Trump Continues to Earn Low Marks for Handling of COVID-19 Pandemic

Donald Trump, envious of governors who are getting rave reviews for their performance in response to COVID-19 has gotten into the habit of trying to appropriate that credit for himself. For example, this tweet:

Remember this, every Governor who has sky high approval on their handling of the Coronavirus, and I am happy for them all, could in no way have gotten those numbers, or had that success, without me and the Federal Governments help. From Ventilators to Testing, we made it happen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2020

Given that the federal government has been more of an obstacle than a facilitator, notably so in the case of the states whose governors are getting the highest ratings, this claim is a little hard to swallow. And it would appear that the majority of Americans are not, in fact, swallowing it, because a new Washington Post poll reveals that the President's approval rating, when it comes to his handling of the coronavirus, trails 49 of the 50 governors.

To start at the top, there are seven governors who pulled an 80% or higher. That group is led by Larry Hogan (R-MD) at 85%; followed by Chris Sununu (R-NH), Charlie Baker (R-MA), Gina Raimondo (D-RI), and Phil Scott (R-VT) at 82%; and then Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Doug Burgum (R-ND) at 80%. At a glance, that might look like very good news for the Republican Party, since only one of the group is a Democrat. However, if the 2020 election turns into a referendum on COVID-19, which seems likely, there aren't going to be too many opportunities for voters in these states to reward the GOP for their governor's effective management.

Only two of the seven states are at all swingy from a presidential perspective (OH and NH), and those two governors are not very Trumpy. Only two have gubernatorial elections this year (ND and NH), and the results there (two Republican wins) were a foregone conclusion before COVID-19 hit. Only two of the six Republican-led states have U.S. Senate elections this year (MA and NH), and neither of those is likely to be competitive. In fact, if you examine the top of the list for signs of possible ramifications in November, the thing that actually stands out the most is that Gov. Steve Bullock (D-MT), who is running for the Senate right now, is tied for 10th at 75%.

At the bottom of the list, on the other hand, there is much to make Republicans nervous. In case you are wondering which governor Trump beat, thus keeping the President from trailing 50 of 50 governors, the answer is...nobody. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), at 43%, is tied with Trump for dead last, and there is no governor doing worse than the President. The other basement dwellers are David Ige (D-HI) at 54%; Mike Parson (R-MO), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Greg Abbott (R-TX), Kristi Noem (R-SD), and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) at 58%, and Tony Evers (D-WI) and Doug Ducey (R-AZ) at 60%.

Like the "best" list, the "worst" list is liberally populated with Republicans, though these Republicans tend to be very Trumpy, indeed. Only one of the states has a gubernatorial election this year (MO), However, four of them are states that Trump won in 2016, are run by very Trumpy governors, and are looking to be in play in 2020 (GA, FL, TX, AZ). There is only one such state run by a Democrat (WI). Perhaps worst of all for the GOP, there are six Senate seats up in the states where both Trump and the Republican governor are getting the COVID-19 thumbs down (GA times two, TX, SD, NE, AZ), and four of those are looking competitive (all but SD and NE). In short, while there appears to be little opportunity for the Republican Party, and in particular the Trumpy Republicans, to benefit from those governors who are doing well with COVID-19, there are all sorts of opportunities for them to be hurt by governors (and a president) who are doing poorly.

The President, of course, remains keenly aware of this, despite his pronouncements to the contrary. On Tuesday, he tried out some new spin that...well, it has chutzpah, we'll give him that. Over the weekend, the shtick was that if the COVID-19 numbers are bad, that is the fault of the CDC, and of Americans themselves for being fat and lazy. Yesterday, launching into an unprompted monologue (harangue?), the President proclaimed that the high COVID-19 numbers are actually a positive thing, a "badge of honor" for his administration, because it speaks to how many people have been tested. Wow. There's spin, and then there's SPIN. Anyone who thinks that Americans have been more thoroughly tested than citizens of other Western nations has not been paying attention. Meanwhile, this does little to address the fact that Americans are roughly seven times more likely to die of COVID-19 than non-Americans. Oh well, presumably the President will come up with new and improved, hydroxychloroquine-powered spin by the time the week is out. And if you want to compare how America is doing on cases per capita or deaths per capita or other COVID-19 statistics, Johns Hopkins's COVID-19 dashboard is an excellent site. As an aside, the number of cases worldwide is just about to hit 5 million. (Z)

Will Trump Really Try to Hold Rallies This Year?

