Out Today: Tucker Carlson, Ship of Fools

At Amazon, Tucker Carlson, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

Harvard Rated Asian-Americans Lower

I'm discussing civil rights in my American government classes this week, and I want to read and blog this blockbuster piece that was at the New York Times in June.

See, "Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says":

Breaking News: Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower on personal traits, according to an analysis by a group suing the school for bias https://t.co/rkb3pUi3Y7

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 15, 2018

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them.

Harvard, one of the most sought-after and selective universities in the country, admitted only 4.6 percent of its applicants this year. That has led to intense interest in the university’s closely guarded admissions process. Harvard had fought furiously over the last few months to keep secret the documents that were unsealed Friday.

The documents came out as part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend.

The findings come at a time when issues of race, ethnicity, admission, testing and equal access to education are confronting schools across the country, from selective public high schools like Stuyvesant High School in New York to elite private colleges. Many Ivy League schools, not just Harvard, have had similar ratios of Asian-American, black, white and Hispanic students for years, despite fluctuations in application rates and qualifications, raising questions about how those numbers are arrived at and whether they represent unspoken quotas.

Harvard and the group suing it have presented sharply divergent views of what constitutes a fair admissions process.

“It turns out that the suspicions of Asian-American alumni, students and applicants were right all along,” the group, Students for Fair Admissions, said in a court document laying out the analysis. “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.

“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

In court papers, Harvard said that a statistical analysis could not capture the many intangible factors that go into Harvard admissions. Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans. In response, the plaintiffs said their expert had factored out these applicants because he wanted to look at the pure effect of race on admissions, unclouded by other factors.

Both sides filed papers Friday asking for summary judgment, an immediate ruling in their favor. If the judge denies those requests, as is likely, a trial has been scheduled for October. If it goes on to the Supreme Court, it could upend decades of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the country.

Harvard is not the only Ivy League school facing pressure to admit more Asian-American students. Princeton and Cornell and others also have high numbers of Asian-American applicants. Yet their share of Asian-Americans students is comparable with Harvard’s.

In Friday’s court papers, the plaintiffs describe a shaping process that begins before students even apply, when Harvard buys data about PSAT scores and G.P.A.s, according to the plaintiffs’ motion. It is well documented that these scores vary by race.

The plaintiffs’ analysis was based on data extracted from the records of more than 160,000 applicants who applied for admission over six cycles from 2000 to 2015...

Keep reading.

Decent Democrats?

Following-up from last night, "Have Democrats Any Decency?"

Here's the astounding Derek Hunter, at Town Hall, "Is There a Decent Democrat Left in America?":

Derek Hunter - Is There A Decent Democrat Left In America? https://t.co/Lrjs3bFLfX

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) September 27, 2018

The attempted character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh has brought out the worst in Democrats, every Democrat, everywhere. They’ve convicted a good and decent man of things he wasn’t even falsely accused of, so desperate are progressives to stop someone who believes the Constitution means what it says from sitting on the Supreme Court. From elected officials to unelected Democrats with media credentials, the last two weeks have exposed the Democratic Party as a gaggle of guttersnipes willing to destroy a man for the “crime” of disagreeing with them politically. After watching this unfold, you really have to wonder one thing: Is there a single decent, honest Democrat left in the United States?

The circus Democratic Senators created surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination should serve as a scarlet letter on every single one of them for the rest of their lives and should stain the buildings they’ll fund in their states with our tax dollars with will bare their names. It’s a disgrace...

Keep reading.

Barbara Palvin Rocks (VIDEO)

At Sports Illustrated Swimsuit.

Wages Are Rising in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic

Well, you don't say?

At WSJ, "Labor Shortage Lifts Wages on Europe’s Eastern Flank":

Unlike in some Western economies, wages are rising fast as workers grow scarce in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic https://t.co/kX0itdZkNo

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 29, 2018

Unlike in some Western economies, wages are rising fast as workers grow scarce in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.

BUDAPEST, Hungary—Akos Niklai says he has increased wages at his historic restaurant in downtown Budapest by around 20% in each of the past three years. He still struggles to retain staff.

The Hungarian businessman was recently forced to stop serving lunch on Sundays due to a worker shortage. Unemployment in this nation of 10 million people is at an all-time low of 3.6%, down from 10% five years ago.

