Nevada Approves Mail-In Voting, Will Send Ballots to All Registered Voters

The state of Nevada has approved a plan to implement sweeping vote-by-mail procedures for the November election, including sending ballots to the homes of every single registered voter in the state, as reported by CNN.

The legislation was passed through the state legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, along party lines. Governor Steve Sisolak (D-Nev.) signed the bill into law, thus making Nevada the eighth state overall to approve some level of vote-by-mail.

President Donald Trump criticized the new law on Twitter, pointing out that the law was passed “in an illegal late night coup,” in which “Nevada’s Clubhouse governor made it impossible for Republicans to win the state.” The president also pointed out that the “Post Office could never handle the traffic of mail-in votes without preparation,” and threatened a lawsuit to overturn the law.

Vote-by-mail has become the last major initiative by the Democratic Party, who ostensibly claim that the system will make it “safer” for Americans to vote in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, even as the disease is dying down and cases, as well as the death rate, continue to decline. But vote-by-mail can also lead to widespread voter fraud, especially when done in conjunction with legalized ballot-harvesting like what California has done.


Clouds of Summer Obscure the Coming Thunder of November

The most telling statistic that emerged in the past week was that more than 60 percent of Americans feel uneasy discussing their political preferences.

Apart from exposing once again the obtuseness, the moral bankruptcy, and the almost inexpressible hatred of the president that possesses the Democratic congressional leadership, Attorney General William Barr’s appearance at the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday clarified in a few minutes why the national interest requires the reelection of the administration.

From the refusal to allow the attorney general to answer the questions which the Democratic propaganda machine had assured the country would be unanswerable, to the almost unimaginable discourtesy of the bumbling and nasty committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)—who declined even to agree to the attorney general’s request for a five-minute break—to the concise dismissals Barr was able to make when allocated time by Republican congressmen to answer the belligerent allegations of their Democratic colleagues; all of it demonstrated the extent to which this election campaign has become an exercise in make-believe.

The fantasy that a successful administration that has bucked unprecedented illegal obstruction and is managing an epochal public health crisis is about to be handed a gigantic pink slip to give Democrats a mandate to transform the United States into a profoundly socialist country under a figurehead president who hasn’t the stature to be more than a loquacious senator or companionable vice president, continues to be widely believed. 

The Political Impossibility of Biden’s Platform

London’s Economist magazine, most of whose dwindling circulation resides in the United States, was until about 10 years ago an insightful and original publication judging most political and economic questions fairly and from a sensible progressive capitalist perspective. But today it illustrates the perversity of the anti-Trump delusional pandemic. 

In its July 4 issue, the Economist solemnly intoned that Trump would have to reverse the supposedly rampaging coronavirus pandemic, accelerate the economic recovery, and generally be a more empathetic chap in order to have more than the one chance in nine that the magazine gave him for reelection. Biden was extolled as naturally popular and his rather glaring shortcomings, including his shaky intellectual stamina and prodigious past financial abuse of public office, were simply whitewashed.

Even allowing for the fact that the Economist has sunk into the fetid marsh of globalism, green fear, and guilt-ridden Western self-criticism, it illustrates the purblind self-unawareness of the contemporary Western media that a Biden election is judged almost certain. 

In what its readers presumably imagine to be a thoughtful analysis, the Economist did not mention the likelihood that much of the Obama-Biden Administration is about to be indicted for the most colossal constitutional crimes in the country’s history in trying to alter and then undo the 2016 presidential election result. It did not blink at the complete political and practical impossibility of the program that Biden has now embraced. 

Misunderstanding FDR

Having been picked out of the electoral dumpster where the primary voters had left him, and placed by the party elders on the nomination throne, Biden has run away from the arms of his minders into the beckoning clutches of the Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez socialist Democrats. 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the Economist have proclaimed Biden to be the most “progressive candidate since FDR,” committing, like most commentators from Right to Left, the irritating mistake of accepting that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a man of the Left. (He was an altruistic capitalist who wished to make America safe for those who lived in 40-room houses on thousand-acre states as he did, and he saved 95 percent of a failed and bankrupt system.) The reactionary Right has allowed the Left to kidnap FDR and monopolize “progress.”  

