334,174 Deaths-to-Date
3,357 Daily New Deaths (peak 3,156 Dec. 9)
> 7-day average 2,805 (peak 2,805 Dec. 23)
Confirmed Cases
230,855 New Cases
> 7-day average 203,912
Currently Hospitalized
119,463 Current level
> 7-day average 115,503
Loyal readers know that I’m no fan of Dr. Fauci.
It continues to amaze me that, despite all of his errant pronouncements and advice, that the MSM and half of America hangs on his every word.
This week, the media ubiquitous pop-doc went on CNN to reassure children that Santa is safe … that he (Fauci) personally vaccinated Santa and made sure that he was good to go.
All right, I understand that it was all intended to be in good fun, but…
Bias alert: I’m pro-vax and plan to get vaccinated as soon as I can.
=============
On one hand, Trump has been justifiably basking in the success of his Operation Warp Speed program that encouraged and enabled pharma to speed up the development process.
It has been a sheer delight seeing the video loops of media pundits and “experts” looking ridiculous when previously dismissing the possibility of a vaccine by now.
Even Sen. Dickie Durbin — to his credit — stepped to the podium on the Senate floor to give Trump a shout-out for a job well done.
And yesterday, Biden conceded that “the Trump administration deserves some of the credit”.
But, headlines the past couple of days seem to be highlighting the logistical challenges, priority controversies and possible negative consequences of the COVID vaccines: “Man in Alaska Suffers Serious Side Effects”, “40% of Chicago Medical Staff Refuses the Vaccine”, etc.
So, I realize that I may be swimming upstream today, channeling a very provocative point-of-view that I saw offered up by Holman Jenkins in the WSJ:
Science triumphed but shouldn’t we have cut corners and moved faster?
Let’s drill down that…
Yesterday, we posted a summary of the polls & odds re: Georgia’s Senate runoff elections.
In a nutshell: Polls have Perdue & Loeffler up by a couple of points; betting markets have GOP odds of avoiding a Dem sweep at 75-25; stock market has been “melting up”
A couple of loyal readers have asked me — given the data — how do I think the election will turn out?
Keeping in mind that I’m nothing more than a curious, analytical guy with no particular political expertise or inside info …
My answer: I’m scoring the odds at 60-40 that the Dems sweep both seats.
Here’s my logic…
RCP Poll-of-Polls
Purdue leading by 2 in prior week’s polls
Loeffler leading by 3 in prior week’s polls
=============
PredictIt Betting Market
Betting markets indicating 73-29 chance that
at least one of the GOP candidates will win.
Probably overstated but, nonetheless, I’ll get vaccinated as soon as I can!
==============
It’s undeniable that Operation Warp Speed’s financial support and streamlined regulatory processes motivated rapid development of COVID vaccines,
That was largely predictable.
What wasn’t so predictable was the apparent sky high effectiveness of the early-launch vaccines.
Both Pfizer and Moderna report about 95% effectiveness.
Gotta ask: Are these effectiveness rates too good to be true?
In a prior post, we noted that the 95% effectiveness is, indeed, sky high compared to previous flu and pandemic virus vaccines.
Today, let’s drill down on the 95% number…
Answer: 95% is sky high compared to previous flu and pandemic virus vaccines.
=============
Today, let’s put the current COVID vaccines into perspective.
A September 2019 White House report looked specifically at flu and coronavirus vaccines, noting that….
There is considerable variation from year to year in how much the flu vaccine reduces the risk of contracting the seasonal flu and flu-related illnesses.
Over the past 14 years, influenza vaccine effectiveness has ranged between 10% and 60%.
Much of the variability depends on which viral strains predominate in a given year and, more specifically, whether the vaccine matches the viral strain that is circulating in a given flu season.
Although a mismatch between the vaccine and the virus circulating during a flu season reduces efficacy, vaccines still provide some protection against flu illness and decrease the severity of the illness, due to immunologic similarity between the viruses.
=============
When it comes to pandemic viruses …
“There are numerous (election) problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them.”
===============
Save for the headline “Wisconsin Supreme Court puts final nail in Trump’s election coffin” … this story isn’t getting much coverage.
That’s too bad because, in the details, the ruling and its dissents hit more nails than the headlined one on the head.
Here’s the essence of the case, the ruling and the dissents ….
How many times can a media-proclaimed “leading expert” miss the mark and still hold the title?
By my count:
Flashback to March 3, 2020:
Well, Dr. Leading Expert, the first shots of vaccine were administered yesterday… thanks to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.
Perhaps, Fauci will rush to CNN today to say “Trump was right, I was wrong.”
