Saturday, October 31, 2020

Here's What Early Voting Numbers Are Telling Us

Here's What Early Voting Numbers Are Telling Us

AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

After 2016, it’s hard to have a lot of faith in the polls, so the question is, how do we assess the state of the race? In 2016, most state polls were as bad as national polls, and cherrypicking specific polls isn’t a great option either, as it lends itself to confirmation bias.

So, in many ways, the best thing we can use to judge the state of the race is to analyze early-voting statistics. According to Gallup 62 percent of Democrat and 28 percent of Republican voters plan to vote early this year when they otherwise have been only within a few points of each other. So, what can we say about the state of the election based on early voting statistics?

Writing at UncoveredDC, bestselling author Larry Schweikart looked at some early voting numbers.

Schweikart noted that despite the Democrats’ early lead in early voting, both in vote-by-mail (VBM) and in-person early voting (IPEV), they peaked around October 16 and Republicans have been catching up—big time. In Florida, for example, GOP votes are “on a pace to be well ahead of 2016, when Hillary Clinton entered election day with an 88,000 lead in the Sunshine State.”

Things are also looking good in North Carolina. According to Schweikart, “While Democrats lead by 301,000 (and this is also falling rapidly), the black vote currently is at 20% of all turnout, behind the black share of all 2016 turnout of 21.89%—itself a drop off from 2012. When Barack Obama won the state in 2012, the share of the black vote was 23%, but he won by only one point.” Polls have also suggested that Trump has increased his support from the black community since 2016.

Schweikart also sees good news for Trump in Virginia—a state not really on anyone’s radar, as it has been getting bluer. “Currently, the black turnout is at 13% there. (Keep in mind that up to 15% of that number will be Trump voters). For Democrats to feel safe, it needs to be closer to 18-19%.”

Pennsylvania is also looking good for Trump. While Democrat early voting is way ahead of Republicans in the state, Schweikart cites a recent report from New York Times which notes that Joe Biden “has not yet matched Mrs. Clinton’s share of support in Philadelphia proper.”

Averaging the results of the two recent polls, he has the backing of 73 percent of Philadelphia voters, down from 83 percent for Mrs. Clinton in 2016. According to the Times/Siena poll, Mr. Trump was supported by 24 percent of Philadelphians, nine points ahead of his exit poll numbers in 2016.

“Anyone who thinks Biden will make it up in the middle of the state is smoking something special,” writes Schweikart.

These numbers spell doom for Joe Biden in the Keystone State. “Not only can Biden not win Pennsylvania with these numbers, he would suffer major hits across the board.”

The Washington Times also reported on Tuesday that “In Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arizona, Democrats are falling short of their target of 70% of early votes cast either in person or by mail. That is the lead they hoped to build up to stave off an expected higher Republican turnout on Election Day.”

Anything can happen, but based on the information we have, things look pretty good for Trump in battleground states.

Democrats Push for MORE Big Tech Censorship of 'Hate Speech' at Senate Hearing

Democrats Push for MORE Big Tech Censorship of 'Hate Speech' at Senate Hearing

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Democrat after Democrat at the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on Wednesday praised the Silicon Valley billionaires for silencing “hate speech” in America and they made it very clear they want more of it. 

Unfortunately for them, hate speech is not a thing. That is not to say that people do not say hateful things—just go to a sermon preached by Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright and you’ll hear more hatred than you could ever dream up—but in America, we don’t label speech. All speech is “free speech” with one small exception that is inciting violence like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or yelling “RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!” every day for four years until people start burning things and killing cops. But the Democrats want to expand the definition of speech that is not protected to include speech that offends Democrats or pokes holes in their worldview. To them, being humiliated in a Twitter debate is the same thing as “inciting violence.”

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) said that the hearings had been convened on a “false narrative” and that tech companies need to take more action, not less, on the pressing issues of the day that Republicans and Democrats disagree on. Her examples included articles examining the effectiveness of masks. Baldwin suggested she wants all articles questioning universal masking removed from the internet. She also pointed out that the president tweeted something she disagreed with about COVID-19, including the very true statistic that 99% of people recover from it, and she was outraged that he hadn’t been silenced.

Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the “issue is they’re leaving too many posts up!” Markey openly advocated for the silencing of people who don’t agree with Democrats. Markey derided Twitter for not removing President Trump’s post that said, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” claiming that’s incitement to violence when it’s really just a policy matter half of us would like to implement. I don’t know anyone who thinks looters (who are in the act of committing violence) should not be stopped with lethal force if regular force doesn’t work.