“It is very hard to find labor in Budapest,” said Mr. Niklai. “Wages are still not high enough.”

In a half-dozen countries across Central and Eastern Europe, hourly labor costs are shooting up by 9% or more a year, defying a trend of weak wage growth that has bedeviled many advanced economies for years.

The increases seem to answer a question economists have been puzzling over for several years: Does low unemployment still cause wages to rise?

In many Western economies, that notion has been tested by slow wage growth despite falling jobless rates. But in places such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, supply and demand appear to be pushing up wages as labor becomes scarce.

“These fundamental economic mechanisms are still working,” said Nigel Pain, an economist in Paris with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “If labor markets tighten we will see some pick up in price pressures.”

The wage increases are also putting pressure on Eastern European leaders—many of whom have called for stricter limits on immigration—to allow in more workers or risk lower future economic growth.

In Poland, for example, job vacancies are at a record high, and more than 40% of manufacturing firms say labor shortages are limiting production, according to a March OECD report. Poland’s ruling party has opposed immigration from Muslim countries, and the European Union has sued Poland and other countries for refusing to accept refugees under an EU-wide relocation plan.

“Wage pressure is rising,” said Andrzej Malinowski, the president of Employers of Poland, a business federation. Around 40% of large Polish companies employ workers from neighboring Ukraine, and 30% intend to hire Ukrainians in the near future, said Mr. Malinowski.

Migration patterns have been a major factor behind the wage boom. Labor is particularly scarce in the former communist states because workers have been migrating to Western Europe, where they can earn more. And limits on immigration from outside the EU add to the labor squeeze.

Low unemployment has also given workers more bargaining power. In the Czech Republic—where unemployment is 2.3%, the lowest in the EU—average wages grew by around 6% year-over-year in the three months through June, after adjusting for inflation, close to a 15-year high. Workers at Skoda Auto, the Czech unit of Volkswagen AG , recently got a pay raise of 12% and bigger bonuses.

Amazon.com Inc. announced in early August that it would sharply increase hourly wages for its workers across the region—by between 5% and 11% for staff in the Czech Republic, by up to 17% in Poland and by as much as 20% in Slovakia, a spokeswoman said.

“Eastern European countries are trying to persuade workers not to leave,” said Dan Bucsa, an economist with Italian bank UniCredit who focuses on the region...

Keep reading.

BBC's Africa Cameroon Investigation on Twitter

This is mind-boggling.

Click through and read the whole thing:

Wow. https://t.co/VaCVHAPUw0

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) September 24, 2018

HOONIGAN Mazda Miata Long Jump (VIDEO)

I went down to the Hoonigan shop yesterday afternoon to pick up some t-shirts. I wear Hoonigan gear all the time nowadays. I first picked up a Hoonigan shirt at Tilly's sportswear last year. I didn't know what it was. The shirt was cool, though, and it indicated that Hoonigan's was located in Long Beach, so I checked 'em out and the rest is history.

Here's the homepage, and check this background briefing, "Understanding Hoonigan."


More later.

Nice Gals Enjoying the End of Summer

It's Rhian Sugden and friends.

Hairy Mary’s 💚 pic.twitter.com/cNixgow7js

— Rhian Sugden (@Rhianmarie) September 26, 2018

Have Democrats Any Decency?

No. They have none. Absolutely none.

And it didn't just take the diabolical anti-Kavanaugh smear campaign for people to take notice. The left's never had any decency. I just takes some occasionally earth-shattering political events to hit you upside the head and remind you. This last few weeks has been one of those events, but again, this stuff ain't new.

See Molly Hemingway, "Media Sink to New Lows in Their Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign."

“Have they no decency?” is the right question. https://t.co/LaxISWxuqK

— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 30, 2018

And also, see Michelle Malkin on Chris Britt of the Seattle Times:

I worked with Chris Britt at the Seattle Times in the mid-1990s. He was a genuinely nice guy.

I don't know what happened to him.

Damn. https://t.co/FnnINYw1pU

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 1, 2018

The F.B.I. Must Investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility

A must-read post from Ace, "If The FBI Is Investigating These Allegations, They Absolutely Must Investigate Ford's Credibility":

3. Obviously, any time she claims she doesn't know and that only her lawyers would know, her lawyers must be asked under oath.

