Sign up for the Wide World of News email
SHOCK AND SURPRISE, PART XXXVI
The (correct) conventional wisdom from Tuesday’s election results is that Democrats have (correctly) taken heart from wins in the suburbs, including and specially around Philadelphia, while Republicans are (correctly) worried about the suburbs.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board shares this suburban view in its lead editorial, but then slips in this:
“But Mr. Trump may need Democrats to nominate an opponent whose agenda is far enough to the left to scare suburban voters who are tired of the daily melodrama of the Trump Presidency.”
The Journal is correct, except for the use of the word “may.”
My take: Neither shocking nor surprising.
President Trump reportedly wanted Attorney General Barr to publicly clear him of any crime connected to his July Ukraine phone call.
My take: Not surprising; would have once upon a time been shocking for a president to do something like this, but, alas, no longer.
Team Trump is dabbling in the dark, phony corners of Twitter to fight back against impeachment by using innuendo, lies, and base-revving.
My take: Not surprising; would have once upon a time been shocking for a president’s associates to do something like this, but, alas, no longer.
President Trump was more involved in Roger Stone’s Wikileaks efforts than has been previously reported.
My take: The least surprising thing of all time.
Rudy Giuliani has finally found some lawyers to represent him (for now) in the Justice Department’s criminal probe.
My take: Surprising, not shocking.
Joe Biden is fourth in another Iowa poll and now probably has a better chance of finishing fifth in the caucuses than he does of finishing first or second.
My take: Neither surprising nor shocking.
Leading Democratic pollster Mark Mellman has an essential reading master class column on how to accurately poll using landlines, mobile phones, and texting.
My take: Shocking that most consumers of polls and even some lesser pollsters don’t understand this.
In today’s edition of “Who is going after Elizabeth Warren now?”
Joe Biden, who called her an “elitist” in a radio interview.
Bill Gates, who doesn’t like her tax increase ideas.
Wall Street Journal columnist Dan Henninger, who writes, “The Warren meltdown could prove to be the Democratic left’s Chernobyl, a lasting catastrophe.”
The New York Times news pages, which runs an interactive graphic on her tax and defense spending cut ideas that could form the basis of nearly all of the RNC’s messaging in a Trump-Warren general election.
All of which is part of what led the Washington Post to write a piece questioning if the recent/current attacks on Warren are sexist or, at least, gender freighted.
With the exception of the Gates jibe (to which Warren responded on Twitter), her campaign is consistently not engaging on the latest criticisms.
My take: Semi-shocking that all these anti-Warren men don’t realize that the nature of these attacks could help her; surprising that Team Warren seems passive, which worries some neutral Democrats when it comes to gaming out how she would deal with Trump attacks in a general election.
The Saudis allegedly worked improperly with Twitter employees to monitor anti-Saudi tweeters.
My take: I take back what I wrote above. THIS is the least surprising thing of all time.
Top sports story: Joe Burrow of LSU Tigers the Heisman Trophy favorite, Kyler Murray says
Top business story: Kohl’s, Macy’s turn to pop-up shops and Instagram-worthy displays to try to win the holidays
Top entertainment story: Ben Affleck to Star in Robert Rodriguez’s Action Thriller ‘Hypnotic’