Pronk Pops Show 1411 March 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1410 March 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 9, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 5, 20
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Nobody knew then, but it was the start of a rally that would ultimately add $20 trillion to equities and become the most enduring in history.
Now, a bull market that nobody saw coming has ended the same way it began — amid panic, and with little warning. Based on when it last hit a record, the Dow plunged 20% from Feb. 12, and investors who had only just begun to wade back in are getting crushed by a global health scare that has, thus far, resisted every effort to halt. (Inconveniently for market statisticians, the bear market arrived first in the Dow and not their preferred gauge, the S&P 500.)
In the end, it was one more crisis than could be contained by the market’s guardians. What set apart this bull market was, of course, the Federal Reserve. In modern history, no rally has been more closely associated with the central bank — and its unprecedented experiments in monetary policy — than this one. But policy makers who had so successfully shielded investors from credit crises, subpar economic growth and all manner of market turmoil, had no answer for a virus threatening to cause a global recession.
“What changed during this bull market is we assumed the Fed could solve everything. If this becomes a global demand problem, the Fed won’t be as able to help –- not with conventional policy,” said Peter Tchir, head of macro strategy at Academy Securities LLC.
It’s testament to the power of the advance that a plunge as violent as this one has lowered the annualized bull market return by less than 2 percentage points. If by a miracle you bought at the bottom, you’re still sitting on handsome gains — about 15% a year. Someone who waited 12 months before jumping in is doing fine, too.
“The bull market became an old friend and maybe we took its ability to fly for granted a bit too much, its ability to continue to power on,” said Marvin Loh, senior global macro strategist for State Street. “It was unique, it was euphoric. It made a lot of people feel great. But a lot of people didn’t participate as much as they could have, also.”
Not everyone will mourn an era whose early stages were fueled by Ben Bernanke’s controversial approach to stimulus, experiments with names like Quantitative Easing and Operation Twist designed to spur investment by pushing banks and individuals out of the fixed-income havens to which they flocked during the crisis. Every time the rally threatened to collapse — and shares twice before came within points of losing 20% — central bank pronouncements breathed new life.
“Looking back on this bull market, financial textbooks will be re-written to start with central bank policy,” said Matt Miskin, co-chief investment strategist at John Hancock Investment Management. “And that section could equate to nearly half the content.”
The rally was a monster by many measures. At its peak on Feb. 19, the S&P 500 needed to climb about 3% more to eclipse the return of the mother of all bull markets, the dot-com frenzy that lifted it 545%. At the same time, its slow-and-steady nature kept it out of the ranks of the fastest. Going by the S&P 500 — which isn’t in a bear market, technically — the 18.3% annualized gain at the top is actually smaller than all but one of 12 previous bull markets.
Its biggest claim to history is its length. While a robust debate exists among wonks over how to date bull markets, most statisticians consider this to be the most durable on record. It lasted 11 years and two days and featured two calendar years in which the total return exceeded 30%.
The unrelenting climb has made U.S. stocks the envy of the world for a decade. In the past 10 years, the S&P 500’s gained more than 135%, compared with an advance of about 60% in the MSCI All-Country World Index. Emerging market stocks fell around 2% over that period.
“It was an all-American bull market. It paid to be provincial,” said Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer at Leuthold Group. “Toward the end, consumer discretionary did exceptionally well, especially considering we came out of a massive consumer recession. That’s an all-American thing: consumption.”
Amid Europe’s credit crisis, a downgraded U.S. credit rating, the Flash Crash, the rally struggled to gain converts early on — some wags called it the most hated bull market ever. In later stages a different sort of contempt began to emerge, from struggling American wage earners who saw equity returns as a Fed-fomented gift to the 1%. At various times in the past decade the return on the S&P 500 has exceeded growth in worker pay by the most on record. Four tech megacaps have seen their value jump over $1 trillion.
That aside, for anyone depending on the market for old-age money, the sight of the plunge has been harrowing.
“Someday I’ll tell my grandchildren how our generation rode an investment fad that overweighted stocks in our portfolios from the highs down to the lows, leaving us with less than we hoped for in retirement,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist for MUFG Union Bank. “The end of the bull market really means an end of confidence in our own futures. We’ll never see a repeat of 2019’s 28.8% gain in the S&P 500 again.”
The World Health Organization today finally declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic after blaming ‘alarming levels of inaction’ by governments across the planet for fueling the crisis.
As the number of confirmed cases of the bug worldwide surpassed 112,000 – and the death toll neared 4,500 – the WHO said it was ‘deeply concerned by the alarming levels of spread and severity’.
Director-General of the UN agency Dr Tedros Adhanom also blasted governments for ignoring repeated WHO pleas to take urgent and aggressive action, with cases of the deadly illness outside of China having risen 13-fold in the space of a fortnight because of escalating crises in Italy, Iran, Spain, Germany, and France.
The WHO said: ‘Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.’
In a desperate call for governments to band together and tackle the coronavirus, Dr Adhanom said: ‘We’re in this together, to do the right things with calm and protect the citizens of the world. It’s doable.’
The last pandemic – defined as the uncontrolled worldwide spread of a new disease – to be officially declared was the swine flu outbreak in 2009, which scientists estimate killed hundreds of thousands of people.
More than 125,000 people globally have already been infected with the coronavirus, which can cause pneumonia but causes mild flu-like symptoms for 98 per cent of patients.
Cases have slowed dramatically in China, where the bug first emerged at the end of December. However, the crisis has now enveloped Europe, where the number of cases rises by the day.
Around 60million Italians – whose country is the worst-hid by the infection after China – are now subject to an official curfew imposed upon them by the Italian Government.