Her lawyers, by the way, cannot invoke lawyer-client privilege regarding notes they gave to a third party. Information given to a third party is not a confidential lawyer-client communication and not shielded by privilege.

There is no such thing as "Lawyer-Feinstein privilege," and Ford's political operators with legal licenses should not be permitted to invent one...

There's 10 questions altogether, so read the whole thing.

Yasmin Brunet Caught on a Beach

At Taxi Driver, "Yasmin Brunet Caught Topless on a Beach."

Brigitte Gabriel, Rise

At Amazon, Brigitte Gabriel, Rise: In Defense of Judeo-Christian Values and Freedom.

David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith

Following-up from my previous entry, "Never Negotiate With Democrats."

I'm reminded of David Horowitz's book, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future.

Never Negotiate With Democrats

This is a must read essay, from the Other McCain, "Never Negotiate With Sociopaths: Liars, Democrats and the #Kavanaugh Smear":

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.

Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washiington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:

“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”

Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.

Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointed confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity...

Still more.

David M. O'Brien, Storm Center

At Amazon, David M. O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics.

Senate Judiciary Committee Testimonies Personified the Nation's Bitter Political Divisions

This is good, at LAT, "Emotionally wrenching testimony leaves the Senate, and the nation, bitterly divided":

The two parties could not have come up with witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen them— than Ford & Kavanaugh. https://t.co/NUEneVGja1

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 28, 2018

If each side had set out to design witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen it — they scarcely could have done better than the two who faced off Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frequently fighting back tears, Christine Blasey Ford described the sexual assault she says she suffered during the summer of 1982, when she was 15, at the hands of a man now nominated to the nation’s highest court. Her anguished testimony made her an Everywoman stand-in for victims of sexual violence. And as a white, female university professor from California, she virtually personified the Democrats’ resistance to President Trump.

In the afternoon, the man she has accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, channeled the president who nominated him, delivering a blistering, angry denial in which he repeatedly declared his innocence and portrayed himself as a victim of “a frenzy on the left” born of “pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

At the risk of torching any image of judicial temperament, Kavanaugh interrupted Democratic senators and glared at them, once sitting mutely rather than answer a question. He cast the fight mostly not as one of credibility — his word against Ford’s — but as raw partisan battle. He portrayed himself as the victim of “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” and “grotesque and coordinated character assassination.”

His tight-lipped fury marked a dramatic shift from a genteel performance at his earlier confirmation hearing. But it drew deeply from the well of grievance toward Washington and liberal politicians that has cemented conservative loyalty behind Trump through repeated crises in the three years since he opened his presidential campaign.

Underscoring the implicit demand for tribal unity — and its intended audience — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s strongest supporters on the committee, nearly shouted at the Senate’s remaining undecided Republicans when his turn came to speak.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Graham declared.

Whether the hearing changed any senator’s vote is yet unknown. The committee’s 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats are expected to vote Friday, and the full Senate could begin preliminary votes Saturday.

Only a handful of votes remain uncertain — perhaps three Republicans and a couple of Democrats. But much like the confrontation between professor Anita Hill and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas before the same committee 27 years ago, the day’s drama seemed all but certain to become a national touchstone.

“This kind of mass national exposure is really unusual,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

“Think of the very few moments in which a large part of the nation pauses to consume something in common,” she said. “People assume if you were alive and above 15 when the Anita Hill hearing happened, you will remember it, and there is no need to explain what it is. This will also be one of those moments.”

Ford’s testimony revealed her as a naif in the world of politics. From her opening declaration about how terrified she felt at the witness table to her description of trying to interview prospective lawyers from her car parked outside a Walgreen’s drugstore, she appeared as an innocent suddenly parachuted, against her better judgment, into a Washington maelstrom.

“She came across as exactly the kind of witness one would hope she would be,” said Deborah Tuerkheimer, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a former sex-crimes prosecutor. “Helpful, interested in providing the truth, willing to qualify the testimony where she needed to and very much a person doing her duty rather than grinding any ax.