There is little question that Donald Trump, and the other members of his Klan...er, clan, really, really, really want to hold a bunch of the President's patented political rallies this summer and fall, despite the challenges presented by COVID-19. And as far as Politico's Jack Shafer is concerned, they should have at it. "Give Trump All the Rallies He Wants," is the headline, "If nothing else, it might teach him how viruses spread." Shafer's piece is obviously drenched in sarcasm, but it does bring up a useful question: Will Team Trump really try to move forward with a lengthy programme of rallies this election season?

Let us start by talking about the purposes of the rallies. Officially, they are meant to get people excited about voting for, and donating to, the Trump/Pence (or Trump/Haley, or Trump/Flynn, or Trump/Hannity) ticket. However, it is very doubtful that they raise all that much money (Trump 2020 already has a robust e-mail list), and it's even more doubtful that they win over many voters (who waits hours in line unless they are already a big fan?). No, the main appeal is that they are the President's version of heroin—he gets a major high from being in a room or an outdoor area with 15,000 or 20,000 screaming acolytes, pandering to their baser instincts, and then watching Fox News praise him for it the next morning.

The point is, the rallies may be highly desirable to the President, but they are not politically necessary, or anything close to it. Meanwhile, trying to move forward with them carries some significant political risks. We've already seen numerous, high-profile cases where one person at a funeral, or one person at a choir practice, or one person at a meeting infected dozens of others with tragic results. What if a few mask-rejecting, COVID-19-infected Trump lovers show up for a rally and infect hundreds or thousands of people? What if dozens, or hundreds, die? Very possible, especially since, if you've seen a picture of a Trump rally, you know the attendees are not exactly a picture of youth or of good physical health. And if it did come to pass, it would be disastrous, since the blood of those folks would be on Trump's hands, while at the same time it would run utterly contrary to the administration's "this thing is basically over" narrative.

Alternatively, Trump could move forward with the rallies, only to discover that there aren't 15,000 people willing to gamble with their health. A half-empty or three-quarters-empty arena does not give him the adrenaline rush he craves, and also makes for terrible PR. If measures were to be established for protecting the health of the attendees—social distancing, you don't get in if you have a fever, etc.—it would have the same downsides, from where Trump sits. So too would some sort of "virtual" rally.

We are reminded, at this point, of the President's planned military parade. He wanted that so badly he could taste it, and he clung to hope for a very long time before wiser heads prevailed and convinced him that the costs were simply not worth the benefits. Looking at the rallies, it's very possible the same dynamic will play out. (Z)

Donald Trump, Military President

In 1924, Congress adopted the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, which granted cash payments to the veterans of World War I. However, in a decision that reflected the realities of operating the federal government on a relatively small budget, as well as a fair bit of political opportunism, the full payments were not scheduled to be made until...1945. That meant that the political benefits accrued to one generation of politicians, while paying the bills was theoretically made the problem of the next generation. However, when the Great Depression hit, things got messy, and many poor and homeless veterans marched on Washington (several times) to demand early payment of their bonuses. Their demands were eventually met in 1936.

It seemed that the federal government had learned its lesson from that fiasco, since assistance to the veterans of the next war (i.e., World War II) was extended while the war was underway, and was available to them immediately. That legislation, formally entitled the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, but commonly known as the G.I. bill, granted assistance with employment, home loans, and tuition to any soldier who served on active duty for at least 90 days. As we've pointed out before, this is one of the most wildly successful pieces of legislation in American history, as it helped vast numbers of military personnel achieve a secure, middle-class existence.

