• Leadership can save lives and even win wars, but never has expertise meant so little to the guy on the street.

• Potassium rescue scenario.

Aren't you supposed to see a doctor if you experience an election that lasts longer than four hours???

Well, I’m sure that almost everyone on this blog, with the exception of me and a few others, is very unhappy, but our new President and Vice-President are going to be Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

With Pennsylvania going blue, Biden now has 273 electoral votes and may end up with even more since he’s leading In Arizona and Georgia.

Trump is a loser. Will he continue to be a ranting and whining sore loser? Given his continuously demonstrated poor character, it seems quite likely.

But no need to be that fearful, angry or depressed, Biden/Harris haters. Mumbles McConnell will likely still be Senate majority leader and, as such, will do his best to obstruct anything and everything they want to do.

JD,

Biden is very likely to end up with 306 electoral votes... which as this Trump tweet from 2016 clearly states:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/928325667556548608?s=20

A 304 electoral college victory represents a "MASSIVE (304-227) Electoral College landslide victory!"

As I have already seen on this blog someone is now characterizing an even larger victory by Biden as a "squeaker".

You can't make this shit up.

"Mumbles McConnell will likely still be Senate majority leader and, as such, will do his best to obstruct anything and everything they want to do."

People shouldn't quite count their chickens here until they have hatched.

Georgia has 2 run off elections that will determine who controls the Senate.

The two republican incumbents are presently mired in criminal allegations of insider trading associated with the Corona virus pandemic.

We'll have to see how this plays out.

Well, at any rate, here's what some claim Trump will likely do in the years to come (this is from three days ago):

"Win or Lose, Trump Will Remain a Powerful and Disruptive Force: Even if he is defeated, he has made clear that he would not shrink from the scene."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/politics/trump-post-presidency-influence.html

And here's a song Biden supporters will NOT be singing (the lyrics are even more uncanny than you might expect, at the 0:45 minute mark!):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVGTVrQd6M

Sigh...Roger Daltrey...what a voice!

About the other six:

Jimmy McCulloch, from Wings, is on lead guitar. I wish I knew who the three other singers are, but chances are you can figure out who the other two musicians are!

(Murray Head wrote and sang the first recording, but this is the one I remember. What's odd is, I never hear it on the oldies stations!)

2020 is soooo not done with us.

> You can't make this shit up.

Full-throated deployment of casual American idiom!

Noted.

Thanks for the link, Lenona. I’d never heard that song before.

Yes, Daltrey had a superb voice. I loved The Who.

And Murray Head, there’s a name from the past. I loved his singing on the Jesus Christ, Superstar album.

'We'll have to see how this plays out,' in the style of an announcer of a weak game in Sun Belt conference… the Coastal Carolina Chanticleers vs. the Anybodys. Really cranks up the drama.

(Lenona— I saw the Who that year, precisely 43 years ago Thursday: Yes, MOON. The lasers blew our minds, and it was the loudest concert I ever attended.)

Thanks, Artemis. I knew Georgia was going to have a run-off election for both Senate seats but I’m being pessimistic and assuming that both Republicans are going to eke out a win. I didn’t know that about the insider trading allegations against both of them.

JD,

It is completely fair to be pessimistic on this one.

That being said, what I think will happen is Biden/Kamala/Obama will campaign very hard for those seats in Georgia.

Trump isn't going to try and help either of those folks... if anything he might encourage them to be thrown under the bus because he isn't the kind of guy to go down alone.

Couple that with the massive outpouring of democratic support that was seen in Georgia there is reason to think things might not go in the democrats favor.

Georgia is going to be very interesting to watch in the coming weeks.

In general, once Trump comes to the realization he is going down I expect he is going to salt the earth.

I only remember Head from his "Oriental setting," and literally spent one night in Bangkok because of that guy. When you're in the neighborhood, I can enthusiastically recommend the Mandarin Oriental. The guest service is fantastically courteous, even to American goofs on their way to scuba dive. (We're told that chicks dig the Somerset Maugham Suite, but I wouldn't know.)

Lenona, here's a link for you.

One of my favorite programs on TV is Sunday Morning on CBS. They frequently have a profile of a musician/singer and back in November 2018, Jim Axelrod had a profile of Daltrey shortly after his book, Thanks a lot Mr Kibblewhite: My Story, was published.

CBS Sunday Morning: Roger Daltrey

You can do this, Donald Trump

Thank you!

Btw, he was in a 1986 musical version of The Little Match Girl - as her father - but somehow, I don't remember if he sang. (So I'm guessing he didn't.) Twiggy also had a role.

