Way back in January, when Democrats only cared about removing President Donald Trump from office, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was sounding the alarm on the coronavirus, which at that time appeared contained to China.

Cotton kept asking questions about whether China was telling the truth about how the coronavirus outbreak originated.

“We don’t know where it originated, and we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” back in mid-February “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”

Cotton went on to acknowledge that the U.S. needs more information about how the disease originated in China.

“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”

The Washington Post and other media outlets “fact checked” Cotton’s statements, except they fact checked something Cotton never said. The Post’s fact check consisted of talking to a chemical biology professor at Rutgers University who said, “There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered.”

Another professor said it was “highly unlikely” the virus infected the general population due to an accident at China’s super lab, but then also said it was wrong to suggest China intentionally released the disease – again, something Cotton didn’t say.

Cotton responded to the “fact checkers” by saying he didn’t say the coronavirus was bioengineered. He then listed four hypotheses – not theories – about how the virus originated and again said China needed to provide more information. The four hypotheses were: 1) The virus came from natural causes, 2) it was accidentally released from the lab, 3) it was bio-engineered and accidentally released, and 4) it was bio-engineered and deliberately released. He said the third and fourth hypotheses were the least likely. He also listed these after so-called fact checkers claimed he suggested China deliberately released a bioweapon into the world.

Now, in early April, Post columnist David Ignatius begrudgingly accepts that maybe Cotton was right to suggest the coronavirus was accidentally released from the lab that studies the coronavirus. Of course, Ignatius couldn’t say Cotton was right, and instead downplayed Cotton’s early talk of an accidental release by claiming “Cotton’s earlier loose talk about bioweapons set off a furor, back when he first raised it in late January and called the outbreak ‘worse than Chernobyl.’”

Ignatius also worked in a dig at President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” and “Wuhan virus,” even though major media outlets – including the Post – were using those terms until the Chinese Communist Party said it was racist to use them.

Ignatius then said “China dished wild, irresponsible allegations of its own,” even though he provided no evidence the U.S. also dished “wild, irresponsible allegations.”

Still, Ignatius finally admitted that “the initial ‘origin story’ — that the virus was spread by people who ate contaminated animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan — is shaky.” He then spoke to the same Rutgers professor from the Post’s earlier fact check who now acknowledged that “the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident.”

More from Ignatius:

Ebright described a December video from the Wuhan CDC that shows staffers “collecting bat coronaviruses with inadequate [personal protective equipment] and unsafe operational practices.” Separately, I reviewed two Chinese articles, from 2017 and 2019, describing the heroics of Wuhan CDC researcher Tian Junhua, who while capturing bats in a cave “forgot to take protective measures” so that “bat urine dripped from the top of his head like raindrops.”

And then there’s the Chinese study that was curiously withdrawn. In February, a site called ResearchGate published a brief article by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao from Guangzhou’s South China University of Technology. “In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan. Safety level may need to be reinforced in high risk biohazardous laboratories,” the article concluded. Botao Xiao told the Wall Street Journal in February that he had withdrawn the paper because it “was not supported by direct proofs.”

Yet the Post refused to accept Cotton may have been right to suggest the virus came from that lab that was just down the street from the epicenter of the virus. Instead it used the opportunity to paint the Arkansas senator as a conspiracy theorist.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Washington Post Now Admits Maybe Tom Cotton Was Right To Suspect Coronavirus Outbreak Originated in Chinese Lab

Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.

Of course, that’s not how the senators worded their letter to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.

Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”

“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”

The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to punish men who rejected them, avoid getting kicked out of school, or for sympathy. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.

In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”

Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”

H/t K.C. Johnson

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

The New York Times editorial board, which claims to be “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values,” appears to have deliberately mislead readers on the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.

Wednesday’s editorial, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Tax Cut,” completely ignores the fact that tax revenue increased after the tax cuts were passed and blames the tax cuts when it should be blaming government spending.

Entrepreneur and best-selling author Carol Roth took the editorial board to task for its claims, writing on Twitter that the opinion article was “Incredibly misleading.”

“With the tax cuts, ‘revenue’ was up 4% – we collected more taxes w the cuts,” she tweeted. “The problem is increased spending- which is a huge problem that I have written on/talked about extensively- but should not be conflated w receipts.”

In a follow-up tweet, Roth explained that “while our population has grown 15% since 2001, Govt spending has grown 137%.”

