1) Gonna offer a hypothesis. This is NOT a prediction quite yet.

2) In the last couple of days the DNCC went back into IA1 (Blum) and VA10 (Comstock) and began placing ads again.

3) These were races they thought they had won in mid-summer. Barbara Comstock was the . . .

3) contd . . epitome of the endangered R who would lose her seat in the fall. She of course still might.

4) But this race was supposed to be over weeks ago. The fact that the DNCC is now having to fight for this territory tells me something.
5) I think the DemoKKKrat strategists can actually read. Moreover, I think they can read absentee/early voting #s as well as we can.

6) Which means they see they are getting buried. Even in NV, the only state of six where they have a tiny lead, I'm told that . . .
6) contd . . when the rural counties come in, Ds will be a shocking 41,000 short of their 2016 numbers (when Trump only lost by 27,000).

7) What does it mean they are now having to retake the "cities" they supposedly held? It probably means they never held them at all.
8) Their "leads" were always based almost entirely on polls.

9) But I think it means something more. I think the DNC is . . .

SCARED. TO. DEATH.
10) They are looking at losing a net five or six more senate seats . . but with some luck, Rs could take one or two more meaning a 58 or 59 seat senate. This would put it well out of RINO range.

Minion Romney would not be able to slink over to the DemoKKKrats . . .
10) contd . . . and caucus to sink Trump-friendly bills or legislation.

Thank you Susan Collins, but that will be the last time you EVER hold the upper hand in a vote.

11) But it means more than that. I think the Ds' retreat in these "safe" races means something bigger:
12) I think they KNOW they will not take the House and now are terrified of actually losing MORE seats to the Rs.

13) Again, the numbers are in their favor: I count only 2 "guaranteed" D-R flips right now and about 5 others. But when you see those absentee #S, . . .
13) contd . . they "seem" to be bringing a different message from the voters.

14) The Ds can afford to not take back the House. After all, they don't have it now.

15) What they CANNOT afford is to be seen as losing across the board, a continuation of the Obama years.
16) I'll wait for more evidence before changing my hypothesis to a prediction, but if I see just two more ad buys in seats that a month ago were considered "safe" D?

I'll know that on election night the drug stores are gonna be running short of razor blades.

More from Larry Schweikart

More from All

1. Mini Thread on Conflicts of Interest involving the authors of the Nature Toilet Paper:
https://t.co/VUYbsKGncx
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew Rambaut
Ian Lipkin
Edward C. Holmes
Robert F. Garry

2. Thanks to @newboxer007 for forwarding the link to the research by an Australian in Taiwan (not on

3. K.Andersen didn't mention "competing interests"
Only Garry listed Zalgen Labs, which we will look at later.
In acknowledgements, Michael Farzan, Wellcome Trust, NIH, ERC & ARC are mentioned.
Author affiliations listed as usual.
Note the 328 Citations!
https://t.co/nmOeohM89Q


4. Kristian Andersen (1)
Andersen worked with USAMRIID & Fort Detrick scientists on research, with Robert Garry, Jens Kuhn & Sina Bavari among


5. Kristian Andersen (2)
Works at Scripps Research Institute, which WAS in serious financial trouble, haemorrhaging 20 million $ a year.
But just when the first virus cases were emerging, they received great news.
They issued a press release dated November 27, 2019:

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".