In response to COVID-19, 40,000 National Guard members were activated in late March in order to assist with testing for and tracking the disease. It's risky work, with the result that over 1,000 soldiers have themselves contracted COVID-19. Their labor is still needed, but on Tuesday the White House announced that, come hell or high water, their service is expected to conclude on June 24. That just so happens to be...89 days after they were first deployed.

Needless to say, this timing certainly looks fishy. It's not like 90 days of service entitles someone to the same benefits as, say, a careerist who puts in 20 years. But it does afford some benefits, like some tuition assistance, which seems apropos given the risks that these folks have taken, as well as the fact that the economy is sluggish right now, and that's often the best time to go back to school. Maybe there will be an outcry, and this decision will be reversed. In any event, it's still more evidence that Donald Trump's claims to being pro-military are about as substantive as his claims to being a Christian.

It is hard to see what Trump gains from this. Will the guardsmen and guardswomen be glad that Trump deactivated them just in time that they don't get the benefits their dangerous service should have entitled them to? By Election Day, will they have long forgotten this clever move on Trump's part to avoid running the federal debt up a hair? If Trump were actually concerned about the national debt, there are a whole bunch of very expensive bills he could have vetoed, but didn't. This is just another example of Trump being unable to think even a day ahead, let alone until the election. (Z)

The Legal Blotter, Part I: Voting Wars Continue in Texas

The country is at war. With itself. Over voting. Democrats want to expand absentee voting. Republicans want to curtail it. Every avenue is being explored.

Texas' law states that seniors may request an absentee ballot for any reason or for no reason, but that anyone under 65 who wants to vote absentee needs a valid reason. The main ones are being out of the country on Election Day or having a disability that prevents the voter from going to the polling place. Voting-rights advocates sued the state in state court, arguing that during a pandemic, not wanting to die was a valid reason for requesting an absentee ballot. A lower state court agreed. The case was appealed to higher state court, which sustained the ruling. Then, last week, the Texas' Supreme Court stayed the appeals court ruling until it could hear the case itself.

Now there is a new wrinkle. The Texas Democratic Party went to federal court to try to get a ruling allowing all voters to get an absentee ballot. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery ruled that being afraid to die was indeed a "disability." He also rhetorically asked what the difference is between a voter who is 65 on Election Day (and who can get an absentee ballot) and one who is 65 the day after Election Day (and who cannot get one). Judge Biery also cited the Grim Reaper, writing "The Court finds the Grim Reaper's scepter of pandemic disease and death is far more serious than an unsupported fear of voter fraud in this sui generis experience." It shouldn't be relevant who nominated Biery to the bench, but sadly, that always seems to play a role these days in judicial decisions. Biery was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Texas AG Ken Paxton immediately appealed Biery's ruling. It is inevitable that both the Texas Supreme Court case and Biery's ruling will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. However, whether it will get there and be heard and ruled on before November is not clear. (V)

The Legal Blotter, Part II: Oregon Stay-at-Home Orders Are Back on, for Now

Yesterday, we noted that an Oregon circuit judge had struck down Gov. Kate Brown's (D) stay-at-home order. What we missed, as it turns out, is that the Oregon Supreme Court quickly swooped in and stayed the ruling. So, the order is back on, at least for now.

There have now been several decisions sustaining such orders, and several overturning them, at both the federal and state levels. Undoubtedly, the nuances of each state constitution complicate things, but so too does the fact that there isn't all that much established legal precedent in this area. Maybe all the lawsuits and appeals now pending will change that, and there will eventually be clarity. On the other hand, given that courts tend to move slowly, and that most states are moving fairly quickly to, at very least, a partial re-opening, then maybe not. (Z)

The Legal Blotter, Part III: Another Trump Family Lawsuit

There is yet another lawsuit accusing the Trumps of dishonest business practices, and it's a biggie. The nuances and subtleties are numerous and varied, but the basic idea is that Donald Sr., Donald Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and the Trump Corporation are jointly accused of numerous crimes, the most serious of them is running an illegal pyramid scheme. The family wanted the suit to be postponed until after Donald Sr.'s term, since he is so very busy being president. However, on Tuesday, federal judge Lorna G. Schofield (an Obama appointee) said "no dice" and allowed the suit to move forward immediately.

