S1: The following program may contain potty talk, no guarantee, but it just may be.
S2: It’s Wednesday, October 14th, twenty twenty from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca. Today was the last day of hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy CONI Barrett. I watch them. I’ll bring them to you in the field. I will not be distracted by issues of lesser importance from far flung states. Oh God.
S3: Dateline Anchorage Kasinitz Maria Atkinson, possibly TCW news that National Laska. I just learned my Emmy Award winning journalism.
S4: You are also a pedophile and like little girls and children, that is local Alaska reporter Maria Athene’s, who is the Fox ABC and CW News Net, Alaska lead news anchor. And when you’re the anchor of Anchorage, it’s like being the treasurer for the Finance Club or the sign that the sign maker himself uses outside his store. What I’m saying, it’s a doubly big deal. So our local news source, Maria Athene’s, has some explosive revelations ready to go. They are about Ethan Berkowitz, Anchorage is mayor. But as soon as the voicemail that I just played, you was made public. And as soon as Athene’s posted a video on Facebook, the mayor reacted. He made his own statement, and he tried to wrest control of the narrative. He admitted to having, I guess, an affair over text he sexting with Maria Athene’s. That’s it. It wasn’t more it was sexting. All right. So let’s assess the credibility of what else anchorages own Maria Athene’s asserts.
S3: And there’s a website I’m so fucking exposing you. I’m going to get an Emmy.
S4: Wait, is that I’m so fucking exposing you, Dotcom, or I’m so fucking exposing you. I’m going to get an Emmy dotcom unclear on the name of the website. And I thought you already deployed Emmy Award winning journalism. Didn’t you say that in the first fifteen seconds? Anyway, what this points out to me is that Maria Athene’s needs a good editor. All journalists do. I think I can help. Let’s listen.
S3: Do you either turn yourself in killing yourself or do what you need to do? I will personally kill you and Mark Hamill, my God damn self you this piece of living fucking shit.
S5: Maria, Maria, Miriam, I understand your passion as journalists. We’ve all been excited by a scoop, but I think not to tell police, but maybe you should back off just a tad on the actual death threats, especially the death threats to the wife. Where does she come in this story? Wasn’t even aware of her as a character. Seems to just be thrust in there. I’m saying, as your editor could detract from the overall point of this obvious Emmy Award winning journalism, you know, I would hate for the Emmy committee to be distracted by some ancillary presentation, and then you’d have to settle for a pulque. Let’s see if Athene’s takes her foot off the accelerator at all.
S3: You have met your match, mother fucker. You have met your mother fucking match. I can’t believe I am such a good person. Me neither. And I thought I loved you.
S5: OK, so you’re at this point, I see what’s going on here. You’re inserting yourself into the narrative. It’s a risk. It’s not traditional, but it is what all the popular podcasts are doing. Right? It does give it more stakes. So the listener follows along in your journey. Let’s see where you go with this.
S3: I fucking hate I don’t even hate you. I will pray for your Zionist fucking ass, you piece of shit.
S5: Loser Zionism. Kind of a late addition to the mix here. Maybe leave it as an episode two cliffhanger anyway. Just a thought.
S3: I have a great Friday, you motherfucker.
S5: OK, yeah. That is the catch phrase for sure. That’s your stay sexy. Don’t get murdered. That’s your don’t drive like my brother. We will put. Bye. Have a great Friday you motherfucker. That’s going on all the merch. But you know these days you can’t rely on just audio. You got to have a video component, a video promo that we could drop on Instagram and all the channels. Oh, you did. You put it on Facebook. Let’s hear that.
S6: Breaking news according to Reliable Sources anchors where Ethan Berkowitz has his male genitalia posted on an underage girls website. Coming up tonight, Fox for News at nine, ABC News at 10:00, CW News at Twelve Thirty and News International for sure. We’ll cover this. Yeah, I heard it here first genitalium.
