Believe Women?

This is a soul-crushing sort of item to write, and one we've been putting off. But we can do so no longer.

Most readers will know, by now, that Cornell University is enmeshed in a rape scandal. The short version (read the Wikipedia article if you want full details) is that a female student, who is being referred to by the pseudonym Jane Doe, was out with a group of friends on a weekend night and became significantly impaired by alcohol and ketamine. She then went to a gathering at one of Cornell's fraternities, where she was plied with further substances, and at least seven members of the fraternity raped her. Inasmuch as she was completely intoxicated, and could not give consent, there is no question this was rape. Further, there were contemporaneous text and Internet messages sent among members of the fraternity in which they made remarks like "free pu**y upstairs" and "Like you can walk in and whip it out.... Boys come whip it out."

Nonetheless, the next day, the victim exchanged friendly text messages with some of her attackers, and even told one of them that "non [sic] of the sexual stuff was illegal." It took a few weeks until things fully crystallized in her mind, and she filed a report with the university police. That delay (meaning no DNA evidence could be collected), plus the friendly text messages, persuaded prosecutors that they could not secure a conviction, and so they declined to pursue the matter. Meanwhile, the university conducted an investigation under the auspices of its Title IX office. It was reasonably thorough, and it did result in two of the rapists being expelled from the school. On the other hand, others got off with a slap on the wrist, like being ordered to attend a sexual harassment course and write a reflective essay on what they had learned. Doe, for her part, was not entirely clear that the criminal prosecution had been dropped. But once she understood that there would be no day in (criminal) court, and once the Title IX process had concluded with less-than-satisfactory results, she decided to file a lawsuit. The suit was filed on September 16, and the incident quickly became a national story.

We imagine that the many of our readers who are academics are not surprised by any of this. The drinking/drug culture at universities, coupled with people who are old enough to have adult hormones, but not old enough to have adult restraint, produces way too many incidents like this. And universities, particularly the private ones—who have considerably less legal duty to report crime statistics to government authorities—tend to be very eager to keep things on the down-low as much as is possible, since there is nothing worse for PR than sexual assault. And Title IX offices are often ineffective, at least in part because they don't have the range of tools (e.g., subpoenas) that government prosecutors have. Another part of it is that, in the end, the paychecks of the people who work for the Title IX office are signed by the university. So, they aren't always 100% neutral parties, and their justice isn't always blind.

But we are a politics site, not a public policy site, and so it's the politics that we really need to talk about here. Almost from the moment that this became national news, the story was—predictably—politicized. On the Democratic side, from Gov. Kathy Hochul (NY) on down, there was outrage, and steps were taken to re-open the criminal investigation. It is possible this response was genuine, it is possible it was calculated, it is possible that it was both, we don't know.

On the Republican side, quite a few folks took the side of the rapists. That includes the rapist-in-all-but-name-in-chief Donald Trump, who has personalized this. He is furious that Hochul asked Trump nemesis Letitia James to take up the matter, and has said and tweeted (well, truthed) that he is worried the rapists won't get a "fair shake." And compared to other voices on the right, Trump's response was restrained. The always-obnoxious podcaster Matt Walsh declared that everything that happened was consensual, and that Doe's response is only because she feels guilt. His conclusion: "Since her real problem is guilt, not trauma, the real solution is to repent of her sins." This kind of stuff is all over social media, with the various edge lords, proud boys, incels, and others repeating the claim that it was consensual, or otherwise asserting that Doe "deserved it" because she got drunk/dressed provocatively. There is also a massive effort underway to doxx Jane Doe, so she can be harassed, intimidated, or worse.

And that brings us to our next story. Bernadette Greene-Placentia (D) is currently running for the House, challenging Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ) in the R+8 AZ-08. One of her regular tasks is to repair campaign signs that line the roadways of her district, and on one late Friday night, while she was doing so, she was assaulted, knocked unconscious, and raped by two men. One of them, according to the candidate, called her a "Democratic bit**." She initially preferred to forget the whole thing, but was eventually persuaded by her campaign staff and her husband to make a report. An investigation is ongoing.

Undoubtedly, readers can see where this is headed. The story did not get reported until October 7, well after the incident took place. The timing, relative to the Cornell case, is probably not coincidental; the Greene-Placentia story certainly served to localize the issue of sexual assault. Hamadeh, to his credit, offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the identity of the assailants. Whether he did that out of genuine feeling, or because it was politic, we don't know, but either way it was the right thing to do. By contrast, many of Hamadeh's fellow MAGA adherents have been vicious in their attacks upon Greene-Placentia. There are the usual declarations that she consented, or that she brought it on herself. There is also a widespread conspiracy theory, based on the part about her being called a "Democratic bit**," that it's a hoax she cooked up in order to engender sympathy among voters and to make Republicans look bad.

