hotair--2020-04-18--Clyburn to Biden campaign: C'mon man, hire more African-Americans

Rep. James Clyburn is credited with saving Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign .
Biden ’ s campaign was low on cash and Sleepy Joe was watching Bernie Sanders ’ early success in the primary season .
As the South Carolina primary approached , Clyburn made the decision to help Biden out .
Clyburn endorsed Biden at the eleventh hour , bringing along big support from African-American voters in South Carolina , which Biden desperately needed to win .
Fast forward to now .
Clyburn gave an interview on CNBC Friday and offered up some advice to Biden and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and staffers and round up more African-American volunteers , too .
These are the people Clyburn says can do outreach for the Biden campaign in black communities across the United States .
Clyburn knows that Joe can ’ t win without the support of the majority of black voters .
Clyburn says there is no time to waste , that the Biden campaign has to begin making serious efforts in getting out the vote now .
“ We have to get people involved in this campaign who know where and how to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to do on a national level what he did in South Carolina – get out the vote in African-American communities .
According to an NBC News exit poll , Biden received 61 % of the black vote in the South Carolina primary .
He is worried that if outreach efforts don ’ t begin now , black voters will stay home in November .
Then he used an odd anecdote to make his point .
He said that his wife Emily , now deceased , would get angry when a young white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ canvass voters .
That doesn ’ t sound very unifying , does it ?
That little anecdote makes her sound racist .
It just goes to show that when Democrat politicians give lip service for racial unity , it ’ s just malarkey .
It ’ s also why so many Democrats continue to label President Trump as a racist – it is to their benefit .
Democrats are relying on a large turn out of angry voters in November .
Instead of inspiring voters , Team Biden will keep anti-Trump voters motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oust Trump from office .
It ’ s not a pro-Biden vote , it ’ s an anti-Trump vote .
Remember that when Biden finally entered the race , he gave Trump ’ s experience with the Charlottesville protesters as the reason he jumped in .
He began his campaign by laying the foundation that he had to run because of Trump ’ s alleged racism .
How did that work out for Hillary Clinton in 2016 ?
The anger plays well on both coasts and urban areas but fails to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the Corn Pop characters he wants but he sounds phony .
Clyburn wants Biden to experience the kind of success Barack Obama had in turning out the black vote .
The problem is that Biden isn ’ t Obama .
He can talk about his best friend Barack from now until November but it sounds phony , opportunistic .
We ’ ve all read the stories that Obama encouraged Joe Biden to sit out the race , to not even run in the first place .
Obama only this week endorsed Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race .
It wasn ’ t even a great endorsement , especially given that Obama is known for his ability to deliver a solid message .
Black voter turnout in 2016 was down for the first time in two decades .
According to a report by the Pew Research Center , It fell to just over 59 % after a record 66.6 % turnout in 2012 .
Clyburn is sounding the alarm now to try to stop the downward trend from continuing .
Call me a skeptic but I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an old white man with 40 years experience dwelling in the swamp , will ignite black voter turnout as Obama did .
Clyburn is also bothered by the fact that the Biden campaign has decided to use a super PAC , Priorities USA , as its main big money partner .
Priorities USA was also used during Hillary ’ s run in 2016 and Democrats like Clyburn are anxious for other super PACs to get in on the action instead of relying on just one .
Biden reverted back to his days with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign on Wednesday called Priorities USA , which was founded in 2011 to support President Barack Obama ’ s reelection , “ a leader ” among the groups working to defeat President Trump and an “ organization of proven effectiveness.
” The statement was viewed as a sign to wealthy backers that they should give to Priorities over other groups .
But some prominent Biden supporters said the decision had alienated outside groups that had formed since 2016 and helped turn out voters for Democratic wins in subsequent elections .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which boosted Biden through the primaries .
Among top Democrats pushing the campaign to accept help from a broader constellation of groups is Rep. James E. Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) , an influential figure whose endorsement was pivotal to Biden ’ s momentum toward the nomination .
“ It ’ s a horrible mistake to put all the eggs in one basket , ” Clyburn said in an interview with The Washington Post .
“ I believe very strongly that everybody has a role to play .
No one person , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all people .
It just can ’ t happen .
One size does not fit all.
” Clyburn is probably right that more is better than only one when it comes to choosing a super PAC with which to align a campaign – campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with PACs by federal regulation but they can legally make public statements which signal support for their efforts .
Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake for the Biden campaign from super PACs and politically motivated non-profits .
Clyburn doesn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in 2016 .
Oh , did I mention that Clyburn ’ s daughter is on the board of Unite the Country ?
Yeah , there ’ s that , too .
Clyburn is a major player in the swamp these days .
It sounds like Clyburn wants to make sure his daughter reaps the rewards of his efforts in the South Carolina primary .
All this points to the fact that Joe Biden is yesterday ’ s candidate .
He is using the old playbook of taking votes for granted and waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in from super PACS to help him against President Trump in November as it did in South Carolina .
In the era of the coronavirus pandemic , campaigning is not as it normally is , though , and that ’ s to Trump ’ s advantage .
It will be pretty hard for Team Biden to outdo Trump ’ s campaign using ads and social media .

Rep. James Clyburn is credited with saving Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Biden’s campaign was low on cash and Sleepy Joe was watching Bernie Sanders’ early success in the primary season. As the South Carolina primary approached, Clyburn made the decision to help Biden out. Clyburn endorsed Biden at the eleventh hour, bringing along big support from African-American voters in South Carolina, which Biden desperately needed to win.
Fast forward to now. Clyburn gave an interview on CNBC Friday and offered up some advice to Biden and his campaign – hire more African-Americans as aides and staffers and round up more African-American volunteers, too. These are the people Clyburn says can do outreach for the Biden campaign in black communities across the United States. Clyburn knows that Joe can’t win without the support of the majority of black voters.
Clyburn says there is no time to waste, that the Biden campaign has to begin making serious efforts in getting out the vote now. “We have to get people involved in this campaign who know where and how to turn voters out.” It sounds like Clyburn wants to do on a national level what he did in South Carolina – get out the vote in African-American communities. According to an NBC News exit poll, Biden received 61% of the black vote in the South Carolina primary. He is worried that if outreach efforts don’t begin now, black voters will stay home in November.
Then he used an odd anecdote to make his point. He said that his wife Emily, now deceased, would get angry when a young white volunteer would knock on their door to canvass voters.
“She would get angry when she opened the door and an 18- to 20-year-old nonblack person asked if Emily is here,” he said. “I know that if we want to turn out African American voters you need to have people that they know,” he added. “That’s why you got to hire people in these communities if you want them to turn out to vote.”
That doesn’t sound very unifying, does it? That little anecdote makes her sound racist. It just goes to show that when Democrat politicians give lip service for racial unity, it’s just malarkey. It’s also why so many Democrats continue to label President Trump as a racist – it is to their benefit. Democrats are relying on a large turn out of angry voters in November. Instead of inspiring voters, Team Biden will keep anti-Trump voters motivated by anger, the sole desire being to oust Trump from office. It’s not a pro-Biden vote, it’s an anti-Trump vote. Remember that when Biden finally entered the race, he gave Trump’s experience with the Charlottesville protesters as the reason he jumped in. He began his campaign by laying the foundation that he had to run because of Trump’s alleged racism.
How did that work out for Hillary Clinton in 2016? The anger plays well on both coasts and urban areas but fails to work elsewhere. Joe Biden can make up all the Corn Pop characters he wants but he sounds phony. Clyburn wants Biden to experience the kind of success Barack Obama had in turning out the black vote. The problem is that Biden isn’t Obama. He can talk about his best friend Barack from now until November but it sounds phony, opportunistic. We’ve all read the stories that Obama encouraged Joe Biden to sit out the race, to not even run in the first place. Obama only this week endorsed Biden after he was the only candidate left in the race. It wasn’t even a great endorsement, especially given that Obama is known for his ability to deliver a solid message.
Black voter turnout in 2016 was down for the first time in two decades. According to a report by the Pew Research Center, It fell to just over 59% after a record 66.6% turnout in 2012. Clyburn is sounding the alarm now to try to stop the downward trend from continuing. Call me a skeptic but I don’t think any white Democrat, especially an old white man with 40 years experience dwelling in the swamp, will ignite black voter turnout as Obama did.
Clyburn is also bothered by the fact that the Biden campaign has decided to use a super PAC, Priorities USA, as its main big money partner. Priorities USA was also used during Hillary’s run in 2016 and Democrats like Clyburn are anxious for other super PACs to get in on the action instead of relying on just one. Biden reverted back to his days with Obama to make the choice.
Biden’s campaign on Wednesday called Priorities USA, which was founded in 2011 to support President Barack Obama’s reelection, “a leader” among the groups working to defeat President Trump and an “organization of proven effectiveness.” The statement was viewed as a sign to wealthy backers that they should give to Priorities over other groups. But some prominent Biden supporters said the decision had alienated outside groups that had formed since 2016 and helped turn out voters for Democratic wins in subsequent elections. One of those groups is Unite the Country, which boosted Biden through the primaries. Among top Democrats pushing the campaign to accept help from a broader constellation of groups is Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), an influential figure whose endorsement was pivotal to Biden’s momentum toward the nomination. “It’s a horrible mistake to put all the eggs in one basket,” Clyburn said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I believe very strongly that everybody has a role to play. No one person, no one entity can be all things to all people. It just can’t happen. One size does not fit all.”
Clyburn is probably right that more is better than only one when it comes to choosing a super PAC with which to align a campaign – campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with PACs by federal regulation but they can legally make public statements which signal support for their efforts. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake for the Biden campaign from super PACs and politically motivated non-profits. Clyburn doesn’t want to make the mistakes the Clinton campaign made in 2016. Oh, did I mention that Clyburn’s daughter is on the board of Unite the Country? Yeah, there’s that, too. Clyburn is a major player in the swamp these days. It sounds like Clyburn wants to make sure his daughter reaps the rewards of his efforts in the South Carolina primary.
All this points to the fact that Joe Biden is yesterday’s candidate. He is using the old playbook of taking votes for granted and waiting for the big money to come pouring in from super PACS to help him against President Trump in November as it did in South Carolina. In the era of the coronavirus pandemic, campaigning is not as it normally is, though, and that’s to Trump’s advantage. It will be pretty hard for Team Biden to outdo Trump’s campaign using ads and social media.


