GM Moves on to the Next Administation

By Bryan Williams

The news of General Motors retreating from the Trump Administration’s fight with the California Air Resources Board and joining Ford, BMW, VW, and Honda isn’t a surprise. President Trump was peculiarly involved in the auto industry.

He berated the domestic brands for outsourcing assembly to other countries, especially Mexico. He also fought my home state of California over its stricter-than-federal fuel economy standards. Taking a hardline pro-business stance on the auto industry was supposed to win Trump votes in Michigan in 2020. We know how that turned out.

GM bailing out of Trump’s legal efforts against the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to me is just a business decision to curry favor with the next administration. That Detroit automakers have been based in otherwise deep-blue Michigan, complicit in union inefficiencies for decades, and receptive to government bailouts – three realities that follow the Yellow Brick Road to a preference for the Democratic Party -- is a story for another day.

But what about two sets of fuel economy standards? When President Obama abruptly dictated an astronomical increase in fuel efficiency, I thought there was no way the automakers could meet them by 2025. How do politicians expect a business with such long development time, such as the auto industry, to turn on a dime when platforms and engines are designed for seven- to 10-year product cycles?

There should be one national standard, and it could be the California standard as long as the automakers are given enough time to implement them, without throwing mandates or lawsuits around in an attempt to appease the political base.

The auto industry will be able to meet the California fuel economy standard, which at 51 mpg by 2026 still reflects a bit of a break from the Obama administration’s 54.5 mpg by 2025. But let’s choose one national mandate and stick with it for a while. It would provide the regulatory stability businesses need.

—–

The Democratic Party Will Not Be a United Dinner Party

By Michelle Naranjo

My grandmother would always make Sunday dinner for my extended family, and she always made sure to cook specific dishes for every member of the family. Fried chicken for me, chicken fried steak for my brother, glazed green beans for my mother, and so on. Weekly, she spent hours in the kitchen, making all of these dishes, and in the end, we all ate together.

The Democratic Party, for the most part, appeared to unify behind Joe Biden for president. But in the days following Nov. 3, 2020, the cracks began to show. It would seem that the party was holding a collective breath to keep up appearances before exhaling the deep-seated division that has been grumbling under the seams for years.

While former Democratic presidential candidates Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang threw their weight behind the Biden/Harris ticket, hitting campaign rallies (many of which were on Zoom because of concerns about COVID-19), their supporters mostly followed along. They decided that unification mattered, and a career moderate politician was the direction that the Left needed to go to defeat President Trump.

But there are still echoes of “Me! Me! Me! Pick me!”, resounding among the diverse voters.

During an era when people choose to support by how a candidate’s platform appeals to the individual themselves as a voter -- which insinuates more of an emotional commitment to a candidate than one that is pragmatic for the greater good -- it is no surprise that “true feelings” built up to an almost explosive level post-election.

Add to that equation the Republicans who came into the Biden fold through The Lincoln Project, and the fire gets even more fuel.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Squad immediately began to criticize the former Republican operatives that founded The Lincoln Project for collecting funds that supported their anti-Trump state-targeted advertising campaigns instead of funding their own Democratic campaigns. Many of The Lincoln Project supporters -- some of whom do not qualify as Republicans but tend to be voters who don’t vote party lines every election -- fought back that The Squad is anti-Semitic because of their human rights for Palestine stance.

Black allies don’t like Pete Buttigieg because of his hiring record. Progressives complained that there wasn’t enough recognition given to women, Black people, the Latinx, and Native American voters in Biden’s success. Moderates Democrats thought that the “abolish the police” slogan lost support for state and local candidates. And progressive parties like the Working Families Party are beginning to run their own candidates, sometimes as Democrats, and increasingly under their own party name.