S5: And of course, remember talk talking a little like Kimberly Guilfoyle, bringing that energy, but pairing it with the Jeanine Pirro implication of libations. And I like it. So the latest is that Berkowitz, who was term limited, announced he will be resigning in nine days. And also Athene’s is in police custody. She apparently punched her station manager, also reportedly a former romantic partner in the fake. And when police came to arrest her, she, quote, struck an officer and tried to kick the doors of a police cruiser, was charged with fourth degree assault, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. Mischief so mischievous. In a court appearance, she later proclaimed, I have pancreatitis, which Maria to me is stepping on your merchandizing messaging. We agreed upon, though, maybe have a great Friday, you motherfucker, on t shirts and I pancreatitis on travel mugs. Maybe that could still work. This, if you really look at it, is a story with everything. There are some kuhnen adjacent accusations. There is actually a teenage escort’s cookie shop owning mother. There are all these massless anti lockdown protesters who are cheering at the mayor’s ouster. We just got to decide whether to drop every episode once or space them out, because these are the tough choices. And let me just say in all earnestness that I would like to thank the mayor of Anchorage and the media of Anchorage up there in Anchorage for providing a whack a do political story without life and death consequences for the rest of us on the show today is slightly more composed tale straight from the Senate chamber, Amy Cody Barrett and what I learned about the law.
S4: But first, you’ve heard about these QAI Trump voter, right? The idea that Trump has more support than the polls show? Well, there’s one pollster, Trafalgar, that consistently shows Trump doing five or so points better than every other pollster shows. And it’s easy to dismiss that, except for the fact that this pollster, Trafalgar, nailed it last time, got the Electoral College count right, was the only one to call such swing states as Wisconsin. Also, I do have to say that it does seem that the QAI Trump voter is a myth. There’s been some scholarship on it seems to be a myth and I personally have never met one. In fact, all the Trump voters, I see our flag waving, mag hat wearing, pontoon boat piloting, shall we say, extroverts. But then again, I’m the sort of person that makes a shy Trump voter shy, shy Trump voter wouldn’t confide in me. They know where I stand. And I was listening to a podcast between a couple of people on the right, Rich Lowry and Megyn Kelly, and they both told each other, Yeah, yeah, we know some Trump voters. And those are the type of people who are shy Trump voter would confide in. All right, adoro up. I am still skeptical, but I want to be humble. So I thought it would be a service to me and to you to invite on the Trafalgar Group’s founder and chief pollster. And he says Trump voters are even Scheier in 2020 than they were in 2016. Robert Tally up next.
S7: As we know in the twenty sixteen election, the pollsters got it wrong, only a couple things on a national level, the pollsters really, really got it close to right. But then again, we don’t vote on a national level. There were some states that really no pollsters nailed except for one. Robert Haley, who runs the Trafalgar Group, was the only pollster to say that Trump would win Michigan. He had a very good record on many of the other swing states, the so-called blue wall. And he told us that Trump would win often by the margins, that he did win. In fact, if you look at the Electoral College vote and this comes with an asterisk, really nailed it. Exactly. Now, the asterisk is because that there were some faithless electors in Texas, but still, even without them, he came closer than any other national pollster. So girded with this reputation, Haley wades into this election with the Trafalgar Group and his polling is consistently showing Donald Trump doing much better than the rest of the national polls and state polls indicate. And in some states that are supposedly going to Biden, according to Real Clear Politics average. Haley says no. Trump’s up like, for instance, Ohio, where he has Trump up three point seven percent. National polling average and real clear politics is zero point six percent. Or take Michigan, where Biden is supposedly up six point seven percent, according to the other pollsters in Trafalgar says, nope, it’s one point six percent. Let’s talk to him about his methods. Thanks for joining me.
S4: Good to be here. So what is and I know you like to simplify things. So in the simplest form, what is your secret sauce for getting these very different results than everyone else?