In the meantime, in 1979, two years after Daltrey's recording, the Hollies made their own recording, and former Procol Harum singer Gary Brooker, who played on it, made his own recording the same year. (According to one commentator on YouTube, Brooker's recording was produced by George Martin!)

You can hear those recordings on YouTube as well.

More on the song:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_It_Ain%27t_So,_Joe_(song)

I'm really hoping that the Democrats use this to tackle issues in the red states... job creation, infrastructure, etc. There've got to be things that Repiblicans and red states want that line up with Democrat values... this is the time to start doing that.

There's this horrible gulf that needs to be bridged.

The US can't continue on this path.

Oh, and is that NYT link supposed to be a video? I can't access it - and it's the same black screen that I get whenever I try to access the NYT Magazine.

Looks like Angelenos will be rid of Garcetti. Might be inflicted on the rest of us, tho.

https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1325162772720545792

You're welcome, Lenona.

I loved "Whiter Shade of Pale" when I was young and my first-ever rock concert -- at the old Met Center in Bloomington, Minnesota -- was Wild Turkey**, Procol Harum and Ten Years After.

** a British band with former Jethro Tull bassist Glenn Cornick.

Also, if you like great basic rock 'n' roll, I'd highly recommend the first two albums by Bill Wyman & the Rhythm Kings. Gary Brooker plays on both of them, as does guitarist extraordinaire Albert Lee.

Here's the Rhythm Kings in 2000, with Brooker singing "Jitterbug Boogie" (from their first album)

Oh, and is that NYT link supposed to be a video? I can't access it - and it's the same black screen that I get whenever I try to access the NYT Magazine.

Yes, it was a short video, showing various losers -- from sports teams to presidential candidates -- being gracious about losing.

Since Trump has repeatedly shown such contempt and disdain for those he views as "losers", it seems like it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, for him to be gracious about being a loser.

As I have already seen on this blog someone is now characterizing an even larger victory by Biden as a "squeaker". ~ Artemis at November 7, 2020 9:52 AM

Yes, Artie, I did characterize it as a squeaker. Any election where the final count goes down to the wire can be considered a squeaker.

And, please note, I did not characterize Trump's 2016 victory as a landslide - especially in light of his losing the popular vote. In fact, I remember commenting that it could not be considered a landslide with the loss of the popular vote and that Trump should not behave as if it were a landslide.

My comment on this being "squeaker" was in response to Nancy Pelosi calling Biden's not-yet-certified victory a "mandate." This comment is in the same bush league as Trump's 2016 exaggeration and deserves equal ridicule.

This comment....

To clarify, The Speaker's comment was bush league. My comment was brilliant and insightful, as always.

😎

'Squeaker' is not exaggeration for such an outcome.

$10 says tomorrow's NYT hed is "Trump Loses," carefully selected words which he will be able to read & comprehend.

Cabinet joke.

A "Squeaker" is what Trump requests when he calls the Hooker Hotline.

2:21 pm -

You're joking, of course.

That is, yes, the media have been obsessed with Trump for years - many say that if it weren't for the media, in 2016, he would never have been a viable candidate in the first place - but to write tomorrow's headline ONLY in terms of "Trump loses" with no mention of Biden would be to give Trump more respect than the NYT is prepared to give. Just because the NYT might be willing to do that for a piece of work like Mike Tyson whenever HE lost in the ring doesn't mean they'd do it for an incumbent president.

Granted, it could easily turn out to be a hybrid headline.

That'd crossed my mind, it could be something like 'Amid Pandemic and Strife, Trump Loses in a Context of Twitching Economic Indicators' or something, in which case I'd still want your ten dollars.

• Here's a thing.

• And this is cute.

For those of you interested in politics (and I mean seriously interested, Conan-style) we have a new portrait hanging in a very special gallery.

> the media have been obsessed
> with Trump for years

I can't understand sentences like this, and haven't since November 2016.

For fuck's sake, he's Chief Executive of the United States of America.

Exactly what does a person have to do to warrant attention to their behavior?

Conan Says:

"Yes, Artie, I did characterize it as a squeaker. Any election where the final count goes down to the wire can be considered a squeaker."

What wire?... election day was 4 days ago.

The election wasn't called days before the inauguration.

The only reason it wasn't called earlier this week is because Trump has been throwing a tantrum and refused to recognize the reality of his loss.

There is nothing "down to the wire" about any of this.

Biden is presently ahead by almost 4.5 million votes and that lead is only going to grow as they close out the remaining ballots in states like California.

This was not a close race.

It only appeared close to folks who were deeply invested in a Trump victory that want to ignore the reality of mail-in ballot counting.