As Chuck Rocha, a Texas-raised Democratic strategist who runs Nuestro PAC, a super PAC focused on Latino outreach, stated to NBC, “Biden won, and that’s great, but everything underneath Biden was a huge catastrophe.” [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/huge-catastrophe-democrats-grapple-congressional-state-election-losses-n1248529]

Will Joe Biden be able to pull together all of the disparity, especially when the Democratic party performed so poorly down-ballot? With so many trying to raise their individualized voices, it appears that Biden will have an ongoing struggle with pleasing all of the people all of the time. Is this going to be a family-style dinner with a seat for everyone?

Beyond a strategy to combat the coronavirus and affected economy, Biden’s top initiative is climate change. Despite the currently divided rhetoric about the yet to be announced presidential cabinet, issues like this will be the grounding displays that will surely win some unity.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the three largest strategy consulting firms globally, sees Biden as capable of making headway in leading the shift required to address climate change. BCG states, “President-elect Biden campaigned on the most ambitious climate platform of any presidential candidate in history—and he has indicated that his administration will move quickly to pursue that policy. A transition to a low-carbon economy can have enormous benefits for U.S. businesses, creating thousands of jobs across the country while positioning the U.S. to be a driving force and innovation leader both domestically and abroad. Companies that are prepared to participate in the green recovery can reap substantial rewards.” [https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/new-course-for-climate-in-united-states]

That’s possible only if Biden can successfully and positively affect special interest groups, even those across the aisle, with initiatives that address the plethora of issues at hand.

Will this stop splinter groups from trying to build a new third party? Or even a fourth and fifth? Unlikely.

But as a collective restaurant under a President Biden, multiple dinners for the many “party of one” at least gets everyone in the same room.

—–

Can Biden Work with The Squad and Centrist Republicans?

By Todd Lassa

As moderates and traditionalists continue to wrestle the Republican Party from the hands of President Trump and his most faithful populist followers, the Democratic Party is mirroring its cross-aisle rivals with a similar struggle. President-elect Joe Biden and his transition team, though hobbled by Trump’s aversion to conceding the election, are working hard to take the middle road and avoid concessions to The Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as voters who would rather have voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the Democratic Party’s nominee.

Democrats this election season have been uncharacteristically low-key compared with the GOP about infighting between centrists and their respective hardline wings. Biden’s record 79-million-plus votes Nov. 3 certainly includes both an unknown number of centrist Republicans who never would have voted for Sanders, or for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for that matter, as well as young Democrats who would have preferred Sanders.

But the 2020 “Blue Wave” never happened. Biden must govern from the White House with Republicans increasing their minority in the House of Representatives by at least six seats and with Senate leadership depending on Georgia’s special January runoff elections for both of its seats. Democratic candidates must win both runoffs for a 50-50 count in the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to serve as the tie-breaker. Even if that long-shot happens, Biden will face a recalcitrant Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who infamously vowed 12 years ago to make Barack Obama a one-term president and will undoubtedly lead his fellow Republican senators in key filibusters.

Already, Capitol Hills pundits are talking about how Biden will have to rule by executive order, where he can, to reverse some of the policies that Trump is rushing to implement in his waning time as president, including efforts to begin the final process of leasing parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies.

The future of the fossil fuel industry and potential for alternatives to gain prominence is central to both sides, of course, including traditional pro-business Republicans and Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, who with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the Green New Deal shortly after she took office in early 2019.

At presstime, President-elect Biden’s cabinet picks were beginning to emerge and they are largely considered centrists. Anthony Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state according to Bloomberg, Linda Greenfield-Thomas will be tapped for United Nations ambassador and Jake Sullivan, former aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be national security advisor. The Biden transition team already has confirmed that longtime advisor Ron Klain will be the 46^th president’s chief of staff.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs.

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–

An ‘Agenda’ Filled With Executive Orders

By Bryan Williams

Copious amounts of ink have been spilled since Joe Biden became president-elect about his vision for the country. Some have even said he has a mandate based on the record 78.7 million people who voted for him. Really? 50.9 percent is a mandate?

