Wednesday, November 25, 2020

The 2020 Election Wasn't 'Stolen.' Here Are All The Facts That Prove It.

 (By Andrew Romano and Jon Ward, Yahoo News, 12 November 2020)

 The United States has been conducting presidential elections for 232 years. No modern candidate has ever refused to accept the results and recognize the winner’s legitimacy.  In this sense, 2020 could be different from any contest since the Civil War — if President Trump continues to claim that President-elect Joe Biden “stole” the election from him.

But every indication is that the 2020 election, conducted in the midst of a pandemic, with by far the most votes ever cast, was run honestly and the results tabulated accurately — a tribute to the professionalism and integrity of officials across the country.

Before Election Day, the Trump administration invited a delegation of 28 international experts from the Organization of American States, which has reported on elections around the world, to observe the vote. Its preliminary report found zero evidence of significant fraud.

The New York Times recently spoke to top election officials in 49 of 50 states. Not one, Democrat or Republican, reported “that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race.”

On Nov. 12, the coordinating council overseeing the voting systems used around the country said in an unprecedented statement distributed by Trump’s own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”  “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections,” the statement continued, “we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”

And the head of CISA has spent the last week explaining on Twitter and on the agency’s “Rumor Control” website why none of the stories of so-called fraud that Americans may be encountering on social media or alternative news sites represent anything out of the ordinary.

Yet these ominous-but-ultimately-overblown stories continue to circulate online — stories of pollsters falsifying their surveys to hurt Trump, of dead people voting, of observers being blocked from watching the count, of mysterious batches of Biden votes suddenly materializing in Democratic cities, of computer glitches changing the results, and so on.As a result, millions of people continue to worry that maybe something happened in 2020 that’s never happened before. They wonder if maybe the election was stolen. 

It wasn’t.

What follow are the facts, and just the facts, on each of the major “fraud” rumors flooding your inbox and your newsfeed.

Even if all of these rumors were true, which they aren’t, they wouldn’t add up to enough votes to overturn the outcome: Biden is on track to beat Trump by 5 million votes nationwide and by tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of votes in key states.  And while some allegations could end up exposing real fraud — because real fraud happens in every election — history shows that such incidents will be few, far between and ultimately inconsequential.

In 2014, Loyola Law School professor and voting expert Justin Levitt investigated every general, primary, special and municipal election held since the year 2000. Of more than 1 billion ballots cast, he found just 31 credible instances of potential voter impersonation, which is one of a few ways that cheating can actually occur.

RUMOR: Democrats and Dominion Voting Systems tampered with computers to change the results

REALITY: Officials quickly fixed isolated glitches and accidents, only two of which involved Dominion and none of which affected the final vote count

No election goes off without a hitch, and in the internet era, technology can compound some of the usual mistakes. But there’s a big difference between Democrats conspiring with Dominion Voting Systems to “hack” election and delete Republican votes and the kind of minor, easily detectable and correctible data-entry accidents and software glitches that complicate any computer-based enterprise.

The first is what Trump & Co. darkly speculate, without evidence, to have taken place in close-run states.  The second is what actually happened.

Consider the example of Antrim County, Mich., a Republican stronghold where unofficial results initially showed Biden beating Trump by roughly 3,000 votes — a sharp reversal from Trump's performance there in 2016. Trump supporters flagged the discrepancy. Tweets about it went viral. Soon conservatives such as Ted Cruz were calling for investigations and alleging that maybe the same election-management software used in Antrim County (Dominion Voting Systems) had screwed up the statewide count.

Experts eventually figured out what went wrong: An election worker had “configured ballot scanners and reporting systems with slightly different versions of the ballot, which meant some results did not line up with the right candidate when officials loaded them into the system,” according to the New York Times. By then local officials had already caught and corrected the error — even before another round of review conducted by Republican and Democratic “canvassers” that is designed to catch such mistakes. In the revised count, Trump beat Biden by roughly 2,500 votes.

But these facts haven’t deterred Trump allies from seizing on other, unrelated examples of routine tech-related errors to falsely insinuate some sort of nefarious conspiracy involving Dominion. In Oakland County, Mich., election workers mistakenly counted votes from the city of Rochester Hills twice, according to the Michigan Department of State — then spotted and fixed their error. An incumbent Republican county commissioner kept his seat as a result.

“As a Republican, I am disturbed that this is intentionally being mischaracterized to undermine the election process,” Tina Barton, the clerk in Rochester Hills, said in a video she posted online. “This was an isolated mistake that was quickly rectified.”

Oakland County used software from a company called Hart InterCivic, not Dominion.

Meanwhile in Georgia, glitchy software updates affected how poll workers checked in voters in Spalding and Morgan counties, which both halted voting for a few hours. In another Georgia county, Gwinnett, a different glitch delayed the reporting of results.  Gwinnett County used Dominion; the other counties did not. In any case, the issues did not affect the counts. Trump won Spalding County by 21 points and Morgan County by 42; Biden won Gwinnett by 18.

Elsewhere, fringier far-right activists have vaguely theorized that secret CIA computer systems called “Hammer” and “Scorecard” hacked the election on Biden’s behalf, pointing to momentary inconsistencies in CNN’s unofficial, on-air vote tallies for the 2019 Kentucky gubernatorial race as evidence. There is no proof that Hammer and Scorecard exist, and even if they did, experts say they would not be able to intercept the digital transmission of vote results and change them without being detected; officials always compare the transmitted results to paper receipts from the original machines before certifying the outcome.  “The Hammer and Scorecard nonsense [is] just that — nonsense,” tweeted Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebs. “This is not a real thing, don’t fall for it and think 2x before you share.”

Yet Twitter and Facebook posts from Trump and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely implied that the isolated issues in Michigan and Georgia were signs of widespread problems with the election. On Thursday, the president even went so far as to tweet that Dominion itself had deleted millions of his votes — a claim with no basis in reality. He followed up Sunday and Monday by echoing baseless conspiracy theories alleging Democratic control of Dominion, which have been debunked as well. The president has not provided a shred of proof that software switched or deleted a single one of his votes — let alone the tens or even hundreds of thousands he would need to overturn his losses in Michigan, Georgia and elsewhere.

Not to be deterred, however, Georgia’s two Republican senators, who are jockeying for advantage in their Jan. 5 runoff elections, called on Brad Raffensperger, the state’s Republican secretary of state, to resign because he had “failed the people of Georgia.”

“That is not going to happen,” Raffensperger said in a statement. “My job is to follow Georgia law and see to it that all legal votes, and no illegal votes, are counted properly and accurately. … As a Republican, I am concerned about Republicans keeping the U.S. Senate. I recommend that Senators Loeffler and Perdue start focusing on that.”

RUMOR: Biden won only because of ‘illegal’ votes

REALITY: Actual illegal votes are rare, and the courts are considering all credible charges

In every election, some people cast ballots that end up not counting because they run afoul of state election law for one reason or another. It’s critical to the integrity of the election — and public trust in America’s democratic process — that officials identify and disqualify such votes. Every state has numerous safeguards in place to ensure that’s exactly what happens.

