Thoughts from Across the Pond

Ever wonder what foreigners think of Trump?

A “Nate White” apparently posted a response to that question last year on Quora.  While an appropriate Quora profile exists, I can find no direct proof of authorship.  No matter.  The essay has been preserved on the Internet and, regardless of the author, it deserves to be repeatedly shared.  The piece precedes the pandemic but is still, unfortunately, a quite accurate summary of the man.

I only wish I’d written it.

—-

Quora Question:  “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

Nate White’s Reply:

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a sniveling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

  • Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
  • You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

The Politics of COVID-19, Part III

It irritates the hell out of me that I have to keep coming back to this topic.  The latest reason is the Republican argument against providing financial assistance to the states in the next stimulus package.

The pandemic should rightfully be a political issue in the 2020 campaign.  However, politics should be kept to a minimum with respect to our national response to the pandemic.  Americans need help.  If the federal government has a purpose, I’d think this would be it.

Republicans are free to argue against providing budgetary help directly to state and local governments.  I’ll personally note that those budgets fund things like schools, police, and firefighters.  And, since we just spent $2.2 trillion propping up corporations, I’ll contend that also throwing some money at public services isn’t completely out of line.  However, a debate on the merits of the funding is at least valid.

My problem is that Republicans aren’t arguing the merits.  McConnell said that federal aid would be a “blue state bailout” and Trump claimed it’s “not fair to the Republicans, because all the states that need help, they’re run by Democrats in every case.”

Even if those statements were true (spoiler: they aren’t), they would be entirely beside the point.  When disaster strikes one or more states in any form, consideration of their political disposition is simply disgusting.

As to the validity of the statements, here’s just a few quick reminders:

  • The two hardest hit areas are New York and California.  And, yes, both happen to be Democratic states.  However, metropolitan airports in those two states handle 57% of our country’s international flights – the major source of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S.  And who is responsible for international travel into the U.S.?  That’s right.  The federal government.  If you break it, you buy it.
  • New York consistently pays the federal government over $35 billion a year more than it gets back.  McConnell’s home state of Kentucky consistently receives over $40 billion a year more from the federal government that it pays in.  So who exactly is “bailing out” whom?
  • Many states controlled by both parties are seeing major budget shortfalls.  By no stretch of the imagination is this a “blue state” problem.
    • The very red state of Georgia (whose Atlanta airport handles 7% of international flights) is projecting a budget shortfall of about $4 billion.
    • The swing state of Florida (whose Miami airport handles 12% of international flights) is looking at a $10 billion budget shortfall.
    • My home (and red) state of Texas (whose DFW and Houston airports handle 11% of international flights) doesn’t yet know how bad we’ll be hit (given our 24-month budget cycle).  However, the concurrent oil & gas slump isn’t going help things and our financial picture won’t be at all pretty.

While the premise of a “blue state bailout” is easily contradicted by the facts, it just isn’t important.  Multiple states need help.  It doesn’t matter if those states are red, blue, or green.  The federal government needs to their damn jobs and stop playing political games.

Talking Trump

A good friend, knowing I’d be thoroughly appalled, sent me a link to buy a talking Trump figurine that excretes a collection of 17 recorded droppings from Trump himself.

“It’s like having the President in the same room with you!”

Thanks, Carol.  I now have a new definition of Hell.

Upon reflection, however, it occurred to me that this is actually a terrific idea – it just uses the wrong quotes!  Our country absolutely needs a version that more accurately reflects the man’s true essence.  Not only could the proceeds fund an entire campaign, it would really get under Trump’s skin.

While there’s a plethora of preposterous possibilities, here’s my suggested set of 17 replacement quotes:

  • “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
  • “I won’t have time to play golf if I’m elected president.”
  • “He’s not a war hero.  He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
  • “I know words.  I know the best words.”
  • “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
  • “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”
  • “We have the worst laws.”
  • “And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over.”
  • “I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
  • “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain.”
  • “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside.”
  • “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.”
  • “My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”
  • “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”
  • “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total.”
  • “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.”
  • “No, I don’t take responsibility at all.”