hotair--2020-04-18--More Pew: Trump edging Biden in battleground states

Now that Bernie Sanders has bowed out of the race , we can turn our attention to the general election — quaratine-style , of course .
Joe Biden ’ s locked in his basement , and Donald Trump is tethered to the White House , which means it might be a while before we see much deflection from the current status quo .
What exactly is that status quo , especially in the states that will make the difference ?
Pew Research ’ s latest survey puts Biden slightly ahead of Trump overall , 47/45 , but Trump reverses that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With about seven months until the general election , similar shares of registered voters say they would vote for Joe Biden ( 47 % ) or Donald Trump ( 45 % ) if the election were held today ; 8 % of voters say they wouldn ’ t vote for either or would vote for someone else .
… Republican and Democratic voters overwhelmingly favor their party ’ s candidate .
Trump holds an early advantage in Republican-leaning states , while Biden has an even wider lead in Democratic-leaning states .
In battleground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 47 % prefer Trump , while 45 % favor Biden ) .
That split doesn ’ t look promising for Biden .
The difference between Biden ’ s blue state margin ( 16 points ) and Trump ’ s red state margin ( 11 points ) isn ’ t all that wide .
That might give Biden a popular-vote win , just as Hillary Clinton got in 2016 , but maybe not by the same number of votes .
Trump ’ s edge in battleground states is close enough to call a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s lead in the overall poll — and Trump won those states in 2016 .
This also looks like a replay of 2016 in most of the demos .
Biden does better with college graduates and post-grads ; Trump does better with high-school graduates and those with “ some college.
” Trump gets 83 % of white evangelical Protestants and 62 % of non-evangelicals , while Biden carries 82 % of black Protestants and 62 % of “ unaffiliated.
” Worth noting , however — Trump is still carrying Catholics by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually is a bellwether in national elections .
Here are some other eye-raising demos : Ahem .
Getting 76 % of the African-American vote is not “ overwhelming ” for a Democratic presidential candidate — it ’ s disastrous .
Biden will need 90 % or more of that vote to beat Trump , and he will need an enthusiastic turnout to boot .
If Seven Months In The Future Guy ( apologies to Gary Cole ) showed up tomorrow and told Trump and Brad Parscale that Joe Biden would win 76 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Hispanic vote , they ’ d start measuring the Oval Office drapes for Trump ’ s second term now .
Those numbers won ’ t stay static , of course .
Trump gets 8 % and 23 % in those demos now , but most of the rest in the gap will likely go back to Biden — if he can excite them to turn out at all .
On that score , both Pew and Biden ’ s own performances suggest that he will struggle to close the sale .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether he can woo the Bernie Bros to his fold .
Sanders ’ withdrawal from the Democratic primary happened only ten days ago , and Sanders ’ endorsement of Biden took place only five days ago .
It takes time for warring factions to find at least an uncomfortable truce , if not an enthusiastic alliance , and this Pew survey took place in the six days before Sanders made his appearance on that awkward Uncle Joe Podcast to throw in with the party nominee .
There ’ s still plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , though , Sanders ’ bid had been all but dead in the water for a month , too , after Biden ’ s Super Tuesday sweep .
Even with that , a third of all Democrats sound pretty pessimistic about party unity now that Biden ’ s the nominee , and the younger respondents are , the more down they appear about it : Biden draws somewhat less support among Democratic voters who , in a January survey , named Bernie Sanders as their first choice for the nomination ( 83 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred Biden ( 94 % ) or other Democratic candidates ( 92 % ) .
Nearly all of those who supported Sanders in the earlier survey and don ’ t currently back Biden in the general election currently say they don ’ t support either of the two major party candidates ( just 1 % of Sanders ’ January supporters say they ’ ll vote for Trump ) .
With Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2020 presidential election , a majority of Democrats expect the party to rally behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November .
About six-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters ( 63 % ) say they expect the Democratic Party will solidly unite behind Biden in the presidential election .
Still , 36 % of registered Democratic voters say that differences and disagreements within the party will keep many Democrats from supporting him .
In a similar question in March 2016 , 64 % of Democratic registered voters said they expected that the Democratic Party would unite behind Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee , and roughly the same share said this of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s true that nominees face these kinds of issues in the days and weeks after the final concessions in primaries .
However , neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama came out of the gate looking and sounding like this : That is not confidence-inspiring leadership in the middle of a crisis .
Biden ’ s public appearances from his home studio have been so poor that they have created a cottage industry of speculation over DNC interventions to replace him on the ticket .
Andrew Cuomo gets most of that attention , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the question , even telling his brother more “ Nos ” than The Zombies ’ hit record from fifty-plus years ago .
Democrats are likely stuck with Biden anyway ; a move to replace him with anyone but Bernie Sanders would have the Bernie Bros marching away in droves .
But that doesn ’ t mean Biden ’ s going to generate enthusiasm for his candidacy , and it certainly won ’ t create the kind of fundraising he needs to compete with Trump ’ s media juggernaut for the persuadables .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those demo numbers could turn out to be his high-water mark .