Among other things, Biden is now pledged to work for the elimination of the oil and gas industry and the 7 million jobs connected to it; to increase drastically the taxes of the upper half of American income-earners; to reinvigorate the putrid corpse of organized labor for which a society that provides adequate legislative protection of working people has no use or need; to reopen the borders without limitation and permit anyone who purports to be an American resident to vote; to use harvested mailed ballots when necessary to assure a lopsided Democratic advantage in elections to come; to look positively into the virtues of reparations for African-Americans—an item budgeted at many trillions of dollars even by comparatively sensible African-American spokespeople; to stand down much of the American military; and to return to a policy of rigorous passivity opposite the Chinese lunge for world power paramountcy.  

None of these issues is being focused on now or were recognized by the Economist, and declared voting preferences have been influenced by the successful Democratic media campaign to terrorize the country over the coronavirus. 

Mob Violence vs. Law and Order

Trump is now diligently applying himself to being clearly, once again, on top of the effort to resume the reduction of the fatality rates. At some point in the next two months, he is going to have to commend to the voters the altogether American policy of ceasing to hide in fear from this illness and instead to concentrate on sheltering the vulnerable while the rest of the country, the 80 percent of people who have a 99.9 percent chance of surviving it, get on with their lives. Parallel to this process will be the resumption of the vertiginous reduction in unemployment numbers. 

What the public will remember from the appearance of the attorney general at the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday is his lamentation that one of the two great historic political parties of the country is now unwilling or unable to condemn mob violence, and when taxed with the COVID-19 crisis as if he were the secretary of health and human services, Barr reminded the Democrats that the Trump Administration inherited a completely depleted and almost useless public health crisis response capability from of the Obama-Biden regime. 

The most telling statistic on the election campaign that emerged in the past week was that more than 60 percent of Americans feel uneasy discussing their political preferences. As Republican National Committee spokespeople have asserted, most of the current polls are just part of the Democratic propaganda effort to discourage Republicans and continue the morale-boosting singsong of the Democratic multitudes trying to pretend that the country is cranking up to replace its most energetic president since Theodore Roosevelt with a waxworks dummy hiding in his basement, who has never, in nearly 50 years in politics, enjoyed any support outside the doll-house state of Delaware.

The election campaign is obscured by summer clouds. We will see the COVID-19 crisis subside, possibly accelerated by a vaccine, continuing economic recovery, the political consequences of the Democratic mollycoddling of anti-white racist urban violence, and we will see the full exposure of the constitutional crimes of the former administration which a Biden administration, as the attorney general said in the Capitol on Tuesday, would try to sweep under the rug. 

We all see this, but the majority are in suspensive denial or determined silence. All have seen the lightning; the thunder will come on November 3.


Will 2021 Be 1984?

It’s all about the power, not the equality.

Cultural revolutions are insidious and not just because they seek to change the way people think, write, speak, and act. They are also dangerous because they are fueled by self-righteous sanctimoniousness, expressed in seemingly innocuous terms such as “social activism,” “equality,” and “fairness.”

The ultimate aim of the Jacobin, Bolshevik, or Maoist is raw power—force of the sort sought by Hugo Chavez or the Castro dynasty to get rich, inflict payback on their perceived enemies, reward friends, and pose as saviors.

Cubans and Venezuelans got poor and killed; woke Chavezes and Castros got rich and murderous.

Leftist agendas are harder to thwart than those of right-wing dictators such as Spain’s Francisco Franco because they mask their ruthlessness with talk of sacrifice for the “poor” and concern about the “weak.” 

Strong-man Baathists, Iranian Khomeinists, and the German National Socialists claimed they hated capitalism. So beware when the Marxist racialists who run Black Lives Matter, the wannabe Maoists of Antifa, the George Soros-paid activists, “the Squad” and hundreds of state and local officials like them in cities such as Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis, and Big Tech billionaires take power. These are “caring” people who couldn’t care less about the working classes or the hundreds of African-Americans murdered in America’s inner cities.

Vice President as President

If Joe Biden is elected, the effort to remove him by those now supporting him will begin the day after the election and it will not be as crude as rounding up a Yale psychiatrist to testify to his dementia in Congress or shaming the White House physician to give him the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test in the manner that the Left went after Donald Trump.

It will be far more insidious and successful: leaked stories to the New York Times and Washington Post from empathetic White House insiders will speak of how “heroically” Biden is fighting his inevitable decline—and how gamely he tries to marshal his progressive forces even as his faculties desert him. We would read about why Biden is a national treasure by sacrificing his health to get elected and then nobly bowing out as he realized the cost of his sacrifice on his person and family. 

In the past until now, there was zero chance that the hard Left would ever win an American election. No socialist has ever come close. Even Bernie Sanders accepted that the Democratic establishment for six years broke rules, leveraged candidates to drop out, and warped the media to ensure that he would remain a septuagenarian blowhard railing at the wind from one of his three houses. George McGovern was buried by a landslide. Most Democrats, after Kennedy and until Obama, never won the popular vote unless possessed of a Southern-accented hinting at centrism.

Only the Great Depression and World War II ensured four terms of FDR, who still knew enough not to let his house socialists ruin the wartime U.S. economy.

But in perfect storm and black swan fashion, the coronavirus, the lockdown, the riots, anarchy and looting, all combined with Trump Derangement Syndrome to be weaponized by the Left—and the media far more successfully than with their failed pro forma, legalistic efforts with Robert Mueller and impeachment to destroy the Trump presidency—have pushed socialism along. 

Yet even that chaos and anarchy by itself would not have been able to bring the radical Left into power. Only a “candidate” like Joe Biden could do that.

“Good ‘ole Joe from Scranton” could offer the trifecta formula for a socialist ascension: a reassuring pseudo-centrism, decades’ old establishment familiarity, and his current cognitive decline. In a rare time of virtual campaigning, virtual conventions, and perhaps even virtual debates, Biden alone could successfully massage the virus/quarantine/rioting and panic to win the election, and then nobly exit. 

This is not the analysis of a conspiracy theorist but the operating principle behind the Democrats’ and Biden’s basement strategy. It is for that reason that his vice presidential selection is shaping up like none other in memory. In short, Joe Biden of all people is now the face of a cultural revolution, although even he may not fully realize it.

Fundamentally Transforming Everything

What should we expect then if Biden wins and either steps down or more or less is left as a diminished figurehead controlled by the hard Left?

First, there is one theme that unites “the Squad,” Black Lives Matter, the globalist technocracy, and the international Left: unapologetic anti-Semitism. We will see overt anti-Semitism in a way this country has not seen since the early 20th century, all couched in ideological and politically correct attacks on “Zionists” and “the rich” and “Wall Street”—and why Israel has no business being a “Jewish state.” 

It has already begun with an NFL player voicing Hitlerian tropes and praising Louis Farrakhan, and then being seconded by an array of rappers, woke Black Lives Matter activists and “Free Palestine” demonstrations. To smear “the Jews” no longer is grounds for an immediate and expected apology, but more “So what are you going to do about it?” Anti-Semitism is deeply embedded within the DNA of the BLM movement—and professional sports as well, as we saw recently from the warnings of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Charles Barkley.

“Eat the rich” sloganeering and plans for a wealth tax, and jacking up capital gains and income tax rates, all seem like they are aimed at the super-rich. But don’t think weaponizing the tax code, the government bureaucracies, and the culture itself will do much to the immense wealth of Jeff Bezos, the heirs to Steve Jobs, the Google zillionaires, George Soros, the Walmart fortunes, the lesser tech billionaires, the Facebook clan, or Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. None of them will be touched.

Why would any socialist go after the sympathetic mega-funders of the Washington Post, the Atlantic, Google or Apple News, Twitter, or Vox?

Left-wing billionaires are not so strange as we might think. After all, they can afford to be socialists. They like the idea that fewer may follow in their footsteps. They think social activism offers them penance for their hard-driving acquisitiveness. Most of all, they feel their knack for making money is proof that they have the wisdom, the right, and the need to redirect the lives of less successful others—and for the good of all.

Otherwise, the plutocratic class will spend hundreds of millions—a proverbial drop in the bucket in their fortunes—to consult with lawmakers about how to avoid their own progressive legislation and policies. It will hire phalanxes of tax lawyers, trust evaders, and philanthropy scammers that will make the architects of the Clinton Foundation seem a poor joke.

The real enemy in 2021 would be the upper-middle-class as it always is, the kulaks—and not really the professionals such as the lawyers, media grandees, and professors—although many should expect to become collateral damage.

The special targets will be the self-employed successful business class. The enemies of the people will be mostly those striving to be millionaires who run local insurance agencies, the store owners, salespeople, the successful medical practices, car dealerships, large family farms, the millions who keep the country competitive, innovative, and prosperous.

All of them lack the romance of the poor and the cultural tastes of the rich, but for the most part, they are just too damn informed and stubborn to be tolerated. They need to be marginalized by taxes, regulations, and a second-wave cultural assault that renders the prior “you didn’t build that,” “spread the wealth,” “no time to profit,” and “at some point you’ve made enough money” mere sandbox chatter.

The Coming Segregation

Race? We already see the new contours of the always changing commandments of the anointed posted on the Animal Farmbarnyard wall. A new segregation and apartheid will be sold as needed justice and enlightenment. Admission quotas and hiring on the basis of race will no longer be subtle but overt and triumphant. Separate facilities predicated on race will be common on campuses. What will happen if someone of the wrong race drinks from a fountain in a racially-segregated safe space?

Equality or superiority of result for the favored will be “justice.” Reparations will follow. The sort of creepy anti-white propaganda we saw at the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture will become orthodoxy. Some of the U.S. GDP won’t be devoted to production but rather toward ferreting out “racism” as they reconstruct society in order endlessly to punish “racists.” 

Merit will soon become a dirty, counterrevolutionary word.

Discrimination and the one-drop racial rules of the Old Confederacy will be rebranded as woke, hip, and progressive. Expect more Rachel Dolezals and Ward Churchills. In Seattle, the city conducted whites-only, segregated reeducation sessions, teaching the naïve how to undo their “whiteness.” It was overseen by an office of “civil rights” and sought to ensure that white employees give up their “comfort,” and even their supposed “guaranteed physical safety.” They were to curb any “expectations or presumptions of emotional safety,” or “control over other people and over the land,” and probably end “relationships with some other white people.”

All that was missing were the Maoist dunce caps. 

In 2020 we call racism and segregation “civil rights.” I doubt very many graduates of Seattle’s reeducation efforts decided to dismantle their home security system, will vote to defund the police, will declare their mortgaged home community property, or plan to shun their suburban neighbors if they appear too white looking. But that’s not the point. Instead, the state is joining the racists by institutionalizing venomous tribalism. An Oregon County tried to demand masks for all its residents except African-Americans—the sort of apartheid policy no one in his right mind four months ago would have imagined could be tried in the United States.

Borders? The wall will stop dead in its tracks, and what has been built likely dismantled. Citizenship and residency will be further blurred, with the rights of citizens insidiously transferred to resident aliens. Perhaps the word “citizen” will disappear as discriminatory. Illegal immigration will be favored over legal immigration, in that the latter is too diverse, too meritocratic, and too politically unpredictable.

Farewell to Institutions, Hello to “Progress”

The military? A progressive’s dream. It will transcend its current race and gender edicts in a way no elected slow-coach legislature could imagine. Virtue signaling and quotas will be the quickest route to flag-officer rank, and with it a nice retirement as a woke lobbyist, a wise-man member on an enlightened defense contractor board, a Wall Street “security analyst,” or a cable TV paid woke pundit. How a colonel handled “diversity,” not whether he understands tanks, planes, choppers, or guns will determine his chances at generalship. The Pentagon budget will be rebranded, as “national security” is no longer defined in anachronistic terms like hardware, missiles, ships, and planes, but by diversity and ending implicit bias—a sort of vast ongoing city of Seattle training session.

Finance? The country is broke. Yet the Left wants to borrow trillions for the New Green Deal, reparations, and massive new and expanded old social projects. 

It can do that only through one of three ways. It can institutionalize zero or negative interest for a decade or so until the debt crushes the United States. Or it can inflate the economy, eroding accumulated wealth and paying off debt in funny money. 

Or it can follow the Chrysler creditor model of the Obama Administration, and begin selectively renouncing debt obligations or reordering the priorities of various creditors. At first, the effort will appear noble and popular by canceling all student debt. But soon the Left will extend such exemptions to minority mortgages and credit card obligations. Debt cancellation and “starting over,” based on race, will be a cornerstone of the “transformation” as it has been since the age of Catiline.

High tech? Like the media, it will formally fuse into the progressive party, as elites go back and forth between jobs in Washington and those at Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. Everything from the order of internet searches to censoring ads and videos for their political content will be greenlighted. Silicon Valley will be seen as the most important asset of the Left, both for its political utility in blocking conservative expression, and its enormous wealth that fuels leftist campaigns.

Finally, if the Senate and House go progressive along with the presidency, the filibuster will end. And we will see fundamental constitutional changes never quite envisioned. Expect legislation to make the Electoral College inert without the use of a clumsy constitutional amendment process.

The Supreme Court will be enlarged and packed on a majority congressional vote to neuter existing conservatives until reinforcements of progressive new justices arrive.