Democrats Blame Trump for Violence After Months of BLM and Antifa Riots

Everyone on our side loves the Rooftop Koreans and any business owner who defends their property and that’s not a secret. Nor is responding to acts of violence with force “inciting violence,” when the violence is already in progress. Listen to this malarkey by Markey.

Maria Cantwell (D-Antifastan Wash.) claimed that the hearings constituted an attempt by Republicans to undermine our election process and that the hearing did not need to be held now even though it was an important conversation about “how we continue to make sure that hate speech and misinformation is taken down from the web.” Good grief! They’re not even hiding it anymore. They want you deleted and they’re not going to stop until they do it.

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) took the opportunity to remind everyone that she served in the U.S. military — as she does whenever there’s a microphone in front of her — before pushing for Big Tech to engage in more suppression of her political enemies. As a native Illinoisan, I find her pompous visage so disturbing that I am banning her from my articles from this moment forward. If you want to see what she said, google it.

SPEECH POLICE: Fiery Ted Cruz Asks Smug Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, ‘Who the Hell Elected You?’

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) was one of the only Democrats who didn’t appear too happy with the Silicon Valley trouble-makers, asking Mark Zuckerburg why his algorithms push division in America, which is good for his business but not for America. Klobuchar specifically pointed out that viewpoint manipulation negatively affects both sides of the political spectrum while social media companies rake in the cash. She’s not wrong. Klobuchar did not demand that “hate speech” be removed but she did signal that she’s open to anti-trust discussions. Very interesting.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he believes that there should not be blanket immunity for these giant companies but was outraged that the Republicans called the hearing days before the election. He claimed that Republicans are trying to “bully and browbeat these platforms to favor President Trump’s tweets.”

Blumenthal lobbied the tech giants to censor President Trump even more and take down the president’s tweets if they don’t line up with Democrat talking points. He blamed it on COVID-19 “misinformation” but when even the experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci contradict themselves regularly, who is to say what COVID-19 information is true and what isn’t? There’s no agreement on facts regarding COVID-19 and anyone who says there is has not been paying attention.

In a blatant attempt to persuade Big Tech to censor the president, Blumenthal said, “I want to know if you have a plan… if the president uses your platforms to, say on the day of the election, that there is rigging or fraud without any basis in evidence or attempts to say that the election is over and the counting of votes must stop…[do you have a] plan, yes or no?”

It’s clear to me after this hearing that Democrats are determined to keep social media doing their dirty work for as long as possible: Censor, silence, and suppress all information that hurts their party or helps Donald Trump. The solution is very simple. Big Tech should be regulated exactly like the phone company. They provide an avenue for people to communicate but they have no business regulating what those people communicate. Their algorithms for filtering should be completely accessible to users who can filter their own experience. Americans are adults, not children who need babysitting and supervision over what we read.

These Democrats are the same people who consistently defend the idea that minor children should never be denied any book no matter how disgusting or full of sex, drugs, murder, or violence. They protect the American Library Association that pushes pornography on minors in the name of “free speech” and are in constant war with conservative parents when we try to ask “Hey! Should this book about hand jobs be in my fourth-grader’s school library?”

At the same time they paint parents like me as evil censors, they want to control what adults can read on social media. How do they get away with this? There are no “liberals” left in America. Not one of these people spoke out on behalf of free speech. If you’re a Democrat and worried about free speech in America, you’re in the wrong party. Walk away before it’s too late.

What to Tell Your Fence-Sitting Friends About Trump's Record on Due Process and Religious Freedom

What to Tell Your Fence-Sitting Friends About Trump's Record on Due Process and Religious Freedom

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

If your friends are squeamish about voting for President Donald Trump, I understand. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump in 2016 because of his temperament and because I didn’t trust his promises. Yet Trump’s successes in his first term have brought me around, and I think they will convince your friends, too.

This is the third in a series of articles explaining the president’s policy successes and giving a full-throated defense for his reelection. The first focused on Trump’s foreign policy achievements and the second delved into his record on protecting the right to life. This article will focus on Trump’s success in protecting Americans’ civil rights.

Former President Barack Obama undermined Americans’ civil rights in key areas and Trump has reversed a great deal of the damage.