“For survivors of any kind of assault or misconduct there was catharsis in this,” she added. “As difficult and excruciating as it was to see her relive the trauma, she held up incredibly well.”

Indeed, Ford’s soft-stated testimony elicited praise even from many Republican senators.

“I found no reason to find her not credible,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican.

Kavanaugh, by contrast, made no effort to portray himself as outside the political realm, and he drew a polarized response. Democrats, as well as some nonpartisan observers, took note of the partisan framing of his anger and predicted his comments could leave permanent doubt about his impartiality if he does win confirmation.

“I think he has really raised serious questions about his temperament,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “He has raised threats of conspiracy and shown himself to be hot-headed in a way which really makes it questionable that he can be a fair judge.”

But Kavanaugh’s testimony drew support where it counted most — from the inveterate television watcher in the Oval Office, who cleared much of his calendar to watch the nearly nine-hour proceedings, a day after he seemed to hint that he might be wavering on the nomination.

“Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting,” Trump declared in a tweet shortly after Kavanaugh finished.

Conservative defenders of Kavanaugh’s were equally cheered by his partisan fire.

“Kavanaugh is not being withdrawn after this. The Republicans are going to have to confirm him or watch Trump and the GOP voters burn down the remains of the party, deservedly so,” declared Erick Erickson, the conservative commentator.

Before Thursday, many had predicted the hearing would replay the bitter 1991 clash between Hill and Thomas after she had accused him of sexual harassment...

More.

Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement at His Confirmation Sexual Assault Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (VIDEO)

I taught today, and only saw snippets of today's hearing while checking Twitter periodically. Even in those few minutes in which I caught snippets I became extremely sad. I saw and retweeted tweeps' comments. In the afternoon I saw Sen. Lindsey Graham's blistering condemnation of reprehensible Democrat Party behavior, circus antics, and demonic machinations. And I saw some awful, horrible, even diabolical comments leftists have made today, including top Democrats. I'm disgusted by all of it, all the left's evil deeds.

Democrats make me sick.

I just watched this 45 minute opening statement right now and I'm flabbergasted. I'm a nothing of a man compared to Brett Kavanaugh --- and I'm a very successful man. He's a fundamentally good person. He's even a genuinely great human being. I can't think of someone who's more qualified to be on the Supreme Court and I'll be heartbroken if he's not confirmed in the upcoming Senate roll call vote. '

This moment in public life is a turning point.

I've felt lately that I wished I wasn't a professor of political science any more. But I don't know what else I'd do --- I trained for over a decade in political science and it's been the passion of my professional life. But that was then. I don't think American politics has ever been so hateful. No, we're not about to have another Civil War, but we're living at a time when politics defines who we are, our very identities, and people are sized up and placed into pigeonholes of good and evil. Others define us as on their side or not and treat us accordingly. People have tried to destroy my life with false allegations (Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen, if long-time readers will recall).

At my college I'm surrounded by radical leftists. Unless you've been in a similar situation you can't know what it's like. You're literally behind enemy lines. And reinforcements aren't coming. You're on you're own, and those who want to help you are too scared to come out, lest they be targeted for destruction. Targeted with lies and scurrilous allegations. I know how Brett Kavanaugh must feel, but only a little bit. I've not been in the national media spotlight. Talk about having a target on your back.

In any case, I'll watch Dr. Ford's testimony tomorrow and I'll have more comments. For now just know I'm sick to my stomach and I'm heartbroken at our brokenness as a society. And this brokenness is the result of radical leftist ideology and the breakdown of decency all around.

Democrats Poised for Major Gains in Midterm Elections?

As I've noted, the president's party usually loses seats in Congress in midterm elections, and I don't expect this year to be much different.

Most of the polls you'll be seeing in the weeks ahead with be those measuring the "generic ballot," where respondents are asked their party preference for Congress, basically. Congressional elections aren't normally nationalized, however. It was the case in 1994 that Newt Gingrich, with his "Contract for America," turned the midterms on a referendum against the Democrats, with a mandate for ambitious policy-driven G.O.P government.

The Democrats don't have anything like that going this year, except anti-Trump hysteria.

My guess is the Dems will flip the House, probably by 20 seats or more. I'm skeptical they'll take the Senate, though, and I think Senate races will better reflect national trends, especially things like the politics of the Supreme Court (and the stupid allegations against Brett Kavanaugh).

In any case, at the Los Angeles Times, "With growing support from women, Democrats poised for major gains in midterm, new poll shows":

Latest USC-LATimes Poll shows Ds with a 14 point lead on congressional ballot. Widening support from women has driven D margin, especially suburban women, white married women & white, non-college women. https://t.co/CCQHLgWBKj

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 26, 2018

Boosted by growing support among suburban women and widespread antipathy toward President Trump, Democrats approach the midterm election poised to make major gains nationwide, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll shows.

Democrats had a 14-point margin, 55% to 41%, when likely voters were asked which party’s candidate they would cast a ballot for if the election were held now. If that advantage holds up until election day, just less than six weeks away, it would almost surely be large enough to sweep a Democratic majority into the House.

Voters also oppose Republicans on a number of major issues. But overriding all of them is the president, whose outsized personality has dominated the nation’s news since he declared his candidacy more than three years ago.

Roughly 3 out of 4 likely voters said they saw their vote this fall as an opportunity to express a view of Trump. For many, that view is negative: Those saying they planned to register opposition outnumbered Trump supporters, 45% to 29%.

Likely voters disapprove of Trump’s overall performance in office by 57% to 39%, the poll found. Almost half of likely voters, 49%, said they “strongly” disapprove, while just under one-quarter, 24%, strongly approve.

Especially notable are the views of women, whose preferences have expanded the Democratic edge since a USC Dornsife poll surveyed most of the same voters this summer.

In the summer, men were closely divided between the two parties; they remain so now. But women, who already leaned significantly toward the Democrats, have shifted further in their direction, widening a large gender gap. The poll found women now favor the Democrats by 28 percentage points, 62% to 34%, among likely voters.

Three overlapping groups of female voters who have long been important for Republicans have moved away from the party: suburban residents, married white women and white women without college degrees.

Democrats enjoy a 61%-35% edge among suburban women, the poll found — a margin that has grown by 9 points since the summer. Democrats have narrowed the gap with Republicans among married white women, long a mainstay of the GOP, who now favor Republicans by a narrow 51% to 46%.

Those numbers help explain why suburban congressional districts long held by Republicans — from Orange County and Santa Clarita to the suburbs of Dallas and Houston and east to suburban Philadelphia — have become key targets in Democrats’ effort to retake control of the House.

A similar pattern holds among white women who did not graduate from college. Blue-collar white women gave Trump a crucial margin of support in 2016. A majority continues to support Republicans — by 56% to 39% — but since the summer, Democrats have cut their deficit with that group by a third.

The poll was largely completed before accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brent Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, began dominating the news. Many political professionals in both parties think that controversy could further alienate women from the GOP...

Oh, the allegations against Kavanaugh are going to have an effect, I think, although it remains to be seen in which directions. Some "Never Trump" types on Twitter are apparently revolted by this radical leftist anti-Kavanaugh circus, and if that's true, normal antipathy to Trump among moderates might be outweighed by disgust with the evil Democrats.

We'll see, in any case.

Still more at the link.

'Nothing Else Matters'

Metallica, from yesterday's drive-time, at 93.1 Jack FM.

By The Way
Red Hot Chili Peppers
8:36am

Just Like Heaven
The Cure
8:32am

Whatever It Takes
Imagine Dragons
8:21am

Bohemian Rhapsody
Queen
8:16am

Burning Down The House
Talking Heads
8:12am

You Oughta Know
Alanis Morissette
8:08am

Eye Of The Tiger
Survivor
8:04am

Little Red Corvette
Prince
7:51am

Nothing Else Matters
Metallica
7:46am

Don't Stop
Fleetwood Mac
7:43am

Come On Eileen
Dexys Midnight Runners
7:38am

Senate Majority Leader McConnell Promises Vote on Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation (VIDEO)

I'm really disgusted with all the Democrat maneuvering, especially last night's truly despicable hit piece at the New Yorker, at Memeorandum, "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years."

Screw them. All of them. The disgusting liars and smear-merchants. I'm sick of this, gawd.

Here's McConnell's floor speech from earlier today, thank goodness: