Even though ABC spent part of their Sunday marveling at chants of “we love you” at massive Trump rallies, CBS Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan thought she was confronting Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel with accusations that President Trump’s supporters weren’t enthusiastic about him. Not only was Brennan schooled by McDaniel, CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell later warned of the “shy Trump voter” gaining courage.
In the midst of her contentious interview with the RNC Chairwoman, Brennan recalled that McDaniel had invested a lot of funding into the Republican Party ground game all across the country. But, without evidence, she tried to cast doubt on how much Trump supporters backed their president. “If your voters are so excited about President Trump, why haven’t they shown up yet,” she sneered.
While McDaniel was explaining how Republicans prefer to vote on Election Day (a historical fact, not to mention data shows that Republicans were catching up to Democrats in early voting), Brennan rudely interrupted her guest and asked: “Why?”
McDaniel then schooled Brennan on how Republicans save their enthusiasm for Election Day and show up in big numbers (Click “expand”):
RONNA MCDANIEL: Because they really want to vote in person. And I will say–
BRENNAN (Interrupting McDaniel): Why?
MCDANIEL: — it’s has been interesting, Margaret, this year as we’ve surveyed our voters. A vast majority of them want to vote in person. They want to make sure that their vote counts. They’re not completely trusting of the mail ballot system, and so they’ve made that very clear.
And we saw that in these special elections. In the Chris Jacobs election in NY27 the Democrats had a very large lead in absentee ballots heading into Election Day, and then we won Election Day by 40 percent. And that’s kind of the flip-flop with expect to see on Election Day this year, with our voters coming out Election Day as they stacked gains with absentee ballots.
Continuing to push her assertion that the bottom had fallen out of Trump’s support, Brennan pounced on McDaniel’s recent comments to The Wall Street Journal regarding how some of Trump’s support amongst suburban woman had “faded away.” “Our data shows it more than faded, it’s been a large swing. Why have you lost women in that way,” Brennan chided.
“So, women are issue voters. We know this, Margaret. We’re not monolithic,” McDaniel shot back in part. “We’re over 50 percent of the electorate. We’re not single-issue voters. But we’re making decisions based on our lives, and every issue impacts us. But I do think one of the overwhelming issues we’re seeing that’s bringing them back in the suburbs is law and order.”
Towards the end of the program, when CBS’s election night crew gathered to discuss what could happen in the horse race, Brennan’s proclamations of the unenthusiastic Trump supporter got sunk by CBS colleague Norah O’Donnell.
As political correspondent Ed O’Keefe was telling viewers about how a new poll out of Iowa “shows that Joni Ernst is actually in the lead after weeks of polling suggested that her Democratic opponent, Theresa Greenfield pulled ahead,” O’Donnell interjected by noting it showed enthusiasm for Trump was growing
“That Iowa poll suggests, in fact, that the shy Trump voter is emerging,” she declared.
Not only did it signal general enthusiasm going up, according to O’Donnell, but he was gaining in some of the demographics Brennan had hyped him losing. “That independents are going back towards Donald Trump,” she said. “That actually some women are returning to the Republican fold who were there in 2016, and may not have been able to say it publicly in a poll or to their friends, that that has come back.”
And it wasn’t just O’Donnell, CBS This Morning co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King seemed to agree that a message was being sent by Trump’s supporters (Click “expand”):
O’DONNELL: Now look, Joe Biden can win without Iowa, there’s no doubt about that, but the question about–
GAYLE KING: But it may be sending a message, though
O’DONNELL: Right.
KING: Maybe sending a message.
O’DONNELL: Maybe about other places. And that’s why sort of that this; is that a canary in a coal mine or is it an outlier?
Brennan didn’t seem to be expecting that from her colleagues.
Margaret Brennan’s lies about there being no enthusiasm for President Trump among his supporters was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Ensure and Google. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they’re funding.
The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:
CBS’s Face the Nation
November 1, 2020
10:42:28 a.m. Eastern(…)
MARGARET BENNAN: But to get back to the idea of the ground game that you are credited, personally with really having invested a lot of money into for the Republican Party. If your voters are so excited about President Trump, why haven’t they shown up yet?
RONNA MCDANIEL: Because they really want to vote in person. And I will say–
BRENNAN (Interrupting McDaniel): Why?
MCDANIEL: — it’s has been interesting, Margaret, this year as we’ve surveyed our voters. A vast majority of them want to vote in person. They want to make sure that their vote counts. They’re not completely trusting of the mail ballot system, and so they’ve made that very clear.
And we saw that in these special elections. In the Chris Jacobs election in NY27 the Democrats had a very large lead in absentee ballots heading into Election Day, and then we won Election Day by 40 percent. And that’s kind of the flip-flop with expect to see on Election Day this year, with our voters coming out Election Day as they stacked gains with absentee ballots.