NicoleK Says:

"I'm really hoping that the Democrats use this to tackle issues in the red states... job creation, infrastructure, etc. There've got to be things that Repiblicans and red states want that line up with Democrat values... this is the time to start doing that."

Unfortunately this will largely hinge upon whether or not McConnell is in charge of the Senate.

He simply will not allow a Democratic president to do anything that might be popular within conservative states that he could take credit for down the road.

Expect a massive return to "fiscal conservativism" and deep concerns about the deficit and the debt in short order.

The Republicans will demand that any items such as the ones you suggest be paid for with cuts to social security.

Biden will likely have to spend his first 2 years at least rebuilding the executive branch and mending relationships with our foreign allies unless the Senate goes blue.

Also expect threats of government shut downs and refusal to pass continuing resolution bills.

Also, Lenona, the internets say it was 45 years ago, on the 30th of November. Time flies, y'know?

Crid, I didn't mean "obsessed" in the sense of "just doing their job." Aside from the media giving him, maybe, too much attention even before he decided to run, some columnists, time and again, have said that the general media needed to ignore at least some statements of his - his Tweets, maybe, I forget - if they wanted him to behave in a more presidential manner, for the common good. Much in the way parents ignore a toddler's tantrums until the toddler learns to ask for attention in a more civilized fashion.

Also, a wild and crazy president sells papers and gets ratings, so even the more liberal media likely have a love-hate attachment to him and may even think of him as a stylist of sorts. But, again, a prestigious paper like the NYT is not that likely to mention only Trump in the headline, since that would look too emotional, at least.

A fun thing from olden times, a fun thing from newden times.

Hadn't thought of it recently, but this was perhaps the single political event in the 21st century (to date) which got me right here.

Biden will likely have to spend his first 2 years at least rebuilding the executive branch and mending relationships with our foreign allies unless the Senate goes blue. ~ Artemis at November 7, 2020 4:42 PM

You're assuming he'll last 2 years. I don't think he'll last one. He's the first president ever to take office in his first term with obvious signs of dementia and with such a politically weak hand.

I rarely agree with Ted Rall, but in his breakdown of the election, Trump's chances, and what a Biden presidency is likely to look like he brings up some good points.

So, the wind is at Biden's back, even if it feels more like a mild breeze. Which makes it a good time to consider what a Biden presidency could/will look like.

Few presidents in American history have entered the White House as politically impotent as Joe Biden. No Democrat since and including Andrew Jackson has ever been elected without Democratic control of both houses of Congress. Biden's inverse coattails made history: Democrats lost four seats in the House. They expected to pick up 15.

The most recent Republican to face congressional opposition on day one was Ronald Reagan in 1981. The GOP controlled the House; Democrats had the Senate.

[...]

Even if Joe Biden were predisposed to a bold agenda, which progressives have a good reason to doubt, McConnell will block it. Unlike Obama, who had a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, Biden will have a valid excuse to accomplish nothing.

And that's assuming that he is able to function in the first place. All the Democratic denials in the world can't hide the possible president-elect's worsening dementia. At a recent campaign event, Biden introduced his granddaughter as if she were his dead son: "This is my son Beau Biden, who a lot of you helped elect to the Senate in Delaware." Wrong gender, wrong generation, wrong sentience. He tried to correct himself. "This is my granddaughter, Natalie."

Actually, Natalie is a different granddaughter. His son Beau died five years ago. Beau never even ran for the Senate. This is dementia, not "stuttering." It's sad. It's also scary. As commander in chief, Biden could single-handedly launch a nuclear attack.

Biden's defenders point to evidence that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's, but there was zero evidence of the disease when he took office in 1981. Woodrow Wilson suffered cognitive decline after a stroke, but that was toward the end of his second term. Biden will be the first president to begin his first term with clear signs of dementia.

I don't know if Biden, as president, could single-handedly launch a nuclear strike, but the amount of control he'll have over the nuclear strike capability of the US coupled with his worsening dementia should concern every American.

He will probably be the first president forcibly removed from office under the 25th Amendment. That won't strengthen Harris' hand when it happens either. She'll have just as weak a political hand as Biden had.

> The only reason it wasn't called
> earlier this week is because
> Trump has been throwing
> a tantrum

No, the reason it wasn't called earlier is that there were votes to count, and it could have gone the other way.

Perhaps you're new to our country, or to American politics, but if you watch the procedures you can figure it out.

"I don't know if Biden, as president, could single-handedly launch a nuclear strike, but the amount of control he'll have over the nuclear strike capability of the US coupled with his worsening dementia should concern every American."

As a former operator on a US ballistic missile submarine, I have to point out that no US President has ever held sole authority to launch a nuclear strike.

Not that this was concern to anyone voting for him. Such a person's inability to consider his past performance means that his typical voter simply thought of themselves.

Conan Says:

"You're assuming he'll last 2 years. I don't think he'll last one. He's the first president ever to take office in his first term with obvious signs of dementia and with such a politically weak hand."

Please just stop with this nonsense already... your predictive ability when it comes to this kind of thing is not very reliable.

You also predicted that Biden wouldn't be able to form coherent sentences at his debates and he was just fine.

It is not unreasonable to assume that he is going to live for 2 years.

How many times do you have to be mistaken about these kinds of things before you just stop and deal with the realities in front of you?

Crid Says:

"No, the reason it wasn't called earlier is that there were votes to count, and it could have gone the other way."

Anyone with even a modicum of mathematical ability knew with great statistical significance that Biden won as of Wednesday morning.

The chances of a Trump victory at that point were negligible.

In any event... by no reasonable usage of the word "squeaker" would this election qualify.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/squeaker#:~:text=1%20%3A%20one%20that%20squeaks,won%20by%20a%20small%20margin

"a contest (such as a game or an election) won by a small margin"

Wining with 306 electoral college votes and over 4 million popular votes is a very reasonable victory... not a "small margin".

This whole notion that time comes into play is a fiction... we also haven't been waiting for weeks.

The erroneous perception of this election as a squeaker is only held by those who believed that Trump has a serious chance to turn things around as more mail in ballots were counted.

No one who actually understood the realities that those ballots were going to be largely cast by Biden supporters was ever operating under such a delusion.

I posted an entire link about fictitious blue and red mirages days ago that went over all of this.

The experts all knew this.

Your ignorance here is not a surprise nor is it interesting.

So don't read my comments, muffin.

Codes, an hour ago. I guess everyone has a perspective on this vital issue.

Crid Says:

"So don't read my comments, muffin."

Everyone knows your ego is too fragile to handle being ignored.

I respond to you out of charitable consideration for your mental condition.

> Such a person's inability to
> consider his past performance
> means that his typical voter
> simply thought of themselves.

Hearing this from Trump voters is totes wackadoodle.

It is not unreasonable to assume that he is going to live for 2 years. ~ Artemis at November 7, 2020 6:25 PM

I said "last" Artie, not "live." A dementia patient can live for years, well past their cognitive decline.

You also predicted that Biden wouldn't be able to form coherent sentences at his debates and he was just fine. ~ Artemis at November 7, 2020 6:25 PM

I will admit that he surprised me with his debate performance. I overestimated the progress of his decline. Still, you could see the toll the debates were taking on him by the end of each debate.

Look for his decline to accelerate after he takes office. You cannot call a lid on the presidency at 10:00am.

I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters believe his ranting and whining that the election was “stolen” or “rigged”?

It wouldn’t surprise me if it was more than 50%, perhaps far more.

Conan Says:

"I said "last" Artie, not "live." A dementia patient can live for years, well past their cognitive decline."

Good grief... your entire premise is just conspiracy talk.

You aren't a medical expert qualified to make this kind of assessment.

You have a hair brained theory that Biden suffers from dementia and hence won't "last" two years.

I do know of one president who actually suffered from dementia while in office... that would be
Ronald Reagan. Conservatives supposedly love that guy and rarely if ever rant and rave about how he didn't "last" through his presidency.

This whole dementia thing is just a proxy for the Obama birther conspiracy.

To hyper partisan conservatives there is always something deeply wrong and suspicious about any democratic president.

Get some real medical evidence from a real medical expert and we can talk... until then this is nonsense.

"I will admit that he surprised me with his debate performance. I overestimated the progress of his decline."

The other possibility is that you don't know what you are talking about.

If there is a problem I will take note when it emerges... I'm not going to start off declaring someone to have a deteriorating medical condition based on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Ever experienced someone with Alzheimer’s, Artie? It ain’t pretty. And, early on, it looks a lot like Joe Biden today. I hope you’re spared ever having to deal with that, Artie.

I didn’t bring up Reagan, but Ted Rall did. He noted the differences between the Reagan and Biden situations. Rall’s hardly a hyper-partisan conservative; he’s a hyper-partisan liberal and Trump hater. Rall once compared GW Bush to Hitler, unfavorably. He spared no kindness for Reagan either. Even Obama was too conservative for him.

Ignore the signs all you want; won’t change the reality.