Can somebody please send me the link to THIS product?

Biden’s VP

Joe Biden recently announced the formation of his VP selection committee.  I’m hurt that I wasn’t asked to participate, but I thought I’d add my two cents anyway.

Since Biden already announced that his pick will be a woman, that considerably narrows the field.  I’ve identified thirteen women that, at some point, have been touted as a potential VP selection by either Biden himself or by someone in his inner circle.  While Biden could certainly pick someone not on this list, it’s doubtful.  Trial balloons are always a good idea.

I then defined a model for the analysis based on ten weighted criteria and assigned each candidate a letter grade in each category.  For grading purposes, I split the women into five groups: Governors, Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Representatives, and Influencers.  Some of the grades were assigned based on known facts while other grades were purely my judgement calls.  (Alternative opinions are certainly valid but, hey, it’s my blog.)  From there, it was just math.

I’ll discuss the criteria and add some commentary below, but here’s the raw results in one table.  Click on the table to display a larger version; hit the back button to return here.

The following are the ten questions I posed for each of the ten criteria, each in my weighted order of importance.  My methodology for determining each grade is also noted.

  1. Could the person function effectively as President?
    • This criteria is obviously the most important.  Biden will be 78 when he’s sworn into office.  ‘Nuff said.
    • These grades are assigned based on the person’s resume.  I personally don’t think any of the field gets an A here and I decided against grading on a curve.
      • B:  Governors and Senators
      • C:  Representatives and Influencers
      • D:  State Representatives
  2. Could the person help win the 2020 Electoral College?
    • This criteria is also of utmost importance. A Biden/Anybody ticket needs to win and, in fact, the criteria list could easily just stop here.  I’ll note once again that I’m not at all interested in someone who can rack up additional votes in the liberal states that Biden will win anyway.  I’m likewise not at all interested in someone that can narrow Biden’s margin of defeat in a Republican state.  It’s all about winning the Electoral votes in the swing states.  The VP selection must increase Biden’s chances of winning one or more of the six toss-up states and also help guarantee that the ticket doesn’t lose the seven states that only lean Democratic.
    • These grades are my judgement calls as to how much the person could help the ticket win one or more swing states.
  3. Does this person have the media savvy, the verbal prowess, and the debate skills to function as the campaign’s barker?
    • Biden is not exactly a master in front of a camera or microphone.  He might be best positioned as a CEO with his VP choice as his front-and-center COO.  With the right choice, Biden could take a policy-centric high road and leave the political mud wrestling to his VP.
    • These grades are my judgement calls based on how the person has handled themselves in speeches, interviews, debates, hearings, etc.
  4. Would the person’s winning as VP have no impact on the number of Democrats in the Senate?
    • If a sitting Senator is selected, that seat needs to safely remain Democratic.  While winning the Presidency is the primary goal, winning the Senate – or at least not losing seats – is very important as well.
      • A:  Non-Senators
      • B:  Senators in seats that are likely to remain Democratic both via a temporary appointment by a Democratic Governor and in a special election
      • C:  Senators in seats that are at risk in either
      • D:  Senators in seats that are at-risk in both
  5. Would the person “balance” the ticket?
    • In addition to selecting a woman, Biden should also try to select someone from a younger generation since all three of the other ticket toppers are older than dirt.
    • The other possible balance criteria are race and politics – neither of which I find remotely interesting as independent criteria.  If a black, Latina, or progressive woman can help win the Electoral College, dandy.  Otherwise, there’s no reason whatsoever to just check a box.  (The fact that three of my top five candidates are black is not due to any consideration of their race.)
    • Grades are assigned by age at time of inauguration:
      • A:  <=55
      • B:  56-60
      • C:  61-65
      • D:  66-70
      • F:  >=71
  6. Would the person’s winning as VP have no impact on their state’s response to the pandemic?
    • If a sitting politician is selected, there needs to be a very solid answer to any questions of abandonment of their current office in a time of crisis.  I also wouldn’t put it past Trump to make any sitting Governor’s job handling the pandemic harder than it already is.  It’s also more than possible that he’d tweak the federal response levers just to make a sitting Senator look bad.  He could and he would.
      • D:  Governors
      • C:  Senators
      • B:  Representatives
      • A:  Others
  7. Does this person have a proven ability to fundraise at a national level?
    • Money does matter.
      • A:  Influencers
      • B:  Those that ran in the Democratic primary
      • C:  Other Senators and Governors
      • D:  Representatives
  8. Has this person been recently and sufficiently vetted by the national press?
    • In politics, surprises are seldom good things.  Furthermore, it’d be best to select someone that already has national name recognition.  Given the current travel restrictions, an introductory tour of the country isn’t a likely option.
      • A:  Those that ran in the Democratic primary
      • A/B/C/D:  Judgement calls on all others
  9. Could the person lead the party post-Biden and possibly win in 2024 should Biden choose to not seek a second term?
    • Biden would start a second term at the age of 82.  Just sayin’.  It pays to think ahead.
      • These grades are my judgment calls.
  10. Does the person have a military background?
    • Military service should always be a plus in elected office.  I also give credit in this category to anyone that has been a first responder.
      • A:  Military service
      • B:  First responder
      • F:  Others

