Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now selling “Cocaine Mitch” t-shirts a year after former GOP Senate hopeful Don Blankenship tried to insult him with the nickname during his failed bid in West Virginia.

The Senate Majority Leader officially launched his 2020 re-election campaign in April and his campaign Twitter account sent out links advertising the shirts for sale on Wednesday. The tweet references that the shirts come a year after Blankenship called out McConnell in a campaign ad using the nickname with no context. The ad later went viral.

A year ago, a legend was born. Own your piece of history. #CocaineMitch

— Team Mitch (@Team_Mitch) May 8, 2019

Blankenship focused his 2018 primary campaign on attacking the Senate Majority Leader –later telling reporters that the “Cocaine Mitch” moniker referenced old reports that drugs were once discovered on a shipping vessel owned by the family of McConnell’s wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

McConnell’s team later posted a gloating tweet referencing the nickname after Blankenship lost his primary race. The seat was eventually won by incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) during the November 2018 general election.

Thanks for playing, @DonBlankenship. #WVSen pic.twitter.com/TV1ETgQdmu

— Team Mitch (@Team_Mitch) May 9, 2018

The meme was later referenced by now-retired Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who posed with shirts showing McConnell’s head onto the body of Al Pacino’s Tony Montana in the summer of 2018.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham offered her own election take on the Democratic wave that has swept Virginia politics, warning that the party’s successes were the result of suburban women, “millions” of dollars in campaign donations from liberal billionaire George Soros, and “demographic changes” wrought by a “foreign-born population.”

Ingraham’s comments came a day after Democrats flipped both legislative houses in Virginia, a huge inflection point that has given that party full political control of the state and federal offices for the first time since 1994.

“The undeniable fact is that demographic changes throughout the state, but especially in northern Virginia, have altered what was once a moderate to right-to-center state,” Ingraham said. “Virginia’s foreign-born population nearly doubled from 2000 to 2017 and these immigrants are mostly concentrated in northern Virginia: Fairfax County, Loudon County, Prince William County, outside of D.C., and they are altering the demographic makeup of the state.”

“And since immigrants are more likely to vote Democrat, well, this, of course drags the electorate to the left, that is just a fact of life,” Ingraham added. “But the shift to the left is aided by women, especially in the suburbs, who tend also to vote Democrat. This is something Trump absolutely needs to pay attention to and not just wave it away, it’s impossible to do that.”

Ingraham’s comments about immigration are not new. Previously, she has stoked fears about illegal immigration and “demographic changes,” favorably Tweeted an anti-immigrant post from a white supremacist website (and subsequently deleted it), and dabbled in the white supremacist “replacement theory” rhetoric, claiming that Democrats want immigrants to subsume “white conservatives” in the population.

The Fox News host went on to target the large swaths of federal government workers who live in northern Virginia, claiming they will offer lockstep opposition to Trump’s purported “drain the swamp” pledge “because they are the swamp.”

“Also, two weeks ago, we warned you about another factor that is important to note in this Virginia race,” Ingraham continued. “In this cycle, huge amounts of outside money flowed into Virginia’s local election. George Soros pumped millions in to elect commonwealth attorneys to radically change how you prosecute crime in the commonwealth, prioritizing so-called social justice concerns over public safety.”

Watch the video above, via Fox News.

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

Political predictions are always precarious, especially in this modern media age when the news cycle is now approximately 47 minutes long. This is particularly the case in the Trump Era where the president has consistently defied conventional wisdom and the normal rules of political engagement.

With that said, as 2020 fast approaches, I am compelled to try to forecast how what, at least on paper, is likely to be our craziest election campaign in modern history, will go down. For context, until 2016 (when I warned early on that Trump could be the GOP nominee, but did not believe he could win the presidency) I was actually pretty good at this exercise.

My basic view of the race for the Democratic nomination is that it appears very much like the 2012 GOP version of their battle to pick a challenger to a controversial and charismatic incumbent president coming off of a disastrous midterm election. The biggest differences being that Barack Obama’s approval numbers were more favorable than Trump’s, but the economy is perceived to be better now.

Similar to Republicans in 2012, Democrats have an experienced and well-known frontrunner who has a group of flawed rivals nipping at his heels. In 2012, Mitt Romney ended up winning the GOP nomination, though his journey to get there was far more precarious that most people remember. Joe Biden, who has comparable — and perhaps even more pronounced — vulnerabilities to what Romney had, will need some luck to reach the finish line.

Reminiscent of Romney, Biden is unlikely to win Iowa, but unlike him does not have a natural firewall in New Hampshire. It is likely that South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg will win a cluttered contest in Iowa, and that New Hampshire will be a four-way struggle between him, Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

From there, the race will come down to how quickly and decisively the field gets whittled down. In the past, only two or three candidates ever really survived the first two contests, but thanks to the Internet and cable news television, it is far easier for candidates to remain viable without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire (especially for a “cult” candidate like Sanders).

