1) FL absentees, early voting:

*Dems as expected ("souls to the polls Sunday") had a good day and FINALLY take the early walk-in vote lead by 6,100 votes.

Rs total: 1,151,593
Ds total: 1,092,547

Rs +59,046 combined lead. This is very good for this point in the campaign.

1) https://t.co/ejQmeU5YIu

First the Hill/Cook, now this. Folks, they are aware they are losing or have already lost the House. The last big vote suppression push is on.

Yesterday, two NC polls basically put all the "at risk" NC seats out of reach.
Before that, TX and OH's vulnerable seats were pretty much off the board (Sessions is ahead but close).

NY now down to two vulnerable seats with the R leading in one. Both are red.

3) UNLIKE THE LIBS, I will tell you . . .

I.
Can.
Be.
Wrong.

But I'm not seeing a DemoKKKrat takeover of the House. At most I have them with 19 flips---but that is really stretching it and that's them running the table.

4) Meanwhile, we had news of a D-R potential flip in AZ1, where Wendy Rogers has gotten out to a surprising lead.

This goes along with the expected two flips from MN. There are at least two others out there, possibly three.

5) Meanwhile, in the world of real voting, in blue Montgomery Co., OH we have the following in absentee balloting: R=11,041, D=7,087, I/U=12,609

Well, you say, all those indies may vote D.

They didn't in 2016. Based on 2016 votes and voting history of EVERY SINGLE HOUSE . . .

1) 538 walks it back:
Right now, in fact, the polls are not showing a Democratic turnout advantage. Instead, based on a comparison of likely-voter and registered-voter polls, they’re projecting roughly equal turnout between the parties,

2) with Republicans’ demographic advantages (older, whiter voters typically vote at higher rates at the midterms) counteracting Democrats’ seemingly higher enthusiasm.”

3) Give little Natey a week and he'll see what we see: An R turnout advantage.

1) Raise your hand if you remember how the RINOs and neverTrumpers ridiculed us in 2015 when we supported Trump saying, "he fights!"

Remember how much abuse we took for that?

Guess what.

We now have Justice Kavanaugh largely because both Trump and K fought.

2) Trump had every opportunity to bail on Judge K. I'm sure he asked the Judge, "Do you want to keep going through this? Cuz I'll stand by you if you do."

3) Either of the Bushes, McTurd, Minion,ANY other leading R would have bailed on Judge K the first time Balless Edsel talked

3) Do you RINOs, you neverTrumpers get it yet?

It is ONLY because Trump "fights" that ANYTHING gets done--trade treaties, tax cuts, immigration control, denuking Korea.

You can't have Falstaff and have him thin. You can't have victories & play nice with Commies or DemoKKKrats

A lot of people don't understand that Trump & his incoming team didn't face a normal transition period, like it was over a in a matter of a few weeks or months.

The DOJ transition period JUST ENDED when Sessions left. Almost 2 exact years to get it there.

Pompeo at the CIA took over a year before he was done and ready to shift over to the State Department.

All kinds of stuff has been going on behind the scenes nobody leaks or talks about.

We only had the barest mention of the fact the Clinton Email investigation restarted

Nobody leaked in a year that Huber was deep diving into the Clinton Foundation.
Keep that in mind as all the usual suspects continue to INSIST nothing is happening/going to happen.

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

[thread]

I am going to do a thread on several numbers

1

2,996

4,494

43,730

106,158

Now

We go back into the dim and distant past in British politics

We go back over 2 decades

A lesson from the past

Now I am going to focus on the words of two politicians

Two politicians who have held high offices in this land

And I am going to agree with their words

So those with a long memory

May have already figured out perhaps what I am going to do based on the first two numbers

And you'd be right

So let me get going on the journey

In my first post

I deliberately anonymised those numbers

Let me now give them context

1 Princess Diana or Margaret

2,996 9/11

The final 3 are UK coronavirus death tolls:

4,494 (5th April 2020)

43,730 (30th June 2020)

106,158 (1st February 2021)