The Times’ editorial board predictably leaves out any mention of how much revenue was brought in after the tax cuts, something one would expect to see in an article claiming the tax cuts weren’t helpful. Instead, the Times’ claims it was a “risible fantasy” for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to claim that the tax cuts would bolster economic growth, when the Times believes the government lost money by lowering taxes.

This is the Leftist premise on tax cuts on the whole: All your money belongs to the government, so anything you are allowed to keep costs the government. Therefore, tax cuts are bad for the government.

The problem, as always, is that the government continues to spend more than it brings in. Despite Republicans’ constant complaining during the Obama administration, the annual federal budget deficit is now over $1 trillion even though until early 2019, the GOP controlled the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.

The Times goes on to claim the tax cuts “were designed to provide the largest benefits to wealthy households and big companies.” As with any tax cut, the people who pay the most in taxes (the wealthy and large corporations) are going to get the largest cut. The Times then harps on Trump for predicting economic growth would reach 6% a year. That may not have happened, but the U.S. Real GDP growth rate under Trump has consistently been over 2%, approaching 3% at the end of 2017.

The Times simply fails to provide evidence counter to its claims that tax hikes are better than tax cuts. It even bemoans the alleged exacerbation of “economic inequality” created by the tax cuts, which, again, are going to be higher for people who pay more in taxes.

The Times tries to claim the tax cuts were akin to Keynesian stimulus, even though that kind of stimulus actually costs the government money, while tax cuts allow citizens to keep more of their own money.

The Times may want their readers to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy and the country, but real Americans saw more money in their pockets throughout the year, allowing them to spend more and feel more secure about their own budget.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: New York Times Editorial Board Predictably Misleads Readers About Trump Tax Cuts

At least 6.4 million students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities have their First Amendment rights restricted.

A new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “surveyed publicly available policies at 366 four-year public institutions and 105 of the nation’s most prestigious private institutions.” The report, based on the policies of these 471 institutions, found that the vast majority of institutes either heavily restricted or marginally restricted students’ free speech rights.

FIRE uses a three-tier system to indicate how much a college or university respects the First Amendment. A “red light” means the institution has at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts students’ free speech rights in a way that is a clear threat to personal freedom without any need for interpretation. A “yellow light” means students have some free speech rights but may have vaguely worded policies that could restrict those rights, such as a policy banning “verbal abuse,” because of how subjective “abuse” could be. A “green light” is given to institutions that do not “seriously imperil speech.” It doesn’t mean the school is a beacon of free expression, but just that FIRE has not found any policies that present serious threats to free speech.

As is common in FIRE’s annual reports on free speech, only a small percentage of colleges an universities are given a “green light.” 2019’s report was the first time the organization gave a “green light” to more than 50 schools. Below are FIRE’s major findings:

The percentage of schools earning an overall “red light” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight database has gone down for the twelfth year in a row, this year to 24.2%. This is over a four percentage point drop from last year, and is exactly 50 percentage points lower than the percentage of red light institutions in FIRE’s 2009 report.

The percentage of private universities earning a red light rating, which stood at 47.1% last year, continued to decrease, coming in at 44.8% this year.

  • 63.9% of institutions now earn an overall “yellow light” rating. Though less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies restrict expression that is protected under First Amendment standards and invite administrative abuse.
  • This is the first year since FIRE began rating speech codes that the list of “green light” institutions reached a total of 50 schools. (Since this year’s report was written, two more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 52.) Policies earn a green light rating when they do not seriously threaten protected expression. Only eight institutions earned a green light rating in FIRE’s 2009 report.
  • 8.3% of institutions surveyed maintain “free speech zone” policies, which limit student demonstrations and other expressive activities to small and/or out-of-the-way areas on campus. A 2013 FIRE survey of these institutions found roughly double that percentage.
  • Sixty-eight university administrations or faculty bodies have now adopted policy statements in support of free speech modeled after the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago (the “Chicago Statement”), released in January 2015. (Since this year’s report was written, two more institutions have adopted a version of the Chicago Statement, bringing the total to 70.)
  • “Many college administrators are scrubbing the most egregious policies from the books, but they’re increasingly crafting subtler policies that still limit student expression,” FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, the lead author of the study, said in a statement about the report. “Yellow light policies aren’t good enough — they still restrict protected speech. Colleges must go green or go back to the drawing board.”

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: REPORT: More Than Six Million American College Students Denied Free Speech Rights

How bad is the Virginia GOP? So bad they didn’t even put up a candidate to run against a Democrat lawmaker who previously had been jailed for a sex scandal involving a teenage employee.

Joe Morrissey was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates when the scandal broke in 2015. As The Daily Wire previously reported:

Morrissey, now 61, was in his 50’s when he was accused of having sex with his 17-year-old secretary, to whom he is now married. He claimed he did nothing wrong, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2015 while admitting there was enough evidence to convict him. (This often happens to innocent and guilty defendants alike, they plead to a lesser crime to avoid worse consequences in front of a jury for a larger crime.) The girl and her mother also denied anything untoward was happening between the two, though he was initially indicted on charges of possessing and distributing child pornography (he had, according to prosecutors, a nude photograph of the girl and had sent it to a friend) and the electronic solicitation of a minor.

Morrissey spent six months in jail for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” but continued to serve as a state legislator while in prison.

Morrissey had resigned as a legislator but won it back in a special election. He sailed to victory in a primary for state Senate earlier this year, defeating incumbent state Sen. Rosalyn Dance by 14 points.

Now Morrissey has won that state senate seat. Morrissey received nearly 64% of the vote, facing Independent Waylin Ross, who received 36% of the vote. Republicans didn’t even offer a candidate in the race.

Morrissey ran a failed bid for Richmond mayor in 2016. In 2018, his law license was revoked. He has actually been disbarred twice, but he appealed the second disbarment. Morrissey’s law license was suspended in 1993 and in 1999. In 2001, he was disbarred due to frequent “episodes of unethical, contumacious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The court ruled in that cast that Morrissey had a “15-year history of contempt citations, reprimands, fines, suspensions, and even incarcerations arising from unprofessional conduct mostly involving an uncontrollable temper, inappropriate responses to stress and dishonesty.”

Morrissey was reinstated to the bar in December 2011, but was revoked a second time in June 2018. Morrissey appealed and lost in July 2019.

None of this has hurt his political career, judging from his recent win. WJLA reported that Morrissey will represent residents in “parts of Richmond, Chesterfield County, Petersburg, Hopewell, Prince George County, and Dinwiddie County.”

Virginia Republicans were trounced Tuesday night, losing control of the state legislature for the first time in decades. In many races across the state, Republicans didn’t even put up a candidate. That’s despite a state Democratic party grabbling with racism and sexual assault scandals. Gov. Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook photo was revealed earlier this year, showing him either in blackface or wearing a KKK robe at a costume party. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax has been accused by two women of sexual assault, though there’s no evidence outside of their statements to condemn him. Attorney General Mark Herring also admitted to wearing blackface while in college.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Virginia Democrat Previously Jailed For Sex With A Teenager Wins Election

Democrats on Tuesday spent most of the day excoriating President Donald Trump for calling the impeachment inquiry against him “a lynching.” Former Vice President and current Democrat 2020 presidential nominee Joe Biden joined in the criticism, scolding Trump for referencing America’s “dark, shameful history with lynching” and calling the comparison “abhorrent” and “despicable.”

But as The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra reported, Biden had a different view of that exact comparison when President Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, was the one getting impeached.

Back in 1998, during an interview on CNN, Biden described the impeachment of Clinton as a “partisan lynching.”

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden said at the time.

After this video surfaced, Biden tweeted a half-hearted apology for his decades-old remarks.

“This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that,” Biden wrote. “Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.”

Biden is apparently claiming he did not choose his words carefully in 1998. He is also imparting a negative motive onto Trump’s comments while claiming his motive was pure. This is a common partisan tactic.

It is also not the first time Biden has apologized for his comments in the 1990s. Biden practically began his presidential campaign by apologizing to Anita Hill for the way her accusations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas were handled. In 1998, Biden apparently told former Sen. Arlen Specter that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, she was lying.”

But when Biden was about to run for president, he called Hill beforehand to express “regret for what she endured,” according to his campaign. The call “did not go how he had hoped,” The New York Times reported.

Those who watched the Hill hearings in the 1990s saw the allegations for what they were, just as Biden had said in 1998. Hill claimed Thomas sexually harassed her, yet she followed him from job to job. Now, in the era of #MeToo, where every allegation must be believed, in large part due to Biden, the Hill issue would have become a problem for the former vice president’s campaign.

Biden also has previously apologized for drafting a landmark crime bill in the 1990s that helped reduce crime in the country. The bill is now considered racist, so Biden apologized for supporting it, even though he previously expressed support as recently as 2016.

Biden later, kind of, apologized for invading women’s personal spaces when interacting with them, like kissing them on the cheek or putting his hands on their shoulders without asking first. In a normal society this wouldn’t be an issue, but Biden has championed a broadened definition of sexual assault and harassment that would include his own behaviors. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro noted after Biden made several apologies for policies he supported decades ago:

Amazingly, though, all of the things for which Biden is apologizing are things for which he should not be apologizing. The early 1990s saw a spike in crime that largely affected minority communities; Hill was probably prevaricating; Biden’s invasion of personal space is awkward, but it was never harassment. But in our new political world, running means having to say you’re sorry for having a record at all. That’s why it was easier for Barack Obama to run than Hillary Clinton — and, in many ways, it was easier for Donald Trump to run than Sen. Ted Cruz. Having a record is a burden.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Biden Apologizes For Calling Clinton Impeachment A ‘Lynching’ After Blasting Trump Over ‘Lynching’ Comments

Math, in case you didn’t already know, is racist.

That appears to be the contention of Seattle Public Schools, which has offered a course for K-12 students titled “Math Ethnic Studies.” The framework for the class lists multiple themes, what students will learn from those themes, and important questions to be asked.

Origins, Identity, and Agency

The first theme, “Origins, Identity, and Agency,” is defined as “the ways in which we view ourselves as mathematicians and members of broader mathematical communities.”

“Mathematical theory and application is rooted in the ancient histories of people and empires of color. All human endeavors include mathematical thinking; from humanities to the arts to the sciences,” the framework continues.

The “learning targets” for this theme start off without a hitch, suggesting students taking the class will be able to “identify ancient mathematicians and their contributions to mathematics” and “know the continents and countries that were and are at the core of the development of mathematics.” Math history doesn’t seem so bad.

But then the course starts to go off the rails. Under “essential questions” students are asked the following questions, among others:

“What is my mathematical identity”

“How does it feel to be a Mathematician”

“What other mathematicians are in my learning community?”

“Is there an authority for math knowledge?”

“What stories are important to your cultural connection to mathematics?”

“What does it mean to do math?”

“How important is it to be Right? What is Right? Says Who?”

Power and Oppression

Yes, Seattle has determined that such terms exist in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The theme is defined as “the ways in which individuals and groups define mathematical knowledge so as to see ‘Western’ mathematics as the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence.”

“This definition of legitimacy is then used to disenfranchise people and communities of color. This erases the historical contributions of people and communities of color,” the framework continues.

The “learning targets” for this themes state that students will be able to “analyze the ways in which ancient mathematical knowledge has been appropriated by Western culture” and to identify and explain how math and other sciences have been “used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.”

Further, students will be able to “critique systems of power that deny access to mathematical knowledge to people and communities of color,” “identify the inherent inequities of the standardized testing system used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color,” “explain how math has been used to exploit natural resources,” and “explain how math dictates economic oppression.”

A lengthy list of “essential questions” for this theme include the following:

“Who holds power in a mathematical classroom?”

“Is there a place for power and authority in the math classroom?”

“Who gets to say if an answer is right?”

“Who is Smart? Who is not Smart?”

“Can you recognize and name oppressive mathematical practices in your experience?”

“Why/how does data-driven processes prevent liberation?”

“How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?”

History of Resistance and Liberation

Keep in mind, all of these themes are “defined by ethnic studies” and applied to numbers and formulas. This theme is defined as: “the stories, places, and people who helped liberate people and communities of color using math, engineering, and technology. Access to mathematical knowledge itself is an act of liberation.”

Not so bad, teaching that math and technology has helped build up civilizations. If only it weren’t couched in a class claiming that same “liberation” is also racist.

This theme states that students will be able to “identify individuals and organizations that have reclaimed mathematical identity and agency.” It also includes praise for higher graduation rates of people of color, which should obviously be celebrated and is one of the few bright spots of the framework.

But again, the framework diverges from what could be an interesting class about the history of math and how technology has helped the world to using math in order to aid racial activism. From the list of essential questions:

“How/why do mathematical processes demand collective thinking?

“How can we change mathematics from individualistic to collectivist thinking?”

“How can we reframe our views of people/communities of color in mathematics?”

Reflection and Action

Ah yes, what “[Blank] Studies” program wouldn’t include a call for activism from minors? This theme is defined as “fostering a sense of advocacy, empowerment, and action in the students that creates internal motivation to engage in and contribute to their identities as mathematicians.”

“Students will be confident in their ability to construct & decode mathematical knowledge, truth, and beauty so they can contribute to their experiences and the experiences of people in their community,” the framework continues.

Learning targets for this section include students valuing “their mathematical identity” and the “potential that math can have on their freedom.”

Essential questions for this theme include:

“What validates (y)our mathematical thinking?”

“Can you advocate against oppressive mathematical practices?”

“How can our stories be valued as data points to impact change?”

“Can I use mathematics to comprehend my everyday life?”

Dori Monson, a Seattle-based radio host, penned an op-ed about the framework, calling it “absolute insanity.”

“This is what happens when you allow radicals to take control of the schools. You start seeing problems where they cannot exist — like in the objective world of mathematics,” Monson wrote. “We’re now reducing math to a divisive sociological issue — and that’s the kind of reduction and division we don’t want to be teaching.”

Radio host Jason Rantz added in his own op-ed that educators aren’t stopping at injecting math with social justice themes. History classes have also been revised to insist “the United States government was founded on racist intellectual premises and economic practices that institutionalized oppression of people of color that continues to the present day.”

Rantz included a statement from Kate Payne, Director of Communications for the Superintendent’s Office.

“In creating a state-level framework and recommended resources, we hope to provide guidance to districts implementing Ethnic Studies as part of their class offerings. Again, the Committee has not yet created any documents, nor have they made any recommendations,” Payne said. “They are in the process of gathering information about current practices and deciding on the best course of action to ensure our students and educators receive appropriate support. This is an elective class offering, and there are no requirements that school districts offer Elective Studies courses at this time.”

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Seattle Public Schools Teaching ‘Math Ethnic Studies,’ Asks, ‘Who Gets To Say If An Answer Is Right?’

In the past few weeks, analysts who have created models to predict the outcome of presidential elections have all noted that, as of right now, President Donald Trump is on track to win re-election, possibly in a landslide.

One such analyst, American University professor Allan Lichtman, said recently that the only way Trump would lose re-election is if Democrats “grow a spine” and impeach him.

“It’s a false dichotomy to say Democrats have a choice between doing what is right and what is constitutional and what is politically right. Impeachment is also politically right,” Lichtman told CNN Wednesday.

Lichtman has correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections, dating back to 1984.

Lichtman is not alone in predicting Trump will win; however, he is alone in suggesting impeachment could stop the president’s re-election.

On May 21, Politico reported on three separate election models that all predict Trump will win re-election thanks to the roaring U.S. economy. Donald Luskin, chief investment officer at TrendMacrolytics, told the media outlet that the “economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it.”

Ray Fair, a Yale economist who quite literally wrote the book on election modeling, has also predicted a Trump win.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” Fair told Politico. The outlet noted that his model predicted Trump would win 54% of the popular vote in 2020.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, used 12 different economic models to predict what will happen in 2020. Trump won in all of them “and quite comfortably in most of them,” Politico reported.

“If the election were held today, Trump would win according to the models and pretty handily,” Zandi told the outlet. “In three or four of them it would be pretty close. He’s got low gas prices, low unemployment and a lot of other political variables at his back. The only exception is his popularity, which matters a lot. If that falls off a cliff it would make a big difference.”

These models — which are based on economic and other indicators — differ greatly from polls, which show Trump losing to perspective Democrat opponents, especially former Vice President Joe Biden.

In the additional models, Trump could lose if the economy crashes or if some major scandal breaks. As Zandi said, Trump’s popularity plummeting could also be a factor.

Any of those things — from an impeachment inquiry to an economic crash — could happen, but right now that’s just something Democrats would be hoping for in order to oust Trump.

According to election models that have a decades-long history of correctly predicting presidential election, Trump will win re-election. According to polls, which have a documented history of being wrong, Trump will lose.

If the economy remains strong going into the election, Trump will certainly win, since Democrats running for president are promising to undo the policies that have helped the economy, such as the Trump tax cuts.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Analyst Who’s Predicted Presidency Correctly Last 9 Elections Says There’s Only One Way Trump Will Lose

A majority of Americans now believe that the special counsel’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election was “politically motivated,” a sharp increase from when the poll was last conducted in January — before the investigation was completed.

The news comes from a recent CBS News poll, conducted between March 25 and March 26, which found 54% of respondents believe the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was “politically motivated,” compared to 37% who believe it was “justified.”

The poll was previously conducted in January and, at that time, found 50% of respondents believed the investigation was “justified” and 45% said it was “politically motivated.”

While this appears to be the biggest nugget of information from the poll, it was not the hook CBS used to report on its own poll. In fact, it was the last point mentioned in the media outlet’s report on the poll, and while every other point in the article received its own tweet, the information about whether the probe was justified or politically motivated did not.

“Mueller report: Majorities across party lines want full report released, CBS News poll says,” was the headline the outlet used. Four people have a byline on the story, which includes a paragraph or two about five different findings in the poll. The fact that the outlet ran with how many people want the report released shows how they wanted to bury the findings of political motivation. There was never a question about whether the Mueller report would be released. The White House never objected to it and neither did Attorney General William Barr, who said this week the report would be released “sometime in April, probably.” True, he said that when the poll was being conducted, but at no time did anyone except left-wing media outlets suggest the report would not be released.

The poll also found that 34% of respondents feel the Mueller report — which found no collusion and not enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction — “has cleared Trump,” compared to 23% who think it “hasn’t cleared Trump.” Another 36% think it’s “too soon to say” whether the report cleared the president.

Drilling down into the parties, the CBS poll found 66% of Democrats want members of their party in congress to continue investigating the matter. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has been more than happy to oblige.

Further, the poll found that 50% of Democrats were “disappointed” in Mueller’s findings, while 69% of Republicans were “pleased.” More Americans (44%) thought the investigation was conducted “fairly,” than “unfairly” (10%). Forty percent said it was too soon to say.

CBS sent out four separate tweets about the poll on Wednesday. The outlet’s poll Twitter account did not include the chart about people thinking the investigation was “politically motivated.” It included all the other points brought up in the article. CBS’s main Twitter account also made no mention of what poll respondents thought of the motivation behind the Mueller investigation.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Dailywire: After Mueller Finds No Collusion, Americans Now Believe Russia Probe Was ‘Politically Motivated’

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is over — and no new indictments against President Trump or his allies are coming — it’s time to look back at all the Democrats and their media counterparts predicting the downfall of an American president.

Grabien’s Tom Elliot posted the video Friday evening, compiling clips of various Democrat congressmen — including Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) — as well as media talking heads like MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, all suggesting with glee that their adversary would be taken down by Mueller.

“My takeaway is there’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” Schiff said in one clip. “We have been discussing the issue of pardons that the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people. The bigger pardon question may come down the road as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”

Waters exclaimed: “If we do the investigations, the information is there.”

A multitude of others also predicted “jail” or “prison” time for Trump and his associates.

“My impression is after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “My impression is that people will probably be charged and probably go to jail.”

And it wasn’t just Democrats and media figures making the predictions. Comedians also got in on the action.

Kathy Griffin can be seen saying, “I think they’re all going to jail.” The View’s Joy Behar said similar of the whole Trump family: “I think they’re all going to end up together in prison and maybe that’s a good thing.”

In the end, Mueller turned over his final report on a Friday evening with no additional indictments. None of the people charged with crimes during his investigation were charged with anything approaching “collusion” with Russia. Trump allies like former campaign chair Paul Manafort and former attorney Michael Cohen were brought down with process crimes relating to the investigation and other forms of fraud not in relation to Russia allegedly stealing the 2016 election.

Fox News’ Ed Henry announced on Twitter that an official in the administration said Attorney General William Barr, who received Mueller’s report, may release his summary of the findings as early as Saturday.

“Admin official tells me AG Barr is moving toward revealing principal conclusions of the Mueller probe at some point on Saturday or Sunday, and his announcement could come ‘as early as tonite[sic],’” Henry tweeted. “AG working thru process but ‘wants to get this out tonite[sic],’ official said flatly.”

Barr would not be releasing the summary to the public just yet, as he is obligated to advise members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees first. It is at Barr’s discretion whether to release the report and how much to release, which means Democrats and their media cheerleaders will still have plenty to complain about as their predictions have fallen flat.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Dailywire: FLASHBACK: Watch Democrats And Media Predict Mueller Report Will Bring Down Trump

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!