A bit of candidate-specific commentary:

  • The highest grade on my list is a B-.  There is no perfect choice.
  • While Michelle Obama would be the best choice according to this analysis, she’s made it perfectly clear that she’s not at all interested.  She means it.  Moving on.
  • The next two choices were at the top of my VP list over a year ago.  In that post, I suggested that a Biden/Harris ticket was the Democratic party’s best shot at a win.  I also noted that a Biden/Klobuchar ticket was my close second choice.  The prior post was a more organic analysis and I stand by those opinions.  I’m quite happy that this more formal analysis independently produced a similar result a year later.
  • While Whitmer would be a good choice as well, it’d be very tough for a sitting Governor to campaign for another office during a pandemic.
  • Oprah’s simply not interested.  It’d be an attention-grabbing choice, but it’s not going to happen.
  • In case anyone cares, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) isn’t on the list because she doesn’t yet meet the Constitutional age requirement for VP.  If she did, she’d be at the bottom of the list.
  • Stacey Abrams has been getting a whole lot of press with respect to a potential VP nod – mostly because she’s actively campaigning for the job.  However, despite a national profile, she’s near the bottom of my list. Abrams served as a Georgia State Representative for 10 years, running unopposed in her last three elections.  She ran for Governor of Georgia in 2018 and lost.  While she came closer than expected, she still lost.  Thus, Abrams has not won any contested election in over a decade – and when she did it was in a GA state district with less than 30K voters.  The step up to VPOTUS is whole staircase.  She wouldn’t even carry her home state on a national ticket.

I think Harris, Klobuchar, and Whitmer will be the final three contenders for the VP spot and, personally, I’d be happy with any of them.  However, if I was placing a bet, it’d still be:

Biden / Harris 2020

COVID-19 Analysis II

Since I had a positive response to my initial COVID-19 analytics, I’ll try to post updates on a semi-regular basis.  This post uses data as of 4/24/20.  See below for commentary and some explanatory notes.  Click on any table to display a larger version; hit the back button to return here.

Selected Countries by % of Cases

Selected States by % of Cases

Selected Metropolitan Areas by % of Cases

Selected Metropolitan Areas by Estimated Peak

Commentary

  • Iceland continues to show the world how to handle COVID-19.  With 1 in 191 people testing positive, they do show a higher incidence of cases than most countries.   However, since Iceland has tested 1 out of every 7 of their residents – far more than anyone else – they’ve proven that a large number of people with COVID-19 are asymptomatic carriers.  This implies that other countries conducting  only minimal testing likely don’t know the extent of their actual problem.  Iceland’s overall success is underscored by a very low fatality rate of 1%.
  • The U.S. still lags in testing coverage at only 1 in 72 people.
  • In the U.S., NYC is still the major hotspot with 1 in 57 people testing positive.  New Orleans is close behind at 1 in 67.  Detroit has the worst fatality rate at 9%.
  • While my home state of Texas still appears to be doing comparatively well, Texas has pitiful testing coverage at only 1 in 121 people.  Compare that to New York where 1 in 28 people have been tested.  It’s likely we’re not doing nearly as well as we think we are.
  • The data shows that current restrictions are working and also suggests that it’s too early to relax them.  While businesses do eventually have to reopen, a few extra weeks would seem to be prudent.