Now that Bernie Sanders has bowed out of the race, we can turn our attention to the general election — quaratine-style, of course. Joe Biden’s locked in his basement, and Donald Trump is tethered to the White House, which means it might be a while before we see much deflection from the current status quo. What exactly is that status quo, especially in the states that will make the difference? Pew Research’s latest survey puts Biden slightly ahead of Trump overall, 47/45, but Trump reverses that in Pew’s battleground states:
With about seven months until the general election, similar shares of registered voters say they would vote for Joe Biden (47%) or Donald Trump (45%) if the election were held today; 8% of voters say they wouldn’t vote for either or would vote for someone else. … Republican and Democratic voters overwhelmingly favor their party’s candidate. Trump holds an early advantage in Republican-leaning states, while Biden has an even wider lead in Democratic-leaning states. In battleground states, neither candidate has an advantage (47% prefer Trump, while 45% favor Biden).
That split doesn’t look promising for Biden. The difference between Biden’s blue state margin (16 points) and Trump’s red state margin (11 points) isn’t all that wide. That might give Biden a popular-vote win, just as Hillary Clinton got in 2016, but maybe not by the same number of votes. Trump’s edge in battleground states is close enough to call a virtual tie, but then so is Biden’s lead in the overall poll — and Trump won those states in 2016.
This also looks like a replay of 2016 in most of the demos. Biden does better with college graduates and post-grads; Trump does better with high-school graduates and those with “some college.” Trump gets 83% of white evangelical Protestants and 62% of non-evangelicals, while Biden carries 82% of black Protestants and 62% of “unaffiliated.” Worth noting, however — Trump is still carrying Catholics by double digits, 52/42, in what usually is a bellwether in national elections.
Here are some other eye-raising demos:
Slightly more than half of white voters say they would vote for Trump (55%), while black and Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly likely to say they would vote for Biden if the election were held today (76% and 63%, respectively).
Ahem. Getting 76% of the African-American vote is not “overwhelming” for a Democratic presidential candidate — it’s disastrous. Biden will need 90% or more of that vote to beat Trump, and he will need an enthusiastic turnout to boot. If Seven Months In The Future Guy (apologies to Gary Cole) showed up tomorrow and told Trump and Brad Parscale that Joe Biden would win 76% of the black vote and 63% of the Hispanic vote, they’d start measuring the Oval Office drapes for Trump’s second term now.
Those numbers won’t stay static, of course. Trump gets 8% and 23% in those demos now, but most of the rest in the gap will likely go back to Biden — if he can excite them to turn out at all. On that score, both Pew and Biden’s own performances suggest that he will struggle to close the sale.
Biden’s fortunes will likely rest on whether he can woo the Bernie Bros to his fold. Sanders’ withdrawal from the Democratic primary happened only ten days ago, and Sanders’ endorsement of Biden took place only five days ago. It takes time for warring factions to find at least an uncomfortable truce, if not an enthusiastic alliance, and this Pew survey took place in the six days before Sanders made his appearance on that awkward Uncle Joe Podcast to throw in with the party nominee. There’s still plenty of time until the convention.
With that said, though, Sanders’ bid had been all but dead in the water for a month, too, after Biden’s Super Tuesday sweep. Even with that, a third of all Democrats sound pretty pessimistic about party unity now that Biden’s the nominee, and the younger respondents are, the more down they appear about it:
Biden draws somewhat less support among Democratic voters who, in a January survey, named Bernie Sanders as their first choice for the nomination (83%) than among those who originally preferred Biden (94%) or other Democratic candidates (92%). Nearly all of those who supported Sanders in the earlier survey and don’t currently back Biden in the general election currently say they don’t support either of the two major party candidates (just 1% of Sanders’ January supporters say they’ll vote for Trump). With Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2020 presidential election, a majority of Democrats expect the party to rally behind him ahead of the general election in November. About six-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (63%) say they expect the Democratic Party will solidly unite behind Biden in the presidential election. Still, 36% of registered Democratic voters say that differences and disagreements within the party will keep many Democrats from supporting him. In a similar question in March 2016, 64% of Democratic registered voters said they expected that the Democratic Party would unite behind Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee, and roughly the same share said this of Barack Obama in 2008.
It’s true that nominees face these kinds of issues in the days and weeks after the final concessions in primaries. However, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama came out of the gate looking and sounding like this:
The faces on CNN are priceless pic.twitter.com/plnuCAVXYl — Benny (@bennyjohnson) April 17, 2020
That is not confidence-inspiring leadership in the middle of a crisis. Biden’s public appearances from his home studio have been so poor that they have created a cottage industry of speculation over DNC interventions to replace him on the ticket. Andrew Cuomo gets most of that attention, but so far has flat-out refused to engage on the question, even telling his brother more “Nos” than The Zombies’ hit record from fifty-plus years ago.
Democrats are likely stuck with Biden anyway; a move to replace him with anyone but Bernie Sanders would have the Bernie Bros marching away in droves. But that doesn’t mean Biden’s going to generate enthusiasm for his candidacy, and it certainly won’t create the kind of fundraising he needs to compete with Trump’s media juggernaut for the persuadables. If Biden keeps sounding like this, those demo numbers could turn out to be his high-water mark.


hotair--2020-04-18--NY Post wrecks Facebook over their Wuhan lab "fact checking"

Almost two months ago , the New York Post ran an op-ed by Steven Mosher in which he argued that the wet market theory of how the novel coronavirus got loose didn ’ t make sense for a variety of reasons .
Prominent among them was the fact that there was no record of the market actually selling bats .
( That seems to be the current consensus as to where the virus first made the jump from animals to people . )
As an alternate suggestion , Mosher proposed that the virus might have escaped from China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not coincidentally also located in Wuhan , only a few miles from the market in question and right in the middle of the original outbreak zone .
Note that Mosher didn ’ t say this theory had been proven , but only that it would make sense and was probably more likely .
This wasn ’ t a news story .
It was an opinion piece .
Unfortunately , as soon as people started sharing the column on Facebook , the social media giant began clamping down on it .
References to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Information ” alert , informing readers that this conclusion had been “ checked by independent fact-checkers.
” With that , Mosher ’ s opinion piece was effectively censored by one of the world ’ s largest social media platforms .
Now , of course , we ’ ve learned that our own government is looking into whether the virus escaped the lab in Wuhan and it ’ s quickly becoming the new consensus opinion .
And this week the New York Post took Facebook to task for their sloppy , censorial work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent fact-checkers ” involved were far from independent .
Further , Chinese labs have a proven record of letting dangerous viruses escape in the past .
How , exactly , did Facebook determine that Mosher ’ s reasoned arguments constituted “ False information ” ?
Well , in fact , it didn ’ t so determine : Rather , it was an “ independent fact-checker.
” And who did this fact checker rely on for their opinion ?
As reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes , one expert consulted had a clear conflict of interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s researchers , and even done her own experiments there .
Danielle E. Anderson , assistant professor , Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore , personally attested to the lab ’ s “ strict control and containment measures.
” Anderson did admit , however , that Mosher was correct when he mentioned that SARS did twice escape a Beijing research lab in 2004 .
Facebook finally unblocked Mosher ’ s article on Friday , removing the “ False Information ” flag , while making no mention of the fact that they had clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven weeks .
By now , of course , the op-ed has fallen far down the memory hole for most readers , with tons of new virus-related content pushing it well off the page .
But it ’ s worth considering that this isn ’ t necessarily a case of simple incompetence on Facebook ’ s part , as the Post suggests it might be .
When seeking out an “ expert ” to investigate this theory , out of all of the doctors in the world , how would you randomly select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that lab for years and who was clearly willing to carry water for the CCP ?
And when the Chinese were unable to prevent SARS from escaping their labs ( twice ! )
, why would the prevailing opinion be that they were suddenly buttoned-down tightly ?
Far more likely is the scenario where Facebook began the process from a position of not wanting to believe anything negative about the Chinese government and sought out an “ expert ” that would support such a view .
After all , President Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the outbreak and we couldn ’ t have people going around and sharing opinion pieces suggesting he might have been correct to do so .
That ’ s not how journalism works in the 21st century , folks .

Almost two months ago, the New York Post ran an op-ed by Steven Mosher in which he argued that the wet market theory of how the novel coronavirus got loose didn’t make sense for a variety of reasons. Prominent among them was the fact that there was no record of the market actually selling bats. (That seems to be the current consensus as to where the virus first made the jump from animals to people.)
As an alternate suggestion, Mosher proposed that the virus might have escaped from China’s only Level 4 biohazard laboratory, perhaps not coincidentally also located in Wuhan, only a few miles from the market in question and right in the middle of the original outbreak zone. Note that Mosher didn’t say this theory had been proven, but only that it would make sense and was probably more likely. This wasn’t a news story. It was an opinion piece.
Unfortunately, as soon as people started sharing the column on Facebook, the social media giant began clamping down on it. References to the column were flagged with a “False Information” alert, informing readers that this conclusion had been “checked by independent fact-checkers.” With that, Mosher’s opinion piece was effectively censored by one of the world’s largest social media platforms.
Now, of course, we’ve learned that our own government is looking into whether the virus escaped the lab in Wuhan and it’s quickly becoming the new consensus opinion. And this week the New York Post took Facebook to task for their sloppy, censorial work. They also point out that the “independent fact-checkers” involved were far from independent. Further, Chinese labs have a proven record of letting dangerous viruses escape in the past.
How, exactly, did Facebook determine that Mosher’s reasoned arguments constituted “False information”? Well, in fact, it didn’t so determine: Rather, it was an “independent fact-checker.” And who did this fact checker rely on for their opinion? As reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes, one expert consulted had a clear conflict of interest: She has regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, and even done her own experiments there. Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, personally attested to the lab’s “strict control and containment measures.” Anderson did admit, however, that Mosher was correct when he mentioned that SARS did twice escape a Beijing research lab in 2004.
Facebook finally unblocked Mosher’s article on Friday, removing the “False Information” flag, while making no mention of the fact that they had clearly been wrong about this for more than seven weeks. By now, of course, the op-ed has fallen far down the memory hole for most readers, with tons of new virus-related content pushing it well off the page.
But it’s worth considering that this isn’t necessarily a case of simple incompetence on Facebook’s part, as the Post suggests it might be. When seeking out an “expert” to investigate this theory, out of all of the doctors in the world, how would you randomly select one who had actually worked with and at that lab for years and who was clearly willing to carry water for the CCP? And when the Chinese were unable to prevent SARS from escaping their labs (twice!), why would the prevailing opinion be that they were suddenly buttoned-down tightly?
Far more likely is the scenario where Facebook began the process from a position of not wanting to believe anything negative about the Chinese government and sought out an “expert” that would support such a view. After all, President Trump had already begun criticizing the Chinese for their handling of the outbreak and we couldn’t have people going around and sharing opinion pieces suggesting he might have been correct to do so. That’s not how journalism works in the 21st century, folks.