BRENNAN: You had a big profile in the Wall Street Journal that came out just yesterday, and you said in it, you acknowledged: “We know some suburban women who were with Donald Trump in 2016 may have faded away.” Our data shows it more than faded, it’s been a large swing. Why have you lost women in that way?
MCDANIEL: Well, I think women are coming back. Women make a majority of the health care decisions. And as they see us on track to a vaccine, they see the therapeutics coming in, they want to see their kids in school, they agree with things like school choice that Republicans are putting forward, and also law and order.
What we’re seeing in these cities, Democrat-run cities have really brought women back to President Trump because they do not want to see cities burned down, the looting, the rioting, we’ve seeing this in Philadelphia right now. They don’t want to see police defunded.
So, women are issue voters. We know this, Margaret. We’re not monolithic. We’re over 50 percent of the electorate. We’re not single-issue voters. But we’re making decisions based on our lives, and every issue impacts us. But I do think one of the overwhelming issues we’re seeing that’s bringing them back in the suburbs is law and order.
(…)
11:23:00 a.m. Eastern
ED O’KEEFE: You can go to Iowa, for example, where a poll overnight shows that Joni Ernst is actually in the lead after weeks of polling suggested that her Democratic opponent, Theresa Greenfield pulled ahead. You —
NORAH O’DONNELL: That Iowa poll suggests, in fact, that the shy Trump voter is emerging.
O’KEEFE: Right.
O’DONNELL: That independents are going back towards Donald Trump. That actually some women are returning to the Republican fold who were there in 2016, and may not have been able to say it publicly in a poll or to their friends, that that has come back.
Now look, Joe Biden can win without Iowa, there’s no doubt about that, but the question about–
GAYLE KING: But it may be sending a message, though
O’DONNELL: Right.
KING: May be sending a message.
O’DONNELL: May be about other places. And that’s why sort of that this; is that a canary in a coal mine or is it an outlier?
(…)
Some interesting posts I have come across and wonder why this is not being investigated, it appears Kamala Harris is not Constitutionally eligible to be Pres., or, V.P., and may even be an illegal senator….
SandyT
21 July, 2020
Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, CA in 1964. Her parents came here from India (1960) and Jamaica (1961) legally, with green cards, but it takes a minimum of 5 years residence to be eligible for naturalization. They had not lived here long enough to have become citizens prior to Kamala’s birth. They were still foreign nationals, not citizens, when Kamala was born. They also divorced when Kamala was 7 years old and her mother took her and her younger sister to live in Canada, where Kamala was educated through high school, then she came back to the US to go to college. She would just be a female version of Obama, who was never eligible because his Kenyan, British subject father was not a US citizen. MUST be born on US soil to parents (plural) who are themselves, citizens, to be a constitutionally REQUIRED “natural born citizen”, for the offices of potus and vp. Those are the only two offices that require the occupant to be a natural born citizen. All others can be any kind of citizen, natural born, native born or naturalized.
SandyT
dave
21 July, 2020
The Republicans (which I have been for my lifetime) must have decided that since Obama “got away with it”, that they could, too. Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio were not eligible in 2016. Cruz because of his birth in Canada and non-citizen father. Rubio and Jindal (and Nikki Haley) were born here, but like Kamala, their parents were not citizens when their children were born. Tulsi Gabbard has the same problem as Cruz, except she had two citizen parents instead of one, but she was not born on US soil. Dan Crenshaw has the same problem. His parents were both citizens but he was born in Aberdeen, Scotland. Children born outside of the U.S. to one or two citizen parents are “naturalized by congressional statute” citizens, not natural born citizens. See Rogers v. Bellei (1971) “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” -Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
SandyT
21 July, 2020
Happersett v Minor (1875) “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ … “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or “natural-born citizens”, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Kamala Harris is a “citizen”, because her parents were here as legal residents, but she is not a “natural born citizen”, because her parents were still foreign nationals, not yet citizens.
Senator Jacob Howard said ” this will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families if ambassadors or foreign ministers. (He helped draft the 14th) Senator Edgar Cowan said ” it is perfectly clear that the mere fact a man was born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power”.
Her parents student visas so temporary therefore they were foreigners.
Many Supreme Court cases on the subject also. The Supreme Court has never held automatic birthright citizenship.
Elk v. Wilkens
Hamdi v Rumsfeld
She is a natural born citizen OF JAMAICA. Jamaica goes by the old English law of natural born subject as long as the Father is a JAmaican citizen. See Jamaica Constitution 2nd Chapter Section 6. Also SEC. 4. Section 202(b) (8 U.S.C. 1152(b)) (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he/she is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as deter. Harris was an alien due to her parents not being U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. This excludes Harris from being a 14th Amendment citizen.
***(AND, JAMACIA IS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH)***