Approach

  • Most published analytics focus on case counts.  However, case counts are only meaningful in the context of potential case counts.  I thus look at the percentage of cases within a given population center.  Since these percentages are mostly less than 1% (at least for now), I also report cases in terms of an easier to grasp “One of Every N People”.
  • I report deaths as a percentage within a given population center, in terms of  “One of Every N People”, and as a percentage of the reported cases (the fatality rate).
  • I currently follow states that are either the hardest hit or are 2020 toss-up states.
  • I also currently follow several metropolitan areas in the U.S.  Since the virus spreads via close contact, this would seem to be the most useful information.  For these, I add a simple means to track progression.  Within four rolling weeks (to avoid both daily noise and old data), I report the rate of increase in the number of cases.  This is akin to tracking the acceleration of the infection.  Obviously, the goal is to first get the acceleration to zero with a resultant constant rate of infection.  Only then can the area begin to decelerate until the actual number of cases approaches zero.  Finally, I add an extremely rough projection as to when each area could reach an acceleration of zero if everything stays the same (which it won’t).
  • There are way too many variables at this point to model any future deceleration.
  • My primary data sources:  New York Times, COVID Tracking Project, Texas DSHS, Worldometer, US Census Bureau.
  • All analytics are only as good as the underlying data and there are numerous reasons to question the validity of some of my datasets.
    • Some entities only report confirmed cases; others report presumed cases.  Some entities (e.g. China) are pretty obviously under-reporting their numbers.
    • Case counts depend on access to testing and that varies wildly from country-to-country, state-to-state, and county-to-county.
    • Reporting on testing itself is even more uneven.  My data source for U.S. test data felt the need to grade each state’s data quality.
    • While I attempt to normalize data from multiple sources, the fact remains that each source dataset is independently generated with its own collection methodology.
  • If asked nicely, I can try to add reporting for other countries, states, and/or metropolitan areas in future posts.

Quoting Trump

The Priorities USA super PAC released a 30-second ad that juxtaposed Trump’s own pandemic statements with concurrent case counts.  In response, the Trump campaign sent cease-and-desist letters to numerous TV stations – including a threat to pull their broadcast licenses – to try to keep the ad off the air.

What an absolutely brilliant campaign move.

The result was to give the ad a whole lot of media attention, tons of free air time, and, of course, a massive number of internet plays. (See: The Streisand Effect.)

Just wanted to do my bit to spread the word.

2020 1st Look – The Texas House

It’s time to take an early look at the Texas State House of Representatives.

Democrats have a slight chance to reclaim the Texas House for the first time in 20 years.  It’s a VERY long shot at the moment, but it’s worth some premature attention due to the vast importance of that flip both to Texas and to the nation.

The next Texas legislature will redraw the state’s districts for the next decade and a Democratic House could stop the severe gerrymandering that Republicans will impose if they completely control the government.  Since a Republican Texas Governor and a Republican Texas Senate are foregone conclusions, the Texas House is the only option for Democrats.  Note that districts will be redrawn both for the Texas Legislature and for the Texas seats in the U.S. House.   The latter could impact control of the U.S. House through 2030.  In short: It’s important.

To retake the Texas House, Democrats need a net gain of 9 seats in November.  The Texas Democratic party claims to be targeting 22 seats to flip.  An independent Democratic group claims to be targeting 17 seats to flip.  On the other side of the aisle, the Republican party claims to be targeting all 12 seats that they lost to Democrats in 2018.  All of these targets are delusional.  Both parties will need to spend considerable resources just to defend seats they already have.  The reality is that Democrats will likely make net gains but will travel a pretty tough road to a possible majority.

As always, I ignore the races that will safely remain in either Democratic or Republican hands, leaving only 30 of 150 races that are even worth following.  I list those 30 races by goal categories in order of where Democratic focus (i.e. money) can best be applied.  My analysis thus doesn’t necessarily prioritize the “best” candidates; it prioritizes the races that can best produce a Democratic win of the chamber.

At this point, polling data is almost non-existent and many races haven’t even finalized the ballot since run-off primary elections are still TBD.  Thus, my early analysis is based on voting data from the 2018 elections and the 2016 Texas Senate race, demographic trends, party attention to the district, and the relative strengths/weaknesses of the known candidates.

Below is a first rough cut at a breakdown of the Texas House races that deserve Democratic focus.  <Click on the table to display a larger version.>

Here’s a bit more detail by goal category:

  • Defend:  Current Democratic seats that Lean D or are Toss Ups
    • These six races are defensive.  Democrats absolutely need to retain these seats and the races promise to be close.  At the moment, the Democrat is slightly favored in four of races; the other two are toss-ups.
  • Win:  Current Republican seats that are Toss Ups
    • These nine races are the best chances for Democratic flips.  Democrats need to win every single one of these seats to retake the Texas House.  As I said, it’s a VERY long shot.  Note that seven of the nine seats are roughly in the DFW metroplex.
  • Stretch:  Current Republican seats that Lean R
    • These two races are stretch goals.  Each deserves Democratic attention as a buffer for a possible loss above.
  • Hold:  Current Democratic seats that are Likely D
    • These seven races are defensive.  While Democrats should be able to hold them, they aren’t guaranteed.  If there’s money left over after focusing on the races above, it should go here.
  • Hope:  Current Republican seats that are Likely R
    • These six races are long shots – and Democrats would need to get very lucky to win any of them.  The best they can do is hope.

While my analysis will likely change over time, it seems at the moment that Democrats could barely eke out a 2020 majority in Texas House.  While unlikely, it is at least possible.  And it’s too important not to try.

The Further Politics of COVID-19

Trump continues to play a very dangerous political game with the nation.

He’s been all over the map with respect to what role the federal government should play in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.  He failed to take the lead in the initial stages of the pandemic and, in fact, downplayed its significance for political purposes until it was way too late.  He then pushed all responsibility to the states, forcing them to compete against each other for medical supplies.  He followed that with claims of “absolute” power to override state lockdown orders, despite the 10th Amendment.  After pushback from across the political spectrum, he then told each state to “call your own shots”.  Yesterday, however, he was tweet-ranting against state orders:  “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” “LIBERATE VIRGINIA!”  It was no coincidence that Trump’s tweets came immediately after news coverage of armed protesters outside of those state capitals.

Trump desperately wants to be seen as in charge and demands a parade whenever someone in his administration actually does their job in spite of him.  However, Trump himself is not only unwilling to take any responsibility for anything, he is actively supporting open insurrection against legal orders from state governments.  It is again no coincidence that the states being attacked by Trump are all led by Democratic Governors.

Many Governors – of both parties – are trying their very best to walk a very thin line between saving lives and getting their states back to work.  In two of the hardest hit states, Governor Newsom of California and Governor Coumo of New York separately rolled out very sane metrics-driven plans this week.  Both Democratic Governors projected optimism but neither sugar-coated the challenges ahead.  The apolitical sanity of their approaches is reflected in their current popularity:   Newsom has an approval rating of 83%; Coumo has an approval rating of 79%.  Both had pre-pandemic approval ratings of under 50%.

The Trump administration subsequently published a set of very high-level guidelines for a three-phased approach to reopen the economy.  It offered no federal assistance and was nowhere near as detailed as the previously released state plans.  Although both too obvious and too optimistic, the federal guidelines were relatively sane and explicitly left interpretation of the guidelines to the states.  Unfortunately, Trump didn’t read his own administration’s guidelines.  If he had, he might have realized that the states he wants to “liberate” haven’t yet reached the criteria for entering even the first phase of the those guidelines.

The subsequent response from many Republican Governors has been extremely disappointing.

In my home state of Texas, Governor Abbott initially chose to let counties define their own pandemic policies, saying that what might be right for urban areas might not be right for rural areas in our rather large state.  While his approach was perhaps naïve, it was at least consistent with a small government philosophy and Abbott was at least supportive of strict county-led policies of containment.  However, after the federal guidelines were announced, Abbott issued orders overriding some stricter guidelines defined by numerous Texas counties.

Abbott’s sudden conversion to a state-level, open-the-flood-gates approach simply reeks of politics – particularly since his announcement was littered with irrelevant and undeserved praise for Trump.  The fact that Texas has done fairly well compared to other states thus far is due to the restrictions imposed at local levels – not due to any actions by our Governor or our President.  Personally, I’m less than thrilled with their interference.

Concurrently, a large gathering of idiots protested Texas business closures on the grounds of our state Capital — in open defiance of legal social distancing orders and basic common sense — and were not dispersed by state authorities.  Trump also tweeted support for the protesters — presumably because any group featuring Alex Jones must be above the law.

To be sure, some Republican Governors are wisely charting their own courses in spite of Trump’s demands of the moment.  Governor DeWine of Ohio has received universal praise for his decisive handling of the pandemic.  While he hasn’t yet released a detailed plan for moving forward, he thanked Trump for his guidelines while rather pointedly noting that Ohio would not rush to remove the state’s current restrictions.  Republican Governors Baker of Massachusetts and Hogan of Maryland have been similarly willing to do what is in the best interests of their states without regard to politics.

Whether right or wrong, in our form of government, each state is indeed empowered to take the lead within their borders.  However, the federal government does have significant roles to play – and the publication of vague, unenforceable guideline documents isn’t on the list.  Expressing open support for the armed defiance of state orders probably shouldn’t make the cut, either.

At this point, the one thing that the federal government can and absolutely should do is to take responsibility for the guaranteed availability of COVID-19 test kits and the supplies necessary to process those tests.

While each state would need to take the lead in the administration of such tests – and in the difficult contact tracing necessary for those tests that come back positive – each of the 50 states simply cannot be separately responsible for making sure that our country can develop and/or obtain the massive number of test kits necessary to track and contain COVID-19 cases.  Until a treatment and/or a vaccine is available, our very best defense against the pandemic is data.  Lots and lots of data.  And the only way we can get that data is to test as many people as we can as often as we can.  In particular, antibody tests can tell if someone has ever been infected with COVID-19, regardless of whether or not they ever experienced symptoms.

If we know who is currently infected, who they’ve come in contact with, and who is likely immune, we have a decent chance to control the virus without the indiscriminate social distancing currently employed.  Note that Iceland’s very aggressive program has currently tested approximately 10% of their population.  Their resultant data suggests that 50% of COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic – implying that if we only track those people that get visibly sick, we’ll miss half of the problem and make no progress whatsoever.

Trump, of course, has been beyond inconsistent with regards to testing:

  • On March 6, Trump started by making promises he didn’t keep, stating that “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.”  This obviously wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.
  • On March 13, Trump responded to a reporter who asked if he took responsibility for the lag in testing with “No, I don’t take responsibility at all.”  So there.
  • On March 18, Trump tried to shift blame for faulty test kits to the Obama administration claiming that “We inherited a very obsolete system.”  This was patently false as the test kits in question were designed during the Trump administration.
  • On March 24, Trump simply claimed success by stating that ““We now are doing more testing than anybody.”  While technically correct, the statement ignores the relative size of the U.S. population.  On a per capita basis, the U.S. currently ranks behind numerous countries (e.g. Germany, Italy, Canada, South Korea) in tests performed.  With an estimated 3.7M tests performed in the U.S. as of this writing, we’ve tested only 1% of our population.  That’s not nearly enough.
  • On April 6, Trump then pivoted to a pass-the-buck stance, stating that “States can do their own testing.”  Yes, but they need test kits to do that testing and the federal government is in the best position to guarantee availability.
  • On April 10, Trump claimed that extensive testing just wasn’t necessary:  “We’re going to do testing, but you don’t need to test 325 to 350 million people.”  Actually, testing 100% of the population would be optimal and testing 1% is nowhere near sufficient.
  • On April 17, Trump went back to buck passing, tweeting: “The States have to step up their TESTING!”  Dude.  Try to understand.  The states need tests to do testing.
  • On April 18, Trump inexplicably claimed that Governors simply “don’t want to use all of the capacity that we’ve created. We have tremendous capacity.”  So, every Governor in every state has the ability to test more but just isn’t doing it?  Sure.  That makes sense.

Given the immense resources of the United States, Trump has it within his power to flood the country with test kits and processing supplies.  He could negotiate with foreign countries and companies to augment national resources where necessary.  He could provide coordination across labs in multiple states to speed up processing.  He could guarantee that all private labs will be paid if they maximize capacity even if that capacity isn’t used.  He could make tests freely and regularly available to every person in every state, even without a doctor’s order, in return for their active participation in the associated study.  He could offer up the FBI and/or the military to assist the states in contact tracing. He could create a national database to pull together data from all 50 states and make an anonymized version of it freely available to every state in the nation and to every country in the world for research purposes.

So here’s my question:  Who the hell is advising this guy anyway?  COVID-19 testing shouldn’t be a political issue, but okay, let’s say it is one.  If being seen as a hero and winning the 2020 election are the only things that matter to Trump, why is he not all over this?  In this case, good policy would be great politics.

Does Trump truly believe that he can continue to play his standard misdirection game and then either quickly claim credit if things go well or blame others if they don’t?  Is Trump so afraid of taking any responsibility at all that he’s willing to let people die rather than at least try to help?  Is Trump so enamored with the political game that he seriously wants to keep the federal government on the sidelines so that he can try to blame Democrats when everything goes to hell?  Is Trump simply too dense to understand the consequences of his actions and non-actions?

While any and all of the above are valid possibilities, I’m going with that final proposition.

2020 2nd Look – The Senate

It’s been just shy of a year since I last wrote about the 2020 Senate races.  While many things (including some of the candidates) are still in flux, an updated look seems appropriate.  While Republicans are still favored to retain control of the Senate, the chances of a Democratic takeover have improved enough to warrant serious attention.

Democrats will need a net gain of 3 Senate seats if Biden wins the Presidency or a net gain of 4 seats if Trump wins.

As before, I’m ignoring the Senate races that will safely remain in either Democratic or Republican hands, leaving 16 races worth following.  They are presented here by goal categories in order of where Democratic focus (i.e. money) can best be applied.  Within each goal category, the races are ordered by the probability of a Democratic win based on current polling data (albeit scarce), the relative strengths/weaknesses of the known candidates, recent state voting trends, and a few other factors.

Here’s a bit more detail by goal category:

  • Defend:  Current Democratic seats that Lean D
    • These two races are defensive – and Democrats absolutely need to hold these seats.  Michigan and New Mexico are both Electoral College swing states in 2020, impacting the dynamics of the down-ticket Senate races.  While the retirement of Democrat Tom Udall in New Mexico made that race more competitive than it needed to be, Democrats are still slightly favored to hold the seat.  Democrats are also favored to keep the Michigan seat but can’t take it for granted.
  • Win:  Current Republican seats that are Toss Ups
    • These five races are the best chances for Democratic flips – and Democrats need a clean sweep of all five.  That’s not probable, but it is possible.  The late entries of John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock helped a lot; Mark Kelly is proving to be a strong candidate; Republican incumbents Susan Collins and Thom Tillis both have serious popularity issues.
  • Stretch:  Current Republican seats that Lean R
    • These two races are stretch goals – but each deserves Democratic attention as a buffer for a possible loss above.  The Kentucky race deserves special attention due to the strength of Amy McGrath and the depravity of Mitch McConnell.  Joni Ernst isn’t quite as polarizing but is still a valid long-shot target.
  • Hold:  Current Democratic seats that are Likely D
    • These two races are defensive – and, while Democrats should easily hold them, they aren’t guaranteed.  If there’s money left over after focusing on the races above, it should go here.
  • Accept:  Current Democratic seats that are Likely R
    • This race probably isn’t winnable  – and Democrats shouldn’t waste a ton of money trying to keep the seat.  Doug Jones just barely won last time against a child molester and Alabama Republicans aren’t making that mistake again.
  • Hope:  Current Republican seats that are Likely R
    • These four races are extreme long shots – and Democrats would need a massive amount of money and luck to win any of them.  The best they can do is hope.  While I’ll personally contribute to MJ Hegar’s campaign in my home state, the unfortunate fact is that John Cornyn will most likely win re-election.

Based on my current analysis, Democrats can indeed reclaim the Senate in 2020.  They’ll just need to run the table to do it.

Trump vs. Trump

While everyone’s attention is elsewhere at the moment, the 2020 elections are just seven months away.  Some things have changed; some things haven’t.

Since my last post on the Presidential contest, Sanders dropped out of the Democratic race and endorsed Biden, making the latter the presumptive nominee.  On the Republican side, Trump is still a narcissistic jackass.

Meanwhile, Biden himself has been pretty much invisible – which is not necessarily a bad thing for now.  If Biden was a great orator, a calm voice of reason might help to fill our current national leadership vacuum.  Unfortunately, Biden isn’t an Obama… or a Reagan…or a (Bill) Clinton.  I do believe that Biden means well and has a good heart.  He’d be a very capable President who would surround himself with the best talent available – taking full advantage of their skills while functioning more as a Chairman of the Board.

Biden’s mouth does often get ahead of his brain, though, and in a normal election, that would be a fatal flaw.  However, since Biden’s opponent is the undisputed champion of verbal diarrhea, Biden’s gaffes shouldn’t be a huge disadvantage.  That said, it’s still probably best if Biden just lays low for a while, limits his exposure, and lets Trump implode all on his own.

The simple fact is that the 2020 Presidential election will be entirely a referendum on Trump and, in particular, his handling of the pandemic.

If we somehow find ourselves in November with a strong economy, with the pandemic under control, and with blame for all of the death and damage shifted elsewhere, chances are that Trump will win a second term.

If the economy is still struggling, if the pandemic is still impacting American life, and importantly, if Democrats can successfully (and rightfully) saddle Trump with full responsibility for our non-existent national strategy in the early days of the pandemic, Biden can win by simply providing a reasonable alternative.

As an early indicator, note that Trump’s approval rating is currently underwater at 44.2% with a stunning 51.3% disapproval rating.  That’s quite an amazing feat given our country’s solid history of rallying behind their President in a time of crisis, regardless of party.

One thing remains completely unchanged.  Despite COVID-19, our Presidential elections still aren’t popularity (or unpopularity) contests.  It’s still all about the Electoral College.  While COVID-19 has scrambled some of the 2020 political calculus, the basic Electoral Landscape has not seen significant change.  The states that were Safe or Likely states for both Democrats and Republican remain as they were.  However, while the swing states all remain swing states, they may be leaning just a bit more toward Democrats at the moment – or rather, just a bit more away from Trump.

Democratic Governors in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have seen double-digit improvements from their pre-crisis approval ratings.  Trump isn’t winning fans in those states by attacking their Governors and claiming “absolute” power to override their decisions.  Conversely, the Republican Governors of the swing states of Florida, Arizona, and Iowa have seen their approval ratings drop.  Trump’s embrace of these Governors isn’t doing him any favors, either.

Turns out that swing voters don’t particularly like a President who plays politics with their lives.  Imagine that.