Some will wish to make senators popularly elected on the basis of demography or the Senate expanded into the hundreds—anything to do away with the paleo-idea of two senators from Montana or Wyoming standing in the way of the bending arc of history.

Such are the wages of a global pandemic, national quarantine, sudden recession, cultural revolution in the streets—and an impaired Joe Biden.

Add it all up, and 2020 may be the first, best, and last chance for “1984”—and the Left knows it.


AG/TIPP Poll: Biden Beating Trump By Double Digits in Two Battleground States

A new poll shows presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden beating President Donald Trump by double digits in the key swing states of Florida and Michigan. At the same time, a plurality of voters in Florida approves of the job Trump is doing with the economy, a key metric for determining success at the ballot box.

The American Greatness/TIPP Battleground Poll sampled 907 adults in Michigan and 910 adults in Florida in the online surveys.

In Michigan, 51 percent of likely voters said they would vote for Joe Biden, while only 38 percent said they would vote for Trump.

The president fared only slightly better in Florida, where 40 percent of likely voters said they would for Trump, as opposed to 51 percent who said they’d vote for Biden.

While the results seem ominous for Trump, some of it can be explained by the phenomenon of “social desirability bias.” In 2016, it appeared that many Trump voters gave inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they would open themselves up to criticism.

In Michigan, 45 percent of adults said they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 46 percent said they disapproved.

The president did better in Florida, where a plurality of respondents said they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy 49 percent to 45 percent.

In Florida, 44 percent of those polled said they expected Trump to win the presidential election versus 42 percent who said they believed Biden will win. In Michigan, more voters thought Biden would come out on top, 42 percent to 39 percent.

The polls also showed an enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democrat voters. In Michigan, 302 conservatives claimed to be “very interested” in voting in November, while only 246 liberals said the same. In Florida, 263 conservatives claimed to be “very interested” to the liberals’ 223.

Significantly, sixty-two percent of Trump voters in Michigan said they “strongly” supported the president, while 55 percent said they “strongly” supported Biden. In Florida, 72 percent of Trump voters said they strongly supported the president, versus only 56 percent said they strongly supported Biden.

Biden however had higher favorability ratings than Trump in both polls, with 48 percent of respondents saying they had a favorable opinion of the former vice president in Michigan, while only 37 percent said they have a favorable opinion of Trump. In Florida, 40 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Trump, and 50 percent said they have a favorable opinion of Biden.

President Trump got low marks in both states for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and racial tensions related to George Floyd’s death. In Michigan 60 percent of adults said they disapproved of his handling of the coronavirus outbreak, versus only 33 percent who said they approved. In Florida, 55 percent of adults disapproved versus 38 percent who approved. A whopping 62 percent of adults in Michigan said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of the George Floyd protest, while only 26 percent said they approved.

In Florida, 57 percent disapproved of the president’s handling of the George Floyd protests, while only 32 percent approved.


The Biden Factor Is Difficult to Calculate

President Trump should win, but that does not now provide any certainty that he will.

Whe final stage of the election campaign and its result will depend on four factors: management of the balance between demand for police reform and concern for the maintenance of public order; whether there is a significant revival of COVID-19; the swiftness of the economic recovery; and the resolution of questions about Joe Biden’s apparent capacity to serve as president.

Hovering above the campaign will be the question of indictments from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s special counsel investigation. On all that has been revealed, crimes will be charged, and Attorney General William Barr confirmed last week that those whose conduct is likely to be judged controversial will be “familiar” names. But they may not include elected officials and apparently not Biden himself. The Democratic position will be a revival of the claim that Barr is a Trump stooge (an outrageous falsehood) tempered by their revival of the concept of presumption of innocence, which they conveniently abandoned during the Russian collusion hoax.

Biden will claim complete ignorance of any improper conduct. It still does not make for a salubrious atmosphere for the Democratic orgy of claimed virtue that we may confidently expect.

Both parties will have to show great care in pleasing public opinion which registers high majorities for reform of police conduct, especially in interracial encounters, but strongly supports law enforcement as an institution. The country has greatly evolved since Chicago Mayor Richard Daley publicly ordered police to shoot to kill some categories of demonstrators in 1968.

But the abandonment of police forces by a number of prominent governors and mayors has also offended public opinion, and more importantly, in many cities the police themselves cannot be far from mass resignations or a general work stoppage. If any such thing occurred, the recent fainthearted and somewhat contemptible remarks of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley disapproving of the use of the military to restore domestic order will be immediately rejected by a public rightly fearful of a skyrocketing crime rate.

Biden has adequately kept his distance from the police de-funders. Presumably, the radical nihilists and anarchists who have been so much in evidence in the nighttime scourges of vandalism, arson, and assault, however disappointing they may find the Democrats, will vote for Biden, if they can bring themselves to vote at all. The secret for the Republicans is not to seem unconcerned with police bigotry and brutality against minorities, and for the Democrats to be invulnerable to the charge of demotivating or undervaluing the police.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s description of the police (who protect his family at taxpayers’ expense) as “killers” could be a mortal self-inflicted wound if emulated by Biden. The president will have to be careful not to get tangled up in side-show issues like renaming Fort Bragg and other Confederate tokens. Even Robert E. Lee has probably been too much honored, but the Democrats will have to muzzle those who want to rename the Washington Monument and repurpose the Jefferson Memorial.

The profusion of cellphone and security cameras ensures that a huge number of police encounters with citizens will be recorded. There are 375 million interactions between police and members of the public every year in a country of nearly one-third of a billion people, and a reassuringly small number of them become difficult. Only nine unarmed African-Americans were slain by police last year, perhaps some of them in dubious circumstances but still,  statistically it’s an infinitesimal number.

As a practical matter, almost every such encounter that is controversial is apt to be massively reproduced in the media and given the left-wing slant of most television political coverage.

The Republicans will have to manage these issues carefully as they arise, in order not to be tarred with the brush of oppressive reaction. The media and demonstrative elements of the population will provide unlimited ammunition for the defunders and police abolitionists. It will require great care for both candidates and their campaigns to reconcile reform measures with assurance of public security; one false step and either campaign could blow up. Biden’s indiscretions and bobbles are more frequent than Trump’s, but the media is friendlier to him; both are high-risk candidates.

Restarting the Economy in the COVID-19 Era

Everyone from the center to the far-Left seems to be clinging with a sort of crisis nostalgia to a pessimistic view of the COVID-19 crisis.

Understandably, all the Democrats who were emotionally committed to a prolonged economic shutdown that would sink the president, are darkly opining at every opportunity that the COVID crisis is not over. Never mind that no one is suggesting that it is, other than in its original sinister proportions.

The disease appears to be effectively boxed into the upper fifth of the population above the age of approximately 65. For those beneath that age, including almost the entire workforce, the risk is minimal and there is no reason to impose any restraints on them. Those who are vulnerable should know to take precautions and particular attention should be paid to those in homes for the elderly, where the incompetence of some state governments caused terrible problems in the early stages of the pandemic.

Trump should be able to open up the economy without a dangerous spike in fatalities; occurrences of the illness, since over 90 percent of people have mild or no symptoms, is not in itself worrisome.

Economic reopening should stoke up employment, income, investment, and spending, and this, linked to the heavy infusions of demand and inundation of liquidity, should generate spectacular economic growth.

Economics is half psychology and half third-grade arithmetic, and by both criteria, since the country desperately wishes and will work for the return of prosperity, the administration should have a strong economic argument, which is traditionally the greatest single electoral issue.

Known Unknowns

The Biden factor is a difficult one to calculate. He is holding his position in the polls despite a series of gaffes and incoherence that traditionally would have scuttled any candidate.

Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election largely on his assertion that he did not consider Poland to be a Soviet-dominated country, omitting the adverb “permanently.” Any previous presidential candidate in the era of the electronic media as verbally accident-prone and lacking in fluency as Joe Biden would have vanished without a trace long ago.

It is true that some of the president’s flippant remarks are self-inflicted wounds though his ardent followers seem to be impervious to them: if the “Access Hollywood” tape didnt sink him among them, nothing will.

But it would be hazardous to assume that once the country has to make a choice between just two candidates that Biden’s shortcomings could not be decisive. The other normal issues such as the administration’s success in drastically reducing illegal immigration, revising trade agreements, cutting taxes, deregulating, and eliminating unemployment prior to the pandemic, could all move some votes, even though they seem today to have been forgotten. The policy toward Iran and North Korea, which have not produced the retaliation that the Democrats had predicted, are unlikely to be much aired unless there is an incident (which Trump would go to any lengths to win).

Much has been made of the president’s supposed precipitate descent in the polls, but it has not been steep and it is not irreversible. He is now trailing but not by much and the result will almost certainly be determined by the issues summarized. Trump should win but that does not now provide any certainty that he will.