In 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) under Obama’s Department of Education (DOE) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter reinterpreting Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act. The OCR letter encouraged colleges and universities to set up what Harvard Law professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk called a “sex bureaucracy.”

Separate Title IX offices at colleges across the country heard sexual assault cases, doling out punishments on their own. These mini-bureaucracies operated off of the false assumptions that police are biased against sexual assault victims, that 1 in 4 women on college campuses are raped, and that basic due process protections for the accused would violate the rights of the “victims.” Men who have been falsely accused — and even acquitted by real police investigations — have seen their lives and reputations destroyed.

Obama personally established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault in 2014, and he teamed up with Joe Biden to launch the “It’s On Us” campaign on these issues.

Trump’s DOE, under Betsy DeVos, rightly reversed these practices. Even so, the idea that “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply in sexual assault cases has permeated popular culture, and it reared its ugly head in the battle over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

While President Obama publicly stood up for free speech on college campuses, his DOE and Justice Department undermined free speech in the name of fighting sexual harassment.

Obama’s DOE and DOJ sent a letter to the University of Montana arguing that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,'” including “verbal conduct,” regardless of whether it is objectively offensive or sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education argued, this meant the federal government was trying to impose a nationwide university speech code “that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser.”

The relevant office at the DOE later clarified that the joint letter to the University of Montana did not represent official policy, but the sexual assault overreach remained a threat on college campuses.

President Trump has signed executive orders directing his administration to protect free speech on college campuses. He invited Hayden Williams, a Leadership Institute field representative who got punched in the face in Berkeley, Calif., on stage at CPAC last year.

Perhaps the greatest sea change from Obama to Trump involves religious freedom. The contraception mandate under Obamacare infamously tread on religious freedom, leading to years of litigation with the Little Sisters of the Poor. When the Obama administration supported same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, admitted that religious freedom would face challenges if same-sex marriage became the law of the land: “It’s going to be an issue.”

When the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic struck America, Democratic mayors and governors singled out churches, synagogues, religious schools, and other religious institutions for extra regulations to fight COVID-19.

Local politicians have singled out churches for extra coronavirus regulations. Many banned drive-in church services — where parishioners would remain isolated in their cars with their windows up, listening to a sermon over the radio — even though this practice would not spread the coronavirus. In fact, the same localities that banned drive-in church services allow drive-through fast-food restaurants as essential. Yet a mayor dispatched police to fine Christians $500 for attending a drive-in service, and Kentucky’s governor sent police to record the license plates of Christians at such a service.

At least one county even went so far as to ban singing during livestream events, a regulation that did not specifically single out churches but one that seems most likely to hit churches hardest.

When the Christian charity Samaritan’s Purse set up an emergency field hospital in New York City’s Central Park, Mayor Bill de Blasio said the move was “very troubling” because Samaritan’s Purse is an evangelical Christian charity. He sent staff over to “monitor” the field hospital, ostensibly to ensure it would not discriminate against LGBT people. Talk about mixed-up priorities!

Recently, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) issued new lockdown rules in Orthodox Jewish areas, blaming Orthodox Jews for a coronavirus outbreak in a “predominantly ultra-Orthodox cluster.” Rabbis and Jewish schools have filed lawsuits to stop this “blatantly anti-Semitic” order.

The Trump administration has stood up to these attacks on religious freedom. Under Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice has released numerous statements of interest defending churches from these egregious violations of religious freedom. Barr has also threatened legal action against states that take lockdown orders too far.

On September 17, Constitution Day, Barr condemned the various abuses of coronavirus lockdowns as the “greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history” besides slavery. “A person in a white coat is not the grand seer to make a decision for society. A free people makes its own decision through its elected representatives,” he explained.

President Trump has consistently defended religious freedom, before and during the pandemic. Early in his tenure, the president issued an executive order promoting free speech and religious freedom across the government, reversing Obama’s abuses on religious freedom. According to a 2018 study, this order played a critical role in allowing faith-based charities to provide health care to 13.7 million Americans.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, represents a threat to religious freedom and to traditional Christianity. One of his staffers openly declared that a traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) position on homosexuality should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court nominee. During a speech at the Human Rights Campaign in 2018, Biden condemned some of the people who “tried to define family” — presumably those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman — as “the dregs of society.”