I expect a lot of Joe's first 100 days -- or even the first two years of his term -- will be government by executive order. We have a divided government, and that will most likely still be the case after Georgia choses its two U.S. Senators in its runoff elections in early January. Divided government is good in that no one person or party can steamroll through a partisan agenda. Look at what the Democrats did with Obamacare when they owned the White House and the Capitol building, or what the Republicans did with the tax cuts early in President Trump's term.

I think we too often look towards the government to define American life and history when we should look more towards our people: no government told Henry Ford to build a car, no government told Jeff Bezos to sell books online, and no government told Andy Warhol to paint.

Joe Biden will most likely be a caretaker president and won’t make any sea changes. One area he may have a slight effect is in foreign affairs. There is a lot of work to do to re-engage America in the world after Trump's retrenchment. I am a bit fearful of what Biden may do regarding foreign affairs. I mean, he advised against sending in the strike team that killed Osama bin Laden. I'm sure he'll bring the US back into the Paris Accords, but last time I checked, the skies in my neighborhood wasn't so much polluted by CO2 released by humans as it was by massive forest fires that no international accord could account for.

Here's to governmental gridlock. May Joe Biden's term shift the focus to the innovators and people that fill our great fruited plain with ideas, hard work, and hopes and dreams.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

—–

Still No Concession from Trump

By Nic Woods

Some important members of the Trump administration – including Donald J. Trump himself – are in denial over last week’s election result and so America must suffer the consequences of rejecting four more years of him.

In just one 24-hour post-election news cycle the week after former Vice President Biden was declared winner:

• News organizations had to cover not one, but two, press conferences where ranking administration officials acted like an election never happened, much less that their boss lost.

• Attorney General William Barr handed to Justice department prosecutors the authority to investigate claims of voter fraud.

• Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, refused to sign papers to release to Biden $6.3 million of $10 million set aside for his transition because it’s unclear to her who had won.

•Federal agencies have been told to proceed with Trump’s fiscal 2022 budget.

•Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and demoted Federal Energy Regulatory Committee Chairman Neil Chatterjee in a spree of administration figures deemed not sufficiently loyal.

•Installed Mike Ellis as general counsel to the National Security Agency, making him more difficult to fire (except Trump may not remember issuing an executive order that would, in fact, make him easier to fire).

There are many more examples that seem like random individual meltdowns, but they all matter – they are as complex a power play the Trump administration can muster in its three-pronged strategy, along with fighting math in the courts and working up the base with baseless claims of voter fraud.

This strategy – using the war on election math to hinder Biden’s transition as much as bureaucratically possible – is what is left if the other two don’t work and it offers valuable insight into the administration and what they really think of their opponent, Joe Biden.

About this time four years ago. Chris Christie, then the governor of New Jersey and a late-to-the-bandwagon Trump supporter, volunteered for the thankless task of heading the transition team of the newly elected Donald J. Trump.

It was an offer Trump initially rejected because, according to Michael Lewis, author of “The Fifth Risk,” which talks about the missed opportunities of Trump’s own transition, “why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president?”

Well, Christie said, it was required.

The Presidential Transition Act, which Congress first passed in 1963 and has been amended four times -- as recently as 2019 – to “recognize the increasing complexities of presidential transitions” was passed to ease and promote the orderly transfer of power because “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The act has key national security implications as well that involve background checks for the high-level members of the new administration so they could be done by the inauguration. The president-elect, under the act, is required to be given a classified summary as soon as possible after the election on national security threats, covert military operations and pending decisions on possible uses of military force.

So yes, the transition is a big deal and while Trump didn’t know that four years ago, he knows it enough now to try to impede Biden’s administration by pretending there remains some way the courts can shake out a few votes that Joe Biden will just give up and leave. And, if Biden’s stubborn enough to stay, well, he’ll be behind the eight-ball, won’t get anything accomplished and half the country will be against him.