I'll believe this is over when the fat lady sings. Michigan has opening admitted that at least six thousand votes went to Democrats that should have gone to Republicans, and these same voting machines have been used in 29 other counties in Michigan and even more throughout the U.S.

If there is any grounds to be challenged in court, don't forget it's a 6-3 SCOTUS now, with three Trump appointees.

So "anyone with even a modicum of mathematical ability" doesn't need to bother counting votes in an election? That's immigrant talk.

> your ego is too fragile

I'm too beautiful to ignore.

> I'll believe this is over
> when the fat lady sings.

Same, but girlfriend seems ready to bellow.

Conan Says:

"Ever experienced someone with Alzheimer’s, Artie? It ain’t pretty. And, early on, it looks a lot like Joe Biden today. I hope you’re spared ever having to deal with that, Artie."

Yes Conan... I have personally experienced someone with dementia (it isn't actually possible to diagnose Alzheimer's disease specifically until a post mortem autopsy is performed looking for fibrillar tangles within the brain). Until death diagnosis of Alzheimer's is just a guess on the part of the physician.

I've also experienced someone with Parkinson's.

Beyond that this is actually an area I know a bit more about than the average person as I spent some time investigating the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease in a research laboratory a few decades ago.

In particular, I was trying to better understand the chemical and structural forces at play in the growth of amyloid fibrils ex-situ.

From all of this I deeply understand how difficult it is to diagnose the early stages of dementia in patients you have right in front of you... yet here you are with no medical expertise whatsoever and you are asserting an arm chair diagnosis from home based on what?... television?

Keep in mind that I also keenly remember people asserting that Hillary Clinton was on her death bed after bout of pneumonia. To hear conservatives tell it back then they were convinced she was on deaths door and wouldn't last through a potential presidency either.

And yet... she still seems to be alive and kicking 4 years later.

None of these accusations have any credibility any more.

You are making unsubstantiated assertions to suit a political narrative.

It's just rhetoric for you.

Crid Says:

"So "anyone with even a modicum of mathematical ability" doesn't need to bother counting votes in an election? That's immigrant talk."

Dear lord you are as stupid as they come.

Of course you need to count the votes... but it is possible to accurately predict the winner of an election in advance of all the votes being counted.

Why is this so challenging for you to understand?

Let's make this as simple as possible for you.

Imagine you have an election taking place with 100 votes total.

Presuming that you have counted 80 of the votes already and 60 of them favor one particular candidate... is it necessary to count the remaining 20 votes to know who won?

You still count the remaining votes to completeness sake... but since it seems to have gone over your head, you still know the winner before those remaining votes have been counted.

I didn't realize this was so hard for some people to understand.

> The only reason it wasn't called
> earlier this week is because
> Trump has been throwing
> a tantrum

vs-

> Of course you need
> to count the votes

Glad we got that cleared up

Crid,

You count the votes for completeness... the winner can accurately be called well in advance of all the votes being counted.

You do realize it will be quite a while before California is done counting votes.

Want to place a wager with me on who the state is going for?

I mean the votes aren't all counted yet so I guess to you it is up in the air.

I'll even spot you 10 to 1 odds. I claim CA is going for Biden before the vote count is complete.

Patrick: I'll believe this is over when the fat lady sings. Michigan has opening admitted that at least six thousand votes went to Democrats that should have gone to Republicans, and these same voting machines have been used in 29 other counties in Michigan and even more throughout the U.S.

Patrick, it appears you're desperately grasping at straws.

No, There Isn't a ‘Glitch’ in Michigan Election Software That Flipped Thousands of Trump Votes

Dispelling every bullshit election conspiracy that’s inundated the internet this week would be a full-time job in and of itself, but one particularly insidious theory has blown up to such a ridiculous degree that it deserves to be set straight.

Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox claimed at a press conference Friday that an election software “glitch” in one Michigan county switched thousands of votes for President Donald Trump to votes for Democratic challenger (now President-Elect) Joe Biden. Sounds like a pretty big scandal, right? Well, it very well might be if any portion of that statement was true. But though this conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked by Michigan election officials, that hasn’t stopped Trump supporters from sounding alarms about supposed voter fraud in many of the 28 states where the software’s manufacturer, Dominion Voting Systems, supplies election tech.

The theory, which has “no merit” according to a statement from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, claims that an Antrim County clerk reported a glitch in the county’s ballot tabulating software that miscounted 6,000 Trump votes as Biden votes, resulting in officials having to recount all ballots by hand. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel later parroted this theory along with several other unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in her call for recounts in several battleground states. Trump also shared an article on Twitter Saturday about this so-called “glitch” from the right-wing propaganda site Breitbart.

