Trump's positive coronavirus...

... polls

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/25/trumps-positive-coronavirus-polls/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics

Damn! For a second there...

Louisiana pastor defies coronavirus order, draws over 1,000 people to services

Spurious Correlations

There are websites, such as this one, that show how things can appear to correlate even if they have no clear connection to each other. Some examples are the number of people who drowned in a pool vs. the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in, and the divorce rate in Maine vs. the per capita consumption of margarine.

I seem to have discovered another inexplicable correlation. Of course it's not 100%, but it's close enough to create the amusing illusion of a cause-effect relationship. It's the political party that a state's governor belongs to vs. whether that state has told all of its residents to stay at home:

Question: "Trump said he'd support remote voting (by Congress)." How is that any of his business?

Fox News Headline: "Things you can do right now to stop the spread of coronavirus"

There is nothing anyone can do to stop the spread of coronavirus. The most we can do is help "flatten the curve" to reduce the degree to which medical facilities are overwhelmed.

But that doesn't stop Fox News from carelessly and irresponsibly spreading disinformation:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/things-you-can-do-right-now-to-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus

I foresee an upcoming dilemma concerning campaign rallies vs. slowing the spread of COVID-19

By dilemma I mean a situation in which one is confronted with only bad choices.

Trump has stated that he'll continue his rallies, which will certainly accelerate the spread of COVID-19, so that means the two remaining Democratic candidates will face the choice of also holding rallies and further aiding the spread of COVID-19, or not holding rallies and thereby helping Trump win the election.

Suppose one of the two remaining candidates stops holding rallies while the other candidate continues. Which candidate would you vote for?

If the nominee doesn't choose one of the woman candidates as running mate, I'll be so angry that...

I'll vote for him anyway, but I definitely won't like it.

My Florida ballot isn't due until 3/17 so I still have a couple of weeks to decide.

I know whom I'd like to see as our next president, but unfortunately it seems voting by that criterion is a luxury that we can't afford. Instead it looks like we'll need to nominate the candidate most able to fend off the deluge of deceitful slander that will inevitably come, and that means predicting the strategy that Trump would use against each Democratic candidate and determining how relatively effective that strategy might be.

In other words we can't cast our votes for the candidate we like; we must instead cast the most effective vote against the incumbent, whom we don't like, by voting for the candidate most likely to beat him. And that means being influenced not by what we believe but by what other people believe, even though we know that what they believe isn't true.

So who has the best chance of beating Trump, and why?