But Biden isn’t some outsider who doesn’t know how Washington works. He’s spent 36 years in the Senate and ran for president one time more than Trump has. He has connections, including Trump’s predecessor, many of whom are experts in their field.

Unlike Trump four years ago, Biden knows the act and what he should be getting from it. Biden will listen to the experts, though they are being purged from the Trump administration at a rapid rate.

Joe Biden also has the resources and knowledge base to still have a functional government and a peaceful transfer of power the third week of January, regardless of what Trump does.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

There are Legitimate Issues Dangling in This Election, Too

By Andrew Boyd

Enough with all the pearl clutching, my Democrat friends. You've got no room to talk. Hillary has been crying in her Chablis for the past four years, claiming the 2016 presidential election was stolen by a Russian cat's paw, cheered on relentlessly by a complicit, nakedly partisan media establishment.

Was it not she who said Joe shouldn't concede under any circumstances? Care to explain? And how about Stacey Abrams, who is regularly held up as the real Georgia governor despite a 50,000-vote loss? Gore vs. Bush went on for 37 days, for God's sake. Mass mail-in balloting was certain to be problematic, more open to fraud and solicitous of malfeasance. You know that as well as Jimmy Carter did just 15 years ago, when he led a bi-partisan commission that concluded mail-in absentee balloting was susceptible to fraud (he backed off that conclusion earlier this year, suggesting states had “evolved” their systems).

And enough, please, with all the holier-than-thou talk of respect for American institutions, thee who threatens to pack the courts and eliminate the electoral college. You claim virtue in the name of expedience, and I ain't buying.

Now, there are legitimate issues to be resolved through established, legal means including recounts, recanvassing and adjudication of legal filings. It accrues to the benefit of all Americans that we have faith in the outcomes of our elections, which necessarily requires they hold up to rigorous political, social and legal scrutiny. When it's all said and done, we'll have a winner and a peaceful transition of power. Then, we can move on to the Georgia runoffs for U.S. Senate, where I'd hope no one takes the advice of columnist Thomas Friedman and seeks to commit election fraud. Any of my Democratic friends want to stand up in opposition to that one? I hope so.

In the meantime, please enjoy the rebounding economy, a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector, American energy independence, burgeoning hope for peace in the Middle-East, China at the bargaining table, and the relative calm in our streets. It may be the last you see of all these things for a good long while.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

Why Just Two?

By Stephen Macaulay

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that he’d cast his ballot some weeks earlier. He said, “I didn’t vote for either of those two. As the father of a daughter I couldn’t vote for Trump. As the owner of a small business I couldn’t vote for Biden.”

He voted for Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian candidate for president. Not that he had any illusion that she would win. He just wanted to participate in our democracy.

He told me that this is the second presidential cycle he’s done that.

Mind you he is a well-educated owner of a profitable, family-owned business. Twenty years ago he might have been a Democrat. Now that he is in his 50s, I would have guessed Republican.

His position isn’t exactly “a pox on both of your houses.”

It is more of “I can’t see how either of these people is going to help me.”

As we wait for the results, there is undoubted feeling of rancor among both sides.

Many Trump supporters undoubtedly think that Biden supporters are a bunch of latte-sipping snowflakes who don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom.

And on the Biden side they’re seeing a gang of overweight patrons of outlet malls.

Neither is correct.

Both sides are Americans. Both sides are participating in the electoral process. Both sides think their guy is the right one for the country.

One side is going to be pissed when the last ballot has been counted. Or the last lawsuit settled.

If one wins with the majority of the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be an outcry to abolish that mechanism. Undoubtedly there will be some action.

But is that enough?

Why is it that people like Jo Jorgensen don’t have a snowball’s chance?

Why is it that there are just two parties that seem to matter?

Maybe instead of just going for direct voting there should be more adjustments made to the system as it exists.