The biggest unknown at this point is whether it is true that Biden is more well suited for a long four-way battle, because his 35% of the Democratic national base can win four-way primaries. Or, is he better off going head-to-head with one candidate early on so that he can secure the nomination with minimal bleeding and party division (this is the plot line Trump fears most, which is exactly why the entire Ukrainian scandal started).

My belief is that Biden needs Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren to all stay in and be sustainable, but without anyone of the them catching fire the way that Obama did to overtake Hillary Clinton in 2008. Since Buttigieg is the only candidate with the ingredients to support such an early explosion, it may be critical for Biden, counter intuitively, for Sanders and Warren to do well but not great in both Iowa and New Hampshire. This way, gravity maintains its hold on Buttigieg, who, because of his youth and outsider status, would be the greatest threat to beat Biden one-on-one (assuming he can eventually make some progress with the black vote).

If Buttigieg is held in check, then Biden winning Nevada and South Carolina would put him on a clear, though likely long and perilous, path to the nomination. While far from certain, this is still the most likely outcome.

To be clear, it will not be easy for Biden. The news media, especially the progressive press, will be very incentivized to ambush Biden at every opportunity, and given his penchant for making significant verbal gaffes, and his advanced age, they will have plenty of chances to go after him. It is easy to see a scenario where the nomination comes down to Obama (and, to a lesser degree, Hillary) effectively pushing Democrats, no matter how subtly, towards either Biden or Buttigieg.

Given all of this, as we start 2020, I put the chances of Biden winning the nomination at 50%, Buttigieg at 25%, Warren at 15%, Sanders at 5%, with a 5% chance someone else emerges out of nowhere, or via a brokered convention.

A Biden vs Trump general election would essentially be a repeat of 2016, only with Biden positioned to out-perform Hillary in the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, but with Trump now having the advantage of incumbency and an economy which is perceived to be excellent. In other words, barring a legitimate “black swan” event (I am sure there will be many dramatic plot twists which will result in very little polling movement), Biden will win the popular vote fairly easily, but the Electoral College tally will be close, possibly extremely close.

My guess is that Biden (with either Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, or Kamala Harris as his VP nominee) would win those three states, with the rest of the map staying largely the same as it was in 2016. This would give Biden a very narrow 279-259 victory.

Under this scenario, the biggest political story of 2020 will not be the general election itself, but rather its potentially extremely tumultuous aftermath. For, if any of those three key states are even remotely close (Trump winning any one of them would mean either he is victorious, or, in the case of Wisconsin, likely ties), Trump will surely not concede, and no one in his now co-opted party or state-run media will force him to so do.

This is what should be referred to the “nightmare scenario.” One that our Founders never fully envisioned, and for which our current political and media apparatus is dreadfully unprepared.

But I am sure there is nothing to really worry about, and we will get through it all just fine. Happy New Year!

John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud  or email him at johnz@mediaite.com

Steven Ryan/Getty Images

The Pentagon has confirmed that the United States is responsible for the airstrike at the Baghdad airport that took the life of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani .

The news has sent shockwaves through Washington, with Democratic lawmakers warning that Trump’s actions may ultimately bring the United States brink of war.

Somewhat uncharacteristically, Trump has remained mostly mum on social media in the hours after the news broke of Soleeimani’s death, choosing only to tweet out a cryptic American flag.

pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

Yet, internet sleuths were quick to point out that back in 2011, Trump was tweeting and predicting that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran, just to get elected.

“In order to get elected, Barack Obama will start a war with Iran,” he wrote.

In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2011

Trump didn’t just say it once, though, he repeated his claim two years later, predicting a war just so Obama could prove how tough he was.

Remember what I previously said–Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2013

——

Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is suggesting a delay in the 2020 election — an action he cannot unilaterally take — citing concerns over mail-in voting.

In a Thursday morning tweet, the president argued that nationwide mail-in balloting would lead to an incorrect tally, and floated the prospect of delaying the vote.

“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history,” Trump wrote. “It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

Earlier in the morning, Trump called mail-in voting a “catastrophic disaster,” and baselessly suggested that it is susceptible to foreign interference.

“The Dems talk of foreign influence in voting, but they know that Mail-In Voting is an easy way for foreign countries to enter the race,” he wrote. “Even beyond that, there’s no accurate count!

Mail-In Voting is already proving to be a catastrophic disaster. Even testing areas are way off. The Dems talk of foreign influence in voting, but they know that Mail-In Voting is an easy way for foreign countries to enter the race. Even beyond that, there’s no accurate count!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

Trump also, late Wednesday night, shared a report from a local news station in Philadelphia — which sent 100 ballots in by mail, and found that 3 were unaccounted for. Experts have, historically, found voting by mail to be safe, but the 2020 election figures to have, by far, the most ballots cast by mail in history.