I won’t hold my breath …
=============
P.S. Biden announced Fauci as his chief medical adviser. Say, what?
That’s not following “the science”, it’s following the “political science”.
The “Covid States Project” recently published their most recent survey of how Americans are (or are not) complying with the CDC’s COVID mitigation guidance (e.g. wash hands, disinfect surfaces, wear masks, socially distance)
In a prior post, we noted that mask wearing compliance has steadily increased to over 75% (the light yellow diagonal line running from the lower left to upper right corners).
But, “socially distancing” behaviors are declining … both the percentage of people avoiding contact with people outside their home (red line) and those avoiding crowded or public places (green line).
More specifically, the survey indicates:
But, the differences among education levels, gender and race are relatively modest … probably within the margin of error.
There are a couple of identity characteristics that do show significant differences…
Rather than ruling on the merits of the case, Justices run for the hills.
=============
OK, the WSJ had it right … and we had it wrong.
Recognizing that they would be caught between a rock and a hard place, the SCOTUS channeled Sgt. Shultz claim (“I hear nothing, I see nothing”) to stay out of the election dispute.
For the record, here’s the first part of the official SCOTUS statement:
ORDER IN PENDING CASE (155, ORIG.) TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.
Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
The key point: This isn’t a ruling on the merits of the case, i.e. whether there was election fraud and rigging … or not.
The Court just decided to rule on procedural technicalities and leave the merits of the case open for all of us to decide.
Let’s parse the courts statement….
To be fair & balanced …
Yesterday, we argued that SCOTUS is caught between a rock and a hard place… and would create a legal nightmare if they didn’t rule the actions of the 4 “defendant states” to be unconstitutional.
Today, the WSJ editorializes that the SCOTUS shouldn’t even take the Texas law suit.
Here’s an excerpt from the editorial:
Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, launched an implausible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn state presidential election results.
It would be a legal and political earthquake if the Court took the case.
The first issue is whether Texas has the legal standing to sue.
To have standing, a plaintiff must point to a specific injury and there must be some possibility of a remedy.
In this case, what is the injury?
Mr. Paxton argues that the four states have harmed his state and violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution by holding elections with major procedural irregularities. He’s saying Texas can be harmed by the way another state manages its elections.
But if Texas can sue on these grounds, then some unhappy state will sue another state after every close election whose outcome it doesn’t like.
Then there’s the problem of remedy. Mr. Paxton wants the Court to intervene and order the four state legislatures to deny Mr. Biden their electoral votes. He claims, with some justification, that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors.
But that is what they have done already in certifying their votes.
In other words, Mr. Paxton’s claim is essentially moot as the states have certified their results and chosen electors.
There’s no doubt that Democrats used the pandemic as an excuse to expand mail-in voting that created more opportunities for fraud.
But the GOP should have fought those changes more competently before the election.
To take Mr. Paxton’s case the Court would have to set a new standard for standing to sue in election cases and essentially overturn the election results in four states and disenfranchise millions of voters.
The Justices would be opening an historic constitutional thicket if they take it.
What do you think?
Having put the Texas case on its docket, SCOTUS faces very hard decisions
==============
First, some essential background…
The complaint goes directly at the the Court’s constitutional fortitude and sovereignty.
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.
The fundamental decision that the Court must make is whether or not the “defendant states” (PA, GA, MI, WI) — specifically, their election officials and state courts — acted unconstitutionally when they — not their respective legislatures — changed election laws in the run-up to the 2020 election.
This case presents a question of law:
Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking— or allowing — non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
The crux of the argument:
Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states … usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.
The defendant states accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.
These same government officials flooded the defendant states with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote — signature verification and witness requirements.
The complaint goes into detail (with numerous precedent cases cited) to establish the venue (why SCOTUS must decide), their standing (in effect, their states constitutional votes were nullified) and the constitutional rationale.
OK so let’s cut to the chase…
A team of northeastern academic researchers, doing a “Covid States Project”, recently published their most recent survey of how “the human behaviors that have been shown to inhibit the spread of COVID-19 have evolved across the US since April, 2020.”
Said differently, they were evaluating whether or not people were complying with the CDC’s COVID mitigation guidance.
The researchers found that, since Spring, mask wearing compliance has increased from slightly over 50% to over 75% (the light yellow diagonal line running from the lower left to upper right corners).
Hmmm.
Mask wearing has increased to a relatively high level, yet the number of confirmed cases are spiking to record highs.
Seems counter-intuitive, doesn’t it?
Unless your TV only gets CNN, you’ve probably seen the election night CCTV video from Fulton County Georgia’s the central counting room at Sate Farm Arena.
The video shows (or as the Washington Post says “appears to show”) media & observers leaving the room en masse around 10:30 … then ballot-laden suitcases being rolled out from under some tables by the handful of remaining counters who spend the next couple of hours scanning the suitcases’ contents.
The video was presented to GOP-run State Senate Committee by Trump operatives and looped on right-leaning stations and sites.
Immediately, there was pushback by liberal media and fact-checkers … and by Georgia State election officials.
OK, with that as background, let’s unpack the story…
May offer some ideas for upping election integrity.
=============
Regular readers know that I’ve been attentive to to issues surrounding election integrity … especially voter registration lists and ballot verification.
With those issues top-of-mind, I had a couple of relevant experiences in the past couple of days.
First, I got a carpet-bomb email from a friend who was updating his Christmas card list.
He was reaching out to make sure that everybody on the list was still alive and that he had current addresses.
Obviously, he didn’t want to waste postage sending cards to former addresses … and, he didn’t want to inadvertently send cards to anybody who has successfully concluded their earthly tours of duty.
I suggested that he might want to start helping election boards clean up their registration lists.
He politely, but emphatically declined.
So, I’m left with his idea: Why not mail out verification letters to everybody on the voter registration list … to their address of record … mark them “do not forward … include a postage-free return postcard … require them to send the signed postcard back … if they don’t send it back (signed) flag them on the voter rolls.
Then, if or when they try to vote (or request an absentee ballot), make them re-register to vote — with some legit forms of ID, of course.
================
The 2nd experience was a real life case of identity verification done right.
Perhaps President Trump should convene still another Commission on Election Integrity… or better yet, nudge Barr to name another Special Counsel to investigate election “irregularities”.
=============
Anybody remember Bush versus Gore?
There was understandable concern when Florida vote-counting labored on for more than a month after the election and Bush ended up winning by a couple of hundred votes when the SCOTUS ruled “no mas”.
Eventually, in 2005, a Commission on Election Reform was convened, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former GOP Secretary of State James Baker.
The Carter-Baker Commission Report covered many of the election issues that have arisen in the 2020 election…
That’s a question that liberal pundits (and some of my left-leaning friends) are posing to “prove” that there was no widespread fraud … and there’s a simple answer
===============
The first time I was asked the question, I was stumped, so I did some quick fact-finding.
The answer should have been obvious (to me) from the get-go:
The seats that the GOP flipped weren’t in the notorious metro cheat-spots that tanked Trump, i.e. Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, Vegas.
Specifically, RCP is currently reporting that the GOP flipped 11 seats; 2 each in FL & CA; 1 each in UT, SC, IA, OK, NM, MI, NY.
With the exception of Michigan, there are no allegations of game-changing cheating in any of the flipped-states … most were red states undoing 2018 blue-flips or landslide Biden states that didn’t need cheating to win (NY, CA).
In Michigan, the flipped congressional district (CD 3) covers Grand Rapids and Battle Creek … far away from the reach of the Detroit machine.
Note: GOP Senate Candidate — John James — lost narrowly. He was leading until the Detroit votes were counted.
According to RCP, the Dems only flipped 1 congressional seat – Georgia’s 7th CD — just north of Atlanta in Gwinnett County.
Need I say more on that one?
============
Bottom line: GOP flips are hardly evidence that the election was fraud-free in the suspected cheat-spots.
And, since these bad boys take things like that very personally, they may provide the strongest impetus for election reforms.
============
Yesterday, we reported a Rasmussen survey finding that almost half of American voters think that that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win.
Among those “believers” are some of America’s biggest bookies.
Speaking on behalf of them is a Las Vegas legend named Wayne Allyn Root.
I’m Wayne Allyn Root.
I was a Las Vegas odds maker and sports gaming expert for four decades — long before I became known as a nationally syndicated talk show host.
I understand odds and gambling.
And I can tell you something is very wrong with this presidential election.
It reminds me of a fixed football game.
As an odds maker, when a football game is fixed, even if you can’t prove it, you know.
Gamblers feel that same way about this presidential election.
Let me give you the details of this election- from a gambler’s perspective.
Yesterday morning, we asked: Are Comey, Brennan and friends now off-the-hook?
And, we offered President Trump some specific advice: Coax Barr to name a Special Prosecutor.
Well, I don’t want to claim all of the motivating credit, but here’s what just got announced:
Boom!
According to the WSJ:
Attorney General William Barr has named Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham a special counsel, giving him extra protection to continue during the Biden administration his investigation of the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe.
Mr. Barr appointed Mr. Durham special counsel under the same regulation used to name Robert Mueller to take over the Russia investigation.
I guess Comey & Brennan aren’t off the hook after all.
Ball’s in your court, Joe.
Rasmussen surveyed a variant of that question:
How likely is it that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win?
The answer may surprise some folks…
About half of all respondents (47%) thought it was somewhat or very likely that Dems stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots.
Predictably, 3 of 4 Republicans thought it was true.
The surprise: nearly 1 in 3 Democrats thought it was somewhat or very likely that Dems stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots.
Gee, even a statistically significant number of Dems think that there was widespread fraud.
Rasmussen didn’t ask the question, but I bet practically all of them think the ends justify the means.
So much for election integrity.
Trump should coax Barr to name a Special Prosecutor.
============
I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t heard any punditry on this issue.
To refresh memories: In April 2019, AG Barr confirmed that he had initiated a review into “both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016” — activities commonly known as “Crossfire Hurricane.”
And, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham, a widely respected prosecutor, to investigate (with full subpoena powers) and, if appropriate, issue grand jury indictments.
The “usual band of suspects” were reported to be on hot seats, including Comey, Brennan, Strzok, et. al.
But, after 18 months of sleuthing, all that Durham has to show for his work is squeezing a felony guilty plea to making a false statement in an official proceeding (i.e. lying in a FISA court submission).
Continually we’ve heard that the big shoe was about to drop.
But, COVID came and the process dragged on and on.
Then came the election and, of course, indictments couldn’t be dropped right before an election, right?
So what now?
It has been a tough year.
So, it’s a good time to focus on the many reasons we still have to be thankful.
* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma
#HomaFiles
Time to chill out, folks
=============
Pew ran large sample surveys in June and and November (after the election).
They asked participants about their feelings: hopefulness, fear, pride and anger.
The latter caught my eye.
Pew asked: In thinking about the state of the country, do you feel angry?
In June, 80% of Biden supporters — 4 out of every 5 — said that they felt ANGRY.
Let that sink in for a moment. ANGRY.
Since the election, their anger has subsided by about 1/3 … down 24 percentage points to 56%.
That level is about equal to the anger level of Trump supporters before and after the election.
=============
The scorching high temperature among Biden supporters doesn’t surprise me.
But, I am surprised that even more of their anger wasn’t dissipated by their apparently successful effort to oust the hated orange-haired man.
And, I was initially surprised by the majority level of anger among Trump supporters … before and after the election.
My take: They’re anger isn’t directly election-related.
Rather, their anger is probably a reflection of the state-of-the-nation: diminished law & order (i.e. unprosecuted fires & looting) and constrained freedom (e.g. lockdowns and mandates)
=============
The really bad news: The majority of both Biden and Trump supporters are still ANGRY.
Maybe Thanksgiving will a good opportunity for everybody to just chill out…
Let’s give it a try…
Inner circle friends and relatives will attest that, for months, I didn’t think Trump would get re-elected.
Nothing to do with policies or performance …
My rationale: Hate is a much stronger emotion than love … and that Trump-haters would overwhelm Trump-lovers (and Trump-tolerators).
That dynamic seems to have played out …
All surveys that I’ve seen indicate that a majority of Biden voters admit that their vote was primarily anti-Trump, not pro-Biden … and, the vast majority of Trump voters were pro-Trump and indifferent to Biden.
=============
Apparently, I’m not the only person who has been thinking along these lines.
Jason Whitlock is a longtime sports writer and, these days, cultural / political podcaster known for strong, sometimes controversial points-of-view.
In a recent podcast, Whitlock opined:
The 2020 election shows the power of love versus the power of hate.
click for video and transcript
![]()
More specifically …
So, if masks work, why are COVID cases soaring?
================
COVID cases are soaring … and while the infection-to-fatality rate has dropped significantly, the daily tally of new deaths has been creeping up.
CDC Director Redfield has testified:
Face coverings are the most powerful public health tool” the nation has against the coronavirus and “might even provide better protection against it than a vaccine.
The COVID death rate will be cut in half if mask compliance were 100%
With that in mind, a recent WSJ article on “COVID" Fatigue” had a chart that caught my eye.
The high red line below is the percentage of people who claim that they regularly wear masks when they leave home.
Bottom line: Gallup says that over 90% of respondents claim they wear masks in public settings … that’s up from 80% who said so in May.
=============
Connecting the dots: Redfield says masks are more effective than vaccines … and, the vast majority of people say they regularly wear masks … but, cases are soaring.
How can that be?