Perhaps we should take a page from the British system, which has campaigns running for four weeks. People and parties that are less well-funded than the Republicans and Democrats would not be at the huge disadvantage that they are now. While some would say that the wealthy candidate would just pour it on for those 30 or so days, let’s look at it this way: If you have a glass that you fill with water, at some point it is full and no matter how much more you put in it there won’t be more. Arguably the same could be said for political ads.

You won’t be happy today.

I won’t be happy today.

But do you know who won’t be unhappy?

My friend who voted Libertarian.

Macaulay is The Hustings’ pundit-at-large.

—–

In the Opera of Presidential Elections, No Need for Third Parties

By Bryan Williams

It has been eight days since the election and it appears most of the media and country have accepted that Joseph Robinette Biden will be our 46th president. However, Arizona and a few other states are still counting, and recounts are inevitable either by law or by the Trump campaign’s request. The plump lady hasn’t sung yet, if you ask me. There was no political violence after the election as feared, and the nearly 72 million Americans who voted for President Trump peacefully heard the results and have so far doggedly remained steadfast with a glimmer of hope that Trump will win.

And yet, I sympathize with the center column writer. In 2016 I was dubious of both candidates Clinton and Trump and voted for a third party. Even I, a grizzled Republican vet, bought into the media narrative that Trump would be a disaster as president, so I made a protest vote. I was a bit scared of what Trump meant for our country’s future, but the past four years has been a surprise. Like many, I don’t care for the president’s more acidic behaviors, but for the most part the Trump presidency has been just fine for America and has not led to her ruin. I feel like America won’t be ruined either if or when Biden is certified as the winner, and not just because it looks as if the GOP will keep the Senate. I have more faith than that in the American people and believe one-party rule would be our own worst enemy – just look at California.

Elections, even those not held during an unprecedented global pandemic and with nearly universal mail-in balloting, take time. Give the poll workers time. Give the lawyers some time. Give the judges some time. We live in an age that is ever more used to instantaneous results and gratification. We have to get this election right, and as Sen. Mitch McConnell said, President Trump is well within his rights to challenge everything he legally can.

So let’s wait to hear the singing from the plump lady, shall we? Remember whatever the outcome, we all appeal to the better angels of our nature and act as responsible, dignified American voters. We will get up the next day and go to work and love and care for our children. And we will hope. Hope the best for America no matter who is elected president. I won’t be unhappy either. But I am willing to wait for that singing.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

-30-

In Search of Free and Fair Elections in Pennsylvania

By Andrew Boyd

Rural Pennsylvania, in the vicinity of Lancaster, was the place of my upbringing, and my parents and grandparents, who, on my mother’s side, were Mennonites of the mostly orthodox variety. It was a generally conservative vibe of the God Bless America, hand over heart, tell the truth, stand up straight, elbows off the table, “yes sir, yes, ma’am” variety.

I watched, then, with special interest the rioting in Lancaster that followed the police shooting back in September. I was encouraged by the response of local authorities in quickly rounding up and charging instigators. It seems law and order still has a foothold someplace, although I’m told by friends who haven’t left that Lancaster, or significant pockets of it, have succumbed to the kind of generalized rot of homelessness, hopelessness, drugs, poverty and cultural nihilism that characterizes far too much of America these days. It’s a really serious and pervasive problem that ought to be the stuff of serious discussion and debate, but what kind of ratings or clicks would that likely generate, right? Moving on.

It’s hard not to be cynical about a lot of things these days, and where the Pennsylvania vote count is concerned, I think conservatives are justified in at least raising an eyebrow when no less than the state’s Attorney General, Josh Shapiro, asserts a full day before the polls are closed -- if Pennsylvania polls can ever be said to be truly closed -- that “if all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose.” Excuse me, what? Reverse political polarities on this one and it’d be the stuff of mainstream media outrage and late-night TV host wet dreams for weeks if not months or years to follow. But down the memory hole it goes. Bye, bye.

