew of others involved, had worse grades.
That these effects appear strongest for black students suggests that aggressive policing could worsen racial achievement gaps in school as well.
“All these kinds of disadvantages can accrue and build up,” said Aaron Gottlieb, a professor at the Jane Addams College of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who has studied policing and student grades. “Let’s say a police stop reduces the likelihood that you go to college. That’s going to impact your earnings in the long run.”
Other research shows that negative interactions with the police can shape how residents think about government and civic institutions, and even democracy more broadly.
“It teaches something really important — and something really negative — about what agents of the state and bureaucracies are supposed to be doing in your community, what role they play, what their character is,” said Amy Lerman, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.
She and Vesla Weaver, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins, have found that even minor encounters with police can reduce the likelihood of voting, a pattern other research of stop-and-frisk in New York has documented as well. Ms. Lerman and Ms. Weaver have shown that aggressive stop-and-frisk tactics can even have a chilling effect on whether residents use a service like 3-1-1 to report issues that have nothing to do with crime at all.
Is this a pseudoargument?
- As a general widespread and crude policy, in how it was carried out, it may not have provided much, if any, benefit in crime reduction. That is, the benefits may have actually come from more focused or justifiable policing efforts:
Data suggests that the vast majority of street stops made by the police in New York at the height of stop-and-frisk weren’t particularly helpful in fighting crime: Few led to arrests or uncovered weapons. But research has found that a small subset of stops, those based on specific suspicions by officers and not general sweeps or racial profiling, do appear to have helped reduce crime.
From
the study itself:
Impact zones were significantly associated with reductions in total reported crimes, assaults, burglaries, drug violations, misdemeanor crimes, felony property crimes, robberies, and felony violent crimes. Impact zones were significantly associated with increases in total reported arrests, arrests for burglary, arrests for weapons, arrests for misdemeanor crimes, and arrests for property felony crimes. Impact zones were also significantly associated with increases in investigative stops for suspected crimes, but only the increase in stops made based on probable cause indicators of criminal behaviors were associated with crime reductions. The largest increase in investigative stops in impact zones was based on indicators of suspicious behavior that had no measurable effect on crime. The findings suggest that saturating high crime blocks with police helped reduce crime in New York City, but that the bulk of the investigative stops did not play an important role in the crime reductions. The findings indicate that crime reduction can be achieved with more focused investigative stops.
Is this a pseudoargument?
Thirdly: ‘There’s some uncertainty about the causal factor there, but it was not irrational at the time to think that stop-and-frisk was part of the policy that was succeeding in causing crime rates to plummet.’
While it’s not possible for me to say whether it was rational or irrational at the time to think that stop-and-frisk played some role in crime reduction, even at the time, going back to at least 1999 (predating Bloomberg’s first mayoral term), the City had
been aware that stop-and-frisk involved widespread constitutional violations:
[The City has] received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations. . . . The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.”
Which would not seem to be a great thing for a Presidential candidate to have aggressively expanded and vigorously defended over many years, when there was awareness of widespread constitutional violations at the time.
Fourthly: ‘A completely rational and compassionate attempt to mitigate violent crime could have given you this policy.’ If such a policy were rooted in rationality and compassion, would there not have been consideration for the known widespread constitutional violations and the fact that the
vast majority of those being stopped were innocent people having negative experiences with law enforcement? In addition to which, when the New York City Council passed bills which provided oversight of the stop-and-frisk policy, including an independent monitor of the police department, Bloomberg
vetoed them both! Surely someone being motivated by rationality and compassion would not object to oversight of their practices?
Fifth: ‘And it seems to me that the thing the Democratic party has to be able to admit at this point, in order to talk anything like sense on this topic, is that it’s a difficult social problem, that, the mayor was right in his diagnosis, that you could win money all day long in a casino that would allow you to place a bet on the age range and gender and minority identity of a perpetrator of a violent crime in New York City. You know, it’s not the ultra-Orthodox Jews who are mugging people in New York City. But that’s a politically toxic thing to make salient…’
So Harris says that this is a politically toxic thing to make salient, but for some reason the Democratic party are supposed to say ‘Well, Bloomberg was right that it’s mostly young black or Latino people committing violent crimes,
in fact you could win money all day long betting in a casino on this very proposition!’ and this is…supposed to
help them in the election? This sounds utterly ridiculous and a surefire way to alienate and anger voters and depress voter turnout.
Lastly: ‘the remedy of stop-and-frisk…probably wasn’t worth doing in hindsight’. Is this all Harris can say in assessing the policy, it probably wasn’t worth doing in hindsight? No mention of its being unconstitutional in practice, of widespread constitutional violations being known since at least 1999, of the majority of those stopped being innocent people, of various harmful effects it could have caused and which may still be ongoing? This statement is so devoid of awareness or familiarity with the details that it just comes across as either callous or oblivious.
What wasn’t said.
- Repeating myself, but: the practice was found to be unconstitutional. This is a major thing to omit from a discussion of stop-and-frisk under Bloomberg.
- When saying the practice was ‘more or less phased out’, this omits the fact that it was massively amplified under Bloomberg, and that when Bloomberg says he cut the practice back by 95% this is based on cherry picking by comparing against a high figure from his expanded usage; when he left office there was still a net increase in reported stops compared to when he first took office.
Anyway, I have to say that, when considering both what Harris did and didn’t say about stop-and-frisk, I didn’t find him to be making much sense on this topic. What are your thoughts?
During the campaign, I was baffled by the reoccurring think pieces that talked about how Buttigieg was reluctant to embrace his gay identity or was somehow downplaying it. It has been painfully obvious to me since at least last summer that Buttigieg’s campaign was fundamentally queer in a way that other presidential campaigns have never been. Obviously when you have a gay man running for president with his husband by his side, shit’s gonna be pretty gay. But beyond the representation of having a gay candidate, Buttigieg’s
campaign was shaped by his gay identity.
A couple of really important points to start:
- There is no one “LGBTQ identity.” Buttigieg’s experience as as gay man is informed by race, class, religiosity, sex, and a million other factors. Factors he does not share with other queer people. How he experiences being queer is different that how other people experience being queer.
- Buttigieg is always gay, but he isn’t only gay. His campaign was also shaped by his time in the military, his religious beliefs, his work as a mayor, and other things. In fact, some of those may be more salient to his campaign than being gay. Please do not take this essay as me reducing the campaign to only the gay stuff. It’s just one lens through which I’m looking.
Bringing your whole self
One of the things Buttigieg has talked about when discussing coming out is that he finally got to be a whole person. We are all at our best when we get to bring our whole selves to bear when we do anything. Being queer will shape how you see society and how society sees you, which means it will influence your experiences and privileges and change your approach to life. This is true for Buttigieg and is something he acknowledged in a
Rolling Stone interview:
I do think we all bring our whole personal combination of experiences to every role that we have, and to our jobs. I realized very early as mayor that I would be judged, and wanted to be judged, by how well I did the job. As a minority of any kind, there’s a risk of being viewed as representing your group rather than just doing your job. I don’t get up in the morning thinking, “How can I be the best gay mayor today?”
While he is wary of being held up as the The Representative of Your Kind, Buttigieg also acknowledges that we bring our whole selves to our work. This thinking is echoed in his
second Breakfast Club interview:
As much as we might want to believe our marriages are gonna be treated the exact same, we just move through society like everybody else, and we’re just living our lives, like, no this is actually a thing. Kids are putting bullets through their heads over this.
He continued on to say:
I’m not out to be the president of gay America. I’m out to be the president of the United States of America. But it’s part of who I am. It’s part of my experience. It shapes me. I think it informs the way I come at the world…. The fact that I belong to a group that’s been impacted by hate does effect the way I understand the world.
I believe that one way bringing his whole self informed the campaign was in the way Buttigieg talked about America itself.
America as a place of a pain and hope
Being queer - or a member of any minority group - influences how you see America in this moment. People who face discrimination knew what Trump was. I have exactly zero surprise that an openly gay student of history pointed out that losing the next election
might result in a slide into proto-facism.
Marginalized people know there’s no honest politics that revolves
around the word again. As Buttigieg has said, “We in the LGBTQ community know when we hear phrases like ‘Make America Great Again’ that that American past was
never quite as great as advertised.”
A reoccurring line from his stump speech, this theme predates his run for president. It was a focus in a chapter of his book, where he discusses how many people are left out by Trump’s longing for a racist, sexist, heterosexist, and bigoted past (which is not to suggest that the present is a utopia of equality). But this theme surfaced even before Buttigieg’s book was completed. The
keynote speaker at the IDCCA Chairs Brunch, Buttigieg said:
Like some of you, I live with the knowledge that there are people in power today who would if they could deny my family the right legally even to exist for the simple reason that my spouse is a husband and not a wife. So you see this isn’t academic for me. It’s personal. It’s existential. It’s not that I don’t feel like going back. It is that I literally can’t.
Yet in this same speech, Buttigieg talks about how his personal story also gives him hope and how he does not have the “luxury of pessimism” when politics means so much for our health and life and families. This line of thinking was more fully formed by the time of the
Liberty and Justice Dinner in Iowa.
And what lies on the other side of that fight is the hope of an American experience defined not by exclusion, but by belonging. That is what we are here to deliver.
And if talking about hope and belonging sounds optimistic to you for a time like this, fine. Call it optimistic but do not call it naive, because I believe these things not based on my age, but based on my experience….
I have seen what American can do, and so have you. After all, you’re looking at someone who as a young man growing up wondered if something deep inside of him meant that he would forever be an outsider. Would never wear the uniform. Never be accepted. Never know love. And now you are looking at that same young man, a veteran, a mayor, happily married, asking for your vote for president of the United States. That’s why I believe in this country.
As a member of a minority group, Buttigieg knows that America is a place of great pain, but it also is a place of great hope. A hope that springs in part from the changes he saw as a young person who went from growing up in the shadow of the AIDS epidemic to credibly running for president as an openly gay married man. His candidacy centered both that pain and that hope in his campaign.
Building a better politics
In my opinion, Buttigieg understood why people vote better than anyone else running. It wasn’t about the size of the city he ran or the amount of money in the budget. It’s about bringing people together to build a coalition where people feel good and are motivated to support you.
Buttigieg reached out to “future former Republicans” in an effort to usher them into the right side of history. An approach that he often explained by tying it to
his experience as an openly gay politician:
Coming out while he was mayor also helped emphasize to him the political importance of meeting people where they were. He mentioned an older woman in South Bend who had greeted him after a public event by saying how impressed she was with his “friend.” This could have been a moment to discuss the difference between a friend and a partner, or how important it is not to be euphemistic about love, but Buttigieg decided against it, because the woman obviously felt so good about recognizing his “friend”—for her, this was progress. “So much of politics is about people’s relationships with themselves,” Buttigieg said. “You do better if you make people feel secure in who they are.”
The undercurrent to this approach is that Buttigieg emphasized reconciliation and grace. Reconciliation can be particularly fraught for LGBTQ people, because many live in a space where they have been hurt greatly by close friends or family. Do you forgive the parents who kicked out out of the house after you came out? Do you reconcile with your sister who outed you?
What do you do after someone harms you, as Trump voters harmed the country in 2016?
Charlotte Alter first noted this tie between his political approach and his identity in her
Time Magazine cover article:
Some of Buttigieg’s fellow officers who had used gay as an epithet in his presence reached out to express their support. “I bet some of them still go back and tell gay jokes because that’s their habit, you know?” he says. “Bad habits and bad instincts is not the same as people being bad people.”