S8: Well, I’ll let you in on as much of the secret sauce as I’m going to tell anyone. But some of it’s pretty, pretty obvious. We are we’re kind of a polling industry disrupter for a few reasons. We just shoot down all the orthodoxy, the polling establishment. The orthodoxy is you need to do nothing but live colors and you have to make sure that you have these long, detailed questionnaires. Well, I think live callers are the number one way. What’s called the social desirability bias infects a poll. And that’s when the person who’s answering the question worries about the opinion of the person asking them the question and gives an answer. They think that will be more pleasing to that person and less offensive to that person. This has had a few different names, but it was called the Bradley Effect. And so we’ve seen this manifested in my life as anything that’s controversial. I’m used to seeing this effect show up in polling. The first clue, there was something going on with this, with polling, the primaries in twenty sixteen. And we saw a significant difference between what our live callers and our digital polls were giving. And it was like a three point difference. And as it turns out, the three point difference that the non live caller forgetting was correct. And we realized there were people who were voting for Trump. We just weren’t admitting it. So we kind of built that into our thinking for the fall of twenty sixteen. And so the first thing is no, that there is a thing called the social desirability bias. No, that it was real in twenty sixteen and I believe it is worse this time than last time because last time it was there deplorable, this, that and the other. And the environment has totally changed in America since then. So you have a few dynamics working. First, Trump supporters are about five to one less willing to enter a poll to begin with. So if you don’t start with the idea that you’ve got to work really hard to get a good sample of Republicans, you’re going to start with a flawed poll. Second, the social desirability bias makes live calls. The worst way to do it. What we use is we use a mixture of live email, automated text and a few other digital things that we consider proprietary that we don’t discuss. But we try to do a very balanced collection to ensure the people giving the survey feel that they are answering it anonymously. The more anonymous someone feels their participation in a poll is, the more honest they are.
S7: So a couple of things, Bradley. That was the nineteen eighty two race and I studied political science. It’s been I, I would say, widely discounted, though I suppose you would doubt the political science behind it. But even one of the popularizers of the Bradley Effect said the political science professor Charles Henry, wrote an editorial saying, I coined the term the Bradley Effect and it’s not real. And remember Barack Obama, the Bradley effect was raised as, oh, this is why he might not win.
S9: And then he did win. Although you’re right. I mean, as you know and I don’t have to tell you, Andrew Guillem, a black candidate, was supposedly leading in the polls. I mean, he was leading in the polls and then he lost on Election Day. And you got that right.
S8: What was interesting on that race is we were obviously polling the Senate race and the governor’s race. There was no we asked, we asked and that in 18 and 16. Who do you think most your neighbors voted for, which is a great way to get beyond the social desirability bias. And we saw no difference in the Senate race and about a five point swing in the race for governor. So, you know, I grew up in South Carolina, which was we shared a media market with North Carolina. I mean, some of my earliest years in politics were seeing this guy and Jesse Helms, who was very much a Trump like figure, who was very controversial. And the running joke was, if he’s behind by five points, he’s going to win. So anybody who says this effect isn’t real, Alison, that might get him some tenure at some college somewhere, but I don’t buy it. I mean, that’s not reality. You know, I’ve watched it happen again and again in race after race. And it doesn’t have to be about race can be about anything. It’s easy for people to discount something. I mean, they discounted and said, well, we got it wrong in twenty sixteen in the States because of we didn’t wake the education. I mean it is really easy, but what they are doing is they are defending an old model. They are defending what I call dinosaur polling and the world has moved on. People move too fast for long questionnaire. People do not want to be disrupted and to take a poll now or never. And if people don’t feel comfortable sharing their opinions in the current environment and if you don’t adjust for that, you just keep getting it wrong. But the problem is. People who poll with an agenda. Don’t care whether they get it wrong. And that’s see a lot of agenda polling that people criticize you, you guys Republicans. Absolutely. My background is Republican, but that didn’t stop me in twenty eighteen from predicting that Debbie Stabenow was going to win. And I like Jack John James a great deal, but he wasn’t going to win. And for predicting very early that Joe Manchin was unbeatable and for saying that Tester was going to win when the entire Republican establishment working to lose and for even calling that Wisconsin was going to go to Evers and not Scott Walker. We got roundly criticized by my fellow Republicans for making those predictions. But our goal was to get it right, not to be popular with any party.
S9: Yeah, I’m actually more interested in process because I have a couple of theories. And one is that I think it’s possible that you’ve gotten a couple of keen insights. Correct. But within that, you may be getting some things wrong. So one insight that seems very smart to me is the length of polls. It does seem to me that asking a few quick questions that aim to get the answer that we’re all looking for, who are you going to vote for? Probably is a better way than 50 question surveys that do exclude many regular people from taking part of it. But the part that I really question is it seems like you’ve weighed in with an assumption about the motivations of undecided voters, that there is a, for instance, a Trump effect among people who may be living among Democrats and have social costs to supporting Trump. But doesn’t that work the other way? There are huge counties where everyone in their neighbors are going to vote for Trump, but there are the people who might be against Trump or voting for Biden. Why wouldn’t they be shy?
S10: Well, there’s obviously there’s there is a voter effect in many sides. As a matter of fact, I predicted early in this cycle that if the nominee were to be Bernie Sanders, that would have a huge effect between Bernie and Trump and that we would have an undecided number in excess of five percent leading all the way to Election Day because people with taking the label of socialist, they would be Democrats who are comfortable saying they were for him. So I do believe it works both directions. Absolutely. In twenty sixteen, the difference we saw was Hillary. Oh, I mean, not there was never an exception when we asked the neighbor question as a management, Hillary always drop by three to six and Trump went up what I think was three to nine. And it was, without exception, across the board, one pattern. Now, are there any other shareholders within? Yes, there are. But the other thing is the way I look at the social viability, by I mean, these are rough numbers. But I would say our process eliminates two thirds of it because we get more average people, because we give shorter survive, because we give them a comfortable give them a comfortable feeling that is anonymous. I think we knock off about two thirds of the social liability bias. But I can look at our results. I can look at people because we ask additional question that we are not sharing with the media this year because of scrupulous pollsters like the guys that work for Fox News who copy us without giving us credit. Now, I don’t take credit for thinking of it. There’s a guy named Rocherlea who taught it to me in South Carolina when I was growing up. So it ain’t my idea, but I don’t mind giving credit for who gave it to me. But that helps to to give you a sense of where they are, we ask additional questions on our poll, not a lot of additional, but ones that tell us where they probably really are. Now, we don’t integrate that into our numbers. We just keep that in mind as we look toward our final poll of the year, when we’re going to make a prediction about how the undecideds will break. So, for example, I can look at my Pennsylvania poll that shows Trump losing by two and I can see questions about fracking. They showed me the vast majority of the undecided or very pro fracking. The vast majority of the undecideds thought that Trump was much better on dealing with China. And the vast majority undecided said they want a strict constructionist conservative judge on the Supreme Court. Now, I don’t believe those undecided are breaking toward bad with those answers. And I saw people who answered many questions that were I mean, they were duplicates of the way Trump people from and said bad. So I think they’re still some hatting and even are I do not claim to eliminate the social desirability bias, I claim to minimize it.
S5: I do have one question about just the entire conception of social desirability. So we are group animals, and when there is social pressure, people react in different ways. So as you see it, people react by sticking to their original opinions, but not telling others about their opinions. Sure, I’m sure some people do.
S9: But, you know, from my observation of human nature, sometimes when there’s huge pressure to conform, you know what people do, they conform. So why don’t you look at the social desirability effect is sometimes causing more Biden voters if it becomes all the more socially desirable to vote.
S11: There are less. You’re correct. There are bandwagon people. And there are people that want to be outliers in their bandwagon, people. What’s really interesting is when you do focus group work. And you ask a focus group. Watch an ad or listen to some audio or just watch a television program with the candidates on them, and then you ask them to talk about what they think and then you ask them to show their hands on how they feel and who they’re for. But then you also hand them a paper ballot. And let them go separately, Mark, what they see, you will see a different every single time. People who have an opinion that the group didn’t like. Didn’t feel comfortable sharing from the group, but as soon as they can write that thing down when nobody was looking, they told you the truth. That is just human nature. I mean, my example is when you confront the toddler with a face full of crumbs and I ask him, did he eat the missing cookies? He is doing a mental calculation right there and whether he should be honest and get in trouble or if you’re asking the question, you don’t know. Maybe he should say, no, I don’t believe that behavior changes when we get older. It is literally to suggest that a society full of people who lie to their accountant, lie to their attorney, lie to their doctor, a lot of their priest all of a sudden just become Honest Abe on the telephone for a poll tomorrow. And the word Joe Biden. Come on, man.