That little bit of saying the quiet part out loud followed a series of judicial rulings that also flew in the face of established PA election law -- the kind made by, you know, lawmakers -- because, you know, COVID; just the latest example of left’s pandemic hypocrisy. Thankfully, we’ve had some more recent state court rulings that lean into established legal doctrine, like the courts aren’t supposed to make the law, meaning questionable ballots are at least sequestered, including those from voters unable to produce identification at the time of their filing.

That said, I suspect the game is up, and that all of the litigation in the world, legitimate or otherwise, won’t make a difference in the end. And, so be it. Where free and fair elections are concerned, I’m not rooting for either party, or any outcome except that which follows the letter of the law, because, you know, the ends do not justify the means. What an old-fashioned idea that is, right? Blame it on my upbringing, and pass the shoo-fly pie, please.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

_____

The Beginning is Near

By Michelle Naranjo

There was an election on Tuesday, and it already feels like it was weeks ago. The news cycle seems to have increased momentum at a rate opposite of half-life. A characteristic even more noticeable in 2020. But here we are: stressed, tired, fearful.

There are protestors outside of the Maricopa County elections Department where ballots are being counted, among other races, for the critical presidential election. Former Vice President Biden is ahead of President Trump in Arizona. The crowd chanting, “Count the vote,” is armed and angry. Their peers in Detroit, Michigan today were chanting, “Stop the vote.” Trump was behind in the count, and they tried to gain access to the inner sanctum where the ballots were to stop the process forcefully.

Several things happened on Election Day beyond the regular polling: People stood in line for hours in many towns and cities, disinformation flooded social media, and an anonymous robocall went out to over 10 million people, warning them to not go to their polling spots. And still, people flocked to the polls in record numbers while millions of mail-in ballots were already being tallied.

The following day, a record-breaking 100,000-plus people were diagnosed with COVID-19, and President Trump began routinely filing lawsuits against states to stop counting ballots. He had declared victory the previous evening. He never mentioned the rising number of people who had fallen ill. There was no mention of the miracle vaccines that had become his rally cry.

Despite leading in electoral college votes, former Vice President Biden did not proclaim victory, but confidence that the Biden/Harris ticket would prevail after every vote was counted.

And then his team quietly launched a transition website, BuildBackBetter.com.

The site is still bare-boned but leads with, “The American people will determine who will serve as the next President of the United States. Votes are still being counted in several states around the country. The crises facing the country are severe — from a pandemic to an economic recession, climate change to racial injustice — and the transition team will continue preparing at full speed so that the Biden-Harris Administration can hit the ground running on Day One. The only link is to a Spanish translation.

And with that debut, Biden introduced everyone to the possibility of a calmer future. An end to divisiveness came suddenly into sight.

Naranjo is a freelance writer based in rural Pennsylvania.

—–

Conservatism Will Always Find a Place in America

By Andrew Boyd

For any of you that have read my previous missives, first, God bless you; second, you’ll know I’m a big fan of metaphors. So, when my esteemed editor emailed me requesting a column themed ‘Ragnarök’ I was gleeful, recognizing immediately what an apt framework it provided to discuss the phenomenon that is Trump and today’s body politic.

To my way of thinking, Trump was the inevitable, final and desperate gambit by a plurality of Americans who believed, right or wrong, that their economic futures were being sacrificed by preening, global elites in the name of a cause unknown, probably greed. The folks in flyover country were tired of being talked down to and dismissed by the establishment writ large, and so they crowned the beast, the vulgarian, the fire-breathing monster and said, “burn it all down.”

Four years later, they’ve returned to the ballot box with, notably, a more racially, politically and socially diverse coalition of voters to say the job is not yet done. And they’re bolstered by an increasingly unhinged left that can’t imagine theirs is not the only right and righteous idea for how to run a society. And while conservatives may yet lose the presidency, I think the broader election outcomes speak to a war that has just begun. You’re already beginning to hear from more centrists Democrats the notion that perhaps their party has lost the plot, that maybe the working assumption, that nearly half your fellow Americans are racist, homophobic, xenophobic trolls, isn’t a very strong foundation on which to build a sustainable political movement.