And finally, that brings us to the news that forced us to write up this item, and to stop delaying. Amy Acton (D), currently running for governor in Ohio, is also a victim of sexual assault. In her case, it happened when she was 12, and was perpetrated by her then-stepfather. Although he was charged, he was released on bond and was not prosecuted because mom and stepdad skipped town. Meanwhile, Acton and her younger brother were removed from their mother's custody due to the general climate of abuse and filth. The candidate has been estranged from her mother ever since; since she is now 60 that means it's been nearly half a century.

Well, guess who just re-entered the chat? Acton has led her opponent, Vivek Ramaswamy (R), in nearly every poll released this month, sometimes by close to double digits. The aggregators have her up by an average of 4 points. And so, in a move that can only be described as both despicable and desperate, the Ramaswamy campaign just dropped a new ad featuring the World's Greatest Mom:

Sorry, because it's new, we couldn't find a better version to embed. Here's a transcript:

My name is Donna Arthur and I'm Amy Acton's mother. I worked at Children and Family Service Association, building one of the first two sexual abuse programs in America. I love my daughter, but when I saw her lying about her opponent... it's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy has a serious problem. She is a liar. She lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a tent. None of that is true. She's lied her entire life. My daughter needs help. And she can't help you if she needs help herself. People can change, but first they have to tell the truth. And my daughter still isn't doing that. Don't vote for people who lie. Don't let her become your governor. If you think she'll make your life better, you're fooling yourself. It will only get worse.

Acton's brother has already spoken up and confirmed his sister's version of events, by the way, including the tent.

It is hard to believe anyone could take this ad seriously. First, a mother who allowed her daughter to be in the presence of, and to be victimized by, a child molester is not exactly a reliable narrator. Further, even if the young Amy was a serial liar, how can the mother know that continued into adulthood? And finally, does anyone doubt that Ramaswamy wrote a fat check in order to secure mom's participation?

Still, the Ramaswamy campaign is leaning very hard into the ad, attacking Acton as a "serial fabulist" (who is doing the writing for these people?). A Ramaswamy spokesman decreed: "This is a campaign-ending moment for Amy Acton. The people who know her best keep warning Ohioans about her." That is quite a statement, especially since the Acton campaign has already released a response ad recorded by her brother. You can view it here; he says that the abuse was real, and that as bad as it was for him, she got the worst of it. By our count, that is the one person who knows her best and who says she's truthful, and one person who doesn't know her at all, and says she's a liar. Perhaps readers will reach a different conclusion, but we know whom we believe.

Yesterday we heard from quite a few readers who were rightly horrified by the Ramaswamy ad. For example, P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, who wrote, "Republicans proving yet again that they are the enablers and protectors of child molesters and abusers." We suspect that all of the incidents addressed here are going to remind voters, particularly women voters, right before an election, that the Republicans have a real problem when it comes to believing women, and that the problem starts at the tip-top of the Party. We think that is particularly true in Ohio, where there is outrage on both sides of the aisle about the Ramaswamy ad. Far from saving his campaign, it's very possible that the Republican just destroyed it. We'll be very interested to see the polling next week. (Z)

Today's Desperation News, Part I: The French Connection

This is another item we've held off on, although not for the same reasons as the previous one. Everyone reading this knows by now that France has been gripped by rioting, primarily at the hands of young people who are angry about the condition of their schools, and about the general economic hopelessness they feel.

The reason we did not write about it was that it was hard to see exactly how to connect it to American politics. The political culture of France is pretty different from the political culture of America. As a colleague remarked to (Z) yesterday, when discussing this item, "In America, people fear the government. In France, the government fears the people." There's a lot of truth to that. And though Americans, including younger Americans, are being buffeted by many of the same forces (thanks in no small part to the Iran War), we just did not (and do not) foresee mass uprisings in America in the immediate future.

But now, we have something to write about. As it turns out, in an odd kind of way, the news out of France is something of a political litmus test. When (Z) heard about the news, his thought was, "Well, this is kinda what you're risking in a society when you allow too much wealth to accumulate in too few hands, and you allow too many people to live without hope of a stable and secure future." That may have been political bias speaking. Or it may have been the training as a historian speaking. Or it may have been (Z)'s students speaking, since that is their take on the situation (at least, that's the take of the students who stayed after class to discuss it).