Handy quick guide to decoding Trump, and Trump supporter, language:

"The election was fair and square." = Trump won.

"The election was stolen, rigged! There was massive voter fraud!" = Trump lost.

JD,

I'm curious how long you think it will be before the Republican party becomes completely obsessed with the deficits and the national debt again?

I am on the fence if they will start now or if they will wait until January 21st.

Crid: "in which case I'd still want your ten dollars"

Sorry - you lose!

The NYT headline is:

BIDEN BEATS TRUMP
Race is finally called after record turnout; chaotic term ends with rare incumbent loss.

And, just under that:

Harris Will Become the Country's First Female Vice President.

(It's next to the photo of Biden and Harris.)

But the WaPo shocked me, a day or so ago, by saying that so far, we can only be sure that 65% of the voters turned out! (They said it COULD turn out to be about 74%, but we don't know yet.)

You shoulda taken the bet!

Artemis, like you, I’m not sure. It could go either way. If the Republicans wanted to try to pretend that they’re not being strictly partisan in caring about deficits, they’d start showing their “concern” now. But they may decide, “Fuck it, no one’s going to believe us anyway. Let’s just wait until Biden becomes president.”

...as I spent some time investigating the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease in a research laboratory a few decades ago.

Wow, you've just run the gamut of scientific disciplines, haven't you? And you're an expert in all of them, aren't you?

As for whether Joe Biden is in cognitive decline, any comparison of him today vs. 20 years ago is illustrative, showing a significant decline, beyond what one would expect from aging.

If Joe Biden is fine, I'll be happy for him. If he's not and is removed from office, I'll feel sad for him. I suspect the latter will happen.

Artie, announcing in the middle of a presidential campaign that you're running for the US Senate, introducing your running mate as the head of the ticket, confusing your granddaughter for your dead son and then for your other granddaughter, mistaking your dead son for a living US Senator, repeatedly calling a lid on your campaign before noon, and confusing your sister for your wife are not by themselves indications of cognitive decline, but taken together indicate a pattern that should be worrisome to those who care about Joe.

And no, Artie, I'm not a mental health professional. Were I, I would be ethically bound to avoid making a diagnosis without actually seeing the patient. I'm not, so I'm free to speculate. And, Artie, your research lab experience makes you no more expert on diagnosing cognitive decline than my experience does me; your speculation of no decline is no more accurate or reliable than mine of a decline.

Now, if such a speculation is just a "hyper-partisan conservative" making "unsubstantiated assertions to suit a political narrative," then someone's gonna have to tell Ted Rall that he's joined the other side. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.

In addition, someone will need to inform the 20% of Democratic voters who told pollsters they believe Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline that they're now "hyper-partisan conservatives" making "unsubstantiated assertions to suit a political narrative." I'm sure they'll want to change their voter registrations, trade the Prius for a Hummer, get some new bumper stickers and yard signs, and start denying "settled science."

As for Hillary, voters were right to be concerned over a candidate who needed to be lifted bodily into her SUV, hid a medical diagnosis of pneumonia until she had to choice but to reveal it, wore special lenses to combat the effects of a concussion, canceled several campaign stops to "rest," and experience repeated coughing spells during campaign events.

As to why she's doing better today, four years later, perhaps it's because she was not subjected to the stresses of being president and was able to rest, recover her health, take walks, and drink Chardonnay.

Let's hope Joe's fine. I suspect otherwise. Time will tell.

So Trump couldn’t even win against a guy showing obvious signs of cognitive decline? How humiliating for him. Makes him even more of a loser.

“BIDEN BEATS TRUMP
Race is finally called after record turnout; chaotic term ends with rare incumbent loss.”

* * * * *

Do they have to bring up race into EVERYTHING?

Conan Says:

"Wow, you've just run the gamut of scientific disciplines, haven't you? And you're an expert in all of them, aren't you?"

I've been around the block a few times when it comes to research.

That being said I wouldn't classify myself as an "expert" in Alzheimer's research... I just know more than the typical person. Even after all of these years I can still rattle off the amino acid sequence for some of the key proteins involved in the pathogenesis of the disease.

In any event, my primary expertise remains in the areas of condensed matter physics and surface chemistry. I've just had the opportunity to work on many different projects over the years, which is common.

It just so happens that I've been involved in Alzheimer's related research before.

"I'm not a mental health professional. Were I, I would be ethically bound to avoid making a diagnosis without actually seeing the patient. I'm not, so I'm free to speculate."

That makes your wild speculation all the more ridiculous.

You are literally saying that if you knew more about the subject you would not feel comfortable presenting a diagnosis... but since you don't know very much you'll just speculate away.