Perhaps, instead, it’s possible, just possible, that conservatives are people, too, with a different but still important and viable point of view; people who simple can’t accept the operative premise of the radical left that America is the America of the 1619 Project, the America of unbridled institutional racism. Or that caring, compassionate citizens can still struggle with the idea of a federal government takeover of healthcare, or federally funded abortions up to the moment of birth. Maybe they are rightly distrustful of an unaccountable bureaucracy and unbridled state power, and that terrible, awful, no good idea that words are violence and where that inevitably leads.

Conservatism, after all, is not a place it’s a people; and if the land we love no longer wants us, then we’ll make a new land in which to live free and accountable to one another as sovereign and precious souls. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but only time will tell.

Blessings to all.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

View of Election Night from the Left

Nov. 5 UPDATE: There has been no "blue wave" in the U.S. Senate, with Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., expected to retain his position as majority chairman. [He has since suggested the Senate consider a second coronavirus relief package before the presidential inauguration, a shift from a previous position that it would not be considered until after Jan. 20.] Currently, the Senate makeup is 48-48, with Democrats up one seat and Republicans down by one. The GOP will almost certainly win two more, with incumbents Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and David Perdue of Georgia expected to retain their leads. Of the two remaining, incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., leads Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham, 48.7 percent to 46.9 percent, though with 94 percent of the ballots counted, Tillis could lose if Biden ultimately flips the state. The second is a special election in Georgia for its other Senate seat, where Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock, at 32.7 percent of the vote with 96 percent of the ballots in, and incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler, at 26.1 percent, edged out Republican challenger Doug Collins at 20.1 percent. The runoff will be held in January.

The Hustings asked contributing liberal pundits to tell us their thoughts of the presidential election just before turning in for the night. Whether because they were still watching well into Wednesday as we went to post, or because they fell asleep trying to wait out the results, our responses have been rather limited. Here’s what we heard back:

For liberal pundit Michelle Naranjo, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s failure to strike a decisive blow against the Trump campaign is disappointing, though perhaps not much of a surprise.

“There is a blazing red mirage in front of the U.S. map tonight,” she writes. “Ballot counts appear close, and possibly even dire for the Biden, but much like Trump’s escapades, it is temporary smoke and mirrors.

“Republicans appear to be leading in vote tallies, but in-person votes (heavily Republican) are being counted before mail-in ballots, which typically skew Democratic voters. Tomorrow, and even the days following should pull the real results into focus.”

As noted in his last left column [“Fair and Unbalanced,” Nov. 3], Stephen Macaulay is at home, either watching “The Mandalorian” or reading a book.

—–

Biden is One State from Victory, at 264-214 Electoral Vote Lead Over Trump

By Todd Lassa

Nov. 4 UPDATE: Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was named "apparent winner" of Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes Wednesday afternoon. The Trump campaign says it will file for a recount. Meanwhile, despite the AP's early morning declaration calling the state for Biden, ballots in Arizona are still being counted and no winner has been officially named. The latest electoral vote count is 248 for Biden and 214 for Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal.

First, it seemed we were in for a long Election Day evening, lasting until this Friday or beyond as we waited for vote counts from the states Donald Trump flipped to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Then President Trump appeared before a crowd of unmasked supporters at the White House about 2:30 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday to confirm the fears his opponents in the Democratic Party have long held.

“We were getting ready to win this election,” Trump said, to the cheers of his crowd. “Frankly, we did win this election.”

President Trump threatened, without merit, to take his grievance to the Supreme Court with his three appointees, including Amy Coney Barrett. “We don’t want them to find ballots at four in the morning,” he said.