Critics immediately condemned the president for proposing the delay — with several citing the hypocrisy of Trump pushing for schools to open on time, but the election to be put off.

The president wants schools to reopen but he wants to delay the election. Curiouser and curiouser!

— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) July 30, 2020

Kids can go to school, but we can’t vote?

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) July 30, 2020

Trump floating a delay of the election may be a distraction from the GDP news. But it still is deadly serious. GOP lawmakers saying they haven’t seen or don’t respond to his tweet won’t particularly cut it today

— Sam Stein (@samstein) July 30, 2020

Trump can’t delay the election.

The date of the presidential election is set by law and cannot be moved unless that law changes, which would require both houses of Congress to vote in favor of doing so. https://t.co/CUi9jfeGU8

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) July 30, 2020

The election is scheduled for November 3, and is a matter of federal law that Trump does not have the power to change by himself.

Back in March the New York Times examined what would be required to change the election date. The paper all but concluded that it isn’t happening.

The date of the general election is set by federal law and has been fixed since 1845. It would take a change in federal law to move that date. That would mean legislation enacted by Congress, signed by the president and subject to challenge in the courts.

To call that unlikely would be an understatement.

And even if all of that happened, there would not be much flexibility in choosing an alternate election date: The Constitution mandates that the new Congress must be sworn in on Jan. 3, and that the new president’s term must begin on Jan. 20. Those dates cannot be changed just by the passage of normal legislation.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

Thursday afternoon, President Donald Trump followed up on his morning tweet suggesting the November election could be delayed — comments that drew immediate condemnation from both sides of the aisle — with another tweet seemingly dismissing the entire thing as a big 0l’ prank on the media.

Trump’s original tweet came as part of a thread complaining about the so-called risks of mail-in ballots — risks which he has highly exaggerated — and ended with a question about delaying the election “until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

After several hours of criticism and reporters seeking comment from the White House, Trump tweeted that his real purpose was to “get the very dishonest LameStream Media to finally start talking about the RISKS to our Democracy from dangerous Universal Mail-In-Voting (not Absentee Voting, which I totally support!).”

Glad I was able to get the very dishonest LameStream Media to finally start talking about the RISKS to our Democracy from dangerous Universal Mail-In-Voting (not Absentee Voting, which I totally support!).

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

At least two other GOP senators, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), had also characterized Trump’s comments as a joke or distraction for the media when talking to reporters earlier in the day.

GOP Sen Cornyn tells reporters Trump’s election-delay tweet was a joke “so all you guys in the press, your heads will explode and you’ll write about it”

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) July 30, 2020

GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer told me he thinks Trump’s tweet is meant as a distraction: “I think that if you guys take the bait he’ll be the happiest guy in town. I read it. I laughed I thought my gosh this is going to consume a lot of people, except real people. And it was clever.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 30, 2020

The media spent the day chasing down Republican elected officials to get their comments about delaying the election, citing people with actual law degrees who pointed to the very plain language in federal law that has set Election Days since 1845 and in the Constitution that sets the date for presidents and Congressional members to be sworn into office, and chatting with a seemingly endless parade of talking heads who all but universally agreed that Trump had no power to unilaterally change the election date. And at least one Fox News commentator was not enamored of Trump’s idea of an Election Day delay.

In a shocking turn, even Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society who voted for Trump in 2016 and has defended the president against the Mueller probe and the impeachment proceedings, was “frankly appalled” by Trump’s tweet. Calabresi condemned Trump’s comments as “fascistic” and severe enough to be “itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”

Steven Calabresi. https://t.co/Vf99LoiRi9 pic.twitter.com/F8OqFI0Ky3

— Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) July 30, 2020

If, if “mail-in ballots” were mentioned by the media in today’s coverage at all, Trump’s claims of “risks” and “fraud” were debunked as lacking evidence, with many pointing out the fact that most states, like Trump’s residential state of Florida, do not require any proof or reason to request an absentee ballot, providing one to every voter who requests one.

The election is scheduled for November 3. The federal government has a website with links to every single state’s elections office, where eligible voters can check the status of their registration, make any needed updates, and request an absentee ballot in accordance with state laws.

President Donald Trump mistakenly referred to the coming general election as happening on “September 3rd” at his rally speech in Freeland, Michigan Thursday evening.

Trump’s comments came after he had spoken for several minutes about supporting Michigan’s auto industry, allowing college football games to be played, and other topics. He then mentioned the upcoming election and how his opponents would be surprised if he won:

For the last four years, they’ve tried everything to stop us. And they are only getting more desperate by the day. Can you imagine if on September 3rd they say, “Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump has been declared the winner”?

At first they’ll go crazy. And then they’ll go, “it’s time now to be reasonable.” They will have had it, they will have had it.

Trump apparently never realized his mistake, and did not attempt to correct his gaffe.

The general election is, of course, scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Trump, who constantly questions the mental acuity of his opponent, Joe Biden, has also repeatedly reassured the American public that he is a “very stable genius.”

Watch the video above, via Fox News.

Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images

On Saturday, Twitter once again put a warning label on a tweet that was sent by President Donald Trump for violating rules “about civic and election integrity.” This time, it was for a tweet about voting twice in the upcoming election.

“To make sure your Ballot COUNTS, sign & send it in EARLY,” Trump wrote in a tweet directed to North Carolina. “When Polls open, go to your Polling Place to see if it was COUNTED. IF NOT, VOTE!”

That suggestion, to both mail-in a ballot and then vote in person, is what triggered the notification. Trump’s tweet goes on to argue that the signed mail-in ballot “will not count” because the person’s “vote has been posted.”

“Don’t let them illegally take your vote away from you!” he concluded.

Twitter’s warning label on the tweet says it may be in the public interest to leave the tweet live but that violates their rules.

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about civic and election integrity. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible,” it reads.

Trump has been given violations, warnings, and even takedowns on multiple previous occasions.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

President Donald Trump on Saturday ended the speculation about whether he would insist on filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the tragic passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than 24 hours ago.

In a mid-morning tweet, the president said that his administration and party were “put in this position of power and importance” to make these kinds of decisions. He said the selection of a Supreme Court nominee is has “long been considered” the most important of those decisions and that, therefore, he has an obligation to act “without delay.”

.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020

Republican Senator Ted Cruz on Friday night offered his novel case for moving before election day when speaking with Fox’s Sean Hannity. Cruz argued that it’s paramount the court not be a 4-4 court if and when the November election results are contested and challenged in court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in his statement on the passing of Justice Ginsburg that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” in anticipation of a quick effort to replace her.

Ian Langsdon/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is leading polls in Florida and Arizona, according to a pair of Washington Post-ABC News polls.

Trump enjoys support from 51 percent of likely voters in Florida compared to 47 percent who support Democratic presidential Joe Biden, according to the polls published Wednesday. Trump leads Biden 49-48 percent in Arizona.

The surveys suggest voters especially approve of his handling of the economy: 54 percent of Floridians approve of his handling in that area compared to 43 percent who disapprove. Arizonans said they approved of his handling of the economy by an even greater margin, 57-42 percent.

The surveys were conducted from Sept. 15-20, covering three days before and two days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The margin of error for both was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The polling also indicated a close Senate race in Arizona, with Democratic nominee Mark Kelly leading Sen. Martha McSally (R) by one point, 49-48 percent.

WaPo-ABC’s final tracking poll numbers in 2016 found Hillary Clinton leading Trump in the general election by 4 points, 47-43 percent, though she ultimately won the popular vote by just 2 points.

Trump won Arizona by roughly 4 percent in 2016, and Florida by about 2 percent, but recent polling had shown him trailing Biden in both places this year.

Ted Aljibe/Getty Images

Online gamblers believe President Donald Trump’s electoral fortunes are on the rise.

The president’s odds of winning reelection, according to London betting exchange Betfair, stood at +175 as of Wednesday, compared to -180 for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. In other words, bettors must wager $100 in order to win $175 in the event Trump wins the Nov. 3 election. They have to bet $180 to win $100 in the event Biden wins.

Trump’s odds have fluctuated in recent days, hitting a high of +150 on Oct. 19. That was a marked improvement from earlier in the month, when he stood at +225.

The odds fluctuate as more money enters the arena in favor of either candidate. The improvement for Trump coincides with recent polling that suggests the race is tightening, though Biden still enjoys a slight lead. A RealClearPolitics polling average showed Biden with a lead in Pennsylvania of 3.7 percent more than Trump as of Wednesday, compared to a 6.2 percent lead for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on the same day in 2016. In Florida, averages show Biden leading Trump by 1.6 percentage points. Polls showed Clinton leading Trump by 4.3 percent in the state on the same day in 2016.

Betfair Spokesman Sam Rosbottom attributed the fluctuation in betting to the changing polls.

“The Donald Trump effect is really starting to take hold now with his odds to win reelection (improving) from last week and therefore the chance of him causing an upset, as he did in 2016, an even bigger possibility,” Rosbottom said in a statement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The president becoming favorite in Florida, arguably the most important state for his campaign, could be a big turning point.”

UPDATE: A previous version of this article described the polling average in Pennsylvania as the national average. This has been corrected.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and wife Dr. Jill Biden are speaking on Saturday at a drive-in campaign rally in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

The rally is being held at the Bucks County Community College and is expected to focus on jobs and working families, and the state of the economy under President Donald Trump.

