Main page    Aug. 12

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: AZ GA ME MN NC PA WI
Dem pickups: AZ FL GA MI PA TX WI
GOP pickups: (None)

It's Kamala Harris

By now, everyone who follows politics—and most people who don't—has heard the news: Joe Biden decided to select Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate. She becomes, of course, the first woman of color to appear on a major-party ticket.

We (and everyone else) said that the VP pick would give a great deal of insight into the thinking of the Biden campaign. Well, here is what we learned:

And now, we sit back and see what the response is. The early returns are promising for the Biden campaign; they had their best hour and their best day of fundraising ever after making the announcement, taking in a total of close to $11 million. And now that Biden has chosen a woman of Indian descent as his running mate, we wonder if that will put additional pressure on Trump to throw Mike Pence overboard in favor of Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Randhawa), another woman of Indian descent. (Z)

More Voters Head to the Polls

Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Vermont had primary elections last night, while Georgia had its primary runoffs. Here are the main storylines from the latest round of voting:

Next Tuesday, as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway, Alaska, Florida, and Wyoming will have their non-presidential primaries. (Z)

Democrats Appear to Prefer Vote-by-Mail

Marquette has a new poll of Wisconsin out; it has Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in state by 5 points. However, that is not the part that everyone is paying attention to. No, it's one of the cross-tab questions, namely: "In the election this November, do you plan to vote in person on Election Day, vote in person during the early voting period, vote absentee by mail or do you think you might not vote this time?" Here are the numbers they came up with:

Ballot Type Biden support Trump support Neither Undecided
Election Day, in person 26% 67% 3% 3%
Early, in person 50% 45% 2% 1%
Absentee by mail 81% 14% 3% 2%

This is just one poll, of course, but these numbers square with other evidence we've seen this cycle. And it did not take long for commenters, like Political Wire's Taegan Goddard and CNN's Chris Cillizza, to notice that: (1) Trump's ballots are going to get counted first, giving him an apparent lead; (2) Joe Biden's ballots are going to get added later, potentially giving him an apparent come-from-behind victory; and (3) This will give Trump an excuse to cry foul, claiming fraud, and filing lots of lawsuits.

With all due respect to Goddard, Cillizza, et al., here is how we feel (and, in particular, how Z feels) about this news: So what?

First of all, Joe Biden could win by a hair, like JFK in 1960, or he could win in a landslide, like Ronald Reagan in 1984. Whatever happens, Donald Trump is going to claim all sorts of chicanery—undocumented voters voting by the millions, fake absentee ballots, Chinese interference, deep state involvement—and his base is going to believe it. You can take it to the bank. We know this because Trump has already run the same playbook, claiming all sorts of chicanery back in 2016, despite the fact that absentee balloting was far more limited than it will be this year and despite the fact that he won the election.

Because of this, it will be incumbent on the media to make clear what is really going on as the returns come in. Goddard supposes that "the media will almost certainly make it seem like Trump is winning while the mail-in votes are being counted." Frankly, we (and, in particular, Z) are shocked that he even wrote that. We have watched many, many election nights' worth of coverage, and assume he has as well. And outside of the Fox Newses and OANNs of the world, the commentators are incredibly careful to put returns in context. If you watch CNN, to take one example, there will be literally hundreds of occasions where John King or Wolf Blitzer says something like "but this is with only 22% reporting" or "we're still waiting for results from Dade County, which historically votes more than 80% Democratic" or "this is close enough that the outcome won't be known until the millions of mail-in ballots are counted." Every single one of the non-partisan commentators is going to know that the mail-in ballots have been skewing Democratic, and every single one of them is going to mention that many times over the course of the evening. It is inconceivable that they would create the impression that Trump is winning if the evidence does not clearly support that.

Further, we also believe that viewers are sophisticated enough to figure things out for themselves, no matter what the commentators say. Every single politics-watcher has had the experience of watching a political race, hoping for an outcome, and remaining on eggshells with 70% or 80% or 90% of the vote counted because you just never know. After all, there are often late swings. If Trump is up by 10 points in Wisconsin with 30% of the vote counted, is it really believable that people are going to take that to the bank, and are going to conclude that any further movement in the numbers is evidence of fraud? We are dubious that will be the response (again excepting people, like Trump himself, who have already concluded the election is fraudulent before it's even happened).

Under ideal circumstances, the results would come in both fast and accurate. But if we have to choose only one, particularly under the extraordinary circumstances of 2020, we choose the latter. And if it takes Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Florida or Ohio two days or five days or a week to get things right, and Trump spends the entire time on Twitter grousing and threatening lawsuits, again we say: So what?