But the mere existence of irregularities doesn’t invalidate an election. If it did, no election would be valid. Scale is important here, too. Illegal votes can affect the outcome only if enough of them benefit the winner to potentially account for his or her entire margin of victory.  “One would have to show, at minimum, more illegal votes than the margin between the candidates,” Richard Hasen, a law and political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a nationally recognized election law expert, recently explained. “That would be quite an extreme scale of fraud. Let’s see what the evidence is.”

The evidence of illegal votes in the 2020 election has been exceedingly thin.

One of the most detailed complaints about the possibility that ineligible voters cast ballots, or that votes were manufactured, came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan on Nov. 9. A pro-Trump lawsuit against the city of Detroit, filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center, claimed that election workers were told not to check signatures on mail ballots, that extra mail ballots were brought in and all counted for Biden, that election workers backdated mail ballots so they could be counted, and that they “used false information to process ballots.”

The lawsuit also claimed election observers were blocked from watching vote counting at key moments, that votes from ineligible voters were counted and that a handful of city workers “coached” voters to cast ballots for Biden.  But the city filed a detailed response, knocking down the allegations and saying they reflected “an extraordinary failure to understand how elections function.”

Election workers at the TCF Center, a Detroit convention center where much of the county’s vote tabulation took place, were instructed not to check mail-ballot signatures during the count, the city said, because signature matching had already been done before the ballots arrived at the facility.

Complaints made in the Great Lakes lawsuit about mail ballots — known in Michigan as absent voter ballots — being backdated, with the implication that they had arrived after Election Day, were also plainly false, the city said. “No ballots received by the Detroit City Clerk after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020 were even brought to the TCF Center,” the city’s attorneys wrote. “No ballot could have been ‘backdated,’ because no ballot received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020 was ever at the TCF Center.”

As for the notion that ineligible votes were counted, or that votes were concocted out of thin air and assigned to names of people who didn’t vote, the city said that what Republican observers inside TCF really saw was election workers correcting an error by some election workers at satellite locations, who failed to complete a process that allowed some mail ballots to be counted. It was necessary to enter the date for these ballots to allow them to count, the city said.  “Every single ballot delivered to the TCF Center had already been verified as having been completed by an eligible voter,” the city said.

The charge of extra ballots being brought in was related to the arrival of blank ballots that were sent to TCF for use by election workers. These ballots were given to election workers so they could function as duplicate ballots in case legitimate ballots were damaged and could not be read by voting machines, the filing said.  “Michigan election law does not call for partisan challengers to be present when a ballot is duplicated; instead, when a ballot is duplicated as a result of a ‘false read,’ the duplication is overseen by one Republican and one Democratic inspector coordinating together,” Detroit’s lawyers wrote. “That process was followed, and Plaintiffs do not — and cannot — present any evidence to the contrary.”

The Trump campaign, in a lawsuit of its own filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claimed there were cases in which “ballot duplication was performed only by Democratic election workers, not bipartisan teams.” This claim has already been dismissed in one lawsuit filed last week by the Trump campaign in Michigan’s Court of Claims.

The accusation of “false information” was based on records that list some voters as having been born in the year 1900. The city said some mail ballots that arrived between Sunday night and Tuesday — all before the close of polls on Tuesday night — needed to have the birth date manually entered due to a software “quirk.”

Election workers entering the birth date for those ballots used Jan. 1, 1900, as a “placeholder date” until the ballot entry could be matched to the voter’s entry in the state voter file. “That birthday will appear in several places in the electronic poll book record for a limited period,” the city said.  That leaves the allegation of city workers “coaching” voters to cast ballots for Biden, a claim made by a city worker named Jessy Jacob in the lawsuit.

The city said that if this were true it would be “contrary to the instructions given to workers at the satellite locations,” but also said it was “curious that Ms. Jacob waited until after the election to raise these allegations.”  The city noted that Jacob had been furloughed prior to the election, was brought back to work during election season in September and was furloughed again immediately after the election.  The filing also pointed to evidence on social media that two of the individuals who signed affidavits in the Great Lakes lawsuit were adherents of the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory.

The Detroit lawyers also pointed out that Trump received almost three times as many votes in Detroit in the 2020 election as he did four years ago: 12,654, up from 4,972 in 2016. (The vote for Biden in Detroit this year was just under 234,000, which was about 1,000 votes less than Hillary Clinton’s total in 2016. But Biden won the state by almost 150,000 votes.)

“Nothing about those numbers supports the theory of fraud being advanced. Nothing about those numbers supports the completely unsubstantiated claims of tens of thousands of improperly processed ballots,” the city said.

RUMOR: ‘Dead people’ voted for Biden

REALITY: The Trump campaign hasn’t been able to produce more than one or two potential examples of ‘dead people’ casting ballots (and no one knows who they voted for)

It’s a perennial claim in American politicsThe only reason my candidate lost is because a bunch of dead people voted for your candidate. And Trump ally Lindsey Graham, the recently reelected Republican senator from South Carolina, is its latest proponent.

“The Trump team has canvassed all early voters and absentee mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, and they have found over 100 people they think were dead [and] 15 people that we verified that have been dead who voted,” Graham said during a Fox News interview. “Six people registered after they died and voted. In Pennsylvania, I guess you’re never out of it.”

Graham isn’t alone in accusing the deceased of meddling in the election; members of Trump's family and supporters like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell have repeated similar charges. Meanwhile, a series of viral tweets and videos shared by Trump fans have also accused various Michigan residents — some with birth dates from the turn of the 20th century — of casting absentee ballots from beyond the grave.  The implication is that somehow Democrats filled out and fraudulently submitted ballots in the names of dead people in order to lift Biden to victory.

But that just doesn’t compute.

In reality, 13 states actually count absentee ballots submitted by living voters who then die before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. So some of these so-called illegal votes are, in fact, perfectly legal.  Elsewhere, states prohibit counting the votes of people who are no longer alive. They do this in two ways: by disqualifying the early votes or mail ballots of residents who wind up dying before Election Day and/or by promptly flagging voters who have recently died so officials can cross-reference the voter rolls and discount any ballots cast in their name.

It’s a complicated, fast-moving process, and sometimes the human beings in charge of it make mistakes. One viral video, for instance, purports to show that “118-year-old ‘William Bradley’ voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County, Mich.” But what actually happened, according to Politifact, is that Bradley’s son — also named William Bradley and residing at the same address, but not born in March 1902 and definitely not deceased — voted with his own ballot, which officials then incorrectly attributed to his father.  “No ballot was cast for the now deceased Bradley,” Politifact explained. “This was a clerical error, not voter fraud.”

Another Michigan voter, named Donna Brydges, was also cited in viral pro-Trump videos because her birth date was listed as 1901 in the state’s qualified voter database. Turns out that Brydges is 75 and voted legally; her DOB was merely a placeholder.

“It is important to note that some state registration systems indicate a missing date of birth by adopting filler dates, such as 01/01/1900, 01/01/1850, or 01/01/1800,” a 2017 report about duplicate voting from the Government Accountability Institute noted. “The vast majority of votes cast by individuals appearing to be over 115 years old had these three erroneous birthdates.”

Likewise, CNN recently checked 50 of the more than 14,000 names on a list of allegedly dead-but-registered Michigan voters making the rounds on Twitter and found that only five of them voted in 2020 — and all five are, in fact, alive.  None of the 37 actually dead people in CNN’s sample cast a ballot.

Whatever the exact figures, we’re talking about a small handful of ballots here — nowhere near the number Trump would need to catch up in Michigan, where he trails by about 147,000 votes, or Pennsylvania, where he trails by 45,000. A suit filed by a conservative foundation in Pennsylvania alleged that the state included 21,000 dead people on its voter rolls. But “the court found no deficiency in how Pennsylvania maintains its voter rolls,” according to a spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, and “there is currently no proof provided that any deceased person has voted in the 2020 election.”

And even then there’s no reason to think the dead favor Democrats over Republicans. In October, a man in Luzerne County, Pa. — a registered Republican — was charged with felonies after trying to apply for a mail ballot in his dead mother’s name. On Nov. 7, meanwhile, Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski provided what he said was “one concrete example” of dead-voter fraud, pointing to an obituary for Denise Ondick of West Homestead in Allegheny County, Pa., who died on Oct. 22 — one day before election officials received her application for a mail-in ballot, according to online records from the Pennsylvania Department of State, and 11 days before the county received and recorded her vote. The Trump campaign has cited a single, similar incident in Nevada.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ondick’s daughter said she helped her mother fill out an application for a mail ballot in early October, before the elder Ondick died of cancer, but that she could not explain why the ballot had been sent in after her mother’s death. Ondick’s husband said he couldn’t recall doing anything with the ballot.  Ondick’s daughter also said her mother had planned to vote for Trump.

Lewandowski said Ondick was “one of many” examples of dead-voter fraud the Trump campaign would be asking the courts to review. So far, the campaign has not revealed any additional details or mentioned any other specific cases.

RUMOR: Democrats blocked Republican observers from watching the count

REALITY: Republican lawyers for the Trump campaign have admitted in court that this is false

Republicans have focused these complaints on Detroit and Philadelphia.  “We’re seeing this pattern in Democratic city after Democratic city, but the worst of the country right now is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were they’re not allowing election observers in, despite clear state law that requires election observers being there, despite an order from a state judge saying election observers have to be within 6 feet of the ballot counting,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Nov. 5, on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.  “I am angry and I think the American people are angry because by throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal the election,” Cruz said.  These allegations were repeated by Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. 

But the Trump campaign’s own lawyers acknowledged in a hearing that there have been Republican observers in the room at all times since mail ballots began to be opened and counted at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.  “Their counsel admitted at the hearing, after questions from the court, that they had several representatives in the room,” said the Philadelphia City Commissioners in a statement.

The commissioners, two Democrats and one Republican who oversee voting in the city, said there were between 15 and 19 Republican observers present all day on Nov. 5.  Hawley also said that “some states [were] going to court to try to stop poll watchers, people just observing the ballot counts.”  “I mean, that is deeply, deeply disturbing,” he said.

That was another false claim. The city of Philadelphia appealed a ruling that partisan observers should be allowed to oversee the work of election officials from as close as 6 feet away. There was never an allegation in the suit that poll watchers were being barred from the room.  The Trump campaign’s lawsuit had alleged that its observers, who were in the room with unobstructed views, wanted to get closer so they could challenge individual mail ballots if there was no signature on the outer envelope, or if the voter had written the wrong date on the envelope.

The city’s appeal argued that state law does not permit those kinds of challenges, a decision the state legislature made in recognition that allowing challenges to individual ballots would slow down the processing of a historic number of mail ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Challenging the eligibility of voters to cast mail ballots had to be done when the ballots were requested, Tammy Bruce, a former Arizona elections official, told Yahoo News.

Observers in the room are entitled to see that mail ballots are being examined for signatures and that they were properly placed inside a privacy envelope, and to monitor for anything else of concern, such as the destruction or discarding of ballots.  Gingrich, also on Fox, claimed poll watchers had been “physically excluded” from overseeing vote counting.

He pointed specifically to Detroit, where there were complaints about election officials covering the windows of a counting room at the TCF Center.  “You have a precinct where you don’t let anyone in. They’re boarded up,” Gingrich claimed. “I would take every precinct that blocked poll watchers and not count their votes.”  But a Detroit city attorney said the windows were blocked because ballots were being counted closely enough to them that members of the public could take photos that might disclose the privacy of voters’ ballots.  There were “hundreds of challengers from both parties … inside the Central Counting Board all afternoon and all evening,” said Detroit attorney Lawrence Garcia.

The city of Detroit noted in a court filing that “more than 200 Republican challengers were present at the TCF center, and at no time were they limited to fewer than one challenger for every Absent Voter Counting Board. While six feet of separation was necessary for health reasons, the Department of Elections provided large computer monitors at every counting board, so that challengers could view all information as it was inputted into the computer.”  “When it became clear that the number of challengers had reached or exceeded the lawful quota and the room had become over-crowded, additional challengers were not admitted until challengers from their respective parties voluntarily departed.”

When Yahoo News asked Gingrich what proof he had of observers being “physically excluded” from vote-counting centers, a Gingrich spokesman essentially admitted there was none. “With regard to the people being kept from watching ballots being counted, we now have a better understanding of the situations in Philadelphia and Detroit,” said Louie Brogdon, editorial director of Gingrich 360, a consulting and media production firm.  “When Speaker Gingrich made his earlier comment, he was speaking on the best information he had at the time,” Brogdon said.

RUMOR: Democrats suddenly ‘found’ new, fraudulent Biden votes to beat Trump

REALITY: Counting mail ballots took a long time in some states, like Pennsylvania, because the Republican Party blocked reforms that would have avoided this problem

In the days after Election Day, Trump said several times that Democrats were trying to cheat him by “finding” votes for Biden.  “They are finding Biden votes all over the place — in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So bad for our Country!” the president tweeted just before noon on Wednesday, Nov. 4.  His mention of those three states is telling. They are the same ones that Yahoo News was writing about for three months leading up to the election, raising awareness about what one Pennsylvania Republican warned in September was a “man-made disaster … that easily could be avoided.”

The disaster happened. It didn’t have to. And it created space for the president to falsely claim that votes were being “found” when in fact they were simply being counted in a delayed fashion. The delay was caused — seemingly intentionally — by the Republican Party itself. 

Here’s what happened. After the outbreak of COVID-19 in the late winter and early spring, most states allowed all voters to cast ballots by mail in the spring and early summer, during primary elections. Over the summer, some states moved back to a focus on in-person voting. But most stuck with expanded access to voting by mail.  For many states this was new. But five states have conducted their elections by mail for years now: Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii. Two more, Arizona and California, have done their elections mostly by mail for a few years.