This is not, as it turns out, the instinctive right-wing assessment. We could have guessed that if we'd paused to consider it, but it just didn't occur to us to do so. Anyhow, French far-right nutter Marine Le Pen, who aspires to be the next leader of her nation, has been leveraging this for all it's worth. To her, the lesson is not "this is the price of economic inequality." No, the lesson is, "this is what happens when you let immigrants into your country, and also when your police force isn't quite fascist enough."

And in the last few days, right-wingers in the United States have taken the cue. They tend to agree about the evils of immigrants, but think the other culprit here is actually socialism. Here are a few examples, all of them from the various social media platforms:

Donald Trump: The migrants have taken over France. They must CLOSE THE BORDERS, FAST! President DJT

J.D. Vance: Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility. They were told it would lead to this and they didn't listen.

I pray that France, a beautiful country of amazing people, will stop this madness before more of its landmarks burn.

And I hope Americans are paying attention. This is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): France is descending into chaos because they wanted OPEN BORDERS—just like the socialist Democrats in America.

What we are witnessing is a chilling warning for all Americans of what happens if the radical Marxist insurgent left gets their way.

America is not merely in a battle of political ideologies—it's a battle for the preservation of our civilization, our freedoms, and our way of life.

If Democrats take back control, it will be open borders and criminal illegals overrunning our country, many of whom want to destroy it.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): We are witnessing Islamists right now burning Paris because Europe has committed cultural suicide.

We should look to France as foreshadowing for what America faces if we don't stop this here.

We are fighting to save our nation.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO): What you're seeing in France is the natural and eventual consequence of the Suicidal Empathy so many in The West have adopted. It's tragic.

It's one of the reasons I fight so hard on the mass migration issue here in our homeland—America.

It's not too late but we must take illegal immigration, problems with legal immigration seriously and not flinch on deportations.

Let us pause here to take note of two things. First, these messages use a lot of the same rhetoric, and were posted around the same time. Clearly, there's some coordination going on here. Second, J.D. Vance is so unbelievably bad at this. Actually, what we should really say is that he's sofa king bad at this. Either way, he can't rabble rouse to save his life.

We've had a few readers write in to ask if we think this will work. And our very strong gut feel is: "no." Part of that is that Trump & Co. are sending up so many Hail Mary passes right now, our instinctive response is to assume that they'll all drop without being caught. As readers can see, that theme will continue through the rest of this posting.

The other part of it, however, is that we think there are just too many moving parts here. You have to start with the view that Americans are well aware of what's going on in France (not usually a great assumption) and, critically, they are outraged by it. Then they have to accept that the villains here are immigrants and/or socialists, and that immigrants and/or Democratic Socialists in America are champing at the bit to do the same thing, if only given the chance. Finally, they have to believe that the only thing holding back the barbarians at the gate is the Republican Party. We don't doubt that there are people out there who can accept all the links in the chain, but we suspect those folks are already voting GOP.

Compare this to Laken Riley, whose death was weaponized by Trump and his party with some degree of success. She was American (so, not French), she was attractive and white, she was murdered, and it was an immigrant who did it. There are many fewer steps there for those who want to do a little scapegoating. Basically, it was brown non-American --> dead white cute American. Very simple, even if the claims about how immigrants commit a vast number of crimes, far disproportionate to their numbers, were utter nonsense.

So no, we don't think this will change the calculus. And we don't think the other two Hail Mary passes we're writing about today will, either. (Z)

Today's Desperation News, Part II: Fighting Voter "Fraud"

Continuing with the theme of using all options at his disposal, no matter how dishonest or corrupt they may be, in order to try to save the Republicans in the midterms, Donald Trump has escalated his harassment and intimidation campaign against California voters and election officials by charging 28 individuals with illegally registering to vote or voting in federal elections. Eleven of those people were arrested on Monday. All of them are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and could possibly be citizens who are eligible to vote.

In other words, the feds arrested them without knowing if they're eligible to vote. In papers filed in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against California and elected officials, federal prosecutors wrote that these voters' ballots, if they even cast ballots, should be set aside "until the voter's citizenship status can be determined." The feds did not bother with that, and jumped right to arresting and charging the 28 people with a crime. That's a pretty big admission to make to the court if you're trying to convince a judge to disenfranchise 20,000 voters.