There is, first of all, no guarantee (and no likelihood, for that matter) that Trump will magically lead in every state that has lots of absentee balloting. And if he "comes from behind" in, say, Texas, and Biden does the same in, say, Michigan, it's rather tenuous to argue that one was legitimate and the other wasn't. North Carolina will be an interesting state to watch. It is in the Eastern time zone and doesn't have much of a history of using absentee ballots, so it may have a larger percentage of in-person votes than, say, Florida, where absentee voting is common. Still, this year, North Carolina will have a lot more absentee voting than normal. And if Biden is doing well in the in-person voting in North Carolina, it could be a bellwether.

Further, it seems that Trump's ability to trample on virtually all norms of governance, and his savant-like ability to avoid consequences (so far) have persuaded people that he need only file a lawsuit and he's a winner. It's true that he's stacked the federal courts with some friendly judges, but electoral irregularities are generally a state matter. And it's not enough for Trump and 3 million of his closest friends in Alabama to think the Wisconsin returns are phony. They've got to have a cause of action, and they've got to persuade a judge (or, more likely, many judges) that their claim is valid, while being matched by the army of lawyers the Democrats also have at the ready. Oh, and even if the suits find their way into federal court, let us remember that the President often fails to secure the outcome he wants there.

None of this is to say that shenanigans are impossible. And everyone agrees that both the media and election officials should do everything they can to educate people in advance of a highly unusual election. However, we wonder what the value is in all these worst-case-scenario pieces, especially when they seem to be poorly thought out. Indeed, one could argue that by writing and publishing these items, the authors are doing a disservice to the democracy. If Trump and the GOP file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits on Nov. 4, that should be shocking and irregular. But every time we are warned that "Trump could use X as an excuse..." and "Reason Y could give Trump the cover he needs..." then it normalizes and maybe even legitimizes his anticipated bad behavior. (Z)

Are You Ready for Some Football?

If yes, you may be disappointed. Although the NFL says they are moving onward and upward, college football is in limbo, due substantially to its decentralized nature. The five so-called "power" conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC) are the foundation of the sport, and are pulling in different directions. On Tuesday, the Pac-12 and Big Ten announced that they are canceling all sports this calendar year, and will consider conducting a football season in spring, if viable. The ACC and SEC say they are sticking with fall football, though they will play only other conference teams. The Big 12 has yet to figure out its plans.

Needless to say, like all things these days, this has become politicized. Donald Trump recognizes that college football drives a lot of local economies, and is also a signifier of normalcy. So, he said it would be a "tragic mistake" if the season was canceled or postponed (translation: any risk is acceptable if it improves my chances of reelection). Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who takes his cues from the President, vowed that his state's Power Five teams (FSU, Florida, and Miami) would play on if he has anything to say about it (basically, he doesn't). On a macro level, it is not hard to notice that the two conferences that are sticking to their guns include schools located mostly in red/red-leaning states, while the two conferences that have already pushed the eject button include schools mostly in blue/blue-leaning states. For what it's worth, the still-undecided Big 12 has member schools exclusively in red/red-leaning states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia).

We shall see what happens here, but it is going to be difficult to stage a meaningful season with two major conferences (and several non-power conferences, like the MAC and the Ivy League) opting out. The bowl games won't really work, nor will it be plausible to award a national championship. Further, if players get sick and/or die, then in the inevitable lawsuits, the plaintiffs' lawyers are going to point out that the risk was so great that other schools didn't even try to play football. Our guess is that 2021 is going to feature the first-ever post-Easter Rose Bowl. (Z)

The Vaccine War Is Well Underway

On Tuesday, Russian "President" Vladimir Putin announced that Russia has successfully developed and deployed a COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, it was already administered to Putin...'s daughter. What is there to be skeptical about?

A lot, actually. Putin, of course, is an inveterate liar, and his primary concern appears to be "winning" the race and propagandizing the idea that Russia remains a scientific titan. Public health is not at the top of his list, to say the least. In support of their developed-too-quickly-to-be-believable vaccine, the Russians have offered...zero data. No clinical studies, no examples of successfully immunized people, nothing.

However, despite the overwhelming likelihood that this is just дым и зеркала (smoke and mirrors), it's eating Donald Trump up inside. He does not like to be beaten, even by his good buddy, and he desperately wants a vaccine in place before people start casting ballots next month. The Donald does not have the power to proclaim a fake vaccine, the way Putin does (at least not yet), but on Tuesday he did the best he could, announcing that the federal government has signed a $1.525 billion deal with Moderna for 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine, whenever it is ready.

Trump will try to spin this as major progress toward defeating COVID-19, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The vaccine in question has just begun clinical trials, and there is all sorts of potential for things to go off the rails. Further, distributing that many doses—should the vaccine prove workable—is no small feat, and even then, 100 million doses is nowhere near enough. Also concerning is that the vaccine is being produced "at risk," meaning that Moderna is already making doses, to be deployed the second the vaccine is approved (assuming that it is). They therefore have a huge financial stake in its success (or its "success"), while Trump has his huge political stake. The motivation to cut a corner here and there is...substantial, shall we say. (Z)

COVID-19 Diaries: Research Notes

It is now (mostly) accepted that masks and social distancing are both smart ways to slow the spread of COVID-19. There is very solid evidence documenting the value of both. Face shields have only recently been added to the list of things we can use to help prevent the spread of the virus.