hotair--2020-04-18--Omar still flushing campaign cash into husband's firm

Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar ’ s husband is still making headlines , but not of the best variety .
( To be clear , we ’ re talking about her latest husband here , not the previous one who may or may not have been her brother . )
As you may recall , Tim Mynett is the owner and CEO of the E Street Group political consulting firm .
He ’ s been the primary beneficiary of the Omar campaign ’ s largesse , receiving the lion ’ s share of all the campaign contributions that Omar has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought to light previously , Omar didn ’ t slow down the cash flow a bit .
FEC records indicate the Mynett was the recipient of well over a quarter-million dollars in the last quarter .
( Free Beacon ) Democratic representative Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) continues to push cash from her campaign committee to her now-husband ’ s consulting firm .
Omar ’ s new committee filings , posted Wednesday afternoon , show that during the first three months of the year , the campaign paid $ 292,905 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a political consulting firm owned by Omar ’ s husband , Tim Mynett .
The cash , which reportedly went toward an array of services that included fundraising and advertisements , accounted for over 40 percent of the campaign ’ s $ 674,892 in disbursements .
Omar ’ s campaign raised a total of $ 456,374 during the last quarter .
Since Mynett ’ s firm received $ 292,905 , that means the E Street Group took in 64.2 % of all the money she raised .
Even if you add in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left over and paid out on top of that ( for a total disbursement of $ 674,892 ) , it still adds up to 43.4 % , or pretty close to half .
Pretty good work if you can get it , right ?
And because of the nature of our campaign finance laws , none of this is technically illegal .
In that regard , running a political consulting firm is an almost perfect way to “ process ” campaign contributions , because you ’ re not really required to produce any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t complain about it .
You have to provide advice , but that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that it has to be good advice .
You produce advertisements , but you get paid whether they actually move the needle in the polls or not .
Oh , and Mynett was also conducting fundraising for the Omar campaign .
In other words , he was collecting money on her behalf , knowing in advance that roughly half of it it would be turned around and put right back into his pocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being channeled into a district with a Cook PVI rating of D+26 and where Omar won in 2018 by a 78-22 margin .
Unless she somehow managed to lose the primary ( spoiler alert : she won ’ t ) , she couldn ’ t lose this race if she shot somebody on Main Street , to borrow a phrase from the President .
I don ’ t know of too many married couples who keep their personal finances 100 % separate .
Pretty much every couple pools their finances to some degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal obligations .
Assuming the Omar household operates in a typical fashion , what this essentially boils down to is a case where Ilhan Omar is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters every quarter , dwarfing her own congressional salary , and funneling almost half of it back into she and her husband ’ s own bank accounts .
Of course , as I mentioned above , this is all perfectly legal .
I wonder if this isn ’ t some sort of a loophole in our campaign finance laws that @ @ @ @

Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s husband is still making headlines, but not of the best variety. (To be clear, we’re talking about her latest husband here, not the previous one who may or may not have been her brother.) As you may recall, Tim Mynett is the owner and CEO of the E Street Group political consulting firm. He’s been the primary beneficiary of the Omar campaign’s largesse, receiving the lion’s share of all the campaign contributions that Omar has taken in. Even after this fact was brought to light previously, Omar didn’t slow down the cash flow a bit. FEC records indicate the Mynett was the recipient of well over a quarter-million dollars in the last quarter. (Free Beacon)
Democratic representative Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) continues to push cash from her campaign committee to her now-husband’s consulting firm. Omar’s new committee filings, posted Wednesday afternoon, show that during the first three months of the year, the campaign paid $292,905 to the E Street Group. E Street is a political consulting firm owned by Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett. The cash, which reportedly went toward an array of services that included fundraising and advertisements, accounted for over 40 percent of the campaign’s $674,892 in disbursements.
Omar’s campaign raised a total of $456,374 during the last quarter. Since Mynett’s firm received $292,905, that means the E Street Group took in 64.2% of all the money she raised. Even if you add in some of the other money she had left over and paid out on top of that (for a total disbursement of $674,892), it still adds up to 43.4%, or pretty close to half.
Pretty good work if you can get it, right? And because of the nature of our campaign finance laws, none of this is technically illegal. In that regard, running a political consulting firm is an almost perfect way to “process” campaign contributions, because you’re not really required to produce any measurable results as long as the campaign doesn’t complain about it. You have to provide advice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to be good advice. You produce advertisements, but you get paid whether they actually move the needle in the polls or not.
Oh, and Mynett was also conducting fundraising for the Omar campaign. In other words, he was collecting money on her behalf, knowing in advance that roughly half of it it would be turned around and put right back into his pocket. And all of this effort is being channeled into a district with a Cook PVI rating of D+26 and where Omar won in 2018 by a 78-22 margin. Unless she somehow managed to lose the primary (spoiler alert: she won’t), she couldn’t lose this race if she shot somebody on Main Street, to borrow a phrase from the President.
I don’t know of too many married couples who keep their personal finances 100% separate. Pretty much every couple pools their finances to some degree as they take care of their various fiscal obligations. Assuming the Omar household operates in a typical fashion, what this essentially boils down to is a case where Ilhan Omar is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters every quarter, dwarfing her own congressional salary, and funneling almost half of it back into she and her husband’s own bank accounts.
Of course, as I mentioned above, this is all perfectly legal. I wonder if this isn’t some sort of a loophole in our campaign finance laws that should be closed.


hotair--2020-04-19--Biden might reveal more on VP pick this week

Probable Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden may reveal a bit more on his running mate .
The Hill reported today Biden planned some announcement about a vice-presidential vetting committee in the middle of April but it appears coronavirus put a dent in the plan .
Biden unveiled a few details by promising he ’ ll pick a woman to share the ticket and previously mentioned New Hampshire U.S .
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan , ex-Deputy AG Sally Yates , and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as possibilities .
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris appear possibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it ’ s likely Senator Amy Klobuchar will get consideration .
Abrams openly wants the job telling Elle , “ I would be an excellent running mate .
I have the capacity to attract voters by motivating typically ignored communities… If I am selected , I am prepared and excited to serve.
” Kudos to Abrams for her plain-speaking candor dating back to 2019 , unlike other politicians who tend to hem and haw or slowly roll out larger policies while attempting to hide naked ambition .
Jonathan Chait opined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abrams might satisfy any VP bonafide by balancing out the ticket and setting up the next step for the Democrat Party if Biden prevails in November .
The party itself believes Abrams has a future or else she wouldn ’ t have been picked to give the response to President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union in 2019 .
She also got the endorsement of Democracy for America which told The Hill her policies go well with progressives .
Harris ’ yearning for the VP nomination was more political .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates before dropping out in early December .
Her campaign leaked a little over a month later Harris might endorse Biden before the actual endorsement took place in March .
David Byler at The Washington Post wrote Harris is the right pick for multiple reasons , including keeping California ’ s Senate seat in the hands of a Democrat if Biden wins in November and balancing out the ticket .
If Biden picked Harris , he ’ d instantly bring demographic balance to the ticket .
Harris is an African American and Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ junior .
Biden wouldn ’ t be the presumptive nominee without the support of African American voters in South Carolina , and he constantly heaps praise on Democratic politicians who are women and people of color .
If Biden really cares about representation , he should put his money where his mouth is .
And in the long run , picking Harris would be good for the party…Democrats can ’ t indefinitely try to re-create the Obama years… [ B ] y 2024 or 2028 , the problems facing the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than they already have .
Obama ’ s 2008 template for victory will be obsolete .
Democrats will need someone who can write a new political playbook and reimagine policy on the fly… Harris ’ past as a cop with a “ long record of pushing illiberal ideas , ” to quote Reason ’ s Elizabeth Nolen Brown may also go well with Biden ’ s defense of tough on crime measures .
Another name floated within the media on Biden ’ s potential pick is Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer .
Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest Whitmer ’ s ability to get under Trump ’ s skin is good enough , but also lauded her campaign ability and the fact she ’ s from a state which Trump won in 2016 .
There are some other things that Trump might want to learn about Whitmer , besides her name .
One is that the former Michigan Senate minority leader was elected in 2018 on the basis of her common sense and pragmatism .
She ran a disciplined and focused campaign , rejecting , for instance , the Medicare-for-all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whitmer rarely mentioned Trump .
Her campaign slogan was : “ Fix the damn roads.
” What Trump surely does know is that when he won Michigan in 2016 , it was by the closest margin of any state in the country .
If he can not keep its 16 electoral votes in his column come November , his road to reelection will grow steeper .
All of which brings us back to why Biden should put Whitmer on his ticket .
Whitmer ’ s name is interesting , however , picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s skin seems odd and counterproductive for voters wanting the so-called “ return to normalcy ” Biden claims to offer .
One would think any potential debate between the governor and Vice President Mike Pence would be cordial given her past praise of Pence in the coronavirus handling .
Harris and Whitmer are first and third in the betting odds , for those who pay attention to that sort of thing , with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar placing second .
Michelle Obama is getting plenty of bets too , for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know who will be the pick and much of it depends on the duration of the current pandemic .
Unless Draft Cuomo works , which who knows at this point .

Probable Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden may reveal a bit more on his running mate. The Hill reported today Biden planned some announcement about a vice-presidential vetting committee in the middle of April but it appears coronavirus put a dent in the plan.
Biden unveiled a few details by promising he’ll pick a woman to share the ticket and previously mentioned New Hampshire U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, ex-Deputy AG Sally Yates, and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as possibilities. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris appear possibilities, more the latter than the former, and it’s likely Senator Amy Klobuchar will get consideration.
Abrams openly wants the job telling Elle, “I would be an excellent running mate. I have the capacity to attract voters by motivating typically ignored communities… If I am selected, I am prepared and excited to serve.” Kudos to Abrams for her plain-speaking candor dating back to 2019, unlike other politicians who tend to hem and haw or slowly roll out larger policies while attempting to hide naked ambition. Jonathan Chait opined in New York magazine last year he believed Abrams might satisfy any VP bonafide by balancing out the ticket and setting up the next step for the Democrat Party if Biden prevails in November. The party itself believes Abrams has a future or else she wouldn’t have been picked to give the response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union in 2019. She also got the endorsement of Democracy for America which told The Hill her policies go well with progressives.
Harris’ yearning for the VP nomination was more political. She nailed Biden on his policy past in debates before dropping out in early December. Her campaign leaked a little over a month later Harris might endorse Biden before the actual endorsement took place in March. David Byler at The Washington Post wrote Harris is the right pick for multiple reasons, including keeping California’s Senate seat in the hands of a Democrat if Biden wins in November and balancing out the ticket.
If Biden picked Harris, he’d instantly bring demographic balance to the ticket. Harris is an African American and Asian American woman who is 22 years his junior. Biden wouldn’t be the presumptive nominee without the support of African American voters in South Carolina, and he constantly heaps praise on Democratic politicians who are women and people of color. If Biden really cares about representation, he should put his money where his mouth is. And in the long run, picking Harris would be good for the party…Democrats can’t indefinitely try to re-create the Obama years…[B]y 2024 or 2028, the problems facing the United States and the politics around them will change even more than they already have. Obama’s 2008 template for victory will be obsolete. Democrats will need someone who can write a new political playbook and reimagine policy on the fly…
Harris’ past as a cop with a “long record of pushing illiberal ideas,” to quote Reason’s Elizabeth Nolen Brown may also go well with Biden’s defense of tough on crime measures.
Another name floated within the media on Biden’s potential pick is Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Karen Tumulty at The Washington Post seemed to suggest Whitmer’s ability to get under Trump’s skin is good enough, but also lauded her campaign ability and the fact she’s from a state which Trump won in 2016.
There are some other things that Trump might want to learn about Whitmer, besides her name. One is that the former Michigan Senate minority leader was elected in 2018 on the basis of her common sense and pragmatism. She ran a disciplined and focused campaign, rejecting, for instance, the Medicare-for-all proposals touted by her more liberal opponents. Whitmer rarely mentioned Trump. Her campaign slogan was: “Fix the damn roads.” What Trump surely does know is that when he won Michigan in 2016, it was by the closest margin of any state in the country. If he cannot keep its 16 electoral votes in his column come November, his road to reelection will grow steeper. All of which brings us back to why Biden should put Whitmer on his ticket.
Whitmer’s name is interesting, however, picking someone because they can get under the president’s skin seems odd and counterproductive for voters wanting the so-called “return to normalcy” Biden claims to offer. One would think any potential debate between the governor and Vice President Mike Pence would be cordial given her past praise of Pence in the coronavirus handling.
Harris and Whitmer are first and third in the betting odds, for those who pay attention to that sort of thing, with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar placing second. Michelle Obama is getting plenty of bets too, for some reason.
Only Biden and his handlers know who will be the pick and much of it depends on the duration of the current pandemic. Unless Draft Cuomo works, which who knows at this point.


hotair--2020-04-19--Chevron Shakedown scammer would like to be released from house arrest

The last time we checked in on Steve Donziger , the former lawyer behind the failed Chevron Shakedown , things weren ’ t going too well for him .
After he failed to obey a judge ’ s order to not continue profiting from his fraudulent attempt to pick Chevron ’ s pockets for billions of dollars , he was eventually sentenced to house arrest on criminal contempt charges .
He has also failed to make a court-ordered payment to Chevron , resulting in some hefty fines piling up against him .
That situation has been ongoing for the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recent public relations push , Donziger has found a new set of friends to speak up on his behalf .
A group of thirty Nobel Prize winners has penned an open letter calling for his release from home detention , praising him as a hero for his groundbreaking advocacy or something .
( Courthouse News ) On Thursday morning , it brought together 30 Nobel laureates from around the world in an open letter that lauds Steven Donziger as a hero , and casualty , of sprawling litigation with the oil giant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries results in murder , ” the petition from the prize winners states .
“ Chevron ’ s strategy is death by a thousand cuts through the manipulation of a legal system it has managed to stack in its favor .
Its goal is to intimidate and disempower the victims of its pollution and a lawyer who has worked for decades on their behalf.
” From his Upper East Side apartment this morning , Donziger announced his newfound support over Zoom , which has become the go-to videoconferencing software of the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretrial detention for a lawyer , now on its 255th day , is intimately connected to my effective and successful advocacy for these communities , ” he said .
How Donziger managed to round up this crew of Nobel Prize winners to plead his case is something of a mystery .
One court after another has found that what he attempted in Ecuador was a complete and total fraud , with a corrupt judge inventing “ evidence ” out of whole cloth to make the case against Chevron .
Everyone involved had their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nearly ten billion dollar settlement that they expected Chevron to fork over .
Donziger was even selling shares of the expected loot to cover all of the legal costs he ran up in an effort to pull this off .
Those people and offices have all since relinquished their share of the prize… to Chevron .
Donziger ’ s claim this month is that he ’ s experiencing “ retaliation ” for his self-proclaimed “ effective and successful advocacy for these communities.
” That ’ s sort of hilarious since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his shareholders and himself .
And none of these questions address the fact that it was Ecuador ’ s state-run oil company who continued to pollute the land in question long after Texaco ( which was later purchased by Chevron ) had pulled out and been given a clean , legal bill of health for having cleaned up the sites where they had been drilling .
Just to be fair to both sides here , there is one element of this ongoing legal saga that is at least unusual , if still legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusing Donziger of failing to comply with the court ’ s orders , he turned the issue over to federal prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in Manhattan .
For some reason , they declined to prosecute him on the criminal contempt charges , so Kaplan took matters into his own hands and drafted the charges himself .
But that only dealt with the criminal contempt charges , not the larger questions of the fraudulent lawsuit .
Donziger has been disbarred everywhere he was once licensed to practice law .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world to see .
But somehow there ’ s an international collection of Nobel Prize winners taking up his cause .
Reading some of their statements , the reason begins to come clear .
These are environmentalist advocates who hate Chevron for being in the oil and gas business .
They mention Chevron far more often than they do Donziger .
And they just don ’ t want to see a fossil fuel giant like Chevron come away with a win .

The last time we checked in on Steve Donziger, the former lawyer behind the failed Chevron Shakedown, things weren’t going too well for him. After he failed to obey a judge’s order to not continue profiting from his fraudulent attempt to pick Chevron’s pockets for billions of dollars, he was eventually sentenced to house arrest on criminal contempt charges. He has also failed to make a court-ordered payment to Chevron, resulting in some hefty fines piling up against him. That situation has been ongoing for the past eight months.
But now, in a recent public relations push, Donziger has found a new set of friends to speak up on his behalf. A group of thirty Nobel Prize winners has penned an open letter calling for his release from home detention, praising him as a hero for his groundbreaking advocacy or something. (Courthouse News)
On Thursday morning, it brought together 30 Nobel laureates from around the world in an open letter that lauds Steven Donziger as a hero, and casualty, of sprawling litigation with the oil giant Chevron. “Environmental activism in many countries results in murder,” the petition from the prize winners states. “Chevron’s strategy is death by a thousand cuts through the manipulation of a legal system it has managed to stack in its favor. Its goal is to intimidate and disempower the victims of its pollution and a lawyer who has worked for decades on their behalf.” From his Upper East Side apartment this morning, Donziger announced his newfound support over Zoom, which has become the go-to videoconferencing software of the coronavirus pandemic. “I believe my historically unprecedented pretrial detention for a lawyer, now on its 255th day, is intimately connected to my effective and successful advocacy for these communities,” he said.
How Donziger managed to round up this crew of Nobel Prize winners to plead his case is something of a mystery. One court after another has found that what he attempted in Ecuador was a complete and total fraud, with a corrupt judge inventing “evidence” out of whole cloth to make the case against Chevron. Everyone involved had their hands out, waiting for their cut of the nearly ten billion dollar settlement that they expected Chevron to fork over. Donziger was even selling shares of the expected loot to cover all of the legal costs he ran up in an effort to pull this off. Those people and offices have all since relinquished their share of the prize… to Chevron.
Donziger’s claim this month is that he’s experiencing “retaliation” for his self-proclaimed “effective and successful advocacy for these communities.” That’s sort of hilarious since the only people he was advocating for were his shareholders and himself. And none of these questions address the fact that it was Ecuador’s state-run oil company who continued to pollute the land in question long after Texaco (which was later purchased by Chevron) had pulled out and been given a clean, legal bill of health for having cleaned up the sites where they had been drilling.
Just to be fair to both sides here, there is one element of this ongoing legal saga that is at least unusual, if still legal. Back when Judge Lewis Kaplan was accusing Donziger of failing to comply with the court’s orders, he turned the issue over to federal prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan. For some reason, they declined to prosecute him on the criminal contempt charges, so Kaplan took matters into his own hands and drafted the charges himself. But that only dealt with the criminal contempt charges, not the larger questions of the fraudulent lawsuit.
Donziger has been disbarred everywhere he was once licensed to practice law. His fraudulent scheme has been exposed for the world to see. But somehow there’s an international collection of Nobel Prize winners taking up his cause. Reading some of their statements, the reason begins to come clear. These are environmentalist advocates who hate Chevron for being in the oil and gas business. They mention Chevron far more often than they do Donziger. And they just don’t want to see a fossil fuel giant like Chevron come away with a win.


hotair--2020-04-19--Meanwhile in Hong Kong, democracy advocates promise mass protests

Pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong plan a new round of mass protests against the government this July .
The latest conflagration between pan-democrats and Hong Kong and Chinese bureaucrats comes following conflicting statements this weekend over the role of Beijing ’ s liaison office and Article 22 of the Hong Kong-China Basic Law agreement .
The article itself is straightforward .
No department of the Central People ’ s Government and no province , autonomous region , or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a need for departments of the Central Government , or for provinces , autonomous regions , or municipalities directly under the Central Government to set up offices in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region , they must obtain the consent of the government of the Region and the approval of the Central People ’ s Government .
All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government , or by provinces , autonomous regions , or municipalities directly under the Central Government , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the laws of the Region .
China decided to throw their understanding of Article 22 on its ear by claiming , “ a high degree of autonomy is not completely autonomy ” before exerting more power on Central Government offices in the region .
From China ’ s governmental office in Hong Kong via Google Translate : The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the Hong Kong Liaison Office of the People ’ s Republic of China are agencies authorized by the central government to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ general departments of the central people ’ s government ” within the meaning of Article 22 of the Basic Law .
Of course , they are entitled to represent the central government .
Important issues such as the relationship between the Central Government and the Special Administrative Region , the correct implementation of the Basic Law , the normal operation of the political system and the overall interests of the society , exercise the power of supervision , and pay attention to and demonstrate a solemn attitude .
The Central Government then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guo Rongkeng with what appears to be a threat against the entirety of Hong Kong ’ s semi-elected government .
Guo Rongkeng repeatedly and repeatedly maliciously “ rab ” , hindering the election of the chairman of the internal committee , resulting in various economic and livelihood bills can not be considered normally , seriously affecting the interests of Hong Kong society and the public , and clearly violates the statutory law conferred on legislators by the Basic Law Duties .
When the Legislative Council can not normally perform the constitutional responsibilities entrusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system of the SAR can not function normally , and the overall interests of Hong Kong citizens can not be effectively protected .
Of course , the Central Government can not sit by and ignore it .
The need to ensure the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong is also the need to safeguard the interests of the citizens .
Hong Kong ’ s response to the threat ended up messy .
The first statement published Saturday night quietly reminded China that Article 22 covered the Liaison Office .
A few hours later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office could do what it wanted .
The reaction to Hong Kong ’ s hypocrisy fell on ideological lines .
Democracy advocates criticized Chief Executive Carrie Lam ’ s decision and accused her of calling “ a stag a horse.
” Pro-Beijing lawmakers shrugged at Lam ’ s contradictory statements with one intimating to RTHK the government better talk with so-called constitutional experts before popping off .
Yet , Hong Kong ’ s first statement on Article 22 and the Liaison Office is correct based on reporting by Hong Kong Free Press .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up the office under Article 22 .
Hong Kong University law professor Johannes Chan made a similar note to RTHK and worried the “ one country , two systems ” agreement is further in doubt .
The ‘ joys ’ of politics , especially with an authoritarian regime seeking to destroy dissent wherever possible and a local government willing to acquiesce .
Demonstrators vow to take the streets July 1st to remember the 1997 handover from Great Britain to China , mass arrests and pandemic be damned !

Pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong plan a new round of mass protests against the government this July. The latest conflagration between pan-democrats and Hong Kong and Chinese bureaucrats comes following conflicting statements this weekend over the role of Beijing’s liaison office and Article 22 of the Hong Kong-China Basic Law agreement.
The article itself is straightforward.
No department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law. If there is a need for departments of the Central Government, or for provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government to set up offices in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, they must obtain the consent of the government of the Region and the approval of the Central People’s Government. All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region.
China decided to throw their understanding of Article 22 on its ear by claiming, “a high degree of autonomy is not completely autonomy” before exerting more power on Central Government offices in the region. From China’s governmental office in Hong Kong via Google Translate:
The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the Hong Kong Liaison Office of the People ’s Republic of China are agencies authorized by the central government to deal with Hong Kong affairs. They are not “general departments of the central people ’s government” within the meaning of Article 22 of the Basic Law. Of course, they are entitled to represent the central government. Important issues such as the relationship between the Central Government and the Special Administrative Region, the correct implementation of the Basic Law, the normal operation of the political system and the overall interests of the society, exercise the power of supervision, and pay attention to and demonstrate a solemn attitude.
The Central Government then focused its ire on Legislative Council member Guo Rongkeng with what appears to be a threat against the entirety of Hong Kong’s semi-elected government.
Guo Rongkeng repeatedly and repeatedly maliciously “rab”, hindering the election of the chairman of the internal committee, resulting in various economic and livelihood bills cannot be considered normally, seriously affecting the interests of Hong Kong society and the public, and clearly violates the statutory law conferred on legislators by the Basic Law Duties. When the Legislative Council cannot normally perform the constitutional responsibilities entrusted by the Basic Law, the political system of the SAR cannot function normally, and the overall interests of Hong Kong citizens cannot be effectively protected. Of course, the Central Government cannot sit by and ignore it. The need to ensure the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong is also the need to safeguard the interests of the citizens.
Hong Kong’s response to the threat ended up messy. The first statement published Saturday night quietly reminded China that Article 22 covered the Liaison Office. A few hours later, Hong Kong backtracked and declared Liaison Office could do what it wanted.
The reaction to Hong Kong’s hypocrisy fell on ideological lines. Democracy advocates criticized Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s decision and accused her of calling “a stag a horse.” Pro-Beijing lawmakers shrugged at Lam’s contradictory statements with one intimating to RTHK the government better talk with so-called constitutional experts before popping off.
Yet, Hong Kong’s first statement on Article 22 and the Liaison Office is correct based on reporting by Hong Kong Free Press. Documents from 2007 reveal the Central Government set up the office under Article 22. Hong Kong University law professor Johannes Chan made a similar note to RTHK and worried the “one country, two systems” agreement is further in doubt. The ‘joys’ of politics, especially with an authoritarian regime seeking to destroy dissent wherever possible and a local government willing to acquiesce.
Demonstrators vow to take the streets July 1st to remember the 1997 handover from Great Britain to China, mass arrests and pandemic be damned!


hotair--2020-04-19--Walmart, Sam's Club change employee COVID-19 policy, increase hiring

Beginning Monday , Walmart and Sam ’ s Club will require all of their approximately 1.5 million U.S.-based associates to wear masks or other face coverings .
This is a change from previous store policy which has now evolved to reflect CDC guidance on mitigating the spread of COVID-19 .
John Furner of Walmart and Kath McLay of Sam ’ s Club sent out a memo to associates explaining the policy adjustment .
Wearing a mask or face covering is now mandatory for all employes , no longer something done on a voluntary basis .
Employees can wear their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On April 9 , masks were made mandatory in some communities with higher levels of cases .
Last month , Furner and McLay told employees that the company was beginning to roll out temperature checks of employees , and said it would make available masks and gloves to employees who wanted them .
On April 9 , the company said it would make masks mandatory “ in many communities where we are seeing elevated cases.
” In their Friday memo , the two executives cited guidance from the CDC indicating that infected individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus can still transmit it to others .
“ With this knowledge , we believe it is simply in everyone ’ s best interest to use masks or face coverings to curb the spread of this disease , ” they wrote .
Despite the fact that most state and local governments are not making such mandates in public settings , the largest employer in the United States thinks the CDC knows best .
And , acknowledgment is made that local laws or individual health needs may require exceptions to be made .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more efficient route of adjusting policy to separate communities , the big retailers are trying to fit a one-size-fits-all approach to mitigation .
They are doubling down at a time when many cities and states are already seeing decreases in cases .
That just struck me as interesting timing .
From the company memo : We have evolved our policy on face coverings from optional to mandatory as public health guidance has shifted .
The CDC now recommends wearing face coverings in public settings , including grocery stores , to help curb the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and local governments do not mandate the use of face coverings in public settings , the CDC has reported that recent studies show a significant portion of individuals with the virus lack symptoms and can transmit the virus .
With this knowledge , we believe it is simply in everyone ’ s best interest to use masks or face coverings to curb the spread of this disease .
We hope this step will promote safety and consistency across all of our facilities and be of comfort to our customers and members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember that face coverings are simply an additional health precaution .
They do not guarantee against the spread of this virus , and they do not replace the most important steps you can take to keep yourself and others safe : 6-20-100 .
Whether at work or elsewhere , practice six feet of social distancing whenever possible .
Regularly wash your hands with soap for 20 seconds .
And if you have a temperature of 100 degrees or higher , stay home .
Dan Bartlett , the company ’ s vice president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need more than seven million masks each week for its employees .
The delay in making masks mandatory for all its employees was out of consideration for the amount of personal protective equipment needed by medical professionals .
Walmart is extending its emergency leave policy through May .
It should also be noted that Walmart hopes its customers also wear masks .
A new hiring announcement was made by Walmart , too .
The company is looking to hire 50,000 new employees .
The positions include cashiers , stockers and personal shoppers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickers at distribution centers and fulfillment centers and drivers for its fleet .
Its previous announcement of hiring an additional 150,000 people drew 1 million employment applications in response .

Beginning Monday, Walmart and Sam’s Club will require all of their approximately 1.5 million U.S.-based associates to wear masks or other face coverings. This is a change from previous store policy which has now evolved to reflect CDC guidance on mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
John Furner of Walmart and Kath McLay of Sam’s Club sent out a memo to associates explaining the policy adjustment. Wearing a mask or face covering is now mandatory for all employes, no longer something done on a voluntary basis. Employees can wear their own masks or use a company-provided one. On April 9, masks were made mandatory in some communities with higher levels of cases.
Last month, Furner and McLay told employees that the company was beginning to roll out temperature checks of employees, and said it would make available masks and gloves to employees who wanted them. On April 9, the company said it would make masks mandatory “in many communities where we are seeing elevated cases.” In their Friday memo, the two executives cited guidance from the CDC indicating that infected individuals who do not show symptoms of the virus can still transmit it to others. “With this knowledge, we believe it is simply in everyone’s best interest to use masks or face coverings to curb the spread of this disease,” they wrote.
Despite the fact that most state and local governments are not making such mandates in public settings, the largest employer in the United States thinks the CDC knows best. And, acknowledgment is made that local laws or individual health needs may require exceptions to be made. In other words, instead of taking the more efficient route of adjusting policy to separate communities, the big retailers are trying to fit a one-size-fits-all approach to mitigation. They are doubling down at a time when many cities and states are already seeing decreases in cases. That just struck me as interesting timing. From the company memo:
We have evolved our policy on face coverings from optional to mandatory as public health guidance has shifted. The CDC now recommends wearing face coverings in public settings, including grocery stores, to help curb the spread of the virus. Although most state and local governments do not mandate the use of face coverings in public settings, the CDC has reported that recent studies show a significant portion of individuals with the virus lack symptoms and can transmit the virus. With this knowledge, we believe it is simply in everyone’s best interest to use masks or face coverings to curb the spread of this disease. We hope this step will promote safety and consistency across all of our facilities and be of comfort to our customers and members. However, it’s important to remember that face coverings are simply an additional health precaution. They do not guarantee against the spread of this virus, and they do not replace the most important steps you can take to keep yourself and others safe: 6-20-100. Whether at work or elsewhere, practice six feet of social distancing whenever possible. Regularly wash your hands with soap for 20 seconds. And if you have a temperature of 100 degrees or higher, stay home.
Dan Bartlett, the company’s vice president of corporate affairs, said the company will need more than seven million masks each week for its employees. The delay in making masks mandatory for all its employees was out of consideration for the amount of personal protective equipment needed by medical professionals. Walmart is extending its emergency leave policy through May. It should also be noted that Walmart hopes its customers also wear masks.
A new hiring announcement was made by Walmart, too. The company is looking to hire 50,000 new employees. The positions include cashiers, stockers and personal shoppers for its stores and clubs, fillers and pickers at distribution centers and fulfillment centers and drivers for its fleet. Its previous announcement of hiring an additional 150,000 people drew 1 million employment applications in response.


hotair--2020-04-19--Poll: 58% more worried that government will loosen restrictions too quickly than too slowly, but...

A reminder courtesy of this new WSJ/NBC poll that the protests in Michigan and elsewhere this past weekend don ’ t yet reflect majority opinion .
But that ’ s changing .
Public opinion on this question is inevitably a moving target .
With each new gruesome unemployment report and each new data set showing slowing growth in the number of COVID-19 deaths , the balance will shift towards reopening sooner .
In fact , there ’ s evidence that it already is .
It can be tricky comparing different polls on this subject since pollsters don ’ t always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask about stay-at-home orders ; some ask about a national stay-at-home order ; some don ’ t mention stay-at-home orders at all , choosing a gassier term like “ restrictions ” ; some refer more generally to “ social distancing.
” All but the most hardcore COVID truthers see the need for some social distancing .
The debatable policy question is how assertive and aggressive state governments should be in locking down the local economy to achieve it .
The phrasing in today ’ s poll closely resembles the phrasing in a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should be able to compare one to the other to see if opinion has moved lately as Trump has begun clamoring to reopen .
In a poll taken between April 7-12 , Pew asked people if they ’ re more concerned that restrictions on public activity by state governments will be lifted too quickly or not quickly enough .
Result : Majorities of both parties worried that we ’ d move too soon , before the outbreak had been mitigated , than too late .
But what a difference a few days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WSJ/NBC asked whether people worried more that “ the U.S. ” would move too quickly in lifting restrictions or move too late .
Result : From 66 percent in the Pew poll worried we ’ d relax restrictions too soon to 58 percent now , with Dems and GOPers each less likely to say they fear relaxation .
The change in both groups is small and among Democrats it ’ s negligible , from 81 percent in Pew to 77 percent here .
But it ’ s more significant among Republicans .
Whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pew poll worried about restrictions being relaxed too early , a plurality in the WSJ/NBC survey now worries about them being lifted too late .
Just 39 percent of GOPers say they ’ re more concerned about moving too quickly to reopen versus a near-majority of 48 percent who say they ’ re more worried about moving too slowly .
Earlier this month ( April 2-6 ) , when New York cases were still growing , 68 percent of Republicans told Quinnipiac they ’ d support a *national* stay-at-home order to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long way since then .
I think May 1 will be a crucial date to gauge opinion just because Trump ’ s done so much to focus attention on it as a target for widespread reopening .
A YouGov poll taken last week showed 56 percent of Republicans already in favor of reopening businesses by or before May 1 versus 60 percent of Democrats who thought reopening should happen afterward .
That ’ s a sign of how much partisanship ( and the urban/rural divide among D ’ s and R ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump egging on Democratic governors to reopen soon no matter what , it ’ s a cinch that it ’ ll get starker near-term .
The mystery is how long it ’ ll take for Democratic voters to follow Republicans ’ lead and start shifting meaningfully towards reopening as well .
Would a big spike in testing capacity convince them ?
New data showing a major decline in deaths nationwide ?
It has to happen .
Economic necessity leaves them no choice but to shift to the “ reopen soon ” position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether people think we need continued social distancing but there ’ s a big change in how many think the worst is still to come .
Majorities of Democrats ( 68 percent ) and independents ( 57 percent ) believe that it is , but just 43 percent of Republicans do .
Presumably as deaths continue to decline in the short term even Dems and indies will grow more optimistic , and even if we reopen too soon and trigger a second wave of the outbreak , it may take awhile before there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim irrefutable and trigger a new wave of pessimism .
Even after we have the data , it ’ s unimaginable that Americans will tolerate another de facto national lockdown in the name of containing the disease .
The next public debate as cases begin rising again will be whether and how to isolate cities and maybe even whole regions where the disease is raging from ones where it isn ’ t .
Trump ’ s advisors understand the political danger involved in him making himself the face of the “ reopen ASAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of the public is destined to side with him in the next few weeks : But allies and advisers inside and outside of the White House are urging caution , telling the president there is more potential risk at going too fast than too slow , citing polling that shows Americans are looking to take a more measured approach… [ L ] ifting social distancing guidelines too soon , or without the proper preparation , could lead to a rebound in infections and deaths , public health officials have warned .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the case that the initial outbreak wasn ’ t his fault , urging Trump to place the blame on China or the World Health Organization , it would be a harder case to make that he doesn ’ t bear the responsibility for a resurgence in infections should he encourage restrictions to be lifted .
“ It would be a disaster if it opened up too early , and again , we have a double curve and a double spike in cases and in deaths and we are back to where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House official .
Trump ’ s own lack of credibility is doubtless making it easier for Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer to wave off his demands to reopen soon .
The WSJ/NBC poll finds just 36 percent say they generally trust what he has to say about the virus versus 52 percent who don ’ t .
By comparison , 66 percent say they trust their governor and 60 percent say they trust Fauci .
Usually any poll question you ask about Trump will find a baseline of 43 percent or more supporting him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job approval throughout the country among hyper-loyal Republicans .
For him to be in the mid-30s on a question about COVID-19 credibility is proof that even some righties who normally give him the benefit of the doubt aren ’ t doing so this time , making it that much harder for him to galvanize a majority in favor of reopening soon .
In any case , it ’ s silly to conduct national polls on when to reopen and will seem even sillier going forward .
Fauci and Birx acknowledge that less hard-hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly in resuming business than harder-hit ones will .
So what ’ s someone supposed to say when they ’ re asked by a pollster if “ the U.S. ” should lift restrictions soon ?
Might be fine in Kansas !
Not so fine in New York .
We need more state polling , especially in swing states , to see how this issue is playing in a meaningful way .
Besides , asking “ when should we reopen ” is asking the wrong question .
It ’ d more insightful to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to make them more comfortable with reopening .
How many are watching trends in the daily death toll for guidance ?
How many are focused on progress in testing and contact tracing ?
How many are listening to Trump ?
How many are listening to Fauci ?
There ’ s a cacophony of informational noise bearing on people ’ s assessments .
Let ’ s see if we can find a signal .
In lieu of an exit question , study this interesting — and ominous — graph from Dr. Jeremy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long thread about why people are overestimating how safe it is to lift restrictions .
It feels safe , argues Faust , because we ’ re at a stage where most Americans personally know only a very few people who ’ ve had the disease .
Getting sick feels like a longshot , which makes socializing seem less risky than it ’ s been cracked up to be .
But that ’ s an illusion if many more of us are actually infected than the number of confirmed cases reflects ( which everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more actual asymptomatic cases there are , the more even small gatherings pose a considerable risk of infection .
If you ’ re going to protest Whitmer at the Michigan capitol , at least be smart and wear a mask .

A reminder courtesy of this new WSJ/NBC poll that the protests in Michigan and elsewhere this past weekend don’t yet reflect majority opinion. But that’s changing. Public opinion on this question is inevitably a moving target. With each new gruesome unemployment report and each new data set showing slowing growth in the number of COVID-19 deaths, the balance will shift towards reopening sooner. In fact, there’s evidence that it already is.
It can be tricky comparing different polls on this subject since pollsters don’t always ask about the same thing. Some ask about stay-at-home orders; some ask about a national stay-at-home order; some don’t mention stay-at-home orders at all, choosing a gassier term like “restrictions”; some refer more generally to “social distancing.” All but the most hardcore COVID truthers see the need for some social distancing. The debatable policy question is how assertive and aggressive state governments should be in locking down the local economy to achieve it.
The phrasing in today’s poll closely resembles the phrasing in a recent Pew poll, though, which means we should be able to compare one to the other to see if opinion has moved lately as Trump has begun clamoring to reopen. In a poll taken between April 7-12, Pew asked people if they’re more concerned that restrictions on public activity by state governments will be lifted too quickly or not quickly enough. Result:
Majorities of both parties worried that we’d move too soon, before the outbreak had been mitigated, than too late. But what a difference a few days can make. Between April 13-15, WSJ/NBC asked whether people worried more that “the U.S.” would move too quickly in lifting restrictions or move too late. Result:
From 66 percent in the Pew poll worried we’d relax restrictions too soon to 58 percent now, with Dems and GOPers each less likely to say they fear relaxation. The change in both groups is small and among Democrats it’s negligible, from 81 percent in Pew to 77 percent here. But it’s more significant among Republicans. Whereas a small majority of the party in the Pew poll worried about restrictions being relaxed too early, a plurality in the WSJ/NBC survey now worries about them being lifted too late. Just 39 percent of GOPers say they’re more concerned about moving too quickly to reopen versus a near-majority of 48 percent who say they’re more worried about moving too slowly. Earlier this month (April 2-6), when New York cases were still growing, 68 percent of Republicans told Quinnipiac they’d support a *national* stay-at-home order to contain the outbreak. Right-wing opinion has come a long way since then.
I think May 1 will be a crucial date to gauge opinion just because Trump’s done so much to focus attention on it as a target for widespread reopening. A YouGov poll taken last week showed 56 percent of Republicans already in favor of reopening businesses by or before May 1 versus 60 percent of Democrats who thought reopening should happen afterward. That’s a sign of how much partisanship (and the urban/rural divide among D’s and R’s) is driving opinion, and with Trump egging on Democratic governors to reopen soon no matter what, it’s a cinch that it’ll get starker near-term. The mystery is how long it’ll take for Democratic voters to follow Republicans’ lead and start shifting meaningfully towards reopening as well. Would a big spike in testing capacity convince them? New data showing a major decline in deaths nationwide? It has to happen. Economic necessity leaves them no choice but to shift to the “reopen soon” position eventually.
Relatedly, here’s another new poll showing a meaningful partisan divide:
Not much change there in whether people think we need continued social distancing but there’s a big change in how many think the worst is still to come. Majorities of Democrats (68 percent) and independents (57 percent) believe that it is, but just 43 percent of Republicans do. Presumably as deaths continue to decline in the short term even Dems and indies will grow more optimistic, and even if we reopen too soon and trigger a second wave of the outbreak, it may take awhile before there’s enough data to make that claim irrefutable and trigger a new wave of pessimism. Even after we have the data, it’s unimaginable that Americans will tolerate another de facto national lockdown in the name of containing the disease. The next public debate as cases begin rising again will be whether and how to isolate cities and maybe even whole regions where the disease is raging from ones where it isn’t.
Political support and overall tolerance for social distancing is also fairly high now. It may not always be. So that may be another argument for "keep doing it now, while you can, recognizing that it may not be as feasible to maintain this in the long run." — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 18, 2020
Trump’s advisors understand the political danger involved in him making himself the face of the “reopen ASAP” push, though, even if more of the public is destined to side with him in the next few weeks:
But allies and advisers inside and outside of the White House are urging caution, telling the president there is more potential risk at going too fast than too slow, citing polling that shows Americans are looking to take a more measured approach… [L]ifting social distancing guidelines too soon, or without the proper preparation, could lead to a rebound in infections and deaths, public health officials have warned. While Trump’s allies believe they can make the case that the initial outbreak wasn’t his fault, urging Trump to place the blame on China or the World Health Organization, it would be a harder case to make that he doesn’t bear the responsibility for a resurgence in infections should he encourage restrictions to be lifted. “It would be a disaster if it opened up too early, and again, we have a double curve and a double spike in cases and in deaths and we are back to where we were before,” said the White House official.
Trump’s own lack of credibility is doubtless making it easier for Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer to wave off his demands to reopen soon. The WSJ/NBC poll finds just 36 percent say they generally trust what he has to say about the virus versus 52 percent who don’t. By comparison, 66 percent say they trust their governor and 60 percent say they trust Fauci. Usually any poll question you ask about Trump will find a baseline of 43 percent or more supporting him or his position, reflecting his overall job approval throughout the country among hyper-loyal Republicans. For him to be in the mid-30s on a question about COVID-19 credibility is proof that even some righties who normally give him the benefit of the doubt aren’t doing so this time, making it that much harder for him to galvanize a majority in favor of reopening soon.
In any case, it’s silly to conduct national polls on when to reopen and will seem even sillier going forward. Fauci and Birx acknowledge that less hard-hit regions will be able to move more quickly in resuming business than harder-hit ones will. So what’s someone supposed to say when they’re asked by a pollster if “the U.S.” should lift restrictions soon? Might be fine in Kansas! Not so fine in New York. We need more state polling, especially in swing states, to see how this issue is playing in a meaningful way. Besides, asking “when should we reopen” is asking the wrong question. It’d more insightful to ask people what they want to see happen in order to make them more comfortable with reopening. How many are watching trends in the daily death toll for guidance? How many are focused on progress in testing and contact tracing? How many are listening to Trump? How many are listening to Fauci? There’s a cacophony of informational noise bearing on people’s assessments. Let’s see if we can find a signal.
In lieu of an exit question, study this interesting — and ominous — graph from Dr. Jeremy Faust, who posted it in a long thread about why people are overestimating how safe it is to lift restrictions. It feels safe, argues Faust, because we’re at a stage where most Americans personally know only a very few people who’ve had the disease. Getting sick feels like a longshot, which makes socializing seem less risky than it’s been cracked up to be. But that’s an illusion if many more of us are actually infected than the number of confirmed cases reflects (which everyone believes, including scientists). And the more actual asymptomatic cases there are, the more even small gatherings pose a considerable risk of infection. If you’re going to protest Whitmer at the Michigan capitol, at least be smart and wear a mask.