Biden has made no secret about his intention to return to the Obama policies that dragged the Little Sisters of the Poor into court. Biden also supports the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that would outlaw “discrimination” against LGBT people. States have abused such laws, twisting them to force Christian bakersfloristsfarmers, and others to effectively endorse same-sex marriage by contributing their artistic talent to celebrate same-sex weddings.

Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, has demonized mainstream conservative Christian organizations, suggesting that people who abide by traditional Christian doctrines are unfit to serve in government.

When it comes to due process, free speech, and religious liberty, Trump has made tremendous progress in rolling back Obama’s abuses and Biden would bring much of the Obama governing style back. This makes a strong argument for Trump’s reelection.

Friday, October 30, 2020

Bobulinski Bombshell: The Bidens are 'Compromised' and Lying About Joe's Knowledge of Hunter's Deals With China

 Bobulinski Bombshell: The Bidens are 'Compromised' and Lying About Joe's Knowledge of Hunter's Deals With China

Tony Bobulinski. Screenshot from video of his interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson.

Former Biden family business associate Tony Bobulinski appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show on the Fox News Channel Tuesday night. The former U.S. Navy nuclear technology officer explained in detail how he became involved with the Biden family and the nature of the deals they have been engaged in primarily through Hunter Biden, Joe’s son.

Bobulinski made it clear that he had no desire to appear on national television for any reason, and certainly not in a moment of controversy. He said his motivation is that the American people must be informed about the Biden family’s questionable business relationships with CEFC and Burisma, the Chinese and Ukrainian energy companies, respectively, that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from despite having no experience in the energy field.

One of Bobulinski’s more explosive comments was that the Chinese government directly loaned the Biden family $5 million, interest-free. This makes the Biden family “compromised,” in his opinion, meaning they cannot be trusted with sensitive roles or information due to the control others may exert over them using some leverage or advantage they have obtained. Joe Biden is, of course, running for president of the United States.


To them, it was always the Biden family. Wasn’t Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, it was the Biden family and led and operated by Joe Biden and in that document that you guys have, and I think has been provided to the world, the Chinese reference that because of their trust in the Biden family, that they were excited about moving forward and in that document, they reference loaning $5 million to the family, that is, the Biden family, and notice they didn’t say we are loaning that money to Tony, we are loaning that money to Bob Walker and not a document generated by me, but documented and generated that they are loaning that money the Biden family.

Bobulinski also stated that the email referring to “the Chairman” is referring to Joe Biden. That email says Hunter Biden consults with and seeks the sign-off of his “chairman” on his international deals, in direct conflict with Joe Biden’s claim to know nothing of his son’s business.

Bobulinski stated that Joe Biden’s claim of knowing nothing about Hunter’s business arrangements is a “blatant” lie.

After Bobulinski detailed the Biden family’s complex business associations with international energy firms, Carlson pressed him to describe what qualifications the Bidens bring to the table that put them in a position to even be part of such deals.

CARLSON: “So I just want you to assess once more, is there anything about Hunter Biden’s personal experience, personal qualifications that would justify him doing a deal in Kazakhstan?”

BOBULINSKI: “Absolutely nothing. The only thing that he had was the Biden family name and the fact that his father at one point obviously was a sitting vice president and potentially would run as a future president.”

Bobulinski told Carlson his motivation to speak stems from the fact that Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff, have smeared him as engaging in “Russian disinformation.” Bobulinski noted his own military service and the multiple high-level security clearances he held while in the military, and the fact that military service runs in his family, saying he found the accusation “disgusting.” He told Carlson he spoke with Biden family representative Rob Walker before going public and asked him to get the Democrats to cease smearing him and to retract their statements. When they refused, he felt he had no choice but to go public. He said it is his “patriotic duty” to speak out.

On Carlson’s show, Bobulinski effectively destroyed the “Russian disinformation” smear the Bidens and the Democrats as a party have leveled against him.

Since speaking out and providing first-person accounts and hard evidence of the Biden family’s questionable deals, which the Bidens have not directly addressed or refuted, Bobulinski says he has received death threats and is no longer staying at his home. He is now protected by former Navy SEALs.

More: Just watch.




With regard to COVID, we are awash in unreliable or even intentionally misleading empirical claims. A neurosurgeon from D.C. who understands statistics analyzes a popular claim that is being made on behalf of mask mandates.

I encountered a Washington Post figure making its way through social media, suggesting that not wearing masks is conclusively the reason for COVID spread:

If you look at the figure closely, the y-axis is “% who know someone with COVID-19.” Why on earth would any reasonable scientist or public health official use this “survey” variable to honestly study a scientific/public health effect? The reason is, it is not true.

I pulled the % wearing masks variable from the graph (in and by itself a dubious measurement), and correlated it with the Rt value (that you can pull from The RT value is the exponential coefficient that suggests growth (>1) vs contraction (<1) of the virus. I then plotted the results:

There is no correlation whatsoever. The “trend line” I plotted has a 0.02 correlation (1.0 means full correlation). When you take the outliers out (WY, RI, MS, DC, SD), the correlation drops to 0.01. In fact, some of the states with the worst RTs right now (NJ, CT, MA, RI) have the highest “mask wearing” percentages!

Furthermore, the graph is titled “Fewer covid-19 symptoms reported in states with higher rates of mask use” — which is completely wrong! The data do not graph symptoms, only the loose perceptions of individuals who “know” someone, who were surveyed.

The fact that this passes off as “journalism” or “science” is incredibly pathetic — and it is being “liked” on social media by people who should know better. The reasons for this are the obvious political implications.

Hope you can make a comment or two regarding this. People need to understand what is going on here!

This kind of fake science is rampant, and as our correspondent says, the motivation is political. The Washington Post is like the New York Times; no one should take anything it says seriously.

Hospitals gave Gov. Andrew Cuomo a campaign booster shot: Devine

Hospitals gave Gov. Andrew Cuomo a campaign booster shot: Devine

It’s bad enough that Gov. Cuomo presided over the needless COVID-19 deaths of thousands of vulnerable people in New York nursing homes.

It’s bad enough that he wrote a shameful book praising himself for his pandemic response and now is doing a victory lap of self-congratulation in the worst-hit state in the nation.

It’s bad enough that he is mounting a pre-election scare campaign on COVID vaccines to stir up anti-vax sentiment for political purposes.

But now we discover that Cuomo got campaign funds from the hospital organizations that lobbied for his lethal policy for the elderly and which then bought TV ads whitewashing his culpability.

An exclusive audit of campaign donations to Cuomo by shows disturbing links with industry bodies which demanded the disastrous order forcing nursing homes to admit COVID-infected patients hospitals didn’t want.

Overall, the audit shows a “systematic pay-to-play culture in Albany,” says Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of, a nonprofit which has compiled a comprehensive database of US public sector expenditures.

The pattern of patronage in New York state amounts to “a legalized money-laundering scheme aimed at monetizing incumbent political power.”

Cuomo has received $6.2 million since 2014 from 347 companies who then made $7 billion from state contracts.

“Did the governor operate in his own political interest or the public interest?” asks Andrzejewski, who provided his data exclusively to The Post. “Soliciting state vendors for campaign cash is highly unethical because each instance where a state vendor gave a campaign donation and received a state contract is a potential conflict of interest.”

Most disturbing is $1 million in donations from the Greater New York Hospital Association to the governor’s re-election campaign in 2018, plus other generous in-kind support.

The association and the health-care workers union, 1199 SEIU, also spent $5.9 million lobbying in Albany in 2018.

A few days before the 2018 election, Cuomo approved a multibillion-dollar Medicaid rate hike for hospitals and nursing homes, which the association had lobbied for, and which allowed them to settle a pay dispute with the union.

Then, in February 2020, Cuomo appointed association board member and Northwell Health CEO Michael Dowling and union President Dennis Rivera to co-chair the Medicaid Redesign Team.

Dowling donated $5,000 to Cuomo six weeks before the appointment, while the union gave $15,000.

Northwell Health received $10 million in state payments in 2019, reports Andrzejewski.

When the pandemic hit in March, the association successfully lobbied the Cuomo administration to transfer COVID-positive patients to nursing homes to relieve pressure on hospitals.

Despite warnings from doctors that the move represented “a clear and present danger” to other nursing home residents, Cuomo issued his directive March 25, while federally provided beds in the Javits Center and USNS Comfort hospital ship mainly lay empty.

As we now know, the directive was a death sentence for an estimated 15,000 nursing home residents.

With the move proving to be a legal and public-relations nightmare, the association again struck gold when it lobbied for a budget provision limiting the ability of COVID-19 victims to file malpractice suits against hospitals and nursing homes.

Well satisfied with its investment in the governor, the association then spent millions on TV advertising that praised Cuomo’s management of the pandemic.

You could call the ads a quid pro Cuomo.

Cuomo’s senior adviser, Rich Azzopardi, told that agency contracting is done at arm’s length from the governor, “on the merits, by career civil servants and procurement professionals, with no input or influence from the Executive Chamber, and generally through a competitive bidding process.”

But the pattern of political patronage for campaign cash which Andrzejewski has uncovered in the hospital sector is repeated elsewhere across New York...

(see linked article for more):

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Trump's Non-Stop Campaign Schedule Versus Biden's Basement Strategy Is Paying Off

Trump's Non-Stop Campaign Schedule Versus Biden's Basement Strategy Is Paying Off

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally at HoverTech International, Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, in Allentown, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Where’s Joe? If you’re a reporter on the Joe Biden for President beat for election 2020, how could you not notice that there’s nothing to report? PoliticoMcClatchyThe Daily BeastOANFox News, and PBS have all noticed that President Trump is everywhere and Joe Biden … where is Joe Biden, anyway?

This is what President Trump’s schedule looked like for this past Saturday.

  • 7 a.m. — Met with reporters
  • 9:25 a.m. — Voted in Florida, traveled to North Carolina
  • 12:30 p.m. — Presidential event
  • 2:00 p.m. — Traveled to Columbus, Ohio
  • 4:00 p.m. — Make America Great Again rally
  • 7:25 p.m. — Traveled to Wisconsin
  • 8:00 p.m. — Addressed Make America Great Again rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin
  • 10:00 p.m. — Pool reporter call
  • 11:50 p.m. — Traveled to the White House

On Sunday Trump traveled to Maine, held one rally and one event at a local business, and noted the pre-recorded “60 Minutes” interview.

Trump has stepped up his schedule, grinding out three rallies per day.

But where was Joe?

On Saturday, Joe Biden held a car rally at which there were reportedly more Trump fans than Biden supporters. One supporter had the problem many of us have had trying to figure out Joe’s schedule. She can’t find it.

“I would have driven to Bristol to hear him in person for my car. I never seem to know when they’re here in Philly until I see them on TV.”

Biden held an online concert event Sunday night hosted by former Republican and Bush operative Ana Navarro and former comedian George Lopez, featuring an impressive bunch of A-list musical talent, and Cher.

It was at this virtual “I Will Vote” concert that Biden let his wife Jill relate the story of their first date— when she was still married to someone else. Joe’s role was to laugh and guffaw while she shared the story.

When Joe got a chance to speak, he forgot the name of his opponent, the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

He called Donald Trump “George.”


See the video for yourself in the following tweet.

Maybe that’s why he’s still in the basement.

In his weekly column in The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove noted that this year’s election schedule has been transformed by the coronavirus. Under ordinary circumstances, Biden would have been on a “nonstop whirlwind tour to make his case in every hamlet in every up-for-grabs state.” But, “Mr. Biden retreated to his Wilmington, Del., basement, leaving the spotlight on President Trump. Even now, Mr. Biden is off the trail almost more than he’s on it. His campaign declared a “lid,” meaning no activity, starting Monday morning and continuing all the way until Thursday night’s debate, ostensibly so he can prepare. The lack of campaigning has left voters with less information about Mr. Biden, while they’re inundated with coverage of Mr. Trump.”

Rove indicates that this may not hurt Biden very much because the election is a referendum on Trump, but there is something to be said for showing people from whom you’re seeking support that you’re willing to grind it out with them on the campaign trail.

Biden has outraised Trump and used it for a blitzkrieg on the airwaves in swing states while Trump has spent money on ” television, digital and text-message advertising, and the type of campaign events that paid off for Mr. Trump four years ago.”

Trump’s in-person strategy has always excited his voters and kept them enthusiastic and he’s moving the needle in the polls. Rasmussen Reports shows Trump slightly ahead in a poll of 1,500 likely voters for the first time in the race.

National polls don’t mean much because the real story is told in state polls, but this is the first time Trump has led a national poll recently with Biden. It also shows Trump with a 52% approval rating, higher than both George Bush and Barack Obama when they won reelection, but that’s a rosier outlook than most other polls.

It seems like now would be the time for Joe’s campaign to schedule him somewhere else besides his basement.