Shortly after three in the morning, however, the Associated Press called Arizona for Biden, the first state to turn from its 2016 vote. Democratic candidate Mark Kelly also beat Republican Martha McSally in the race for John McCain’s old Senate seat, the AP also reported.

With Trump’s lead in Wisconsin hinging on mail-in ballots still being counted in Milwaukee County, and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina still in play, Biden was holding on to a 238-213 Electoral College vote lead over Trump, The Wall Street Journal reported.

BREAKING: The vote count in Metro Milwaukee, reported at 4:45 a.m. Eastern time, put Biden ahead of Trump in Wisconsin, though several smaller cities there still had to report votes.

“It looks like it’ll be a long few days,” says Charles Dervarics, contributing editor. “Biden appears to have lost opportunities in the Southeast, though he should win Arizona. But the race looks like it will come down to the old Midwest ‘blue wall’ of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Just as in 2016, they again will decide the election.”

Prior to Trump’s White House speech, Biden made a drive-in appearance in Wilmington, Delaware to tell supporters, “We feel good about where we are. We believe we are on-track to win the election,” but made it clear there is no victory for him yet to declare.

“It is not over until every ballot is counted.”

This presidential election most certainly will revive calls to reform the system and its 51 ways to count votes, but not until after it is over – in weeks, if not in months.

“Although the presidential election isn’t decided, and may not be for a bit, it’s clear that our country needs improved vote counting,” says Gary Sawyer, of The Hustings editorial board.

“The rules on counting absentee ballots differ wildly from state to state. That’s an issue in this extremely strange year. No one could have anticipated the onslaught of early voting. But the result has been increased turnout and it’s unlikely voters will want to return to traditional Election Day voting. This slower count will happen again. “

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

View of Election Night from the Right

Nov. 5 UPDATE: Andy Boyd is 2-2 in his election night picks for House races to watch. In the race for Minnesota's 7th District, Republican candidate Michelle Fischbach has defeated veteran Rep. Collin Peterson (D). With 91 percent of the vote in for Iowa's 1st District, Republican challenger Ashley Hinson leads Democratic freshman Rep. Abbey Finkenauer, 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent. But in Utah's 4th, Democratic incumbent Rep. Ben McAdams leads Republican Ben Owens, 48.2 percent to 47.1 percent, with just 73 percent of the ballots reported, and in Pennsylvania's 8th District, freshman Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright leads Republican challenger Jim Bognet, 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent, with 90 percent of the ballots counted. (All results via The New York Times.) In his Nov. 3 post, Boyd hoped President Trump's coattails would raise the count of Republican House members above 200. Instead, Biden leads the race for president with no coattails, and the Republican Party looks to gain six House members, to 190.

The Hustings asked contributing conservative pundits to tell us their thoughts of the presidential election just before turning in for the night. Whether because they were still watching well into Wednesday as we went to post, or because they fell asleep trying to wait out the results, our responses have been rather limited. Here’s what we heard back:

In an October 17 conservative commentary explaining why he thought President Trump will win the election by a close margin, Bryan Williams pointed to two small counties in the U.S. that have been near-perfect in predicting the way the rest of the nation would go.

“I said to watch Vigo County, Indiana, and Valencia County, New Mexico as bellwethers for the election,” Williams says. “Vigo must be having issues reporting because as of 9:30 p.m. Central time, no results have been reported still. But...but...! Valencia County has reported partial results (approximately 35 percent of ballots counted) and Trump is leading 67 percent to 31 percent. This bodes well for Trump...and the track record of my prediction.”

Some three hours later, it should be noted, vote counts for neither rural county could be found immediately online. Trump has been declared the winner in the state of Indiana, while Biden has won New Mexico.

Henry Payne defends the incumbent (in commentary submitted before the president’s White House appearance Wednesday morning), saying, “Trump’s policies, like his rhetoric, are often blunt and ill-conceived. But middle-class Americans sense someone in leadership fighting for them against corporate, media, and government elites.”

—–