It was well known that a virus could travel through the tear ducts to infect someone. What is new is that researchers found that there are receptors directly on the eyeball where the virus can attach. This was not unexpected news as health care providers (and other first responders) wearing masks were still becoming infected from time to time. These same receptors are less prevalent in children's bodies than in adults, which may help to explain why children are less susceptible to the virus.

Most studies show hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as having little or no value in treating or preventing COVID-19. There is a useful video that summarized the recent research (note: requires sign-up and approval). The video covers peer reviewed, double-blind studies that have researched HCQ usage in hospitalized patients (4 studies), outpatients (2 studies) and prophylactic (2 studies) settings. In each study, there was no evidence that the drug provided any benefits. In some cases, outcomes were actually worse when using HCQ. That said, there is good science that indicates HCQ interferes with viral replication, so it is still possible that HCQ might have some value, particularly early in the progression of COVID-19 or in preventative support of very high-risk individuals (for example, medical workers in at-risk categories). However, there is little evidence that this drug is any kind of game changer. On the other hand, Remdesivir appears to be much more effective and consistently shows value in studies.

On a different note, J.B. in Stratford, NJ sent this in:

Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory say that the R0 is not in the 2-3 range, it is way over five. Wow! What would this do? It would require a much higher herd immunity before the COVID-19 pandemic is tamed. We are talking in the 80-90% range before herd immunity ensues, if this holds up. So far there is no one contradicting this important article. This runs into the anti-vaccine crowd. Lots of people will refuse to get a vaccine, which is all the more reason to immunize tens of thousands of people per drug, in order to get the rare reactions into the public domain. There is nothing worse than terrible surprises. That said, this is the most depressing article I have read in a while. Comments?

I agree that it is depressing, but it does not change the basic story. The reality is that COVID-19 can be beaten if we take it very seriously and aggressively. If we do not take it seriously, then it rages unchecked through the population. The situation in the U.S. appears increasingly hopeless. However, China, Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Norway, Finland, and New Zealand all seem to be doing reasonably well (although there are increases in new cases showing up recently). New Zealand has virtually conquered COVID-19. Their last death was in May, and they have not reported more than 5 new cases on any single day since May 2. In spite of their stellar record, the U.S. State department just issued a "Level-2: Exercise Increased Caution" travel advisory based on alleged increased COVID-19 activity. I wonder what they did to deserve that?

Regarding your (J.B.'s) comment on vaccinations: I am not in any way an anti-vaxxer. However, I am only willing to get a vaccine that has been put through rigorous testing to prove safety and efficacy. It is not possible to have a vaccine ready before the election that has been adequately tested. However, I suspect that such an announcement will be one of the October surprises. (PD)

Dr. Paul Dorsey works in medical software, providing software to support medical practices and hospitals nationwide.

Today's Presidential Polls

Emerson consistently gives Donald Trump better numbers than pretty much any pollster not named Rasmussen (or Pulse). Still, even with their polls in the database, Joe Biden has 303 EVs in the "Strongly" or "Likely" Dem categories. (Z)

State Biden Trump Start End Pollster
Arizona 53% 47% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
Georgia 46% 44% Aug 06 Aug 08 SurveyUSA
Maine 44% 36% Jul 28 Aug 09 Critical Insights
Minnesota 51% 49% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
North Carolina 49% 51% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania 53% 47% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
Wisconsin 50% 46% Aug 04 Aug 09 Marquette Law School

Today's Senate Polls

Politico had an item yesterday headlined "Is Lindsey Graham Actually in Trouble in South Carolina?" Their answer was: He could be, since a lot of voters are angry with his Trump lapdoggery, and since he's drawn the toughest opponent imaginable (young, Black, well-connected, good fundraiser, etc.). This poll does nothing to argue against Politico's conclusion.

Meanwhile, we already knew that Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) are actually in trouble, even without Politico's help. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Arizona Mark Kelly 48% Martha McSally* 43% Aug 03 Aug 04 OH Predictive Insights
Arizona Mark Kelly 52% Martha McSally* 41% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
Georgia Jon Ossoff 41% David Perdue* 44% Aug 06 Aug 08 SurveyUSA
Maine Sara Gideon 43% Susan Collins* 38% Jul 28 Aug 09 Critical Insights
North Carolina Cal Cunningham 44% Thom Tillis* 41% Aug 08 Aug 10 Emerson Coll.
South Carolina Jaime Harrison 44% Lindsey Graham* 47% Jul 30 Jul 31 PPP

* Denotes incumbent


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers