The last few weeks (sometimes the last few months) of a presidential election cycle always leave me feeling somewhat burnt out. As a political columnist, I prefer to focus on events, policy, and principles rather than on the horse race. I’m really not very invested in which “major party” politician lies convincingly enough, to enough voters, to get hold of the One Ring and attempt (with little success, thankfully) to rule us all for the next four years.

Unfortunately, a political columnist lives and dies by the news cycle, that news cycle dominates the last few weeks, and at this point even stories about other subjects tend to turn back to their possible election effects. That leaves me without very much of interest to write about unless I want to talk nuts and bolts politics.

Fortunately, one of the hats I wear other than political columnist is election outcome predictor, and I’m fairly good at it. I’ve correctly predicted the winner, and the outcomes in 48 of the 50 states, three presidential elections in a row now.

So let’s do this. My prediction (issued on September 21) is:

Kamala Harris: 319 electoral votes, Donald Trump 219.

At the time of that prediction, my main focus was on “who’s in the driver’s seat?” Harris was scoring field goals and plodding toward victory while Trump kept making long “Hail Mary” passes hoping for touchdowns and failing to complete. That remains the case.

At this point, it would take a heck of an “October surprise” to change the trajectory. We’re down to two closely related factors.

The first factor is turnout. Most voters have decided who they like best. It’s all about getting those voters to actually fill out ballots. Harris enjoys the support of a long-existing, very successful Get Out the Vote machine. Trump handed his turnout operation to an outside group with little experience and it showed, although Elon Musk is trying to help out with tens of millions of dollars for last-minute direct mail and door-knocking.

The second factor, which tends to reduce Musk’s ability to impact things, is early voting.

As of October 18, according to the University of Florida’s Election Lab, more than 12 million Americans had already voted and another 56 million mail ballots had been requested (many of which are likely already on their way back via the Postal Service).

To the extent that those votes can be tracked by party registration, Democrats have cast more than half again as many early votes as Republicans. Early voting is heaviest in the “swing states” where relatively few votes will likely determine the outcome.

A vote in the hand may not be worth two in the bush, but it’s worth more than one.  Election Day votes may never happen due to flat tires, emergency trips out of town, etc. Early votes aren’t in the bush, they’re in the bank.

Harris has momentum. Trump’s stuck with inertia.

So there you have it — my writer’s-burnout-induced human sacrifice to this year’s election news cycle gods. You’re welcome.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In early October, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case disputing the Biden administration’s attempts to regulate “ghost guns” — firearms built at home, often from pre-supplied parts kits, rather than manufactured in mass quantities and sold with individual serial numbers.

The issue, Justin Jouvenal writes at the Washington Post, is “whether weapons parts kits that can be readily assembled count as guns under the Gun Control Act, and whether a partially completed frame or receiver … can be regulated under the same law. The case does not directly implicate Second Amendment rights.”

Except, of course, that it does. Like a forlorn stood-up date, the Second Amendment continues to exist even if those who pretend they’re going steady with it pretend it doesn’t. It’s part of “the Supreme Law of the Land,” and its grammatical and historical meaning is unambiguous: Any law or regulation which infringes “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is unconstitutional and, therefore, void.

The Supreme Court’s job isn’t to determine whether an unconstitutional regulation conforms to the meaning of an unconstitutional law.

The Supreme Court’s job is to forbid enforcement of the unconstitutional.

When the court ghosts the Second Amendment, it does the opposite of its job and empowers criminals to impose their law-violating ways on the rest of us.

Cute repartee — like justice Samuel Alito’s leading question of whether an assortment of uncooked ingredients constitutes an omelet, and just Amy Coney Barrett’s smug retort (“Would your answer change if you ordered it from Hello Fresh?)” doesn’t change that.

While it’s true that a box containing an unfinished receiver and a kit for completing that receiver is, by definition, not a firearm and therefore can’t be regulated under the Gun Control Act, it’s also true that the Gun Control Act isn’t a law because it conflicts with a higher law that forbids its existence and enforcement.

When the  justices avoid that issue and  instead spend time entertaining specious arguments over word meanings in unconstitutional regulations, they’re not “working” — they’re loitering and kibitzing. If they were honest about what they’re doing, they’d resign, or at least dock their own pay for the wasted time.

It’s also true that even if the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court didn’t exist, all human beings would still enjoy an unalienable right to create (or acquire through voluntary purchase, trade, or gift) and possess any weapons  it pleased them to have.

Fortunately, neither the Biden administration nor the Supreme Court have any actual power to make Americans’ hundreds of millions of guns disappear. They can get away with verbally ghosting us — but we can, and certainly will, physically ghost them and their diktats.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Florida’s proposed Amendment 4 would add the following language to the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “… no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider,” except for requiring parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.

I have an opinion on that ballot measure. I won’t share that opinion with you.

The opinion I WILL share with you is that the measure should indeed be decided by the state’s voters. In fact, it’s already being decided by those voters. Mail ballots have already gone out. Some, including mine, have been returned and counted. “The system,” such as it is, is doing its job.

Governor Ron DeSantis hates that.

After losing a state Supreme Court bid to block the measure, DeSantis, his party, and their cronies in government have worked overtime to prevent voters from having their say.

On October 3, the Florida Department of Health threatened television stations with prosecution for running ads supporting the ballot measure.

On October 14, the Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security issued a report claiming that Floridians Protecting Freedom submitted a “large number of forged signatures or fraudulent petitions” to put the measure on the ballot.

Whether the report’s claims are true or not, the obvious reason for issuing it is to build a case so that DeSantis can seek to prevent the votes from being counted, or just flat-out overturn the will of the voters if the measure receives the 60% required for passage.

This isn’t about abortion. It’s about control.

As an anarchist, I can’t say I really trust “the voters” very much. If nothing else, it’s worth noting that these particular voters elected Ron DeSantis governor. Twice.

But I trust them at least a little more than I trust DeSantis (or Andrew Gillum or Charlie Crist if one of those two had defeated DeSantis).

DeSantis obviously doesn’t trust the voters very much, either. He’s pulling out all stops to prevent them from even having the opportunity to return a result he may not like.

DeSantis reminds me of a lawyer who doesn’t like the looks he’s getting from the jury during closing arguments. He expects the verdict to go against him, so he’s begging the judge for a mistrial to avoid that verdict.

Politicians never really trust voters, but most are less obvious about it than DeSantis.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY