*first posted 9/5/20, 9:32 PM
When I found myself writing last night "Joe Biden is going to win the election" I thought to myself, "Isn't that a good thing?" When I caveated it with the 60M and as necessary and ended, as I have since Aug. 26, the country is gone," I thought, "Is not the perfect the enemy of the good?"
I answered the first of these internal interrogatories "Yes," and had to admit to myself that it made me happy and recognized the truthfulness of Voltaire's adage in the second.
I considered the first question overnight. Had I been "under the influence" when I wrote Biden was going to win, under the influence of my first check of the polls since Aug. 26? Biden +7 nationally, ahead in nine of RCP's "top battleground" states, reclaiming North Carolina in the no toss-ups map to go back to 352 electoral votes. I was surprised about that--where was the Trump bump?--and that made me happy. Yes, I had been under the influence.
Of course, like an economist, I could always see "on the other hand": Biden's collective lead in the battlegrounds was less, Trump was ahead of where he was at the same time in 2016, but did I want to be Paul Krugman? Is not a lead in nine of twelve battlegrounds a good thing? It is. Beats the other way around.
Upon reflection the polls had obscured from my view the dark bedrock exposed to me fully on the night of Aug. 26: that Trump's nascent police state "would do anything" (David Brooks' words), including violence at polling places, to prevent Trump from losing, the end of Democracy in America.
But this morning I'm coming back, I am not leaving for Bimini, my sight is foreshortened to the immediate goal: keeping Biden at 270+ in the polls. Then I'll vote. Then the Nov. 3 result will come. Then we'll see about Democracy in America. I have to append to last night's statement, "unless infamous forces steal it." That is as good as it gets and I'll take it.
I answered the first of these internal interrogatories "Yes," and had to admit to myself that it made me happy and recognized the truthfulness of Voltaire's adage in the second.
I considered the first question overnight. Had I been "under the influence" when I wrote Biden was going to win, under the influence of my first check of the polls since Aug. 26? Biden +7 nationally, ahead in nine of RCP's "top battleground" states, reclaiming North Carolina in the no toss-ups map to go back to 352 electoral votes. I was surprised about that--where was the Trump bump?--and that made me happy. Yes, I had been under the influence.
Of course, like an economist, I could always see "on the other hand": Biden's collective lead in the battlegrounds was less, Trump was ahead of where he was at the same time in 2016, but did I want to be Paul Krugman? Is not a lead in nine of twelve battlegrounds a good thing? It is. Beats the other way around.
Upon reflection the polls had obscured from my view the dark bedrock exposed to me fully on the night of Aug. 26: that Trump's nascent police state "would do anything" (David Brooks' words), including violence at polling places, to prevent Trump from losing, the end of Democracy in America.
But this morning I'm coming back, I am not leaving for Bimini, my sight is foreshortened to the immediate goal: keeping Biden at 270+ in the polls. Then I'll vote. Then the Nov. 3 result will come. Then we'll see about Democracy in America. I have to append to last night's statement, "unless infamous forces steal it." That is as good as it gets and I'll take it.