It is very unlikely the case will be resolved prior to November, but that does not make it entirely irrelevant to this year's election. First, the discovery process will get underway, and may turn up some stuff that the President would prefer not see the light of day (possibly including, apparently, some adverse Apprentice footage). Second, the predominant crime here is racketeering, which carries a stiff sentence. The Trumps are innocent until proven guilty, of course, but the evidence looks to be pretty substantial, and this is certainly consistent with past "initiatives" (e.g., Trump University). In any event, even if the next presidential administration decides not to pursue any sort of action against Trump for various things he did while president, and even if NY AG Letitia James makes the same decision, the plaintiffs in this case (and a few others) aren't going away. So, the whole Trump family has much reason to be nervous about what will happen once Donald Sr. is no longer in office. That, in turn, will feed the President's desperation if we get closer to November and it seems like he's headed for a defeat. (Z)

Loeffler is Toast

The Georgia special Senate election is a complicated beast. Appointed senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) has to earn her keep by winning a special election on Nov. 3. It is hard to forecast, because there are two major Republicans and two-and-a half major Democrats running, plus a bunch of minor players. If no one gets to 50% on Nov. 3—and with so many players, it is likely that nobody will—there will be a runoff on Jan. 5, 2021, which is after the 117th Congress convenes.

Loeffler's main Republican opponent is Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), a hard-right close ally of Donald Trump. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) didn't appoint him to the seat, because Kemp was afraid Collins would scare off college-educated suburban women. The Representative took matters into his own hands and filed to run against Loeffler in the November primary.

On the Democratic side is Rev. Raphael Warnock, the pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Martin Luther King Jr. once preached. He is the choice of the DSCC. But Warnock is not home-free by any means. Running against him is Matt Lieberman, Joe's son. Matt is definitely not a chip off the old block. To start with, he is very funny, as his campign video, featuring his two teenage daughters, shows:

Joe was called a lot of things, but funny wasn't one of them. On top of that, this Lieberman wants bold action on the environment, wants to ban civilians from owning military weapons, supports a public option to Medicare, thinks we need a new Voting Rights Act, and is strongly pro-choice on abortion. Even in California he would be seen as a liberal Democrat, something Joe most certainly was not. Also running for the Democrats is former state senator Ed Tarver. He has no chance of winning, but he could affect the runoff by helping to determine which Democrat, if any, makes it.

Despite all these possible combinations, Civiqs, an online polling firm, has run polls on various possible runoffs, as follows. The colors indicate which party won each head-to-head contest.

Democrat	Dem. pct.	Republican	GOP pct.
Matt Lieberman	44%	Doug Collins	44%
Matt Lieberman	44%	Kelly Loeffler	32%
Ed Tarver	42%	Doug Collins	45%
Ed Tarver	43%	Kelly Loeffler	32%
Raphael Warnock	45%	Doug Collins	44%
Raphael Warnock	45%	Kelly Loeffler	32%

The message here is clear: Every Democrat wipes out Loeffler. The reason is largely that she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar, selling off her stocks just after getting a confidential briefing on how bad COVID-19 was going to be. She says she wasn't involved in the decision to sell them, but the Georgia voters think she is full of the stuff you sometimes find on the ground behind a bull.

Officially, the NRSC supports Loeffler, but it is clear they have to get her out of the race and take their chances with Collins. They can't bribe her because her husband is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange and a near-billionaire, so she is immune to money. She is also so tainted now that sending her off to be ambassador to, say, Nauru wouldn't work because Nauru would probably send her right back. Some creative thinking is called for here, and undoubtedly it is taking place behind closed doors.