Nonetheless, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter was quick to announce the arrests and then claim that California's elections are all completely corrupt and must be verified by the feds. The staff mathematician is once again indisposed, but even this lawyer can handle this math. Hmmm, 23 million registered voters in CA and 28 alleged fraudulent voters. Even assuming those people actually voted when they weren't eligible to (and that's a big if), that would amount to .000122% of the total. And that number is pretty consistent with nationwide studies of how often voter fraud occurs. It is negligible and the federal government is essentially proving the point. And the judge is not going to be impressed because, if anything, this latest stunt shows that the lawsuit and arrests are just a charade to frighten and intimidate election officials and voters.

Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting that the DoJ's list consists mostly of U.S. citizens, according to election officials, just like in other states where the feds tried this gambit. The numbers have already changed significantly from 190,000 in July to 20,000 to apparently 28. This is not going to give them a lot of credibility in front of the judge or the American people if this is their hook to try to cast doubt on the outcome of the midterms. They are just making themselves look even more incompetent, bumbling and dangerous, not to mention motivated by something other than "election integrity." Some of those arrested appear to be a case of mistaken identity, such as Omar Munoz. Munoz' son shares his father's name. Munoz Jr. is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter. The feds raided the Munoz' home in the pre-dawn hours on Monday and arrested Munoz Sr. despite the fact that he was recovering from a recent surgery.

As we have written, it was already unlikely that a federal judge was going to potentially disenfranchise 20,000 voters just before the election. Given this latest stunt, it's even more unlikely the judge will step in and take any action before Election Day. In fact, we would bet that the judge will wait to rule until after the election has been certified. After all, federal judges have very busy calendars—made even more busy by the shenanigans of the Trump administration. (L)

Today's Desperation News, Part III: Fighting Government "Fraud"

Donald Trump very much wants people to believe there is fraud and corruption all over the place. And by "all over the place," we mean "in blue states." To that end, and flanked by his mini-me J.D. Vance, the President announced yesterday a program that will award up to $25 million to people who blow the whistle on fraud in governance, or in the administration of government-funded programs. Individuals can receive up to $30,000 for a tip that produces concrete results.

The AI-powered report form is already online. Visitors are advised that they do not have to use their name or identifying information when making a report, should they choose to be anonymous. Here is the link for the website, which even features a pretty picture of a bald eagle.

We would humbly suggest to readers that it is their civic duty to send in reports early and often. For anyone who is having trouble thinking of potential fraud to report, here are ten suggestions:

1. The federal employee who used his office to shake a foreign government down for a jumbo jet.
2. The federal employee who arranged for a $1.776 billion slush fund to be awarded to his supporters.
3. The federal employee who has aired numerous campaign ads on the government's dime.
4. The federal employee who wrecked a historic building, then used that to solicit "contributions" from companies with business before the government.
5. The federal employee who has de facto sold pardons.
6. The federal employee who has used inside information when making thousands of stock trades.
7. The federal employee who offered $5,000 government-funded checks to Americans if Republicans win the midterms.
8. The federal employee who arranged for $600 million to be given to a company run by his kids.
9. The federal employee who collected multimillion dollar donations for a party from companies with business before the government.
10. The federal employee who used his office to promote his crypto ventures.

Have fun! Certainly, a great many other Americans will be doing so, causing this "tip line" to be so inundated with tips that the administration will never be able to plow through them all and find the ones that might be politically useful (especially in the 2 weeks before Election Day). (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Fun fact: We have a little script that we run on the polling data before we post it; the program's purpose is to double-check and warn us if any of the numbers appear to be out of whack. When we ran that script today, it choked on the two North Carolina polls, and warned us that it's very unlikely that a swing state would be that lopsided so we must have made a typo when entering the data. Oh, sweet summer child, if only you knew. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Georgia	Jon Ossoff*	54%	Mike Collins	46%	Oct 06	Oct 20	Activote
Massachusetts	Ed Markey*	60%	John Deaton	32%	Oct 10	Oct 18	Suffolk U.
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	52%	Michael Whatley	39%	Sep 29	Oct 08	Elon U.
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	57%	Michael Whatley	43%	Oct 08	Oct 20	Activote
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	48%	Jon Husted*	44%	Oct 15	Oct 18	Marist Coll.
Rhode Island	Jack Reed*	55%	Raymond McKay	32%	Oct 05	Oct 08	Salve Regina U.

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger