There’s Voter Suppression

…and there’s voter suppression. A poll taken two days after the first Presidential debate and run by The Wall Street Journal and NBC has Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden opening up a 14-per centage point lead over incumbent President Donald Trump.

However.

Aside from the fact that the poll sampled registered voters, rather than more accurately sampling likely voters, the poll oversampled (Progressive-)Democrat registered voters by eight per centage points (and thereby undersampled Republican registered voters by the same amount), which greatly biased the results.

On the other hand, a Daily Express poll, taken after Trump’s diagnosis with the Wuhan Virus (but which methodology is not described) indicates a different status of the race:

68% said the illness would not affect their vote while 19% said they were “more likely” to support Trump and only 13% “less likely”.

And these poll results:

National Popular Vote

Trump (Republican) = 46%

Biden (Democrat) = 45%

Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 3%

Hawkins (Green) = 1%

Undecided = 5%

And

Battleground States – Popular Vote

Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Trump (Republican) = 47%

Biden (Democrat) = 43%

Jorgensen (Libertarian) = 4%

Hawkins (Green) = 1%

Undecided = 5%

Aside from having Trump in the lead in this poll, the other takeaway suggests that, despite low Libertarian support (in 2016, there was somewhat stronger Green support), a third party candidate could seriously affect the election’s outcome.

Which raises the question: is such evident bias in the WSJ/NBC poll an attempt to discourage Republican and Conservative voters from voting? It’s hard to believe these two news outlets could run such an incompetently done poll. In truth, though, they’re not alone. News outlets typically run such oversampled/undersampled polls.

Which makes the bias widespread, and the suppression, to coin a term, systemic.

Because, Of Course

Russian President-for-life-soon-to-be Vladimir Putin says Alexei Navalny secretly works (or works secretly, you pick ’em) with the CIA.

Putin’s Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov:

I can even be specific: these days, specialists from the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America are working with him.

You bet. I understand Putin has a summer dacha outside Bykovskiy he’s interested in selling, too. Nice ocean front property.

The Biden Tax Plan

…will be a disaster for our economy.  Here are some examples of the damage Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s tax plan will inflict.

Earnings reductions are directly translatable into jobs reductions—higher unemployment.

And this bit of cynicism from “a campaign employee” that’s all too typical of Biden himself:

There is no reason that an economic plan that asks everyone to pay their fair share while doing more to reach full-employment quicker with more jobs and stronger growth should not help everyone from essential workers to investors.

Notice that: the campaign, along with Biden and his—I am the Democratic Party—Party, steadfastly refuse to say what their fair share is, besides more.

“All Stakeholders”

Progressive-Democrats, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) demand absolute acceptance of and fealty to their position and elimination of any other position. The meek meekly surrender to that.

Activists blast the institution as immoral, whether because of capitalism, racism or something else. Leaders of the institution, hoping to calm passions, concede the moral point. But instead of buying political absolution, they undermine their authority and give the left more ammunition to assail them.
That has been pattern at universities, artistic groups and media companies….

Now she, and they, are after private enterprise.

Last year the [Business Roundtable] delighted liberals by ostentatiously revising its mission statement from serving shareholders to include “all stakeholders.” That’s innocuous if all they meant was trying to do right by employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate in the course of also trying to make money for shareholders.

It’s also not good enough. Warren has proposed legislation—and if the Progressive-Democrats get control of the Senate, she’ll succeed in ramming it through—that would eliminate the rights of the business’ owners, those shareholders.

Warren’s legislation would require that 40% of seats on major corporate boards be chosen by employees, which would typically mean union leaders. The companies would have to get approval of 75% of shareholders to make political contributions, which could handicap them in future anti-business campaigns. They could be sued for not pursuing the goals of local nonprofits or Black Lives Matter. Politics would control the purposes of corporate capital.

Her legislation dovetails nicely with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s promise of union jobs—and he promises only union jobs—together with his promise to do away with right-to-work laws.

That’s not all. Warren put an op-ed into Fast Company in which she required that the

Roundtable must fully commit to the principles they set out in the 2019 ‘Statement,’ act on them, and publicly report on their progress in the coming year.

This is the autocratic government favoring only the Party preferred among us—the only stakeholders of note—to which we can look forward if Biden is elected.

Nice business you got there. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.

Arms Control

In the current arms control negotiations, the Trump administration proposed

that a future treaty cover all Russia, Chinese, and US warheads and include more-intrusive verification

Russia, through its Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, rejected the proposal out of hand.

Since Russia has shown itself not serious about arms control, perhaps we should engage in a new bout of arms control via rapid arms development and buildup. That won’t produce prompt results, but it will result in a new and stricter arms control régime just as surely as the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative build up did with the Soviet Union.

A modification of a Reagan doctrine: we can afford it; they can’t.