We can't put this poll into our database because we don't know which of the Democrats will make the runoff. We also can't put the regular Georgia Senate election in the database either, because the Democrats also have a competitive (partisan) primary there. The main candidates are Jon Ossoff, who raised a fortune when he ran in a House special election; Teresa Tomlinson, former mayor of Columbus, GA; and Sarah Riggs Amico, the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor in 2018. Civiqs also polled this race:

Democrat	Dem. pct.	Republican	GOP pct.
Sarah Amico	42%	David Perdue	45%
Jon Ossoff	47%	David Perdue	45%
Teresa Tomlinson	44%	David Perdue	45%

Here too, all the Democrats are competitive, with Ossoff, who is leading in the primary polls, doing best. If a year ago people had told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that he was going to have to spend real money to defend two Senate seats in Georgia, he would have looked at them like they'd lost all their marbles. But it now looks like both races will be competitive. (V)

The COVID Diaries

Let's keep the at-risk population alive.

I keep getting suggestions from my friends that I cover topics related to where we go from here, what life will look like in a year or two, or how history will judge our response. I see this pandemic as if we are all standing in a burning building: let's first put out the fire, then we can worry about the rest.

One of the interesting aspects of COVID-19 is the very wide and seemingly bimodal biological response. In the high-risk group (>65, + 1 or more chronic conditions) COVID-19 will quite possibly hit you like a truck and, if you survive, you can be permanently impacted (way worse than the flu). For everyone else, the risk is much lower. For young, healthy people, there is a good chance that if you get it, you will not even know it (less bad than the flu).

I want to emphasize that "not at-risk" does not mean "no risk." As our understanding evolves, maybe we can figure out why some "not at-risk" people get sick and modify our definition of "at-risk." We will never be perfect. There will always be some young, seemingly healthy individuals who will get very sick or die (most of those will have gotten a more-than-average exposure) and there will be 70-year-old men with multiple chronic conditions who have mild cases (and will be interviewed on Fox).

The public policy (and personal) implication is that we need to pay very close attention to the at-risk population. Full disclosure, I just had my 65th birthday, so I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Here are the tips for those of us in the at-risk group (and those of you who care about someone in the group):

1. Nothing is going to reverse a lifetime of non-healthy living, but the response to this virus is all about the quality of your immune system. After consultation with your physician, get off the couch and walk more, eat healthy, stop smoking, drink in moderation, take vitamins, and lose some weight.
   
   
2. Socially isolate for the rest of 2020. No church, movies, restaurants, or parties. Don't take public transportation (including Uber or taxis). Do online shopping or have someone bring you groceries. Wear a mask anytime you are around people.
   
   
3. If you still work, if possible, work from home. If you can't work from home, now would be a good time to use up all vacation and sick days or retire. You really do not want to be in a crowded work environment if it can be avoided.
   
   
4. If you are going to get exposed, the less exposure the better. Wear a mask around other people. After being outside, wash your hands as soon as you come in the house. If you were around people, change your clothes (put them right in the washing machine) and take a quick shower.
   
   
5. If you live in an apartment, treat all common areas as infection zones. Wear gloves to get in and out of the building and then throw them away as soon as possible. Imagine that all surfaces are covered in wet paint that you do not want to get all over you.
   
   
6. If you share a household with other people, everything is just a lot harder. You can't easily socially isolate from people in your house, but handwashing can become popular. People can change clothes and shower when they come home from outside. For many medical workers, they no longer sleep in the same bed as their spouse. If anyone in the household starts showing flu-like symptoms, they need to get tested and not stay in the house if possible while they wait for the test results.
   
   
7. In New York, they are hiring people to do "Meals on Wheels" type services for the at-risk population (every now and again the government has a really smart idea). Locally in New Jersey, "Preferred Meals" is teaming with local restaurants to supply meals. Encourage your local governments and charities to do the same thing. This certainly sounds more useful than a bailout for Shake Shack (I know they returned the money). If you care about someone in the at-risk group, you can help them to stay isolated by shopping for them or doing errands.