All this informs his belief that it’s still possible to reach across America’s political divide. “We’ve got to get away from this kill-switch mentality that we see on Twitter,” he says. He has seen once disapproving parents dance at their gay son’s wedding and homophobic military officers take back their words, and so he believes in the power of redemption and forgiveness.
Forgiving people who have done terrible things is not uncommon in LGBTQ spaces. If forgiveness and reconciliation weren’t on the table, many queer people would have no relationship with their biological family at all.
I want to take a moment to state something very important: many LGBTQ people haven’t forgiven people who harmed them and that’s fine. How Buttigieg thinks about this is not The Gay Way.
Expecting gay people to be magical forgiveness fairies here to make straight people feel better about their bigotry is horseshit. This worked for Buttigieg. He tied it to his experience as a gay man. That’s cool.
But don’t assume that’s how all LGBTQ people feel or think or that it’s superior to feeling righteous fucking anger. Both are valid.
I’ll add that Buttigieg was not blindly welcoming. He was explicit that Trump voters at best
ignored Trump’s racism and frequently talked about those voters he
would not try to reach because of their bigotry.
Buttigieg turned to his queer identity not just as a way to explain his approach to political rhetoric, but also as motivation for working for others.
An impetus to action
Being gay also informed Buttigieg’s approach to working for members of marginalized groups. In the November Democratic debate, Buttigieg discussed how
he felt an obligation to work for others who are not like him in the same way a diverse coalition worked to give him the right to marry.
I think an even more direct example was one given
in an interview with BET:
"I know a little bit about what it's like to belong to a group of people that has been feared, hated and denied opportunities and subject to random violence,” he says. “It propels me to make sure that anybody who is on the wrong side of exclusion in this country, which in some way or another is most of us, has a voice in the White House."
The language of service and obligation to others were common motifs of the campaign, and both had roots in Buttigieg’s experience as a gay man. It helped motivate him and shaped perhaps the most significant calling of the campaign:
creating a sense of belonging. But being gay just like every other fact about me from where I grew up to what I look like means that I have a story. And if I look to that story I can find the building blocks not only for empathy but for the impetus to action, because the more you know about exclusion, the more you think about belonging. And we have a crisis of belonging in this country.
The search for belonging and the good you can do
Somewhere, Buttigieg’s campaign pivoted. I’m not talking about the mythological shift to the center or walking away from progressive policies to appeal to more voters. The beginning of the campaign spoke more frequently of creating an intergenerational alliance or the core values of freedom, security, and democracy. But by the end, while those values were still the foundation of the campaign, Buttigieg spoke more often of exclusion, America’s crisis of belonging, and the good the campaign itself could do.
Buttigieg explicitly tied those narratives to being queer.
At the
Matthew Shepard Dinner in Iowa, Buttigieg reflected on learning - before he realized he was gay - that you could be killed for being gay.
He also said this:
“I know there have been times where you felt that you did not belong, moments you believe that you were taking up space,” Buttigieg said. “There was a time in my life that I would have cut the gay out of me if I knew how. Now I know this unexpected, complicated gift has helped me do some good in the world.”
In an interview with the New Yorker, Buttigieg spoke of the good he does simply by being himself, and how moving it is to meet people overcome by emotion at seeing an out gay man run for president. He also discussed how he felt we can use our identities to break down exclusion by talking about Bridgette, an Iowa
supporter with autism:
There are so many differences about every different reason people have been singled out or discriminated against. But I will say that there’s also this chance for solidarity that I’m seeing, that my own personal piece of this story, as part of the L.G.B.T.Q. community, has opened my eyes to.
One of the best moments on this whole campaign was a teen-ager—I think she was maybe sixteen—came up to me and let me know that that my candidacy—this was in Iowa, in a back yard—she said my campaign let her go to school and be who she was and stand up for herself and not be ashamed of having autism. And I thought, Wow, we’re really getting somewhere now. Because what that meant is this campaign spoke to her in a way that I’d never guessed or would have known and lets her know it’s O.K. for her to be herself. And if everybody who has been on any side of a fence of exclusion—which, look, in some way, shape, or form, is all of us—can tap into that as a reason to support others not quite like us, that could bring about an incredibly needed conversion for our country, and could help us get to that era that we are hoping to open up right now.
Charlotte Alter was again the only reporter I saw who made the connection between the campaign and Buttigieg’s orientation. And Buttigieg acknowledged that the
focus on belonging and exclusion was motivated in part by his experience as a gay man:
Buttigieg reflected on how being gay has affected his campaign message. “Our message about belonging is designed to make everyone feel welcome, and my own search for belonging of course partly has to do with being different because I’m gay,” he said. “But it’s also part of what motivates me to help make sure anybody who’s been made to feel on the outside knows that they have a home in this campaign.”
And last
Buttigieg wasn't reluctant to talk about his queer identity. He frequently pointed out that it informed his politics and view of the world. But the moment that really caught my attention came at the end of the
The Daily podcast:
It’s a strange thing to think about, that the one thing [being gay] that I couldn’t control, the one thing that might have meant it would be better not to have an aspirations related to politics at all, could be the very thing that anchors the moral and emotional purpose of this entire campaign.
I don't see how anyone can listen to that comment and think that Buttigieg's orientation was anything less than profoundly important to the campaign.
Being queer was not the only thing that shaped Buttigieg's candidacy, and no one should be reduced to one part of their identity. But being gay informed Buttigieg’s approach to politics and messaging and outreach. Obviously, Buttigieg is not the only politician to talk about service or belonging or hope for America’s future. He is, however, the only candidate to explicitly talk about how being gay framed his understanding of those ideals and that should be celebrated.
Betting on the 2020 presidential election winner is perhaps the most straightforward way to wager. Bookmakers assign lines to every candidate, and a bettor wins if his or her choice gets elected. President Trump, who is essentially guaranteed his party’s nomination due to widespread support from conservatives, is the favorite overall. Updated Sept. 25th, 8:00 AM ET - Consensus Odds Provided by VI - Subject to Change. Handicapping the Polls for the Presidency. The 2020 U.S. Presidential election is less than two months away, and Democratic candidate Joe Biden has increased his lead in the polls and various sportsbooks abroad. And some believe that online betting markets are better to forecast who will win on November 3. When Nevada state set the regulations for sports betting in 1985, they restricted betting to professional sports. Over the years, Nevada loosened the rules to include college sports and the Olympics. Despite that, the state still does not allow for election betting. There is still talk of Vegas presidential odds, though. The 2020 presidential election can make you quite rich if you bet correctly. It can also provide countless hours of entertainment. By trying to predict political outcomes and the events surrounding the next United States election, you can actually enjoy watching the primaries and debates – even when the contenders are calling each other names and going on tangents. Odds on the 2020 US Presidential Election according to Top Sportsbooks Schedule for Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020. Updated on October 7, 2020. US Presidential Election 2020 - Odds by BetUS Joe Biden -180 Donald Trump +140. US Presidential Election 2020 - Odds by BetOnline Joe Biden -190 Donald Trump +160. US Presidential Election 2020 - Odds by Bovada Joe Biden -175
Turn on your television to any news channel and the Presidential election contest inevitably will be heatedly discussed. Frequently mentioned are election po... Traders are reviving a currency pair from four years ago to bet on Donald Trump losing next month’s presidential election. The trade involves the currencies ... The Patrick Bet-David Show Podcast Episode 12. In this clip Patrick Bet-David, Adam Sosnick and Tom Zenner talk about the state of the Presidential Race as i... Bernie Sanders - A Progressive Agenda for the 2020 Presidential Race The Daily Show - Duration: 16:27. The Daily Show with Trevor Noah Recommended for you 16:27 Check out Politics Bets and Odds: https://bit.ly/BetOnline_Bonus Best sportsbooks bonuses: https://surebets.site/ Free betting tips: https://t.me/betting_tip...