Conan... the confidence level you have in any opinion you hold on any subject should be directly proportional to the level of knowledge and understanding you have.

Your knowledge and understanding on this subject is weak... hence the confidence you hold in your opinion should be weak as well.

I'm certainly not going to be swayed by the uninformed speculation of someone with no medical expertise.

Joe is an old man... it is certainly possible that he could develop any number of degenerative disorders. That being said, it is crazy to just start speculating that he has one because you feel like it.

We should all be drawing conclusions based on credible evidence.

Needless to say you apparently had no issues with the cognitive capacity of someone who stared directly into a solar eclipse and informed the public during a press conference that they might cure themselves from corona virus by injecting themselves with disinfectant.

Again... all of this is rhetoric for you, not a serious search for truth or a credible argument you are looking to advance on legitimate grounds.

If the Republicans wanted to try to pretend that they’re not being strictly partisan in caring about deficits, they’d start showing their “concern” now. But they may decide, “Fuck it, no one’s going to believe us anyway. Let’s just wait until Biden becomes president.” ~ JD at November 8, 2020 10:00 AM

That depends upon which wing of the Republican Party you're talking about.

The fiscal conservatives ("Goldwater Republicans") have always been concerned about the deficit and size of the government. The social conservatives ("religious right") only make noise about fiscal discipline when the other party's guy is in charge. And the Northeastern Liberal Republicans ("Rockefeller Republicans") have never been overly concerned about the deficit. The "Rockefeller Republicans" make up the bulk of the "Never Trumpers" with a few "Goldwater Republicans" mixed in.

The "Goldwater Republicans" are small in number in the Republican Party, having been pushed out of power by the Social Conservative Republicans. They were never a large segment of the party, being more Libertarian than Republican and seem to have peaked in 1980 with Reagan's ascension. With the Biden in the White House, fiscal discipline may give then an issue with which to rise again in the party.

In this election, deficit reduction was never a major issue since both Trump and Biden are big spenders. The only consolation to fiscal conservatives in Trump was that he cut regulations and taxes. His political philosophy was kinda hackneyed - big spending while cutting the regulatory state and lowering taxes.

As for taxes, Biden's proposed corporate tax rate increase - from 21% to 28% - would have a detrimental effect on economic growth. At 21%, the US is in the lower end of developed industrialized countries (average = 24.18%) and 21st in the Tax Foundation's 36-country OECD index (down from 28th). At 28%, the US would be near the top, in line with Africa's regional average of 28.45%).

Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, a cut which helped to spur strong economic growth prior to COVID. So yes, spending and tax rates are going to be an issue discussed long and loud over the next four years. And they probably should be.

Well, since you guys are talking are talking about statistics, I’ll just leave this article about Bendford’s Law and what it says about the Biden vote counts right here.... Enjoy!

https://gnews.org/534248/

For those interested more in the theory itself. Numbers are truly remarkable... I found this very interesting...

https://youtu.be/XXjlR2OK1kM

Conan,

One further point:

"your speculation of no decline is no more accurate or reliable than mine of a decline."

I'm not speculating anything Conan. What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. This is a cognitive logical error on your part.

I don't spend my day to day activities "speculating" that the people around me aren't suffering from medical impairments.

The logical default position is to not just go around diagnosing people with degenerative disorders.

The question becomes what should our position be in the absence of credible medical evidence of a disease?

The answer is decidedly *not* that we start speculating that someone is sick because we feel like it.

If there comes a time that credible medical evidence becomes available indicating the cognitive decline of anyone... that is the time to start speculating about potential causes.

At this point you have no credible medical evidence of anything, you are just engaging in conspiracy theories.

Sheep Mom,

I adore numberphile. Here are some other fun channels to check out if you have not seen them before:

Mathologer
3blue1brown
vihart

I've been around the block a few times when it comes to research. ~ Artemis at November 8, 2020 10:33 AM

As someone who's worked in a wide variety of industries in my own field, I will acknowledge that does give one a wide perspective and a large body of experience and knowledge.

You are literally saying that if you knew more about the subject you would not feel comfortable presenting a diagnosis... but since you don't know very much you'll just speculate away.

No, I'm saying if I were a licensed professional in this field, I would be ethically bound not to make a public diagnosis without actually examining the patient and then getting his permission to discuss the diagnosis. Since I am not a licensed professional in this field, I am free to publicly speculate, as are you.

Remember when a group of psychiatrists declared in the 1964 election that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unsuited to the presidency without actually examining him. That led to the implementation of the "Goldwater Rule."

The Goldwater Rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.

While the American Psychological Association does not have a specific rule about public diagnoses, it does discourage them, applying other sections of the ethics code to diagnosing public figures without examining them.

That's why you don't see a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists publicly weighing in on Biden's mental health right now. Their industry codes of ethics discourage it.

Sheep Mom,

I'll also point out that Bendford’s Law doesn't apply in this situation.

As your own video specifies at the 2 minute time stamp:

"...it works so long as the distribution you are choosing from spans loads of orders of magnitude..."

The election results for each state are either in the 100,000's or the 1,000,000's.

That is just 2 orders of magnitude.

In other words, Bendford’s Law is not expected to hold for election results based on our state population sizes.

“ Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox claimed at a press conference Friday that an election software “glitch” in one Michigan county switched thousands of votes for President Donald Trump to votes for Democratic challenger (now President-Elect) Joe Biden.”

It turned out that they had not updated the software, and votes for Trump went to Biden. It was noticed because Trump totals weren’t changing in a GOP district. Can we be sure that all the other states using this software have all updated it? It’s not a conspiracy theory if there’s a chance that other states were as lax.

“That’s why you don’t see a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists weighing in on Biden’s mental health right now. Their industry codes of ethics discourage it.”

They didn’t hesitate in 2016.

I will check those out, thanks! Fortunately, I am married to a math genius (and yes, he has a real PhD) and as he says, while this isn’t proof of fraud, it certainly suggests that inquiries need to be made. The best way would be to go back to those districts that appear as outliers this time and see how the patterns shape up. If they remain consistent, no fraud, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to run a comparison which might prove to those reluctant to believe in the election that there is no fraud.

Sheep Mom,

Mathematical genius aside... it just doesn't apply in this situation as pointed out here:

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/BenfordsLaw.html

"If many powers of 10 lie between the cutoffs, then the probability that the first (decimal) digit is D is given by a logarithmic distribution"

In order for Bendford’s Law to hold any significance this condition must be met.

This condition has not been met for the data set you are talking about, so it doesn't apply.

“...but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to run a comparison which might prove to those reluctant to believe in the election that there is no fraud.”

* * * * *

I doubt anything like that would prove compelling to all those Trump supporters who are convinced there was fraud. I think the only thing that would convince them is Trump himself saying there was no fraud and I’m convinced that he will never say that because his ego can’t accept losing fair and square.

Also, even if, by some miracle, Trump DID say he was convinced there was no fraud, I think there would still be quite a few of his supporters who wouldn’t be convinced even by that.

RE: Benford's Law

What exactly are "many" powers of 10?

Election data include county-level data as well. And you can obviously generate a set of ever-larger datasets from a city/state with hundreds of polling places.

Ben David Asks:

"What exactly are "many" powers of 10?"

If you are really curious about how Benford's law is properly applied I recommend the following article:

https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/past-issues/2011/understanding-and-applying-benfords-law

Here is yet another direct quote that makes it crystal clear that it doesn't apply properly in this particular case:

"While it has been shown to apply in a variety of data sets, not all data sets follow this theory.

The theory does not hold true for data sets in which digits are predisposed to begin with a limited set of digits. For instance, Benford’s Law will not hold true for data sets of human heights, human weights and intellectual quotient (IQ) scores. Another example would be small insurance claims (e.g., between US $50 and US $100). The theory also does not hold true when a data set covers only one or two orders of magnitude."

Please pay special attention to the last sentence.

I believe it should be abundantly clear at this point that the data analysis initially presented was done improperly because the data set only covers 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.

Expert opinions might vary, but I believe if you want to be comfortable you probably want to have your data set cover at least 5 orders of magnitude.

Even then it needs to fall within the kind of data sets that follow this theory (which not all sets do).

I'm singing!

I'm singing!

Good, I'm glad you're not rapping.

The thing is, even if every single Republican leader were to come out and say the election was fair, Trump would still claim it was "stolen."

If Ronald Reagan came back from the dead and proclaimed the election fair, Trump would still claim it was "stolen."

If God himself/herself/itself appeared on Fox News and proclaimed that the election was fair, Trump would still claim it was "stolen."

It's what he does. When he doesn't get his way he rants and whines and claims things aren't fair. He's the epitome of a sore loser.

Artemis: You obviously commented without even looking at the article. "The election results for each state are either in the 100,000's or the 1,000,000's."

If you had read even a few words of the article, you would know that these graphs are showing precinct rather than statewide totals. And if you had even glanced at the graphs, you would know that Benford's law held for Trump and even third-party candidates, and for Biden in many places - it's only violated for big Democratic-run cities in swing states.