Some answers to e-mails:

A.N. from Tempe, AZ, asked: I would love to see P.D. take an educated stab at extending this summary to include perhaps something along the lines of what would happen if a nonsymptomatic flu carrier were to attend a public gathering.

I have tried to avoid a detailed discussion of R0. I think keeping it in real terms is what is most appropriate here. Let's take the infamous choir example, where one person (or more) infected with COVID-19 took out the whole choir. If this were the garden variety flu, probably a few people would have caught the flu. With COVID-19, if you are symptomatic or not is not nearly as important as whether you are shedding virus. You can have virus in your sinuses with or without symptoms. Probably a higher concentration of virus if you are symptomatic and you will spew more virus if you are coughing or sneezing.

"Viral load" is one of those buzz words we should all know. If you get a face full of a COVID-19-filled sneeze, not only will you probably catch it, there is a good chance you are going to have a very bad time. This is why social distancing and masks can be literal life savers for the at-risk population.

F.C from Bronx, NY, asked: Hypertension is always listed as an underlying medical condition that increases the odds of dying from COVID-19. But what if the hypertension is controlled by medication? If your BP always measures below 120/80 because you are taking, say, Quinipril, what is your death risk compared to someone with uncontrolled hypertension? Similarly, for hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) and Atorvastatin.

I have not seen specific data for this, but when all else fails, we can use logic. Clearly if the patient is "sicker" they are going to be more at risk. Uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia will not improve your chances. There are lots of studies for mortality risk. Controlled diabetes, hypertension, etc. are still associated with poorer outcomes. The moral of the story is if you have one or more of those conditions (controlled or not), you should consider yourself at-risk and behave accordingly, particularly if you are over 65.

I want to ask my own question (I called my doctor buddies on this one): We have had reports of a "second wave in China" and with sailors recovering from COVID and then getting sick again. Does this mean that if you catch COVID-19, once you recover, you can still get it again? Will we never get any kind of herd immunity?

It will take a long time to really know how this virus behaves. We are closely tracking every patient treated and released from care. They are frequently getting sick and coming back to the hospital for treatment, but not because they got re-infected with COVID. They are coming back because they were so weakened by COVID that they are unable to completely recover. If you get a bad case of COVID, it causes all sorts of damage. It might be a long road to recovery. But there does seem to be pretty good evidence that once you get it, there is at least a much lower probability that you will get it again. Herd immunity is still on the table, and may be the most likely outcome. But we are a long way from having 70% (the generally accepted herd immunity percentage) of the population having any kind of acquired immunity. (PD)

Today's Presidential Polls

Any outlet that lists Virginia as a swing state (ahem, CNN) is working with decades-old intel. Clearly, it isn't anymore. Meanwhile, Arizona appears to be slipping away for the Republican Party. This may explain why the Biden campaign apparently isn't working too hard on Latino outreach; most of the states where it might matter (like CA, NM, AZ) are not really in doubt.

Meanwhile, as we also note above, Republican pooh-bahs can't be happy with what they are seeing in Georgia. (Z)

State	Biden	Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	50%	43%	May 09	May 11	OH Predictive Insights
Georgia	48%	47%	May 16	May 18	Civiqs
Tennessee	36%	53%	Apr 22	May 01	East Tennessee State U.
Virginia	51%	39%	May 03	May 16	Roanoke Coll.

Today's Senate Polls

Isn't it interesting that Mark Kelly and Joe Biden are basically tracking each other, but Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) is lagging Donald Trump by five points? Presumably, that means she's not Trumpy enough for one Arizona voter in twenty. In any event, her seat is nearing lost-cause territory, which could cause the NRSC to deploy their money and resources elsewhere. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Mark Kelly	51%	Martha McSally*	38%	May 09	May 11	OH Predictive Insights

* Denotes incumbent

---

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger