November 2020 - Page 4 of 4

It's hard to know what to make of Tuesday's vote.

Tentatively, very tentatively, it seems as though Joe Biden has pulled it off. So, what now?

I can't say I feel particularly good about a result that leaves it so close. That things are even in question â€” that Donald Trump was still a viable candidate â€” is more than a little baffling. How it isn't a blowout is well beyond me. But, of course, this is America we're talking about.

As of this writing, the U.S. Senate looks like it will remain in Republican hands, so divided government seems to be on offer. We're in for more instability, as a Republican Senate is going to do everything it can to delay, halt and otherwise frustrate a Biden presidency.

And now we have the Trump campaign declaring, en masse, that Trump has won Pennsylvania despite the votes still being counted.

Biden's victory is not assured. What is clear is that Trumpism is with us to stay, either in the man himself, or in some other form. There's a huge appetite for the cruelty and viciousness of the last four years to continue on.

While we may be across the border in Canada, this is an obvious issue for us. Let's put to the side for a moment the many horrible things that have taken place over the last four years, and just look at COVID.

A Republican Senate has shown itself quite uninterested in the plight of Americans dealing with the virus. The GOP has shown itself unwilling to do much of anything on the health care side, or the economic side to bring relief to the U.S.

It's hard to see how we here in Canada get a handle on the virus if our southern neighbour cannot. Even if we improve our situation, our economy is so tied to theirs we're in deep trouble if they can't get it together and bring their numerous outbreaks under control. Without containing the virus, there's no real way to get the economy to recover.

Their viral misery will continue to bleed over the border.

But this about more than just how our economy goes. It's a tragedy of huge proportions to see Trump bring this down to the wire. It's revolting.

There is some comfort, perhaps, that even though it is close, it is close only through the virtue of the minoritarian design of the American system. Winning the popular vote was never in doubt for Biden. But maybe that only manages to expand the tragedy. After Tuesday there is little hope in the near future of the US becoming a better country, never mind a 'good' one.

That's hard to get my head around. This seemed like the perfect time for that country to turn toward something better. Now the doom just rolls on.

Sitting here writing, I'm reminded of a scene from the beginning of the 2016 campaign. I'd just parked the car in a downtown Montreal parking garage, off to get a haircut then meet my then-fiancee, now-wife for lunch. On my way out of the garage, I could see the attendant in his booth watching Trump's launch speech on his phone.

At the time, it all seemed like some kind of absurd novelty. A blowhard and buffoon about to make a laughingstock of himself. How could the country vote for such a jaggoff?

Obviously, I underestimated the American mood, and their willingness to lean into their worst instincts for greed and spectacle. The fact the attendant was watching that spectacle was a warning, there was an allure there.

But even as things progressed back then, the idea of a Trump presidency was nothing more than a bizarre abstraction. Surely the more responsible instincts of the country would assert themselves, I assumed.

Clearly, I made an ass of myself.

This time I figured the reality of the last four years would have replaced that abstraction. The racism, the widespread police violence, the mass death from COVID, the multiple natural disasters â€” fires, floods, hurricanesâ€” handled poorly, the graft, and the outright fascism. Surely all that would have made a difference in the mind of the American voter.

But once again, in huge parts of the country, people didn't see any of that as a problem.

What comes next is unclear. The American crisis will not end with a Biden victory. (The likelihood of which, through the time I've been writing this, has seemed to grow more likely.) The grave problems at the heart of America will continue.

While it does, it will continue to spill across our borders. Brace yourselves. We are in for more of this chaos, instability, and the continued disassociation from huge swaths of the political right.

I don't know what the answer for any of this is. It's largely out of our hands. Somedays things may get better. That day has not yet come.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

Hey United Conservative Party caucus, it's time to "take a sad song and make it better."

Albertans have been subjected to a bizarre war of pop song lyrics this week as the UCP caucus launched a Titanic-inspired campaign called "My Parks Will Go On."

The NDP oppositions meanwhile are humming along to Elton John's "Don't Go Breaking my Parks."

The issue is the provincial government's announcement earlier this year that it planned to "partner" with other organizations to keep some under-performing parks in the province going. They're also reviewing the fates of some parks which could be "delisted" as parkland.

Significantly it's the UCP caucus, not the government, which has launched the campaign to correct what it calls "misinformation" being circulated that the province plans to sell and close parks.

In March the government announced plans to seek third-party partnerships for 164 parks, most of them small and, according to the government, remote. It also planned to fully or partially close 20 sites.

The release said parks that didn't attract "partners" such as municipalities, First Nations or nonprofit groups, might be delisted and be deemed public land.

CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, started a Defend Alberta Parks campaign in September. The organization, through a Freedom of Information request, found a background document showing orphaned parks might eventually be sold to commercial interests.

The Parks ministry is denying that plan and also says even delisted parks will remain open for public recreation.

The whole dustup has struck a nerve, and not just with lefties, but also legions of wilderness lovers and camping families. Defend Our Parks has distributed more than 15,000 lawn signs to further its cause.

You would think the great outdoors in a province replete with mountain majesty, awe inspiring badlands and pristine fishing lakes, would be a place to tread lightly, even for the unusually proactive UCP.

Just as it has with healthcare, the UCP has misjudged the cost of its hellbent determination to privatize and divest public services in Alberta.

The caucus campaign makes an awkward stab at justifying a step away from strictly public parks even as it tries to deny that there is a move afoot to close or sell them.

The "myparkswillgoon.ca" website includes a 2 question survey: "Do you believe that all parks and public lands need to be operated by the government in all circumstances? Do you believe partnering with community groups to operate parks and public lands is a reasonable way for the government to save money?"

The whole money issue was brought into relief shortly after the launch of the website as the government announced a partnership with a nonprofit organization to groom cross country ski trails in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park and Kananaskis Country.

The sting in the tail is that the cost of that grooming will be passed on to members of the public wanting to use those previously free facilities with a $10 parking fee at the trail head.

Albertans can expect plenty more of those user fees as the government employs "partners" to manage parks.

The duelling parks campaigns also reveals another frailty of the UCP government. It has an unusually inept communication strategy.

If the March parks policy was not intended to close or "privatize" some parks, it wasn't made very clear in press releases. The NDP and Defend Alberta Parks folk are able to directly quote the government's own statements to shore up their position.

If the government is now fine tuning its plans because of the public backlash, it should just come clean and admit that.

In a sidebar to the whole skirmish, the UCP caucus failed to secure the domain name myparkswillgoon.com. That was pretty quickly discovered and put to use by government critics who linked the URL to the Defend Alberta Parks website.

It's a rookie mistake to leave a domain name so close to your own unprotected, but it fits a pattern of UCP communications gaffes. The many missteps by the government's oil and gas "war room" display the same ineptitude.

The whole parks debacle has been a bit of a sideshow to the big issues of the day. But it's sad to think that Alberta's great natural heritage could slip away if the UCP continues to value its immediate ideological agenda over the legacy values of the province.

Photo Credit: Daily Hive

Click here for more

New details about the investigation into workplace harassment and bullying at Rideau Hall is giving a clue about just how widespread the problem is 50 current and former employees are being interviewed by the firm retained to conduct the investigation, and there are so many that they are being told to keep their interviews to only an hour each. While nobody wants to prejudge the results of the investigation, it's increasingly clear that the fact that the prime minister's decision to disband the vice-regal appointments committee before it was time to look for a new Governor General in 2017 was a mistake, and it's one he needs to rectify immediately.

The news coming out of Rideau Hall is getting concerning that Payette and her Secretary, Assunta Di Lorenzo, have been creating an inner circle of exempt staffers who are not civil servants, and they're now interfering in the work of the actual civil servants in Rideau Hall, and involving themselves in the hiring process. Other staff close to Payette have been asking employees if they support Payette, and apparently when Payette was first appointed, she floated the idea of asking the civil servants at Rideau Hall to pledge their loyalty in a signed document that would act as a kind of de facto non-disclosure policy (which they pushed back against, quite rightly, as they have already taken an oath to the Queen).

This is in addition to years of stories on Payette's unreasonable demands, her micro-managing of tasks where she would normally only play a symbolic role, the reports of the toxic work environment in employee surveys, the millions of additional dollars spent on security because Payette doesn't like her RCMP detail and has tried to give them the slip on several occasions, and I've personally heard tales about how her inner circle behaves erratically and that others in the civil service and protocol spheres are unable to deal with them, barring only one or two individuals within the Privy Council Office. And amidst all of this, the prime minister has continued to turn a blind eye and insist that Payette is doing an excellent job.

How much of this is Trudeau's inability to face up to his own mistakes remains to be seen. It's clear that short-circuiting the process for vice-regal appointments that Stephen Harper established one of his best contributions to governance, in fact has backfired. Problems in Payette's past, with previous organizations that she was associated with, would have been caught if an appointments committee had been doing the due diligence of vetting candidates, and it's unlikely that she would have made the short list of recommendations as a result. Yes, Payette has an impressive resume and has made important contributions to the country, but her suitability for the role of the Governor General was simply not there, and would have been pointed out if a proper process had been carried out.

This is why Trudeau needs to reinstate the vice-regal appointments committee right away. The decision to disband it never made sense to begin with, considering how it was replicated with new Senate appointment process and to a lesser extent the ad hoc committee to nominate new Supreme Court of Canada justices. There is the theory that this was done out of spite, as I have heard the tale that when Justin Trudeau met with Harper after the election and asked if there was one thing he should keep, what it would be, to which Harper told him the vice-regal appointments committee. I also suspect that this was also to do with one of his earliest vice-regal appointments, which was for the lieutenant governor of Newfoundland and Labrador. Judy Foote had just resigned from Cabinet, and I have heard that this was in part because of a clash with Jody Wilson-Raybould over genetic privacy legislation, and Trudeau took Wilson-Raybould's side. It is likely that in order to make it up to Foote, he appointed her to the LG portfolio less than six months after she left Cabinet, which was a huge red flag to pretty much everyone around.

By restoring the vice-regal appointments committee, Trudeau would be sending a signal that he's going to start taking this particular responsibility seriously, and that he's going to ensure that we don't wind up with future vice-regal appointments where clearly unsuitable candidates got named because they projected the right image for the Trudeau brand such as an accomplished woman in STEM who can be a role-model to young girls across the country, as in Payette's case. These positions demand a certain type of personality, and Payette does not have it, which probably wasn't a consideration in Trudeau's mind when he chose her. There is the additional fact that when Payette was appointed and decided to name her long-time friend, Di Lorenzo, as her secretary (which is the equivalent of a deputy minister in the civil service) and did not choose a senior civil servant, this should have been seen as a warning that Payette was not interested in the norms of the office. The fact that Di Lorenzo has been cited as one of Payette's enablers in the toxic environment in Rideau Hall should be a sign that Trudeau and the Privy Council Office should be actively pushing for her dismissal, but we're not even getting that.

Restoring the appointments committee doesn't have to be an ordeal. We have a Canadian Secretary to the Queen in PCO who can once again chair it, and there is no shortage of eminent persons who can serve on it in the model that was originally designed. Once the committee is up and running, it can start looking for Payette's replacement and using the time they have between now and the delivery of the report on the workplace situation to get the job done right. That way, when the report does come back, Trudeau can be seen to act swiftly on a finding of a toxic workplace, and to show that lessons have been learned from his previous failure to take the appointment seriously.

Photo Credit: CTV News

Click here for more

On October 22, fellow columnist, Michael Taube, penned an opinion in the Washington Post, scolding the Canadian public for not enthusiastically supporting the re-election of President Donald Trump.

Throughout his unconvincing spiel, Taube asserted that Canadians should not allow Trump's "controversial behavior", nor their own "fascination with progressive-style politics", to obscure "Canada's best interests." Because, according to Taube, "when it comes to real policies, Trump is a better political option than [Joe] Biden."

That his argument is a flawed one is beyond doubt.

For starters, Taube makes the case for Trump's re-election by dubiously claiming that his policies regarding "the North American economy and border security" are superior to Biden's.

While it's true, as Taube states, that both topics are "key policy areas of particular relevance to Canada" he could not be more wrong in believing that Trump's policies in either field would be more beneficial to Canadians than those of his Democratic contender.

Take the issue of immigration and border security.

Over the course of Trump's four years in office, Canadians have watched helplessly as their neighbor to the south has mercilessly clamped down on illegal migration and helped spur on an exodus of asylum seekers across the border. While Canadians should always strive to aid in the resettlement of those in need, it is shameful that this country's immigration system faced such turmoil out of a failure (and lack of compassion) in the United States own system.

Canadians have also been justifiably offended by a president who has denigrated Mexicans and instituted travel bans against mostly Muslim countries, all of which has helped normalize bigotry and intolerance, and help spur on hate crimes across our own borders.

In contrast to Trump and his toxic rhetoric and harmful policies, a Biden presidency would surely administer a far more compassionate and collaborative approach to immigration and border security. Through proposed policies like his "regional resettlement solution" Biden has promised greater cooperation with countries like Canada, Mexico, and a host of other Latin American countries, to more equitably distribute asylum seekers. This would be beneficial for all parties involved, including Canada, the United States, and the thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers.

Next, consider Trump's fiscal record, as well as his actions regarding the Canada-U.S. trade relationship.

Conservatives like Taube admire the cross-border investment benefits accrued by Trump's personal and corporate tax cuts. But those same tax cuts (which were disproportionately in favor of the very wealthiest) also came at a cost to Canadian competitiveness, while helping fuel the ever increasing wealth gap in society.

Under Trump's watch as well, Canada has sparred against a president who has bullied and harassed our government officials during the NAFTA negotiations. He has also levied damaging tariffs against our steel and aluminum exports. With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?

Of course, it is true that irritants between Canada and the U.S. would not end under a Biden presidency. Eternal disagreements over softwood lumber would continue to be a thorn in Canada's side. So too might Biden's pledges for a 'Buy American' Recovery Plan.

But regardless of whatever trade disputes may arise, Canadians can rest assured that at least their country won't be branded a "national security threat", as the Trump administration has labeled us. As one of America's oldest and most steadfast allies, that was a real slap in the face.

Furthermore, Taube forgets that there are many more policies of relevance to Canada than just the economy and the border.

A perfect example is the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; a crisis which Trump has proven completely inept in handling. Not only has his negligence and miscommunication helped contribute to the death of more than 225,000 Americans but it has also stagnated the economic recoveries of both Canada and the United States. It would be near impossible for Biden, let alone any other presidential contender, to manage the ongoing crisis, worse than Trump in the coming months ahead.

For Canadians concerned about the escalating dangers of climate change; another crisis that affects Canada, and indeed, the world, a Biden presidency would also be far more proactive than another Trump term in office.

With Biden in the White House, Canadians could sleep better knowing that the American president not only recognizes anthropogenic climate change but will also take concrete action through progressive regulation and green infrastructure spending, to confront it. No longer would Canadians have to worry about a president who has gutted the Environmental Protections Agency, pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, and repealed the Clean Power Plan, all of which Trump is guilty of.

These are just a handful of the policy differences that define the two men and their policies towards Canada. But their difference could not be starker in almost every case.

In a contest between Biden and Trump, the former, not the latter, is the far better alternative for Canada; something the majority of citizens clearly understand.

Instead of lecturing the Canadian public, Taube might want to try listening to them and hearing their legitimate concerns about Trump and his policies.

He might end up learning a thing or two.

Photo Credit: CNBC

Click here for more

Many Canadians have watched this year's U.S. presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump with interest. It'll likely be a few days, weeks or months until we know who the next occupant of the White House will be.

More than 100 million Americans have reportedly used either mail-in ballots or early in-person voting due to concerns related to COVID-19. This total accounts for more than 77 percent of all votes tabulated during the 2016 presidential election. Hence, it's going to take a while for each state to sort everything out.

There will undoubtedly be a slew of legal challenges by the losing side with respect to voting methods, allegations of electoral fraud, and other sundry items. These challenges could happen on a state-by-state basis, a regional basis or both.

In the event of a close election, the U.S. Supreme Court may have to get involved. It's not something the nine justices would want to engage in. This branch of government's ruling on the 2000 presidential election and "hanging chad" controversy remains a sore spot in some circles of interest. But if they have to, they will.

Canadians, like others around the world, will wait patiently for the final results. The U.S. has historically been our most important friend, ally and trading partner. (Other than that little skirmish known as the War of 1812!) Political and economic relations between our two countries are also of the utmost importance, especially for the Great White North.

Trump, the current President, has been an imperfect ally.

Although far from being a traditional or modern Republican, he certainly respects some conservative principles such as the need for capitalism, private enterprise, deregulation and greater access to the free market economy. He wants to work with Canada on trade, border safety and security, illegal immigration, and other issues. While America First policies are his first and foremost interest, he understands the need to ensure the lines of communication with western democracies like Canada are maintained.

The problem is Trump's preferred leadership style often rests on the thin edge of the wedge. He doesn't mind taking the occasional gamble, or a few liberties, when it comes to trade negotiations (ie. the old NAFTA and new USMCA). He can change position multiple times on the same issue, based on something he's heard or doesn't like during the negotiation process or in public/private conversations. He's used the threat of tariffs as a short-term bargaining tool with several nations and regions, and has implemented them on Canadian steel and aluminum products.

Yes, things eventually get done with Trump. Some of them have been quite good. The process of moving from A to B is often fraught with difficulties, and more than a few hiccups at every stage along the way. If he's re-elected, it's hard to see how the relationship between our two countries will be any different.

Biden, who's been leading in the polls for a few months, will certainly be an easier ally for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take, speak to, and work with. Nevertheless, the fact that both leaders have left-of-centre views and values doesn't mean it's going to make life any easier for Canada-U.S. relations. If anything, it could become much worse.

For instance, the Democratic Party that Biden represents is teeming with far-left radicals and progressives in the Senate and House of Representatives. There will definitely be more of them after election day. This doesn't mean the GOP is a shining beacon of light, but the problems it faces are far less concerning in the interim. (Unless you subscribe to the mistaken belief that "Trumpism" has taken over the party.) Biden will therefore have to constantly push back against left-wing Democratic forces who would prefer to increase taxes, enhance the size of government, restrict private enterprise and crush trade liberalization, among other things. Is he strong enough to do this, and will he have enough political allies to support him?

Trade relations with Canada could potentially turn into a huge issue. While it's unlikely Biden will push back against certain principles in Trump's USMCA, the nationalist, anti-free trade contingent within his party will be licking their chops. They may want to reduce access to certain markets, curb the flow of goods and services, and establish everything from nonsensical environmental restrictions to a U.S.-style supply management model.

Other issues of concern during a Biden presidency could include: a weaker response to illegal immigration, re-enacting DACA or a similar program, relaxing border security, supporting new restrictions for Canadians wanting to do business in the U.S. and, believe it or not, instituting his own series of tariffs.

None of these concerns may materialize, I readily admit. But the socialistic nature of younger Democratic politicians, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and other members of "The Squad," is growing rather than receding in the U.S. political arena. So, the possibility looms large.

It goes without saying Canada-U.S. relations will be handled differently with a President Biden or President Trump in power. Whether the political winds shift left or right is the question that can't be formally answered just yet.

Click here for more

If nothing else, all this talk about a Canadian federal election possibly getting triggered at some point in the near future, gives us a good excuse to play a fun little game I like to call: "Armchair Political Strategist."

To play it, all you have to do is smugly lecture our political parties on what tactics you think they must employ if they want to beat the other guys.

Another name for this game is "Political Punditry."

Anyway, let's start playing; wanted or not, here's my free advice for each of Canada's main political parties should a federal election occur within the next four to six months:

The Liberals

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's path to victory seems pretty straightforward.

The way I see it, all he must do is basically keep saying over and over again something along the lines of "The economy is on the brink of collapse, we're in the midst of a pandemic that really sucks, the world is becoming increasingly unstable, so now is most definitely not the time to change horses midstream, nor should we waste any time worrying about petty, unimportant things such as Liberal scandals that may involve me and my family."

Ironically then, Trudeau â€” the hero of left-wing progressives â€” will essentially be pushing a "don't rock the boat", "keep the status quo", conservative message.

The Liberal slogan should be, "Change is bad".

Mind you, Trudeau will also face some challenges.

For instance, thanks to COVID, his adorably cherubic face will be covered by a mask during an election, thus obscuring one of his most important political assets.

Yet, overall, the Liberals seem to solidly hold the communications high ground.

The Conservatives

Even with new leader Erin O'Toole commanding the Tory legions, I expect the Conservative Party will do what it did in the last election, i.e. hope Canadians are getting tired of Trudeau's antics and will want to try something different, but not too much different.

"Safe change is good", might as well be the Conservative electoral slogan.

It's a strategy of passivity.

What I'd like to see instead is the Conservatives get a lot more proactive and a lot more aggressive.

That's to say, once an election gets underway, they need to start a concise, easy-to-understand, communications campaign that gives voters reasons to reject the Liberal government.

Yes, I'm talking here about launching much dreaded "American-style attack ads."

Of course, the media would hate this, but so what?

Sooner or later, the Conservatives will have to learn that pandering to the media won't win them votes.

The NDP

Now we're at the hardest part of the game.

How in the world do you advise the NDP, a party, which let's face it, is currently to politics what the Hindenburg is to dirigibles?

Even in a game, it's hard to come up with a winning formula for Canada's New Democratic Party.

For one thing, the party is saddled with a leader Jagmeet Singh whose personality simply hasn't resonated with the Canadian voter.

Even dour and boring Thomas Mulcair seemed to have more appeal.

Mind you, that could change if, during the next election, the NDP does a better job of branding and marketing their leader, but so far, the party seems to lack the needed expertise to do that.

At any rate, leadership isn't the party's only problem.

With its soft socialist approach, the NDP doesn't seem to offer much of an ideological alternative to Trudeau's soft socialist approach.

Their slogan might as well be, "Change if necessary, but not necessarily change".

To improve their situation then, I'd say the New Democrats need to harden their socialist message and to do a better job of selling their leader.

Sorry NDP, that's the best I can do.

Anyhow, that's my turn at playing "Armchair Political Strategist."

But keep in my mind, all I've put forward here is based on the assumption that an election will be held a few months from now.

If an election is held a year or two in the future, all bets are off.

The world might be a much different place then, meaning it could be anyone's game.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

They'll tell you.

When you talk to American voters and this writer recently has, hundreds of times, from New Hampshire to Florida to California you'll be told three things, a lot.

Young to old, East to West, Right to Left, three themes emerge. It's pretty consistent.

One, they voted early.

We Democratic Party volunteers made lots of calls to lots of Americans who had picked up an absentee ballot down at the town hall, or who had voted early. Many, many Americans chose to vote this way.

By the final weekend, more than 90 million Americans had voted in advance. That's 70 per cent of the total number of all voters in 2016. And that doesn't merely break records it is extraordinary. It is unprecedented.

And that kind of early turnout is never, ever good for the incumbent.

In the so-called battleground states the ones whose electoral college votes will determine who gets to be president, and which party controls Congress more than half of the number who voted in 2016 did so early in 2020. Those states include Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Nebraska.

States that Donald Trump dominated in last time. States he desperately needs to keep to win re-election.

Democratic Party volunteers weren't trained to inquire why people voted early. But the subject would sometimes come up. Some would tell us they were anxious about catching the virus, and early voting seemed a lot safer.

But some would say they feared that Donald Trump would try and prevent Democrats from voting. That he'd scheme to suppress the vote.

"I already voted Democrat up and down the ticket," one New Hampshire man said to me. "No dirty tricks. We need to get rid of Trump."

And that points to another thing we discovered when talking to American voters: very, very few were undecided.

They had their minds made up, and long ago, too. The undecided vote the "gettable" vote, which is really all that matters in most elections, in the United States or any other Western democracy was smaller in 2020 than ever before.

Some political scientists call this group "volatile voters" electors whose allegiance moves around, and who tend to be unenthusiastic about their political choices in every election. In 2016, about 20 per cent of likely voters were undecided (or volatile).

In 2020, it's less than half that number. In some states, it's has been as little as five per cent.

Why so small? Because these voters aren't undecided anymore. They've made their mind up: a New York Times/Siena poll released this week found that 54 per cent of volatile/undecided voters had an unfavorable view of Trump. He has become the ballot question.

It's pretty hard to win re-election in 2020 when, like Trump, you've lost the undecideds the ones who overwhelmingly broke your way in 2016. Because Trump was considered the lesser of two evils last time.

Not this time. On the phone, over and over, those we contacted rarely said they were undecided. When they were prepared to say how they voted, or how they would vote, they were clear: they were going Democrat, up and down the ticket.

They were doing that, they said, because they wanted Trump out, period. Not because they were seized with a burning love for Joe Biden.

"Go get Trump, honey," Bessie, a Florida voter, said to me. "Keep doing what you're doing and get him out!"

And, by any objective measurement, Donald Trump should be thrown out. In poll after poll, in every electoral college analysis in every phone call we Democratic volunteers made to every eligible voter we could find we found highly-motivated, clearly-decided voters who want Trump gone.

That, then, is the third and final reason he should lose: Americans are sick of him. They are sick of his face.

He used Twitter to be on their devices, 24/7. He used the White House as a reality-show stage. He used the presidency as a prop. He was ubiquitous the most-seen, most-read, most-discussed President in the history of the United States of America.

And, somewhere along the way, Americans including lots of undecideds and not a few Republicans just got fed up. He had exhausted them. He had been a psychodrama without end.

So, now, they want it to end. That was the third thing we learned: American voters have had their lives disrupted quite enough, thank you very much.

Economically, socially, culturally, the pandemic has disrupted everything. They don't need a disruptor in the White House, too.

That's the third thing, the determining factor. They want things to calm down, a bit. They want normal again. They want their lives back. They want what Joe Biden is selling: peace and quiet.

Unless he figures out some way to cheat his way back into office aided and abetted by the courts he's stacked for four years Donald Trump is a goner. He's toast.

And that's not just because the polls and the pundits say so.

That's what Americans are saying. You just have to pick up the phone and call them.

They'll tell you.