As states moved to voting by mail, most had rules that allowed election clerks to process those ballots as they arrived. As Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, told Yahoo News in August, “We can start processing those right away, meaning: Cut the envelope, open, verify the information on it, put it through the scanner, but not hit ‘tabulate.’ That can’t happen until 7:30 on election night.”  As a result, Ohio had most of its mail ballots counted early on election night. Most states did.  But Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the same three states mentioned by Trump in his tweet — refused to make a change allowing clerks to process mail ballots like the rest of the country.

Action was needed from the state legislature, and in all three states the Republican Party held majorities in both the state Senate and the state House.  LaRose himself warned of a “really terrible situation” if these legislatures didn’t make a simple change, giving clerks time to process mail ballots before Election Day.

In other words, the GOP knew its lack of action was going to delay the counting of mail ballots by several days, and either did nothing or — as in the case of Michigan — gave clerks one day ahead of Election Day to process mail ballots, rather than the week or two that experts and election officials recommended.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans at first allowed clerks to start processing mail ballots 21 days before Election Day, but then cut that down to three and included a number of “poison pill” ideas in its bill that guaranteed Democrats would oppose it.

There has been no evidence of ballots being added. That has happened before in Philadelphia, but on a very small scale. In May, an election judge there pleaded guilty to adding a total of 113 votes over three elections from 2014 to 2016 to help judicial candidates running for a local court.  The point made by LaRose and other Republican experts is that even isolated examples of cheating, which do happen, do not add up to a conspiracy. To manipulate tens of thousands of votes without detection is not possible given the multiple layers of security and accountability involved in running elections, experts say.  One of those layers is the postelection audit that each state conducts itself to ensure that the result was accurate.

RUMOR: Pollsters falsified their results to suppress the GOP vote

REALITY: Republicans turned out in record numbers even though pollsters mistakenly underestimated Trump again

Last Thursday, Trump told reporters that pollsters had deliberately produced false surveys showing Biden with a big lead in order to suppress Trump votes and help Biden win the election.  He followed up Monday night with a series of tweets repeating the same claim.  “.@FoxNews, @QuinnipiacPoll, ABC/WaPo, NBC/WSJ were so inaccurate with their polls on me, that it really is tampering with an Election,” Trump wrote. “They were so far off in their polling, and in their attempt to suppress - that they should be called out for Election Interference … ABC/WaPo had me down 17 points in Wisconsin, the day before the election, and I WON! In Iowa, the polls had us 4 points down, and I won by 8.2%! Fox News and Quinnipiac were wrong on everything… The worst polling ever, and then they’ll be back in four years to do it again. This is much more then [sic] voter and campaign finance suppression!”

Trump is right about one thing: Pollsters again underestimated the president’s support in key (mostly Midwestern) states such as Iowa and Wisconsin, four years after he first beat his Rust Belt polling numbers to eke out a narrow Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton.  Trump is wrong, however, that this polling miss was part of some sort of plot to propel Biden to the presidency.  There are two reasons for this. First, these errors are the opposite of deliberate — instead, they’re a source of embarrassment for pollsters nationwide. And second, even if they had been deliberate, they didn’t actually “work.” They didn’t stop Republicans from voting.

Polling is a business, and accuracy is the coin of the realm. As Fox News contributor Liberty Vittert, a data science professor at the Washington University in St. Louis, recently explained, “Pollsters poll on many more issues than political campaigns, and their businesses depend on their reputations for accurate polling.”

To believe that dozens of pollsters independently falsified their results to boost Biden, in other words, you’d also have to believe that somehow they were all independently willing to sabotage their reputations and hurt their businesses on the slim chance that Trump’s passionate base would see Biden’s inflated numbers and decide to stay home.  “The president’s accusation doesn’t make sense,” Vittert wrote. “Think about it: why would any business hire a pollster if it thought the polling was inaccurate?”

Instead, the truth is that pollsters labored mightily to improve their methodologies after missing a lot of non-college-educated white Trump voters in 2016 — and now, in 2020, they’ve missed again, perhaps because many of those voters simply aren’t as willing as highly engaged, COVID-era Democrats to pick up the phone and participate in a practice they’ve already rejected as “fake news.”

This phenomenon is called non-response bias. Pollsters are not proud of their failure to correct for it.  “The reason why the polls are wrong is because the people who were answering these surveys were the wrong people,” pollster David Shor recently explained. “The problem [is that] one group of people [is] really, really excited to share their opinions, while another group isn’t. As long as that bias exists, it’ll percolate down to whatever you do.”

The flip side of this phenomenon, as Shor put it, is that “these low-trust people still vote, even if they’re not answering these phone surveys.” The 2020 results bear this out. Not only did Trump receive more than 72 million votes — the second-most in U.S. history, after Biden’s 78 million — but Senate Republicans in Texas, Michigan, Colorado, North Carolina and Georgia actually beat the president’s share of the vote in their respective states.  Together, these stats suggest that far from being discouraged by Trump’s unpromising poll numbers, Republicans turned out in force on Nov. 3. It’s just that more people voted for Biden.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-2020-election-wasnt-stolen-here-are-all-the-facts-that-prove-it-184623754.html

Saturday, March 28, 2020

Why Do The Airlines Need A Bailout? They Made A Fortune Over The Past Decade. Now They’re Demanding $50 Billion To Stay In Business.


(By Henry Grabar, Slate, 17 March 2020)

If Washington doesn’t do something, all U.S. airlines are going under.   That was the message that industry lobby Airlines for America delivered on Monday, arguing that under the most likely  scenario, all seven major U.S. passenger carriers would run out of money between July and December. The group asked for $50 billion in assistance from the federal government, divided evenly between grants (free money) and low-interest loans.   


That’s a lot. For comparison, the feds spent $50 billion to bail out General Motors during the financial crisis—most of which was repaid.   It has been a little more than two years since American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told investors, in an instant business school cautionary tale, “I don’t think we’re ever going to lose money again.” How time flies when a viral pandemic ravages the earth.

Help is on the way, President Donald Trump said on Monday. The coronavirus outbreak and the sudden decline in air travel is “not their fault,” the president observed, “they were having record seasons.”   Fact check: true. Airlines are coming off a remarkable 10-year run. Delta’s profits for each of the past five years, back from 2019 to 2015, were $4.8 billion, $3.9 billion, $3.2 billion, $4.2 billion, and $4.5 billion. Mergers have given the big four (Delta, United, American, and Southwest) about 80 percent of the U.S. market. With oil prices low and the economy humming along, it has been a great time to run an airline.

So now that the lean times are here—admittedly, a surprising turn of events for us all—where did all that money go? Why are multibillion-dollar airlines held to a budgeting standard that, if it were adopted by a typical American household, would seem totally irresponsible? And why, if they blew through all that cash, should we help them now?