S5: No way. So we see certain demographic groups really fleeing from Trump, suburban women and especially old people.
S7: Why would there be a difference in the demographic group like the elderly or suburban women that makes them more likely to be a shy Trump voter or a hidden Trump voter than other demographic groups that have abandoned Trump to pollsters?
S11: I mean, I don’t speak in all demographic groups as if any other monolithic because I don’t think they are.
S7: No, I don’t think they’re monolithic. But I’m trying to point to the demographic groups that he had strength in and that he’s losing strength in. And so if your explanation is he hasn’t really lost strength now, I think he’s lost a lot of strength with suburban women.
S11: But what he’s also picked up is significant portions of the Hispanic and black vote. We have polled not a single state, not a single battleground state that he is doing less than 15 and that Joe Biden is doing more than seventy five, not a single state in the black vote. We have not a single battleground state that Trump is doing less than thirty five and Biden is doing higher than 60 with Hispanic voters. And those are the ones who say that that’s where they are now. Of course, our polls are much more anonymous. So I think that’s a place he’s picked up. I also think he’s lost ground with the same. And I think that is completely unrelated because unlike every other group, look at it a very different way and not not just because they’re elderly and more likely to catch it, most of them do not have children living at home that they would like to get out of house to go back to school. Most of them did not have an interruption of their income because of shut downs, and most of them were never worried about whether they work affecting whether they had health care. So they would naturally be less likely to want to push the economy back going because the shutdown did not affect them to the same degree. It just is logic and it makes sense. And I’ve heard them say they’re very nervous about it. So a traditional Republican stronghold would be that those same seniors are very much in play.
S12: If the election were held today. Who do you project winning right now?
S11: I think Trump wins in the mid to 70s. I think he wins Florida. I don’t think it’s a question of Ohio and Florida, not a question. Anybody talking about Georgia and Texas, that ain’t going to happen. I think North Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina. And then then he’ll I think he’ll win Arizona. And then it comes down to he only has to win one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. And I believe he will win one of them. And I think Michigan is an excellent chance for a Trump victory. I would say probably of those four, Michigan is the most likely one that he will win. And if he wins the others, that’s all he needs.
S7: So on Election Day or election week, the tide goes out and we see who’s swimming naked and who’s swimming with trunks. Look, the numbers or the numbers in twenty sixteen, you got the numbers right. If it turns out in twenty twenty that your numbers are wrong, are you going to say my numbers are wrong or are you going to say maybe it’s voter fraud, maybe it’s a Charles Barkley.
S13: The question is, what about all the guys who got it wrong in twenty sixteen. They didn’t say anything. But here’s the thing. I will certainly I do not mind saying that now I’m going to tell you. Pennsylvania, I might have to I might have to put effort on that, because I really think that what’s going to be stopped but the rest of them. I mean, if we get it wrong, we get it wrong. Listen, I don’t mind being held accountable. If we lived in a public meritocracy, I’d be the happiest guy, you know, but we don’t we just don’t. I mean, I have a theory and I said in twenty sixteen three days for the election, come Wednesday, I’m going to be the guy who got it right and nobody’s going to listen to me anymore. I mean, I believe in what I say is the reason I challenge Nate Silver to a bet which of course he immediately decline because he can’t bet on these things because I believe what I say. I’m not putting this out there for the benefit of a party or a campaign. I have a private sector polling business and we make lots of money in the private sector because people believe that we get it right more often than anyone else. So my goal is to get it right more than anyone else.
S7: Election Week will be the test. Robert Healy is the chief pollster of the Trafalgar Group. Thanks for your time. Thank you.
S12: The non kabuki, but also non take at face value hearings for Amy CONI Barrett continued today because she stuck to the approved over the decades game plan. Nothing that was said by anyone will have any effect on her taking a seat on the Supreme Court. So insight must be gleaned not from what was the straight ahead penetrative rays of light beaming from the dais down onto the nominee? No, it is in the emanations of the penumbra that we can be edified, that we seek edification. So I’m going to tell you a few things I learned because of the hearings, thanks to the hearings, and won’t be a surprise ending. I’m going to tell you, my learning will have no bearing on the stated purpose of the hearings to evaluate the nominee. That’s not what went on evaluation. But I did learn this. I did learn about a guy named Ricky Kantor who had quite a scam going on. A few years back, Ricky Kanter made shoe inserts working under the brand name Dr. Comfort. Old Comfort. He’ll sit your feet upright. Yes, sir. Doc Comfort sold people these corrective inserts primarily to individuals with diabetes and severe foot disease. And the thing about these corrective inserts is that incorrect? They were just pieces of foam for all we know anyway, old comfort because it has spent some time in the hoosegow and paid his victims twenty seven million dollars, a large chunk of change. Then Ricky Canor Comfort comes out and says he needs something, a little something. And that thing is a gun. Sure, I would imagine there are a lot of angry diabetics who are going to come hobbling after him, so you might want to be armed, but the question is, can this con can this fake foot fix fellin legally get a gun? Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois picks up the story.
S14: From there, he came to the federal courts and said, this is unfair. I’ve served my year in prison. Now I want to buy a gun. And the law says I can’t buy a gun if I’m guilty of a felony. And the court said, Sorry, Ricky, you can’t buy a gun because you are guilty of a felony. Even the Heller decision, Justice Scalia said the felonies and mental illness could continue to disqualify a person from buying a gun in this country. Two out of three judges who heard this case said, that’s right. That’s the law. Sorry, Ricky, no AK 47 for your birthday. But then you took a look at it and reached the opposite conclusion.
S12: She did. Writing in dissent, she began 18 USC paragraph nine 22 G1 in Wisconsin, Statute nine forty one point twenty nine would stand on solid footing if there are categorical bans were tailored to serve the government’s undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence.
S4: Of course, it would not stand on solid footing if Dr. Comfort were providing the foot inserts standing on solid footing.
S1: Amy, read the room, but this is actually an interesting argument. Barrett said. A nonviolent felon shouldn’t have rights abridged, which a few of the Democratic senators pointed out seems to imply something about nonviolent felons having their right to vote abridged. No, no, no, said Amy CONI Barrett. These are different things. But, you know, if a legislature wants to define voting rights, however they want to define voting rights, that’s fine. But it is not up to her as a judge to do so when it comes to finding a right to vote. But when it came to finding a right to bear arms, she actually did find that right. Because and this is a fundamental distinction, Barrett argued she wasn’t writing the law, she was interpreting the law by looking at what is constitutional because no one ever writes the law. If you ask them and they believe it, that they always either just read the law as written by the legislature that they’re considering and say, let us go with that law, or they read the law by the legislature and say, oh, no, no, we have to go by that other law named the Constitution. So no one’s ever making up law. They’re just reading the law and enforcing the law. The problem or question is which law, the one right before them or the one that’s on crinkly parchment in the Smithsonian with gun control, conservative justices throw out laws written by states and municipalities in favor of the Second Amendment, which they say is the controlling law. But with abortion rights, they decried it in Roe versus Wade. When liberals throughout laws written by states or municipalities arguing, no, you must follow the law. Democrats are arguing the exact opposite points. So it was interesting to think about Ricky Cantor and his shoes. It’s also interesting to think about this one quote that has been presented to Judge Connie Barrett over the last couple of days. It is a quote from Judge Connie Barrett. The date of the interview was June 25th, 2015. And what had just happened was the Supreme Court had ruled in Burwell. You remember Burwell, that is when Justice Roberts sided with Kennedy and the Democratic appointees to let the ACA stand. Bad decision, said Amy CONI Barrett in an interview. And this is interesting because it’s more of a smoking gun than all her endorsements of pro-life rhetoric, because in those cases she could say, those are just my personal beliefs. Those are different from my judicial decision making. But he or she was asked about the judicial decision making of Justice Antonin Scalia, and she said, yes, that was solid in the dissent, objecting to Judge Roberts upholding the ACA. Now, she has an answer for that. Of course, she says, well, when I made that distinction, I was just a professor. And as a professor, I don’t hear all the evidence. Justice does. I can’t look the litigants in the eye. I didn’t have the benefit of discussing things with my fellow justices. It is kind of weak, isn’t it? She’s saying that her rulings will depend greatly on the doctrine of I just like the cut of the plaintiff’s jib. But what I found interesting were the words that came directly after Barrett’s pronouncement that Scalia’s dissent was the stronger legal argument. This is from Beutner’s onepoint back in twenty fifteen.
S15: I think the dissent has the better of the legal argument. That’s not to say that the result isn’t preferable. I mean, it’s it’s clearly a good result that these millions of Americans won’t lose their tax subsidies. But just in terms of the analysis of the statute, seemed to me I was kind of thinking that the phrase established by a state was clear, huh?
S1: She said it was good that people won’t lose their tax subsidies. Neither side brought this up in the hearings. If they did, I missed it. I only watched hours and hours. But the Democrats, I guess not bringing it up is logical. It makes her seem a little more sympathetic to conservatives, to Republicans. I guess they didn’t want to imply that anyone benefiting from the ACA is a good thing legally. The expression of sympathy for citizens, it has no bearing on whether this then professor now judge probable future justice, what she thinks about the law. She said that she may well think that she may still think that. But of course, she’s going to say it will not determine her opinion when wearing the robes. But unless I missed it, that Allision is telling it tells us something about these hearings, because in a normal world of normal humans evaluating the pronouncements made by another human, you’d want to know the full comment. It wouldn’t work out that everyone agreed that the full context of the comment is not relevant or doesn’t shed light on the person that you’re trying to evaluate. And now the spiel. But it is clear. Remember when I said in a normal world of normal humans, it is clear that we are not living in that normal world. In fact, we’re not living in the same world, Chairman Lindsay Graham told us so in the days opening statement.
S16: This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who’s unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology. And she’s going to the court seat at the table is waiting. You and it will be a great signal to all young women who want to share your view of the world that there’s a seat at the table for them. This won’t be celebrated in most places. Be hard to find much commentary about this moment in American history, but in many of our worlds, this will be celebrated. This has been a long time coming and we have arrived.
S1: And just where have we arrived with a nominee who is before us based on really tortured arguments about the Senate representing the will of the people denying the Garland seat while opening, ushering in the Barat seat? And as we cite the people as a justification, we acknowledge that this isn’t a cause for celebration in most places, but it is, says Graham. In our world, clear implication that his world is a different plane of existence, a different world from the real world compared to the naked power grabs and flat out lies and smears that have come to characterize the other two branches of government. The judiciary is positively genteel. Allegri stipulated decisions are in fact derived through at least the presentation of arguments and the use of reason. And I have sought here today and yesterday to play Judge Barritt to give consideration to the arguments of and about Judge Barrett to at times acknowledge areas where there are interesting arguments from both sides, arguments that hold water. But the chairman says it all, doesn’t he, when he says this is a win for one world. This is no cause for celebration in most of the world. And I also have to think it’s a further illustration and a perpetuation of the truth that in American politics we are truly living on different planets.
S2: And that’s it for Today Show, Margaret Kelly produced the gist she is reticent to proclaim her political preference, but she is wearing a Kangol hat, unlaced Adidas and blasting Cuomo from a boombox. So she just may be a funky fly. Trump voter Daniel Shrader produces the gist. He wonders if Paskeville Manafort and one day Stepien will admit to voting for Trump. Or will they belong to the growing category, the fall guy Trump voter. Alicia Montgomery is executive producer of Slate podcasts. She knew Sammy Davis Jr. was for Nixon with the Candy Man like Trump. Would he say that he like Trump or would he remain a glass eye Trump voter? The gist could all come down to Florida, specifically, the crowd hanging around the front lines all day smoking cigars and yelling Tchula.
S1: Yes, who could predict the predilections of the Haili Trump voter IAEA report? Adepero Dupere. And thanks for listening.