Before explaining, let's just say that we don’t interact with socialists much. It sort of goes
against the grain of who we are to mingle with people who define things like "compassion" and "generosity" by how willing they are to hand over our precious resources to wasteful bureaucrats. Accordingly, we do our best to politely stay away socialists. However, when we must
interact with a socialist, we don’t bring up the subject of what constitutes intelligent public policy because well…..it
is like bringing up the topic with a three-year-old. Like a three-year-old, socialists don't like to work much. And they tend to only care
about what they want right now. They like to consume resources, but they have no idea how wealth, resources, and rising
income streams are created. Not only do they not know, they don't want to know. Thinking is always subordinated to "feeling." We raised our kids already and we never tried to reason with them when they were toddlers.
One of the bell weather talking points of most Trump haters emerged during the Kavanaugh hearings. There was little doubt there was a central clearing house for bullet points that were damning of Kavanaugh. Over and over we heard from Democrats on television and elsewhere say that Kavanaugh did not have the proper “temperament” to be a Supreme Court justice. One had to wonder what sort of temperament should be required for someone to quietly accept the fact that hack politicians had fabricated rape accusations in the bizarre hope
that absurd uncorroborated claims from decades ago, might somehow derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Who needs anyone who will sit calmly while political assassins empty a dump truck of excrement on his head?
The Kavanaugh episode was historic because reasonable people might have wanted to oppose Kavanaugh because they disagreed with his judicial philosophy. These types could have simply asked a few questions about opinions he wrote that they disagreed with, and then vote no based on his legal opinions. Of course this would be the classy way to vote no. On the other hand, with Democrats, engaging in shameless character assassination ruled the day. And when Democrats showed a vindictively evil side, many of the non-Trump hating public, who are also fair-minded, did not care for it.
Here's the point. In the blue states it never matters what Democrats do, they win no matter what. However, in battleground states integrity and fairness matters. And particularly in red states, it turns out that Dianne Feinstein’s gutless charade against Kavanaugh created a political squeeze that helped destroy the political careers of Claire
McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Heidi Heitkamp of North
Dakota and also enhance the GOP majority in the Senate. Each of these three Democrats, was running for re-election in a battleground state. Each was forced to
choose between the demands of New York socialist Chuck Schumer’s whims, and the
overwhelming preferences of their local constituents. These three senators all decided
they could get away with voting against the Supreme Court nominee of a
president that carried their state by a wide margin. It seems they forgot Trump took their states in 2016 due mainly to the fact that voters wanted him to make the SCOTUS nomination. All three, under partisan pressure to screw over Kavanaugh, as
the saying goes, CHOSE POORLY. Their decisions to screw Kavanaugh were not well-received. The lone Democrat senator from a battleground state who
supported Kavanaugh, was Joe Manchin. Manchin was not so coincidentally re-elected. Had it not been for the Kavanaugh affair, the blue wave would have been bigger.
Another interesting development last night was the
incredible speed and accuracy with which Fox News projected that the Democrats
would re-take control of the House. Switching back and forth between all the
networks last night was illuminating. After the pollsters so clearly failed all news media
outlets in 2016, it was obvious that more scientific methods of forecasting election outcomes was needed. Just two days ago The Hill, a left leaning news site
posted an opinion piece claiming the GOP was bracing for a massive wipe out in
the governor races. Nationwide the Democrats wound up with one less governor
than they began the night with.
Not every media outlet stood pat while clinging
to obviously flawed systems for projecting election results. It seems that Fox
was the only network that substantially improved its analytics. Early in the
evening Fox went so far as to announce that it was projecting the Democrat
takeover of the House. This must have stunned its audience. Switching to all
the other networks for confirmation of Fox’s bold prediction proved fruitless. None
was projecting any such thing. After returning to Fox, explanations were provided
by the chief analytic guy who explained how Fox felt it knew so early on that
the GOP was going to lose the House. We’ll spare you the jargon used in the
explanation. Safe to say Fox understood much earlier and more than any other
network, what was most relevant in the mountains of data everyone had the
opportunity to gather. It was almost ironic that only the pro-GOP network in
America was the first to tell America the GOP was going to lose the House. In
the meantime CNN, the NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. were all engaged in nearly
identical race-by-race vote count updates. None had a clue about the bigger
picture like Fox. Grasping the big picture and paying for superior analytics just did not seem to be anywhere near the top of the
agendas at all of those "news" outlets. No surprise there.