The last question is the easiest to answer: because we have no choice, if we want to maintain our national travel infrastructure.   The first question—where’s the money?—is also not so complicated. Over the past decade, according to Bloomberg, U.S. airlines spent 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks to enrich investors and their own executives, whose positions often come with stock holdings.*  As for why airlines behave with relatively little foresight, that’s more complicated.

Investors see little reason for airline companies—or any other companies—to have cash on hand. In 2017, analysts at McKinsey concluded that the 500 largest companies in the U.S. (excluding banks) had about 20 percent of their revenues in cash. That was too much, they thought. “While companies do need to hold some cash to do business,” they wrote, “in the past we’ve found that companies can typically do with cash balances of less than 2 percent of revenues.” (This cash is mostly held off shore, but that’s another story.)

By keeping cash in the bank, executives weren’t just depressing their own salaries. They were also making their companies look bad. They risked the ire of activist investors who saw cash as “unproductive capital,” workers who saw cash reserves as raises that hadn’t been paid, and even savvy consumers, who would protest stingy service and aging equipment.   And so at the end of a record decade in profits, according to Bloomberg, American had $7 billion on hand, United $4.9 billion, and Delta $2.9 billion.

Those rainy-day funds still sound like a lot of money, but there’s another problem with airlines. Historically, they were considered a bad investment prone to bankruptcies. In 2007, Warren Buffett wrote, “if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down.”* (Even Buffett came around and bought stock in the big four in 2016.) Despite this recent merger-driven boomlet, they are low-margin, capital intensive  businesses.  Low margins mean your savings don’t get you far. At the rate it’s going now, United’s blockbuster 2019 profits will be spent down in less than 90 days. The company says it’s losing $1.5 billion a month.  Capital-intensive means it’s hard to tighten your belt. You can save some money on fuel and food, but not on labor or rent. You still have to pay banks or leasing companies for your planes. You can’t save those seats for later, or fly twice as many flights when business picks up again. There is no factory to shut down. Even if you ground flights, many costs are fixed.

Which brings us to the current pandemic-induced crisis, and the fifth reason—after the unprecedented disruption, shareholder capitalism, low margins, and a capital-intensive business—that airlines do not have enough money sitting around: moral hazard. America won’t let the airlines fail, and the people who run the airlines know it.   Nobody wants to bail out executives and shareholders who spent years lining their pockets as hundreds of thousands of owner-operated restaurants go out of business. But letting the planes go down would put nearly a million people out of work and deprive the country of nearly all its long-distance travel infrastructure.

The mergers that helped the companies throw off such big profits have left us with corporations so fundamental to American life they are basically utilities. Let McDonald’s go under and you still have Burger King. Let American Airlines shutter and Dallas will be as distant as Timbuktu.  The question for Congress, then, is not whether to save the airlines—but how to redraw corporate governance to fix its bad incentives.

After Sept. 11, Congress passed an airline bailout of grants and loans. It was designed to help airlines obtain insurance again, but it also included caps on CEO pay and “golden parachutes” for departing executives. In a bigger bailout, the public can demand more significant oversight. “We won’t let this look like the bank bailout of 2008, nor can you compare the two,” Sara Nelson, the president of the flight attendants’ union, said on Twitter. “The airline industry didn’t cause the pandemic and money should come with significant conditions to help workers and keep planes flying, not enrich shareholders or pad executive bonuses. Airlines must commit to maintaining payroll. It means no bonuses, no buybacks, & no breaking union contracts in bankruptcy. Companies should commit to pay a min $15 wage and board seats for workers.”

It’s a good template for how Washington should approach the crisis: With an open mind toward fixing corporate America’s problems. In the New York Times, the antitrust advocate Tim Wu writes that we should force airlines to cap or abolish fees and take steps to undo industry consolidation. Over in Europe, Italy has announced it will nationalize Alitalia, and other European airlines will not be far behind.  Whatever we decide to do with the airlines will be just an appetizer to the considerably more fraught negotiation that’s just around the bend, over the future of death-plane producer Boeing, whose departing CEO Dennis Muilenburg walked away with more than $60 million earlier this year.

One thing is for sure: The central condition of any assistance has got to require airlines keep their profits in the bank for the next time this happens (as was required for automakers after the 2008 crash—Ford has $37 billion in reserve). This pandemic is a surprise. The next one won’t be. If you’re expected to keep your savings on hand, so should American, United, Southwest, and Delta.


https://slate.com/business/2020/03/airlines-bailout-coronavirus.html

Taylor Swift And Kanye West's 'Famous' Phone Call Video Leaks: Read The Transcript

(By Melody Chiu, People Magazine, 21 March 2020)

Four years after Kim Kardashian shared an edited phone call between her husband Kanye West and Taylor Swift discussing his “Famous” lyrics, extended portions of the conversation were leaked online late Friday night.  In clips posted to Twitter, the rapper, 42, is heard asking Swift, 30, to release his new song on her Twitter account. “So my next single, I wanted you to tweet it … so that’s why I’m calling you. I wanted you to put the song out,” he tells the Grammy winner on the phone.


After telling Swift he included a “very controversial line” about her in the song, the pop star nervously asks West what the lyrics are.  West then tells Swift he’s been mulling over the lyrics for eight months and warns her “it’s gonna go Eminem a little bit” and to “brace yourself for a second.”

A wary Swift asks if it’s “gonna be mean,” and West acknowledges even Kim initially felt it was “too crazy” but had come around. “It’s like my wife’s favorite f—ing line,” he says.


Taylor Swift, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian West- Kevin Mazur/WireImage


“So it says, ‘To all my Southside n— that know me best/ I feel like Taylor Swift might owe me sex,” continues West with a chuckle. Responds Swift with a laugh: “That’s not mean.”

Further discussing his proposal to have her release the song, Swift — who expresses relief that the lyrics aren’t about her being “that stupid dumb bitch” — tells West she needs to “think about it because it is absolutely crazy.”


Later in the call, West tells Swift the original lyric he wrote was, “To all my Southside n— that know me best/ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex.” (The lyric that made it into the final version of the track is “For all my Southside n— that know me best/ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous”)


In another leaked portion, West asks Swift how she would feel if he included a line that said “I made her famous,” to which she warily responded: “Did you say that? Well, what am I going to do about it? It’s just kind of, like, whatever at this point. But I mean, you gotta tell the story the way it happened to you and the way that you’ve experienced it. Like, you honestly didn’t know who I was before that. Like, it doesn’t matter if I sold 7 million of that album before you did that, which is what happened. You didn’t know who I was before that. It’s fine. But um, yeah, I can’t wait to hear it.”


West also promises Swift—who encourages West to protect his relationship with Kim after he tells her his wife prefers him saying “owes me sex” instead of “might still have sex”—to send her the final version of the track.  “I’m going to send you the song and send you the exact wording and everything about it, right? And then we could sit and talk through it,” West tells Swift, who has long contended she never heard the song before its release.


After “Famous” was released in February of 2016, Swift’s rep told PEOPLE the singer “declined and cautioned him about releasing a song with such a strong misogynistic message. Taylor was never made aware of the actual lyrics, ‘I made that bitch famous.’” 


          Kanye West and Taylor Swift - Christopher Polk/Getty Images

In June of 2016, Kardashian West told GQ the singer had told her husband she would “laugh” and tell media she was “in on it the whole time” in a phone call. Then a month later, the Keeping Up with the Kardashians star branded Swift a snake on social media and leaked edited snippets from the call on her Snapchat account.  “If people ask me about it, look, I think it would be great for me to be like, ‘He called me and told me before it came out . . . Joke’s on you, guys. We’re fine,’” Swift is heard saying in the footage Kardashian West posted on Snapchat.  


Swift’s rep was quoted in the GQ article as saying that “much of what Kim is saying is incorrect. Taylor has never denied that conversation took place. It was on that phone call that Kanye West also asked her to release the song on her Twitter account, which she declined to do. Kanye West never told Taylor he was going to use the term ‘that bitch‘ in referring her. A song cannot be approved if it was never heard. Kanye West never played the song for Taylor Swift. Taylor heard it for the first time when everyone else did and was humiliated. Kim Kardashian’s claim that Taylor and her team were aware of being recorded is not true, and Taylor cannot understand why Kanye West, and now Kim Kardashian, will not just leave her alone.”


Moments after Kardashian West posted snippets of the call, Swift released a statement on her Instagram slamming the couple. “Where is the video of Kanye telling me he was going to call me ‘that bitch’ in his song? It doesn’t exist because it never happened. You don’t get to control someone’s emotional response to being called ‘that bitch’ in front of the entire world,” the singer wrote.

“Of course I wanted to like the song. I wanted to believe Kanye when he told me that I would love the song. I wanted us to have a friendly relationship. He promised to play the song for me, but he never did. While I wanted to be supportive of Kanye on the phone call, you cannot ‘approve’ a song you haven’t heard. Being falsely painted as a liar when I was never given the full story or played any part of the song is character assassination.”


While Swift went on to record and tour reputation, a dark album inspired by the depressive period she went through following the drama, Kanye West has remained mum about the feud while Kardashian West told Andy Cohen last January she was “over it.


For a transcript of the newly leaked portion of Swift and West’s phone conversation, keep reading below:


KW: —old school s—, yeah. I’m doing great. I feel so awesome about the music. The album’s coming out Feb. 11. I’m doing the fashion show Feb. 11 at Madison Square Garden and dropping the album Feb. 12, that morning. It’s like …. yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Aw thank you so, so much. Thank you. It feels like, real. I don’t know, just ‘Ye, Apple, Steve Jobs-type music. Like, so my next single, I wanted you to tweet it … so that’s why I’m calling you. I wanted you to put the song out.


TS: What would people … I guess it would just be, people would be like, “Why is this happening?” And I had something to do with it, probably.


KW: The reason why it would happen is because it has a very controversial line at the beginning of the song about you.


TS: What does it say? [nervous laughter]


KW: It says, and the song is so, so dope, and I literally sat with my wife, with my whole manager team, with everything, and try to rework this line. I’ve thought about this line for eight months, I’ve had this line and tried to rework it every which way, and the original way that I thought about it is the best way, but it’s the most controversial, so it’s gonna go Eminem a little bit, so can you brace yourself for a second?


TS: Yeah…


KW: Okay, alright. It says—wait a second, you sound sad.


TS: Well, is it gonna be mean?


KW: No, I don’t think it’s mean.


TS: Okay, then let me hear it.


KW: Okay, um … and the funny thing is when I first played it and my wife heard it, she was like “Huh? What? That’s too crazy, blah, blah, blah.” And when Ninja from Die Antwoord heard it, he was like, “Oh God, this is the craziest sh—! This is why I love Kanye,” that kind of thing. It’s like my wife’s favorite f—ing line. I just wanted to give you some premise of that, right?


TS: Okay.


KW: So it says, “To all my Southside n— that know me best/ I feel like Taylor Swift might owe me sex.” [chuckles]


TS: [chuckles] That’s not mean.


KW: Okay. Yeah, well, this is the thing why I’m calling you because you got an army. You own a country of motherf—ing two billion people, basically, that if you felt that it’s funny and cool and like hip hop and felt like, you know, just The College Dropout and the artist like, ‘Ye that you love, then I think that people would be like way into it, and that’s why I think it’s super genius to have you be the one that says, ‘Oh, I like this song a lot, like, yeah, whatever. This is cool. Whatever, it’s like, I got like s— on my album where I’m like, “I bet me and Ray J will be friends if we ain’t love the same bitch.”


TS: Oh my [laughs]. I mean, I need to think about it because you hear something for the first time, you need to think about it because it is absolutely crazy. I’m glad it’s not mean though. It doesn’t feel mean, but like, oh my God, the build-up you gave it. I thought it was gonna be like that stupid dumb bitch, like, but it’s not. Um, so I don’t know. I mean, the launch thing, I think it would be kind of confusing to people, but I definitely like, I definitely think that when I’m asked about, of course I’m gonna be like, “Yeah, I’m his biggest fan. I love that. I think it’s hilarious,” but um, I’ll think about it.


KW: Yeah, you don’t have to do—you don’t have to do the launch and retweet. That’s just an extra idea that I had, like, but if you think that that’s cool, then that’s cool. If not, we are launching the s— like on just GOOD Fridays, on Soundcloud, the site, s— like that.


TS: You know, the thing about me is like, anything that I do becomes a feminine think-piece, and if I launch it, they’re gonna be like, “Wow,” like this thing—like they’ll just turn it into something that … I think if I launch it, it honestly like, it’ll be less cool ‘cause I think if I launch it, it adds this level of criticism, ‘cause having that many followers and having that many eyeballs on me right now, people are just looking for me to do something dumb or stupid or lame, and it’s like almost … I don’t know, like I kind of feel like people would try to make it negative if it came from me. Do you know what I mean?


KW: Yeah.


TS:  I try to be super self-aware about where I am, and I feel like, I feel like right now I’m like this close to overexposure.


KW: Well, this one, I think this is a really cool thing to have.


TS: I know, it’s like a compliment [laughs].


KW: I had this line where I said—and my wife really didn’t like this one because we tried to make it nicer. So I said, “To all my Southside n— that know me best/ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex,” and my wife was really not with that one. She was way more into “She owes you sex,” but then the owe part was the feminist group-type s— that I was like, “Ahhh.”


TS: That’s the part that I’m kind of—I mean, they’re both really edgy, but that’s the only thing about that line is that it’s like gonna … the feminists are gonna come out, but I mean, you don’t have to give a f—, so…


KW: Yeah, basically. Well, what I give a f— about is just you as a person and as a friend. I want things—


TS: That’s sweet—


KW: —that make you feel good. I don’t wanna do rap that makes people feel bad, like of course like I’m mad at Nike, so people think like, “Oh, he’s a bully. He ran on stage with Taylor. He’s bullying Nike now, this $50 billion company.”


TS: Why are people saying you’re bullying Nike?


KW: Because on “Facts” I said like, “Yeezy, Nike out here bad, they can’t give s— away.”


TS: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that’s just what you do though.


KW: [laughs]


TS: [laughs] I mean, I wouldn’t say that it’s like possible to bully a company like Nike where—I mean, um, yeah, I mean, go with whatever line you think is better. It’s obviously very tongue-in-cheek either way, and I really appreciate you telling me about it. That’s really nice.


KW: Oh yeah. I just had a responsibility to you as a friend. I mean, thanks for being, like, so cool about it.


TS: Thanks. Yeah, I really appreciate it. The heads-up is so nice. You’d be surprised how many people just do things without even asking or seeing if I’d be okay with it, and I just really appreciate it. I never would have expected you to tell me about a line in one of your songs. That’s really nice that you did.


KW: You mean like unexpected s— like you taking the time to give someone a really, really valuable award and then they completely run for president right afterwards? Like unexpected in that kind of way? [laughs]


TS: [laughs] We have not talked about what happened.


KW: I just thought that was wavy. It was vibe-y. The funny thing is I thought about the weed and the president … both of those things I thought about in the shower the day before and just started laughing like crazy. I was like, I gotta say that I had just smoked some weed, and then say I’m gonna run for president. So those are my bases of … I knew I wanted to say the thing about going to like the Dodgers game with my daughter and like getting booed and that being scary, and I knew I wanted to say, like, me changing and thinking about people more since I had a daughter. And then I wanted to say the weed thing. And then I wanted to say the president thing. And everything else was just like off the cuff.


TS: Oh my God. It was definitely, like, it stole the show. And then the flowers that you sent me. I Instagram-ed a picture of them and it’s the most Instagram likes I’ve ever gotten. It was like 2.7 million likes on that picture of the flowers you sent me. Crazy.


KW: It’s some connection or something that I think is really important about that moment when we met on stage. There’s something that I think is really important about that, and where humanity is going, or now where me and Kim are, and having a family and just everything, the way things are landing. So it’s always—relationships are more important than punchlines, you know.


TS: Yeah, I mean, I don’t think anybody would listen to that and be like, “Oh, that’s a real diss.” Like, “She must be crying about that line.” And I think because of how crazy and strange and fateful the way we met was, I think we have to pick our moments to do stuff together and make sure it’s only really cool stuff.


KW: Yeah, exactly. We can’t have it, like, be somebody else’s idea that gets in front and they’re, like—because if you’re like a really true, creative, visceral, vibe-y type person, it’s probably hard for you to work at a corporation. So how can you give a creative—creative ideas and you’re working in a house of non-creativity? It’s like this weird … so whenever we talk directly—okay, now what if later in the song I was also to have said, uh, “I made her famous”? Is that a—


TS: [hesitant] Did you say that?


KW: Yes, it might’ve happened [laughs].


TS: Well, what am I gonna do about it?


KW: Uh, like, do the hair flip?


TS: Yeah, I mean, um, it’s just kind of like, whatever, at this point. But I mean, you’ve got to tell the story the way that it happened to you and the way that you’ve experienced it. Like, you honestly didn’t know who I was before that. Like, it doesn’t matter if I sold seven million of that album before you did that, which is what happened. You didn’t know who I was before that. It’s fine. But, um, yeah. I can’t wait to hear it.


KW: I mean, it’s fun. It’s definitely—you’re ready to trend. That’s all I can say.


TS: Uh, what’s the song called?


KW: Uh, it might be called “Hood Famous.”


TS: Oh, cool. Is it going to be like a single-single, or is it going to be a Soundcloud release? What are you doing?


KW: Oh, this one right here is like f—ing song of the year-type territory.


TS: Oh my God, amazing. That’s crazy. Oh my God. Speaking of song of the year, are you going to the Grammys?


KW: Uh, you know what? I was thinking to not do it. But I think that this song—you know what? I’m going to send you the song and send you the exact wording and everything about it, right? And then we could sit and talk through it. But if the song goes and f—ing just—


TS: …they just look at us and go … Even if we’ve made an incredible achievement, it’s harder for people to write down our names for some reason. That’s just human nature. It’s envy. It’s asking people in our industry to vote for the people who are already killing it.


KW: Yeah. It’s, like, so many people wanted Meek Mills to win because Drake was just killing it for so long, and they were just like, “We just need like Meek Mills to like—but I think, you know, okay, so that has my mind going through a lot of places to problem-solve. I was talking to Ben Horowitz. Do you know this guy? He’s a VC. Ben Horowitz out of San Fran. But he’s down with that.


TS: I know that name. I don’t know him.


KW: It’s just like the San Fran clique, you know, that type of thing. Like he stays down the street from Mark Zuckerberg and s— like that. So I was talking to him and I was like, “Bro.” Like me, I’m in personal debt. I’m in debt by a good like $20, 30 million, ever since the fashion … and still have not made it out of it. So that’s part of the reason why I had to go to Roc Nation and the touring deals evolved, and it allowed the whole town to try to feel like they could control Kanye or even talk to me like I’m regular or have agents do it, but they saw they couldn’t. It’s like even in debt, he moves around like he’s like a billionaire. I’m like, yeah, I’m a cultural trillionaire! I might have financial debts. So I told Ben Horowitz, I was like, “You guys, you, Mark Zuckerberg or whoever, Tim Cook, you guys have to clean that up.” So I’m sending Ben Horowitz my current balance. That means that l’m not up $50, not up 100 million, not up 200 million, not up 300 million. No. Negative $20 million, currently. I, Kanye West, the guy who created the genre of music that is The Weeknd, that is Drak —the guy who created—every single person that makes music right now, favorite album is The College Dropout. Every single person that makes music. 


But I’m rich enough. Like, I went into debt to my wife by $6 million working on a f—ing house, less than like a few months ago, and I was able to pay her back before Christmas and s— like that. So, you know, when I talk about Nike, the idea that they wouldn’t give me a percentage, that I could make something that was so tangible, when Drake was just rapping me into the motherf—ing trashcan, that I could have something that was tangible that showed my creativity and expressed myself, that also could be a business that I could have a five-times multiple on and actually be able to sell it for like $100 million, $200 million or a billion dollars, that was very serious. Every conversation, every time I’d scream at Charlemagne or scream at Sway, that was really, really, really serious. 


And it also was with my family. I felt like, look, if I’m just the angry black guy with some cool red shoes from Nike five years ago, I was going to be visiting my daughter, as opposed to be living with her. It would’ve been like, enough is enough. It wouldn’t have been cool anymore, because it would have been a group of people, including my wife, that all had at least like $500, 400 million in their account. And then you get the angry black man at the party talking about “I’m the one that put Kim in the dress! I’m the one that did this!” But it never realized itself. So that’s one of the things I just talked to Ben. And I talk about it on the album. Talk about personal debt and s—. Just the idea like, “Oh s—, this dude with this f—ing Maybach that makes f—ing $50 million a tour still hasn’t lined it up or came out of the point when AEG and Live Nation wouldn’t give him a deal.” The debt started after Watch the Throne, because I got no deal. But I still was doing my creative projects on my own, shooting a film, doing a fashion show, just trying to be very Disney, be very visceral, be creative. And…


TS: I mean, I’m sure you’ve thought about this up and down, but I mean, is there a way to monetize these in a way that you thought would still feel authentic but make them into a multi-billion dollar company?


KW: Well, that’s what we’re going to do. That’s what we’re in the plans of. I’m 100 percent going to be like a multi, multi, multi-billionaire. I think it’s fun that I can like be like Charlie Sheen and be like, “Hey, like, I got AIDS.” You know, like—to me, I told Drake that the other night. I was like, “Yo, Drake, I’m in personal debt.” And for me to tell Drake, the f—ing number one bachelor in the world that can f—ing rap anybody into a trashcan, that lives four blocks down the street from my wife and like basically f—s all of her friends, that I’m in personal debt, it’s such a like putting down the sword or putting down the hand or opening, showing the hand. 


That I don’t have my poker face on with any of you guys. I’m just me. I’m just a creative. You know, everything I did, even when it was mistimed, whatever it might’ve been from a—it’s always, like, from a good place, and I know that I’ll overcome it and I know that the world will overcome it. Because, like, I’m going to change the world. I’m going to make it—I’m gonna make people’s lives better on some post-Steve Jobs, Howard Hughes-type s—. Like, I’m going to do things with education. I’m going to do things that help to calm down murders in Chicago or across the globe.

Things that help to calm down police brutality, to equalize the wealth amidst the class system. Because there’s a bunch of classes of wealthy people that hate Obama because he’s more social and he wants the people who don’t have anything to have everything. And in my little way, by learning how to design, design is something that’s only given to the rich currently. The exact color palette that Hermès uses versus the color palette that Forever 21 uses—a color palette is extremely important. 

Color is important. You know, the knowledge of proportions, you know, the size of our house versus the size of someone else’s houses, and just the dynamics of that proportion. Like, I don’t want this conversation to go too, too long, but I wanted to give you a bit of where I’m at and the perspective that I’m at and the way … the fact that I am the microprocessor of our culture. 


Meaning like, I can figure out how to give Rihanna a Mary J. Blige-type album. I can figure out how to get the fashion world to accept my wife, and thus the whole family. I can figure out a lot of impossible … I can figure out how to make something that you’re wearing to the airport, five years after the entire globe was like, “Hang that n— alive and f— him, and let’s watch him die, slowly, publicly.” So, it’s a lot. I figured that out for myself, so it’s a lot of s— that we collectively, with the power that you have and your fans, the power my wife has, the power that I have, that we can do to really make it where it’s not just the rich getting richer, but you know, make it not just a f—ing charity, not singing for Africa, but change things in a way that people can experience s— themselves, a piece of the good life. You know?


TS: Yeah. I mean, they’re amazing ideas and amazing concepts, and I definitely would love to talk to you more about it. I know you have to do something right now, but I love that that’s where you’re headed. And it’s been like that. I mean, when we went to dinner, there were the rumblings of those ideas. I like that you’re always thinking outward. And over the last six, seven, eight years, however long it’s been since that happened, I haven’t always liked you, but I’ve always respected you. And I think that’s what you’re saying when you say like, you know, “I might be in debt, but I can make these things happen, and I have the ideas to do it, and I can create these things or these concepts.” Like, I’m always going to respect you. And I’m really glad that you had the respect to call me and tell me that as a friend about the song, and it’s a really cool thing to do, and a really good show of friendship. So thank you.


KW: Oh, thank you too.


TS: And you know, if people ask me about it, look, I think it would be great for me to be like, “Look, he called me and told me the line before it came out. Like, the joke’s on you guys. We’re fine.”


KW: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think that’s pretty much the switch right there.


TS: Yeah. Like, you guys want to call this a feud, you want to call this throwing shade, but you know, right after the song comes out, I’m gonna be on a Grammy red carpet, and they’re gonna ask me about it and I’ll be like, “He called me and sent me the song before it came out.” So I think we’re good.


KW: Okay. I’m gonna go lay this verse, and I’m gonna send it to you right now.


TS: Oh, you just—you haven’t recorded it yet?


KW: I recorded it. I’m nuancing the lines. Like the last version of it says, “me and Taylor might still have sex.” And then my wife was like, ”That doesn’t sound as hard!”


TS: Well, I mean, she’s saying that honestly because she’s your wife, and like, um … so I think whatever one you think is actually better. I mean, obviously do what’s best for your relationship, too. I think “owes me sex,” it says different things. It says—”owes me sex” means like, “look, I made her what she is. She actually owes me.” Which is going to split people because people who like me are going to be like, “She doesn’t owe him s—.” But then people who like thought it was badass and crazy and awesome that you’re so outspoken are going to be like, “Yeah, she does. It made her famous.” So it’s more provocative to say “still have sex,” because no one would see that coming. They’re both crazy. Do what you want. They’re both going to get every single headline in the world. “Owes me sex” is a little bit more like throwing shade, and the other one’s more flirtatious. It just depends on what you want to accomplish with it.


KW: Yeah, I feel like with my wife, that she probably didn’t like the “might still have sex” because it would be like, what if she was on a TV show and said, “Me and Tom Brady might still have sex” or something?


TS: You have to protect your relationship. Do what’s best. You just had a kid. You’re in the best place of your life. I wouldn’t ever advise you to f— with that. Just pick whatever. It’s cause and effect. One is gonna make people feel a certain way, and it’s gonna be a slightly different emotion for the other. But it’s not—it doesn’t matter to me. There’s not one that hurts my feelings and the other doesn’t.


KW: Yeah. It’s just, when I’m pointing this gun, what I tried to do differently than two years ago, is like when I shoot a gun, I try to point it away from my face. So one is a little bit more flirtatious and easier, I think, so really, that means the conversation is really—one is like a little bit better for the public and a little bit less good for the relationship. One is a little bit worse for the public and better for the relationship.


TS: Yeah. I can hear it. But it’s your goals, really. I mean, you always just go with your gut, obviously. But, um, amazing. Send it to me. I’m excited.


KW: All right, cool. Thanks so much.


TS: Awesome, I’ll talk to you later.


KW: All right, cool. Peace. Bye. [to camera] We had to get that on the record.


Cameraman: I’m sorry. The battery on this thing died.


KW: It’s just when it dies, you get some s— like Kanye talking to Taylor Swift explaining that line? There’s gotta be three cameras on that one. We can’t miss one element.


https://people.com/music/taylor-swift-kanye-west-famous-phone-call-leaks/?did=504399-20200323&utm_campaign=ppl-nonewsubs_relationship-builder&utm_source=people.com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=032320&cid=504399&mid=31250606084