Both campaigns are holding a number of weekend events in this final stretch before the election in just 11 days.

Watch live above, courtesy of the Biden campaign.

Pedro Rocha/Getty Images

Following countless claims of voter fraud throughout the 2020 election, the New York Times has finally discovered evidence of something fishy.

But much to Donald Trump’s chagrin, the irregularities unearthed by the Times relate not to the election for the leader of the free world, but rather to the vote deciding the Homecoming Queen in a Florida high school.

Yes, a Florida woman and her daughter were arrested on Monday after more than 200 votes had been questionably cast in J.M. Tate High School’s homecoming election.

“It was a case reminiscent of the 1999 dark comedy film ‘Election,'” wrote The New York Times’ Patricia Mazzei, revealing that agents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) charged Laura Carroll and her 17-year-old daughter Emily Grover with conspiracy to use their school district login to help Grover get elected homecoming queen.

In all, 117 votes were cast from the same IP address within a short period of time, while a total of 246 votes were cast from their residence for the Homecoming Court.

The five-month investigation additionally found that Carroll, who is an assistant principal at Bellview Elementary School, used her district login to access the internal accounts of 372 Tate High students since August.

“She looks up all of our group of friends’ grades and makes comments about how she can find our test scores all of the time,” one of the witnesses said, according to the arrest affidavits. The accounts not only include information on students’ grades, but also include students’ medical history and disciplinary records.

Grover was expelled despite the family’s contention, and sent to juvenile detention for an evaluation, according to The Times. Carroll was also suspended from her position at Bellview Elementary and taken into custody on Monday, yet she was later released on $8,500 bail.

According to an FDLE release, in addition to the conspiracy charge, Carroll and Grover were each charged with offenses against users of electronic devices, computer systems, and computer networks; unlawful use of a two-way communications device; and criminal use of personally identifiable information. All are listed as third-degree felonies besides the conspiracy charge.

Surely not the 2020 election fraud charges the former president was hoping for.

After Democrat Doug Jones managed to upset GOP Senate candidate and alleged child molester Roy Moore, Twitter erupted with relief as the wild Alabama special election finally came to an end tonight.

While Republicans, including President Donald Trump, had handily won the notoriously red state in recent years, Jones was able to become the first Democrat to win an Alabama Senate seat in a quarter century. The win shrunk the Republican Senate majority by one seat, leaving their lead at only 51.

Notable pundits, politicians, and journalists responded to the conclusion of the crazy Senate race — that included numerous sexual child predator allegations, references to “Jew” attorneys, and calls for banning “homosexual conduct” — with tweets of joy at Jones’ victory and snarky posts railing against Trump, the RNC, and other Moore supporters:

Decency wins

— Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) December 13, 2017

The women who shared their stories about Roy Moore with my colleagues at @washingtonpost are incredibly brave. I hope they feel safe and vindicated tonight.

— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) December 13, 2017

Luther Strange would have won in a landslide… Just too much crazy in nerve racking times. There IS a limit! pic.twitter.com/vketz7G1OR

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) December 13, 2017

I hope no one forgets how much work it took to barely edge out a child molester.

— Sophia Benoit (@1followernodad) December 13, 2017

anytime anyone writes about someone who endorsed roy moore, it should be illegal not to include the descriptor “supported a child molester for the senate and lost”

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) December 13, 2017

Roy Moore wasn’t defeated by the Democratic Party leadership (or even just the media), he was defeated by a huge surge from black working-class voters. All kidding aside, this is great news.

— Bhaskar Sunkara (@sunraysunray) December 13, 2017

ADDITIONALLY: EAT SHIT, YOU VILE HUMAN CARBUNCLE STEVE BANNON

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 13, 2017

Roy Moore better find himself a good Jewish recount lawyer

— Nathaniel Meyersohn (@nmeyersohn) December 13, 2017

Win or lose, Roy Moore still looks like a dingus riding that horse

— John Hendrickson (@JohnGHendy) December 13, 2017

This is the worst thing to happen to Roy Moore since mall security confiscated his shoe cameras

— Pixelated Ho Ho Hoat (@pixelatedboat) December 13, 2017

Tonight is why you run real candidates even in races you don’t think you can win. Democrats were lucky that Roy Moore’s past spilled out into the open. But they only won because Doug Jones was good.

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) December 13, 2017

Before we get the results, I’d just like to thank Steve Bannon for showing us how to lose the reddest state in the union and Governor Ivey for the opportunity to make this national embarrassment a reality

— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) December 13, 2017

BREAKING: Early exits show Moore hovering in the teens (Joke submitted by guy who wants to be anonymous)

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) December 12, 2017

Give? Donald? his? phone?

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) December 13, 2017

Roy Moore liked this night when it was much younger.

— Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) December 13, 2017

shoutout to the millions of alabama voters who went on record as supporting a pedophile and walked away with absolutely nothing. loling at you forever

— KT NELSON (@KrangTNelson) December 13, 2017

God don’t like ugly.

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) December 13, 2017

1) MCConnell deserves a lot of the blame for Alabama. Mo Brooks would have won by 20% of the vote, and McConnell interference hurt badly. 2)Peter Strzok, Lisa Page text messages show how CORRUPT the SC Mueller and his team are. Wow! More tomorrow.

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) December 13, 2017

Suck it, Bannon

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) December 13, 2017

Maybe you all should focus on electing statesmen, not fckucking culture warriors.

— Ruthless T. Firefly (@BecketAdams) December 13, 2017

Roy Moore stepping away from politics to spend more time with his wife and your kids.

— Tim Siedell (@badbanana) December 13, 2017

[image via screengrab]

Follow the author on Twitter (@calebecarma).

I see the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election as Robert Mueller slowly painting a giant mural from the edges of his canvas and working towards the center, with all of us guessing as to what the final product will reveal when he’s finally done. Through that prism, in the last few days we have gotten to see several more important brush strokes, but where it is all really going is still mostly a mystery.

Opinion on the Russia probe has now become extremely divided, with the two basic sides entrenched in their own realities which have almost nothing in common. The left seems convinced that Mueller is the process of removing Trump from office, maybe even putting him and his family in prison, and eradicating the cancerous polyp from our collective faces that is the result of, what is to them, a catastrophic election. Trump supporters see the investigation as witch hunt designed to stage a coup against Trump while protecting the real criminal in all of this, Hillary Clinton.

As a conservative who loathes Trump as a person, I have been wavering somewhere in the middle of these two groups. If only because their theory is far less insane, I have gravitated more towards the former group, while being VERY cautious about how many of the so-called experts who have gotten large followings on Twitter are TOTALLY invested in their preferred result of Mueller’s mural.

Confirmation bias is both very real and dangerous. We should all be very hesitant to believe media analysis based on fragments of information which just happen to fit perfectly with the self-interest of the commentator, while giving their audience exactly what they want to hear.

I have never doubted that Russia attempted to influence the election. It was pretty obvious to me even during the election that some HIGHLY suspicious things were happening. I have even laid out a pretty compelling case that these efforts were the difference in Wisconsin and Michigan (which, to be clear, technically did not impact the result of the election).

What I have never been sure of was how much the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, were actually involved in this plot. Part of the hesitancy to accept that there was “collusion” is the utter insanity of the charge and brazenness of the act itself. With any other president the entire concept would just be too audacious to even seriously consider. Of course, we have already learned that when it comes to Trump, the normal boundaries of presidential behavior are simply not relevant.

Friday’s indictment by Mueller of 13 Russians was seen by Trump and his supporters in the state-run “conservative” media as a bizarre vindication for their claims that there was no “real collusion” with Russia. When your own people are now saying that it is clear Russia meddled after you have never accepted that claim, and the indictments say your own people did “unwittingly” collude with Russia, but were just too stupid to realize what was happening, that sure doesn’t sound much like “winning.”

But obviously the entire Trump phenomenon is a testament to the awesome power of creating extremely low expectations.

It is quite possible that these most recent indictments are indeed completely consistent with Mueller’s mural not ultimately implicating Trump himself or concluding that there was a campaign conspiracy with Russia. I have always maintained that it is possible that the Trump team was just colossally incompetent/corrupt and that they panicked when the investigation began out of fear of the boss’s great victory being delegitimized and what might be found out about his finances.

However, by no means is an even more nefarious narrative off the table. While Mueller has yet to publicly produce any evidence at all of “collusion” (something which should indeed concern those already invested in that conclusion), a closer look at how the Trump team has responded to this entire issue provides plenty of evidence which points to that possibility.

Here are just some of the things for which no rational explanation has been given and which are totally consistent with the worst possible interpretation of what really happened here:

• Trump constantly insisting that there was no evidence of Russia meddling in the election and then, just this weekend, lying about making those previous claims now that there really is no doubt.
• Donald Trump Jr. blatantly lying numerous times, including at least once with the help of his father, about meeting with Russians, in Trump Tower when his father was in the building, offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
• Trump lying that he has had no financial dealings with Russia, when we know now that he was negotiating a Trump Tower in Moscow even during the campaign.
• Multiple campaign aides, including Trump’s national security advisor, already pleading guilty to serious crimes uncovered in the probe.
• A systematic and unwarranted attack by Trump and his state-run media on our intelligence agencies, including the asinine claim that the FBI was hindered in its investigation of the Parkland killer because they were preoccupied with Russian election meddling.
• Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey specifically for his handling of Russia, the failed attempt to fire Mueller himself, and the repeated efforts to get those overseeing the investigation to pledge some sort of loyalty to him.
• The highly-hyped release of the deceitful Nunes memo, which not only turned out to be a dud, but which actually further substantiated the case against Trump in some ways, while refusing to make public the Democratic response to it.
• The extreme effort to pretend that Carter Page was not really part of the campaign, until suddenly claiming his surveillance after he left the campaign, and just weeks before Election Day, somehow was a scandal greater than Watergate.
• Trying to muddy the waters of the most recent indictments by highlighting that they didn’t say Russian meddling impacted the results (that wasn’t their job) and that they show Russia tried to spark protests against Trump AFTER the election (so what?!).
• The claim that Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman when Trump won the nomination, played a “very limited role” in the campaign.
• Trump originally saying “100%” that he would speak with Mueller under oath and then backing off that claim completely later once that prospect became real.
• Trump adding “collusion is not a crime” to his mantra that there was “no collusion.”
• Trump never attacking Russia/Putin and refusing to fully implement the Russian sanctions his own party overwhelmingly passed.
• Trump’s overall obsession with the topic and tendency to rage Tweet whenever there is a significant development (rather than just go on Fox News Channel and finally do an extensive interview providing his side of the topic).

We still don’t know what really happened here and we won’t at least until Mueller’s mural is complete. Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming that no matter what that final painting looks like it, almost everyone will still see only what they want to.

John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli’s campaign denied allegations of voter fraud, but signaled it may launch a “full recount” based on the margin of Gov. Phil Murphy‘s (D) win.

According to the New York Times, Murphy received 50.9% of the vote, compared to Ciattarelli’s 48.3%. About 65,000 votes separate them. The Associated Press and several other outlets declared Murphy the winner last week.

Ciattarelli’s campaign made it clear that they were not alleging any voter fraud, but believe that the provisional vote count could “reduce the margin for Governor Murphy enough to warrant a full recount.”

In a statement, Ciattarelli legal counsel Mark Sheridan blamed Murphy’s new in-person early voting law for causing an “excruciatingly slow vote counting process.”

“Let me be clear, no one on this team is alleging fraud or malfeasance, as we have not seen any credible evidence of that,” Sheridan said. “However, the new law Governor Murphy and state Democrats rushed to enact led to this disjointed and excruciatingly slow vote counting process. We still have vote-by-mail ballots outstanding and approximately 70,000 provisional ballots to be counted.”

Sheridan acknowledged that the campaign did not expect the provisional vote count to hand Ciattarelli a lead, but noted the “count may reduce the margin for Governor Murphy enough to warrant a full recount.”

Murphy’s campaign reiterated calls for Ciattarelli to concede on Monday, deeming it mathematically impossible for the Republican to win. Additionally, Murphy’s campaign estimates that there are about 13,000 fewer provisional ballots remaining than Ciattarelli’s campaign.

“The race is over,” Murphy campaign manager Mollie Binotto said. “Assemblyman Ciattarelli is mathematically eliminated, and he must accept the results and concede the race. His continuing failure to do so is an assault on the integrity of our elections.”

Greg Nash- Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) accused Democrats of attempting to “steal” elections by using entirely legal methods, prompting him to get swiftly mocked by pundits on Twitter.

Paul claimed that Democrats are stealing elections by encouraging people to vote for them, which pretty much sounds exactly like how democracy works.

The senator shared an article from the Washington Examiner, which noted that Democrats won Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election despite losing it to former President Donald Trump in 2016.

How to steal an election: “Seeding an area heavy with potential Democratic votes with as many absentee ballots as possible, targeting and convincing potential voters to complete them in a legally valid way, and then harvesting and counting the results.”https://t.co/LwE3MdeWeG

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 27, 2021

“How to steal an election,” Paul’s tweet read, going on to quote the article:

“Seeding an area heavy with potential Democratic votes with as many absentee ballots as possible, targeting and convincing potential voters to complete them in a legally valid way, and then harvesting and counting the results.”

Despite Paul’s claim of theft, his complaint was largely criticized on Twitter, CNN’s John Harwood noting, “Convincing potential voters to cast legal ballots is the how you win elections in a democracy.”

The crime is a Republican lost. That’s not supposed to happen. Ever.

— Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid (@JoyAnnReid) December 28, 2021

convincing potential voters to cast legal ballots is the how you win elections in a democracy https://t.co/EYP24IvLOR

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) December 27, 2021

This is what we call— wait for it— voting. https://t.co/0YATlm3FCG

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) December 27, 2021

I think this is called democracy. https://t.co/5pJY2jeQWs

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 27, 2021

This is, I guess, at least honest about the fact that they think the wrong people voting is what counts as stealing an election. https://t.co/yIKod2aj4d

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 27, 2021

This sounds like a bit, but it’s quite the window into the conservative mind to say that ‘convincing’ people to legally complete a ballot & increasing turnout is election theft. https://t.co/D82VmcA0iL

— Taniel (@Taniel) December 28, 2021

Among normal people this is known as “voting.” https://t.co/SrpfxECMwN

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) December 28, 2021

How to rob a grocery store: Pick out the items you desire, bring them to a clerk in the front, and pay the listed price for them. https://t.co/sqVpMPVfVm

— Seth Masket (@smotus) December 27, 2021

Saying the quiet part extremely loud, over a bullhorn. https://t.co/lveMtwEhhx

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) December 28, 2021

I read this several times trying to determine some hidden meaning or subtext but am now forced to conclude Rand is scandalized by the concept of electoral democracy https://t.co/EQN9WaPMkQ

— Felipe De La Hoz (@FelipeDLH) December 27, 2021

How is “convincing potential voters to complete ballots in a legally valid way” and then counting the results “stealing an election”? This is literally what political parties are supposed to do. https://t.co/mhmu56s9ru

— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) December 27, 2021

What Rand Paul is expressing here is the fundamental conservative belief that people in cities intrinsically don’t have the right to have a voice, and that if Democrats win, it’s inherently a flawed result. https://t.co/CauItEc6uc

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) December 28, 2021

Republicans outright hate democracy. Just can’t stand the thought of people voting. https://t.co/6WmJdoMHzm

— Hugh Howey (@hughhowey) December 28, 2021

This is literally how elections have been legally conducted in America for half a century….. Sooooo campaigning is “Stealing” when a Republican loses ? https://t.co/bNb7jywiJ5

— Dr. Jason Johnson (@DrJasonJohnson) December 28, 2021

The GOP is now admitting that if more people have the power to vote legally, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance. They think it’s stealing an election when YOU have the right to vote. It’s why they are making it harder in many states to vote. That’s truly stealing elections from you. https://t.co/5cfDKBtqZL

— Russell Foster for Texas (@RussellFosterTX) December 28, 2021

So the way to steal an election is to get more of your people to vote. Noted. https://t.co/HN9Iob1uK5

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) December 28, 2021

I will support everyone not you for the rest of my days.

— Rex Chapman (@RexChapman) December 28, 2021

Photo illustration by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via AP

Just in time for the 2024 election cycle, YouTube announced plans to ease restrictions on content containing or related to claims about the legitimacy of election results. But only past election results.

Axios reported the company’s announcement on Friday.

Google’s YouTube policies on misinformation, as it pertains to the U.S. elections, will be changed in order to provide “a home for open discussion and debate during the ongoing election season,” the company said in a blog post.

This change only applies to existing restrictions related to the 2020 election and other “past US Presidential elections,” the company clarified.

The election misinformation policy was first introduced in December 2020. The rationale for the change is related to “the unintended effect of curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm.”

We will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections. This goes into effect today, Friday, June 2. As with any update to our policies, we carefully deliberated this change.

They clarified that other other aspects of the policy will still be enforced.

Including those that disallow content aiming to mislead voters about the time, place, means, or eligibility requirements for voting; false claims that could materially discourage voting, including those disputing the validity of voting by mail; and content that encourages others to interfere with democratic processes.

—-

A majority of judges on the top election court in Brazil voted to ban former President Jair Bolsonaro from seeking office again until 2030 for making claims the court says were false about the country’s voting systems.

The seven-judge panel found the right-wing populist guilty of abuse of power for allegedly undermining the country’s democracy while in office. Bolsonaro was voted out of office in 2022 after losing the election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva by a narrow margin.

Bolsonaro is a close political ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who endorsed him in his reelection bid — earning him the nickname “Tropical Trump.” The Brazilian politician is being investigated in multiple criminal cases.

“It’s unfair to me, for God’s sake,” the politician told reporters on Thursday. “Show me something concrete that I did against democracy. I played within the bounds of the Constitution the whole time.”

If the ruling is upheld by the country’s Supreme Court, Bolsonaro would not be able to run for president until he is 75 and would be sidelined from politics for the remainder of the decade.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the trial lasted only a week and no witnesses were called to testify. The legal proceedings mostly included statements by the various justices and brief comments from Bolsonaro’s defense team.

Many of Bolsonaro’s supporters had hoped the former president would run again for political office. In the past, he has told news outlets of his desire to launch a Senatorial campaign for 2026.

Karina Kufa, Bolsonaro’s lawyer, announced that his team would appeal the decision within the electoral court before moving to Brazil’s Supreme Court.

The former army officer ascended to the presidency in 2018 after promising to reform the government and weed out corruption. However, his four-year term was riddled with controversy as he stoked culture-war tensions within the country and oversaw one of the deadliest Covid-19 outbreaks in the world.

After being voted out of office, Bolsonaro did not attend his successor’s inauguration and refused to participate in the ceremonial passing of the presidential sash, according to the Washington Post.