Outbreaks are also worsening in Spain, France, Germany, and the UK; in the latter, the eighth confirmed death by the coronavirus was announced earlier, leading to charges of dithering by Boris Johnson’s administration.
Leading experts, including Germany’s health minister, have called the crisis a pandemic for weeks – and the WHO itself has admitted the killer virus has been spreading between humans in four continents since February 28.
+29A doctor in Wuhan, China – where the outbreak began at the end of December – checks the medicine given to an infected patient
In other developments to the escalating global crisis today:
The specific definition of a pandemic are not universally agreed upon, but there are known to be three main criteria.
These are: sustained person-to-person transmission, evidence of world-wide spread and a disease that can cause sudden illness or death.
COVID-19 is a mild flu-like illness for the overwhelming majority of patients, which may explain why the WHO was so reluctant to call it a pandemic.
Until today, it said the clusters of cases in other countries around the world could be traced back to Asia, where the situation began.
Calling the outbreak a pandemic does not mean any advice given to countries on on how to contain the killer virus will change – it is just an admission that it is now spreading in dozens of nations.
More countries have now confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the killer infection, than those that haven’t.
Saudi Arabia temporarily suspended travel of citizens and residents and halted flights with several states on Thursday due to coronavirus fears.
The decision includes the European Union, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Sudan, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Eritrea, Kenya, Djibouti, and Somalia, source added, saying the Kingdom also suspended entry to those coming from these countries.
Saudi Arabia also suspended passenger traffic through all land crossings with Jordan, while commercial and cargo traffic is still allowed, and the passage of exceptional humanitarian cases.
The decision excludes health workers in the Kingdom from Philippines and India, and evacuation, shipping and trade trips taking necessary precautions. Saudi Arabia has 45 coronavirus cases.
Cuba confirmed its first cases of coronavirus, while its textile industry has been drafted to fabricate masks and the government also urged citizens to make their own, amid a cash crunch and dwindling supplies worldwide.
The World Health Organization has said the coronavirus outbreak can now be classed as a pandemic. Pictured, it’s chief executive Dr Tedros Adhanom
At a press conference in Geneva – where the WHO is based, Dr Tedros revealed 81 countries have not reported any cases.
He said: ‘We cannot say this loudly enough, or clearly enough, or often enough: all countries can still change the course of this pandemic. Even those countries with community transmission or large clusters can turn the tide on this coronavirus.’
Dr Tedros said several countries have demonstrated the virus can be suppressed and controlled – outbreaks in China and South Korea have dramatically slowed.
But he added the ‘challenge for many countries’ now dealing with large clusters ‘is not whether they can do the same – it’s whether they will’.
Dr Tedros also said: ‘Some countries are struggling with a lack of capacity. Some countries are struggling with a lack of resources.’
And in a veiled jab at some countries battling escalating outbreaks, he added: ‘Some countries are struggling with a lack of resolve.’
He said: ‘We are grateful for the measures being taken in Iran, Italy and South Korea to slow the virus and control their COVID19 epidemics. We know that these measures are taking a heavy toll on societies and economies, just as they did in China.
‘All countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic & social disruption & respecting human rights.
‘This is not just a public health crisis, it is a crisis that will touch every sector – so every sector and every individual must be involved in the fight.
‘I remind all countries that we are calling on you to: activate & scale up your emergency response mechanisms; communicate with your people about the risks and how they can protect themselves; find, isolate, test and treat every COVID19 case and trace every contact.’
An epidemic is a situation in which a disease takes hold in a single community, which could be a town, region or country. A pandemic is when this ongoing person-to-person spread of the disease happens in multiple countries around the world.
A disease being a pandemic does not make it more dangerous, nor change anything about how it affects people or what can be done to stop it.
A report by the WHO on Monday confirmed that the virus was spreading unchecked in 30 countries in Europe, which is now at the centre of the global crisis.
The list of countries include Spain, Germany and France – popular Easter holiday destinations for thousands of Brits looking to jet abroad.
It comes after an elderly woman today became the first person to die of the killer coronavirus in the Republic of Ireland.
The patient, who hasn’t been identified, suffered from respiratory symptoms before a doctor decided to test for COVID-19.
Health chiefs in Ireland did not reveal her age but said she died earlier today despite treatment at a hospital in the east of the country.
Chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan said: ‘I would like to extend my condolences to the family and friends of this patient.’
The head of the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) Paul Reid tweeted that the Republic is entering ‘a new phase’ of coronavirus
In other developments, a British woman died of coronavirus in Indonesia – becoming the country’s first death in the epidemic.
Indonesia’s government said the 53-year-old woman with diabetes and lung disease had died in hospital after being admitted in a critical condition.
Reports in Indonesia say she was cremated today. Her husband was also in Indonesia and is due to return to Britain soon, officials say.
It means eight Brits have now died from COVID-19. The first death to be recorded was a holidaymaker onboard the doomed Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined off the coast of Japan.
Six fatalities have since been recorded in England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have yet to record any deaths.
Iran today reported 63 new deaths from the coronavirus in the past 24 hours, the highest single-day toll since it announced the first deaths from the outbreak.
In an attempt to combat the disease, firefighters were deployed this morning to spray disinfectant over the city’s streets.
Iran’s Health Ministry said the deaths are among some 9,000 confirmed cases in Iran, where the virus has spread to all of the country’s provinces.
Iran is yet to officially impose quarantines but authorities have repeatedly called on people to refrain from travelling.
It has closed schools and universities and resorted to shutting hotels and other tourist accommodation to discourage travel.
Most of the cases confirmed in the UK have been in England (387). Fears are mounting that the worsening crisis in the UK is mirroring that of Italy, where 60million people have been placed in an unprecedented lockdown
People wearing a protective face masks walking across London Bridge today as Britain braces itself for an increase in cases of the coronavirus. Experts expect the outbreak to peak in the next fortnight with thousands more cases
Firefighters on a firetruck trundle down a road in southern Tehran today, spraying disinfectant to stem the spread of the coronavirus
A firefighter points from the spraying end of a fire truck that is disinfecting the streets of Tehran, today
Disinfection works are being carried out by fire brigade crew in the streets of Tehran as a precaution against coronavirus (COVID-19) today
Among the dead are five of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard members and an unspecified number of the Guard’s volunteer Basij force.
There are concerns that the number of infections across Iran is much higher than the confirmed cases reported by the government, which is struggling to contain or manage its spread.
The rising casualty figures each day in Iran suggest the fight against the new coronavirus is far from over.
It comes after a passenger was arrested for licking his hand and wiping it on a handrail on the Belgian subway, forcing the train to be taken off service and disinfected.
The unidentified man, who appears intoxicated, can be seen removing his mask before bringing his hand to his mouth and licking it.
He then brings his right hand up to the vertical rail and grips it, before rubbing it along the bar.
The Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company, the capital’s public transport provider, tweeted shortly after the event: ‘The man (intoxicated) was arrested by the police and our security service.
‘The subway train was withdrawn from service to be disinfected. Thank you for your message. Our metros are cleaned every day.’
The video, posted by a user who preferred to remain anonymous, was uploaded to Twitter on Saturday and social media users were outraged by the man’s behaviour.
Elsewhere in Europe, Poland today closed all schools, museums and cinemas, while Ukraine’s capital city Kiev will shut all educational buildings due to fears of coronavirus spreading despite both countries having lower rates of infection compared to the rest of Europe.
Speaking at a joint conference following a special meeting on coronavirus, Polish ministers said that pre-schools and schools would stop teaching on Thursday, but limited care would still be provided this week to the youngest children. Universities, museums, theaters and cinemas will also close on Thursday for two weeks, the officials said.
In the footage posted on the 9 March, the man can be seen cradling his can of beer on the Belgium subway system
The man, who the Brussels public transport system said was intoxicated, can be seen pulling down his face mask
The move is also being carried out by Poland’s neighbour, Ukraine, in its capital city, Kiev.
Poland has confirmed 26 cases of coronavirus, but looking at how fast the virus spreads in some other European countries, the government decided to take the preventive action, officials said.
The Mayor of Kiev, Vitaly Klitschko, whose country has counted just one case, said he was introducing similar ‘preventive measures’.
The WHO earlier this month admitted the killer coronavirus outbreak sweeping the world won’t be officially declared a pandemic.
Instead, the UN-body said the crisis has already been a public health emergency of international concern – the highest warning level – for a month.
The WHO drew flak for declaring the 2009 swine flu outbreak a pandemic, which turned out to be mild and less deadly than feared.
It used to use a six-phase system for outbreaks, with phase six being a full-blown pandemic.
Critics said the WHO created panic about swine flu and caused governments to stockpile vaccines which went unused.
Some even questioned its links to the pharmaceutical industry, after firms such as GlaxoSmithKline profited from producing a H1N1 vaccine.
H1N1, which emerged in Mexico and the US, is thought to have killed up to 200,000 people in more than 200 countries.
The WHO eventually declared the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) on January 30.
The WHO rejected making the coronavirus outbreak a PHEIC before its eventual U-turn. It is only the sixth time the term has been used.
The designation, still in place, was aimed at helping countries with weaker health systems shore up their defenses, especially in Africa.
Italy has the highest coronavirus death rate in the world with one in every 16 people who catch the disease there dying from it.
At least 10,149 people have now been diagnosed with the virus, making it the worst hit country outside of China, and 631 are confirmed to have died.
Its death rate is 6.22 per cent, according to the most recent data – the highest in the world.
In China the death rate is 3.91 per cent and scientists have suggested if that is higher than the true figure because many cases are likely to be going unreported.
The deadly impact in Italy has been put down to three possible factors – a huge population of old people, cases being concentrated in a small area, and a lag in testing meaning the number of total cases is inaccurate.
Only Wuhan and the Hubei province around it have more cases of the coronavirus than Lombardy, the worst hit area in Italy, which is putting immense pressure on local health systems.
A municipal worker is seen spraying disinfectant in Piazza San Marco in Venice today. Tourism has all but stopped in Italy and citizens are banned from travelling
Italy has become the unlikely epicenter of the world’s coronavirus crisis.
It yesterday recorded a massive 168 deaths in a single day and, on Monday, had at least 1,492 new infections confirmed.
Even in the peak of its own epidemic, China – with a population 22 times the size of Italy’s – never recorded more than 3,900 in a day.
Government complacency has been blamed for the speed at which the outbreak has gripped the country, but the age of its citizens may be what is causing the deaths.
Italy has the biggest population of elderly people in Europe, with almost a quarter of people (22 per cent) aged 65 or older.
And the median age – the middle of the age range – is 46.5 years old, according to the CIA – the fifth highest in the world.
For comparison, the UK’s median age is 40.6 (18 per cent aged over 65) and the US’s is 38.5 (17 per cent over 65).
The older someone is, the more deadly catching the coronavirus can be.
Age is known to be one of the biggest risk factors because the immune system and lungs are naturally weaker so the body is less able to fend off pneumonia, which the virus causes in severe cases.
Research has found that people aged 80 or over have a 14.8 per cent risk (one in seven) of dying if they develop COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
The local president of Lombardy, Attilio Fontana, confirmed: ‘All the deaths we’ve had are either very old people or very sick people,’ the New York Times reported.
A roadblock is shown at the Austrian border – Austria is now turning away Italian citizens who try to cross onto its soil without a certificate proving they’re coronavirus-free
As patient ages decline, so do their chances of dying.
Between 60 and 69 years old the death rate is around 3.6 per cent, while it is more like 1.3 per cent for those aged 50 to 59.
For people in their 40s this drops to 0.4 per cent, and it’s just 0.2 per cent for those in their 30s.
People who have other long-term health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease or cancer are also at a greater risk because they have weaker immune systems than usual.
Italians caught up in the country’s coronavirus outbreak may also be at particularly high risk because most of the cases are concentrated in a small area.
The northern regions of Lombardy and Veneto are the ones that have been hardest hit by the infection.
Lombardy is an area smaller than England with Milan as its only major city, but is host to more than 5,000 coronavirus cases, while the surrounding regions of Emilia-Romagna, Veneto and Piedmont contain the majority of the remainder.
This means Lombardy has more cases than any province of China outside of Hubei, of which Wuhan is the capital.
That region alone has more cases than Spain, France, Germany or the US do in total.
As a result local hospitals are under immense pressure, which means patients may not get the high quality care they need and the virus could be more likely to spread in overloaded hospitals.
Experts also say that the true number of cases is not being recorded in Italy because the infection is spreading so fast and people with mild illness may not be counted.
This means the death rate appears higher than it is because all the deaths will be counted – most patients will have been hospitalised and diagnosed before dying –but not all the infections.
Krys Johnson, a disease expert at Temple University in Philadelphia, admitted: ‘We probably don’t know how many people have actually become infected,’ according to Scientific American.
The situation is so bad in Italy partly because the Government stopped testing people in late January unless they had been to China.
Strict rules had been put in place to test anyone with the symptoms of coronavirus but, after the Government banned all flights from China – it was the first country to do so – the testing relaxed.
As a result, infected people are believed to have travelled into Italy from other countries.
The first confirmed patient is thought to have passed the virus on to at least five other people, including doctors and patients in the hospital he was taken to, before even being diagnosed.
Officials still don’t know how the man, a 38-year-old in Milan, was infected, and there are fears the virus circulated for weeks before he was discovered.
Pronk Pops Show 1410 March 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 9, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 5, 20
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Donald Trump claimed the oil price crash which led to the plunging stock market was ‘good’ for consumers because it is based on cheaper gas Monday as Wall Street faced a fall so dramatic trading was briefly halted.
‘Good for the consumer, gasoline prices coming down!’ Trump tweeted Monday, one of a string of tweets accusing the ‘fake news’ of prompting the sell-off.
He accused the media of ‘inflaming’ the virus outbreak and dismissed the collapse in oil prices as the result of Saudi Arabia and Russia ‘arguing.’
As the Dow Jones lost a year’s gains, he was shuttling across Florida from Mar-a-Lago to a $100,000-a-head fundraiser – and tweeting that flu was worse than coronavirus.
‘Saudi Arabia and Russia are arguing over the price and flow of oil,’ Trump continued in another tweet Monday morning. ‘That, and the Fake News, is the reason for the market drop!’
Markets all over the world plummeted Monday over the growing threat of the virus spreading, but Trump has not addressed the economic impact as the coronavirus death toll bypassed 20 in the U.S.
Global markets opened with big losses Monday morning as the economy saw its worst day in more than 10 years.
Trump continued to downplay the threat, citing that more people died from the flu last year, and insisting life and the economy will ‘go on’ even over the escalation in coronavirus outbreak.
‘So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year,’ Trump cited in a tweet.
‘Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on,’ he insisted. ‘At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!’
The president has repeatedly expressed incredulity at the number of flu deaths, and the idea that people die of it. In 1918, his grandfather Freidrich died of Spanish flu.
Trump claims that media outlets are working with Democrats to make the coronavirus outbreak seem worse than it is.
Donald Trump claimed Monday morning that the market drop is ‘good for the consumer’ because gasoline prices are coming down
The Dow Jones saw its worst single-day drop since 2008 as Saudi Arabia goes into a price war over oil and concerns over coronavirus spreading continues to rock, but Trump said the ‘fake news’ is the reason for the plummet
During his trip to attend a fundraiser in Orlando, Trump shook hands with supporters gathered to greet him
![The president insisted while tweeting from Florida Monday that 'life & the economy [will] go on' as markets plunged and coronavirus concerns spread](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/03/09/18/25739826-8091389-The_president_insisted_while_tweeting_from_Florida_Monday_that_l-a-17_1583778020973.jpg)
The president insisted while tweeting from Florida Monday that ‘life & the economy [will] go on’ as markets plunged and coronavirus concerns spread
Instead, he took to Twitter to laud himself and his administration for the response to the outbreak
Trump also praised himself for making the decision to halt travel from high-risk countries as the fast-spreading respiratory virus rose as a worldwide threat
‘The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power (it used to be greater!) to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant,’ the president tweeted Monday morning.
‘Surgeon General, ‘The risk is low to the average American,” he continued, quoting U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams.
‘So much FAKE NEWS!’ he lamented in a separate tweet Monday morning.
Trump’s claims comes as the death toll in the U.S. reached 26 on Monday afternoon and cases continued to spread to new areas of the country, including the first confirmed case in Washington, D.C.
Kansas and Missouri also announced their first cases over the weekend as the cases number now exceeds 600.
The most U.S. deaths occurred in Washington state after the virus spread among residents at a nursing facility in a suburb of Seattle.
But Trump insists the threat is less serious than is being portrayed by media reports and Democratic lawmakers.
He then praised himself in another tweet Monday morning for banning travel from high-risk countries early on in the outbreak.
‘The BEST decision made was the toughest of them all – which saved many lives,’ Trump lauded of his administration. ‘Our VERY early decision to stop travel to and from certain parts of the world!’
Trump stopped travel from certain countries to the U.S., including from China and Iran – and Americans have been warned of traveling to other high-risk countries like Italy and South Korea.
The president is usually the first to address stock market gains under his administration, but since coronavirus has caused markets to fall, he has remained largely silent on the matter.
Earlier this month, the U.S. saw its worst week since the 2008 financial crisis and on Monday markets plunged nearly 7 per cent.
Markets in Asia, Europe and the Middle East also opened sharply lower on Monday as investors came to grips with the global spread of coronavirus.
Trump also praised Vice President Mike Pence, who he appointed last month to lead the charge by the coronavirus task force on addressing the outbreak and halting the spread
The global market plunged, causing the worst one-day crash in crude oil prices in 30 years, after Saudi Arabia launched a price war.
On Friday Russia refused to follow OPEC’s efforts to stop market plummets caused by the escalation of the coronavirus outbreak.
In early trading, BP was down by 18 percent, Royal Dutch Shell was down 14 percent and ExxonMovil was down 11 percent.
Ordinarily, a slump in oil prices offers a boost for airlines because their fuel costs are low.
But with the ever-shrinking demand for flights due to the virus, they have been left unable to capitalize.
The coronavirus crisis, which has now infected more than 110,000 people globally, has crippled supply chains and prompted cuts to global growth forecasts for 2020.
Downtrodden brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Monday morning before the market opened
There are now more than 500 cases of the virus in the US alone
There is no sign that the spread is close to slowing down, either.
Traders are now expecting the Federal Reserve to again cut interest rates next week after an emergency reduction on March 3, putting the yield on benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury on course for its biggest one-day fall in almost a decade.
Shares of rate-sensitive U.S. banks Citigroup Inc, Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo & Co and Morgan Stanley slid between 7.4 percent and 9.6 percent.
Marathon Oil Corp, Devon Energy Corp, Apache Corp, Pioneer Natural Resources Co slipped between 22 percent and 28 percent and were some of the biggest losers among S&P 500 components.
At 7:12 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 1,255 points, or 4.87 per cent. S&P 500 e-minis were down 145 points, or 4.89 percent and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 410 points, or 4.82 percent.
Much of the chaos has been sparked by the failure of a deal between OPEC Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC leader Russia.
Generally, the world’s largest oil producers agree on production rates and cuts in order to stabilize the industry.
With coronavirus slowing demand for supply, they met last week with Russia, which is not part of OPEC but is a large oil producer, to discuss cutting production.
Russia refused, setting in motion a chain of events described by analysts as a ‘worst case scenario’ that could descend into an all-out price war.
Last month, Trump appointed Vice President Mike Pence to head the task force addressing the coronavirus crisis.
‘Great job being done by the @VP and the CoronaVirus Task Force. Thank you!’ Trump tweeted Monday.
Coronavirus has infected more than 108,000 people worldwide and is throwing many countries’ economies into turmoil.
The number of confirmed cases in New York rose by 13 over the weekend, nearing the state total to 90.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo issued a declaration of emergency in the state.
But Trump claimed late Sunday night that the messaging from Cuomo is ‘political weaponization’ of the coronavirus.
‘There are no mixed messages, only political weaponization by people like you and your brother, Fredo!’ Trump insisted in his tweet, making reference to Cuomo’s brother, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.
Saudi Arabia slashed its oil export prices over the weekend and declared a price war with Russia that sent global markets reeling and marked the sharpest decline in oil futures since 1991.
The price drop came after Russia refused to sign on with a proposal by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut production globally as the coronavirus outbreak has slowed the demand for oil.
OPEC nations met with allies like Russia on Thursday and Friday in Vienna to reduce oil production by an additional 1.5million barrels per day to stabilize the market starting in April through the end of the year.
But Russia refused to join to agreement.
From Russia’s perspective cutting production would boost US oil producers at the expense of international competitors and lead to a loss in profits.
On Saturday, after the group failed to come to a consensus, Saudi Arabia – which runs the world’s large oil company Saudi Aramco – slashed its export oil prices to saturate the market and trigger a price war aimed at Russia.
An oil price war triggered by a falling out between Saudi Arabia and Russia is exasperating the economic chaos. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (left) and Russian president Vladimir Putin (right)
Saudi Arabia slashed crude prices to Chinese customers by as much as $6 to $7 a barrel and is looking to boost output by as many as 2million barrels a day.
China is the world’s biggest oil importer and has purchased oil at cheap prices to stockpile for future use in the past.
As a result the Brent global oil benchmark fell dramatically on Sunday by 30 percent, dropping to $31.02 a barrel at its lowest.
US West Texas Intermediate crude, the other main price benchmark for oil, dropped 27% to $30 per barrel – the lowest level since February 2016.
Sunday’s decline in the oil market was the sharpest slump in 29 years since the Gulf War in 1991.
Global stock markets took hits on Sunday with the Tokyo stock market index plunging 6.2 percent, Hong Kong 3.9 percent, Sydney 6.1 percent, and Riyadh eight percent.
The failed talks marked the first break in a three-year alliance between Saudi Arabia led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
The alliance was key to competing with a surge in American oil production that turned the US into a major crude exporter for the first time in decades.
In response to the price cut Russia said its companies were free to pump as much as they could, as per Bloomberg.
‘If you are Russia, it’s worth it for you to take a three-month price hit to see if you can knock out U.S. oil exports,’ Amy Myers Jaffe, an oil and Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said to the New York Times. ‘They might be correct for three months but the shale never gets destroyed.’
Jaffe said the disagreement between the two nations ‘signals that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Russia is on the skids.’
Analysts speculate the actions over the weekend may have been a game between Saudi Arabia and Russia that will end when they come to a compromise.
If not, oil prices could tumble to the lowest level in five years
Health officials have warned, though, that it may not be safe for everyone to fly everywhere.
In a statement Tuesday morning, the trade group Airlines for America said that “false media narratives … have led to confusion and uncertainty across the country,” and argued that it’s safe to fly, saying “numerous health officials have affirmed that the risk remains low for travelers who follow CDC guidelines.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the committee that oversees aviation, said she didn’t fly home to Washington state last weekend and doesn’t plan to in the foreseeable future.
“I have an 88-year-old mom who’s living at my house [in Washington] and she’s been ill, and I want to give her the comfort of being there. When you have elderly people you want to make sure you’re not putting them at additional risk,” she said. “And look, do I think that there can be airline travel that is safe? Yes. But if you don’t have to…”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), 85, noted that the doctor said “stay off of those planes as much as we can.”
“If any of you is going to Alabama Thursday night, can I get a ride?” Shelby quipped to reporters gathered around him Tuesday. “I’ll ride in the back of the truck.”
Also Tuesday, a coalition of mostly travel interests spearheaded by the U.S. Travel Association made a similar plea, noting that canceling travel and events “has a trickle-down effect that threatens to harm the U.S. economy, from locally owned hotels, restaurants, travel advisors and tour operators to the service and frontline employees who make up the backbone of the travel industry and the American economy.”
Yesterday, the credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded the industry’s outlook from stable to negative, warning that there is an “increasing risk to demand for passenger air travel as the coronavirus expands globally.”
And today, the Global Business Travel Association reported that business travel is “slowing at an alarming rate,” finding that 13 percent of its members have canceled even domestic travel, along with high rates of canceled international business travel.
“Those are the customers that are the most profitable for airlines,” said airline analyst Henry Harteveldt.
Though airlines have yet to publicly ask for assistance from the government, the potential for some kind of stimulus has been a topic of discussion on and off Capitol Hill for days, and President Donald Trump has indicated that he favors some assistance for airlines and the cruise industry.
On Tuesday, Trump, along with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, met with Senate Republicans at their weekly lunch to discuss potential stimulus ideas on a range of topics.
Several Republican senators said that support for the airline and cruise industries was discussed generally, but that few specifics were given.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said that he had not been approached by either industry asking for aid.
Despite the fresh bad news, there is still a high level of uncertainty in the outlook for airlines and the travel industry broadly. “At this point, you cant really do forecasting because we’ve never really been in a situation quite like this before,” said Harteveldt.
And it remains true that overall, the industry is in much better shape than it was after 9/11 and in 2008, when airlines were hit hard by the recession, said Bob Mann, another airline industry analyst.
“The industry structure and company’s balance sheets individually are in far better shape,” he said. “Even the worst balance sheets are better than the average balance sheets in 2008 and 2001.”
Airlines have been taking steps to reduce their capacity, which Mann called “prudent.”
American Airlines is the latest to make that call, announcing this morning it would cut summer international flights by 10 percent and domestic flights by 7.5 percent. Delta Air Lines also said Tuesday that it is cutting international flights by 20 percent to 25 percent and domestic flights by 10 percent to 15 percent.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/airlines-travel-slump-coronavirus-125016
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Jack Keane
|
|
|---|---|
General Jack Keane in 1999
|
|
| Born | February 1, 1943 New York City, New York, U.S. |
| Allegiance |  United States |
| Service/branch |  United States Army |
| Years of service | 1966–2003 |
| Rank | General |
| Commands held | XVIII Airborne Corps 101st Airborne Division 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division |
| Battles/wars | Vietnam War |
| Awards | Presidential Medal of Freedom Defense Distinguished Service Medal (2) Army Distinguished Service Medal (2) Silver Star Legion of Merit (5) Bronze Star |
John M. “Jack” Keane (born February 1, 1943) is a retired American four-star general, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient. He is a noted national security analyst, primarily on Fox News, and serves as chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and as chairman of AM General.
Keane was born in 1943 in Manhattan, New York,[1][2] the son of Elizabeth (Davis) and John Keane. He has a brother, Ronald. Keane married Theresa Doyle in 1965 and has two sons.[3] His wife died in 2016 after having Parkinson’s disease for 14 years.[4]
Keane attended Fordham University, where he participated in The National Society of Pershing Rifles, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in accounting in 1966. He then attended Western Kentucky University, graduating with a master’s degree in philosophy. He later attended the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College.[3]
Keane (left) meeting with an army colonel
Keane served in the Vietnam War as a paratrooper.[5] He later served in U.S. engagements in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. His commands include the 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, 101st Airborne Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps.[3]
In 1991 Keane saved the life of David Petraeus during a live-fire exercise. According to Keane, Petraeus was shot “accidentally, standing right next to me, and I had to fight to save his life. He had a hole about the size of a quarter in his back and is gushing with blood, and we stopped the bleeding and got him on a helicopter and got him to a surgeon and so we were sort of bonded ever since that time.”[6]
Keane retired from military service in 2003.
Following his retirement, he has served as an informal advisor to presidents and other senior officials. He served an advisory role in the management of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. In January 2007, Keane and scholar Frederick W. Kagan released a policy paper titled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,”[7] through the American Enterprise Institute that called for bringing security by putting 30,000 additional American troops there for a period of at least 18 months. In part convinced by this paper, President George W. Bush ordered on January 10, 2007, the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, most of whom would be deployed to Baghdad. This deployment has been nicknamed the 2007 “surge“.[8][9]
Of his initial meeting with President Bush regarding the surge, Keane said he made a phone call to Newt Gingrich to ask his advice prior to the meeting. As Keane said in 2014,
Gingrich gave me some good advice. He said, “Look, Jack. Most people go in the Oval Office, even people who go in there a lot, have a tendency in front of the President of the United States to always leave something on the table.” He said, “Don’t leave anything on the table.” He said, “You’re going to get about 15 minutes at best and put it all out there. And when you walk out of that room, feel good that you got it all out there.” So that was sound advice, and I did put it all out there.[10]
Keane was asked by then-Vice President Cheney to go back on active duty and lead the surge in the field. When Keane declined, Cheney pressed him to come work in the White House and oversee both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Keane again declined. Keane ended up briefly working at the White House and then later traveled to Iraq several times to advise General Petraeus.[11]
Keane is a regular contributor to Fox News, and is involved in a variety of business, think tank and charitable activities. He serves as chairman of AM General, the firm that produces the Humvee.[12][13]. In June 2016, Keane co-founded IP3 International (IP3), a nuclear energy consulting firm.
Keane is an advisor to the Spirit of America, a 501(c)(3) organization that supports the safety and success of Americans serving abroad and the local people and partners they seek to help.[14] He formerly served as a strategic advisor for Academi and is a former director of defense giant General Dynamics.
Shortly after Stanley A. McChrystal declined the Secretary of Defense job, Vice-President Elect Pence heard the emotional reasons for the newly widowed general’s decline of the same job. After the departure of General Mattis, the President offered the job again to the subject, but he declined because he was newly remarried.[15] He is considered an influential voice to leaders from both major political parties, including President Trump, particularly on foreign policy issues related to the Middle East.[16]
Keane is a cofounder and director of IP3 International.[17] According to a staff report to the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign of Donald Trump, and subsequently, Trump aides such as Jared Kushner and others have been engaged in promoting IP3’s plan to transfer nuclear technology from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia. According to the report, IP3 founders and others have been seeking to broker a deal with Riyadh without the “gold standard,” a provision — tied to section 123 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act which establishes conditions for nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and its allies — that seeks to limit weaponizing of nuclear energy.[18][19] In July 2019, the committee chairman released a second staff report that detailed various activities and contacts between IP3 and the Trump administration.[18] [20]
Military awards Keane has received include two Defense Distinguished Service Medals, two Army Distinguished Service Medals, the Silver Star, five Legion of Merits, the Bronze Star Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, one Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Chiefs Service Badge, the Humanitarian Service Medal,[3] Ranger Tab, Combat Infantryman Badge, Master Parachutist Badge, and Air Assault Badge. President Donald Trump has announced that Keane is set to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the second week of March 2020.[21]
His civilian awards include the Fordham University Distinguished Alumni Award, the USO 2002 Man of the Year award, and the Association of the United States Army 2001 Man of the Year award.
 |
||
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to John M. Keane. |
| Military offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by Eric Shinseki |
Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army 1999–2003 |
Succeeded by George Casey |
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 202
Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Nonfarm payrolls grew far more than expected in February as companies continued to hire leading into a growing coronavirus scare.
The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. economy added 273,000 new jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate was 3.5%, matching its lowest level in more than 50 years. An alternative measure of joblessness that counts those not looking for work and holding part-time jobs for economic reasons edged higher to 7%.
There was more good news for the jobs market: The previous two months’ estimates were revised higher by a total of 85,000. December moved up from 147,000 to 184,000, while January went from 225,000 to 273,000. Those revisions brought the three-month average up to a robust 243,000 while the average monthly gain in 2019 was 178,000.
Despite the strong numbers, Wall Street was heading for more losses stemming from worries over the effects of the coronoavirus outbreak, though Friday’s futures were off their bottom after the report.
“This could be the last perfect employment report the market gets for some time,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank.
Gains were spread across a multitude of sectors as the total employment level hit 158.8 million, near its December 2019 record.
Health care and social assistance led the way in job creation with 57,000 new positions. Food services and drinking places both added 53,000 while government employment grew by 45,000 due to Census hiring and state government education. Construction added 42,000 thanks to continued mild weather, while professional and technical services contributed 32,000 and finance rose by 26,000, part of a 160,000 gain over the past 12 months.
In the survey of households, employment rose by 126,000 while the ranks of the unemployed decreased by 105,000.
“While it’s too early to see the impact of the coronavirus on the labor market, we can say the labor market was in a good place before the virus began to spread,” said Nick Bunker, economic research director at job placement firm Indeed. “But the next few months will be a test of just how resilient this labor market is.”
The jobs numbers took on particular importance in February as worries intensified over the economic impact from the novel coronavirus, though the report covered the time frame before worries over the disease intensified.
Most of the indicators thus far have shown little damage. Jobless claims remain well within their recent trend, coming in at 216,000 in the latest reading Thursday. Job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas also reported Thursday that planned layoffs actually fell 16% from January. And key ISM readings on both manufacturing and services show companies still plan to hire.
“Now more than ever, we need to focus on the labor market data,” said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “The consumer has kind of kept things afloat.”
Most of the consumer-related data points have been good, though the reports coming in now largely cover the early stages of the coronavirus scare and the sharp recent stock market volatility.
With the large measure of uncertainty around the disease, its impacts may be felt in increments rather than suddenly. But if cracks begin to form, the first notices likely will come in employment data.
“If we start to handle things the way they’re handled in Italy and South Korea, closing schools and having mandated cancellations of travel and sporting events, I think there’s no way we don’t start to see it in the labor market and in consumer confidence and spending,” Sonders said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/us-jobs-report-february-2020.html
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-20-0379
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 6, 2020
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- FEBRUARY 2020
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance,
food services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and
technical services, and financial activities.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household
survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic
characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and
earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical
methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons,
at 5.8 million, changed little in February. The unemployment rate has been either
3.5 percent or 3.6 percent for the past 6 months. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Asians declined to 2.5
percent in February. The rates for adult men (3.3 percent), adult women (3.1 percent),
teenagers (11.0 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Blacks (5.8 percent), and Hispanics
(4.4 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and
A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.1
million, changed little in February and accounted for 19.2 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate remained at 63.4 percent in February. The
employment-population ratio, at 61.1 percent, changed little over the month but was
up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.3 million,
changed little in February. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time
employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they
were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In February, 1.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little changed from the previous month. These individuals were not in the labor
force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the
prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey.
Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no
jobs were available for them, numbered 405,000 in February, little different
from the previous month. (See Summary table A.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 273,000 in February, after an increase of
the same magnitude in January. In 2019, job growth averaged 178,000 per month. In
February, notable job gains occurred in health care and social assistance, food
services and drinking places, government, construction, professional and technical
services, and financial activities. (See table B-1.)
Employment in health care and social assistance increased by 57,000 in February.
Health care added 32,000 jobs, with gains in offices of physicians (+10,000), home
health care services (+10,000), and hospitals (+8,000). Employment in social assistance
increased by 25,000, with a majority of the gain in individual and family services
(+18,000). Over the past 12 months, employment increased by 368,000 in health care and
by 191,000 in social assistance.
Food services and drinking places added 53,000 jobs in February. Employment in the
industry has increased by 252,000 over the past 7 months, following a lull in job growth
earlier in 2019.
In February, government employment increased by 45,000, led by a gain in state government
education (+16,000). Federal employment increased by 8,000, reflecting the hiring of
7,000 temporary workers for the 2020 Census.
Construction added 42,000 jobs in February, following a similar gain in January (+49,000).
In 2019, job gains averaged 13,000 per month. In February, employment gains occurred
in specialty trade contractors (+26,000) and residential building (+10,000).
In February, employment in professional and technical services increased by 32,000. Job
growth occurred in architectural and engineering services (+10,000) and in scientific
research and development services (+5,000). Employment continued to trend up in computer
systems design and related services (+8,000). Over the past 12 months, professional and
technical services has added 285,000 jobs.
Employment in financial activities increased by 26,000 in February, with gains in real
estate (+8,000) and in credit intermediation and related activities (+6,000). Over the
past 12 months, financial activities has added 160,000 jobs.
Employment in other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and information, changed little over the
month.
In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
increased by 9 cents to $28.52. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have
increased by 3.0 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees increased by 8 cents to $23.96 in February. (See tables B-3
and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 0.1 hour to
34.4 hours in February. In manufacturing, the workweek increased by 0.2 hour to 40.7
hours, and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production
and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.7
hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised up by 37,000 from
+147,000 to +184,000, and the change for January was revised up by 48,000 from +225,000
to +273,000. With these revisions, employment gains in December and January combined were
85,000 higher than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports
received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and
from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged
243,000 per month over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on
Friday, April 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
| Employment status, sex, and age | Not seasonally adjusted | Seasonally adjusted(1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb. 2019 |
Jan. 2020 |
Feb. 2020 |
Feb. 2019 |
Oct. 2019 |
Nov. 2019 |
Dec. 2019 |
Jan. 2020 |
Feb. 2020 |
|
|
TOTAL |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
258,392 | 259,502 | 259,628 | 258,392 | 259,845 | 260,020 | 260,181 | 259,502 | 259,628 |
|
Civilian labor force |
162,793 | 163,497 | 164,235 | 163,047 | 164,401 | 164,347 | 164,556 | 164,606 | 164,546 |
|
Participation rate |
63.0 | 63.0 | 63.3 | 63.1 | 63.3 | 63.2 | 63.2 | 63.4 | 63.4 |
|
Employed |
156,167 | 156,994 | 158,017 | 156,866 | 158,544 | 158,536 | 158,803 | 158,714 | 158,759 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
60.4 | 60.5 | 60.9 | 60.7 | 61.0 | 61.0 | 61.0 | 61.2 | 61.1 |
|
Unemployed |
6,625 | 6,504 | 6,218 | 6,181 | 5,857 | 5,811 | 5,753 | 5,892 | 5,787 |
|
Unemployment rate |
4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.5 |
|
Not in labor force |
95,599 | 96,004 | 95,393 | 95,345 | 95,444 | 95,673 | 95,625 | 94,896 | 95,082 |
|
Persons who currently want a job |
5,196 | 5,107 | 4,973 | 5,206 | 4,756 | 4,832 | 4,832 | 4,904 | 4,962 |
|
Men, 16 years and over |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
124,965 | 125,513 | 125,575 | 124,965 | 125,687 | 125,773 | 125,852 | 125,513 | 125,575 |
|
Civilian labor force |
86,056 | 86,331 | 86,597 | 86,399 | 86,901 | 87,104 | 87,049 | 87,088 | 87,008 |
|
Participation rate |
68.9 | 68.8 | 69.0 | 69.1 | 69.1 | 69.3 | 69.2 | 69.4 | 69.3 |
|
Employed |
82,311 | 82,701 | 83,047 | 83,066 | 83,776 | 84,018 | 84,034 | 83,940 | 83,871 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.5 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 66.8 |
|
Unemployed |
3,745 | 3,629 | 3,549 | 3,333 | 3,126 | 3,086 | 3,015 | 3,147 | 3,137 |
|
Unemployment rate |
4.4 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.6 |
|
Not in labor force |
38,909 | 39,183 | 38,979 | 38,566 | 38,786 | 38,669 | 38,803 | 38,426 | 38,568 |
|
Men, 20 years and over |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
116,513 | 117,110 | 117,181 | 116,513 | 117,242 | 117,331 | 117,413 | 117,110 | 117,181 |
|
Civilian labor force |
83,435 | 83,600 | 83,804 | 83,588 | 83,911 | 84,057 | 84,008 | 84,087 | 84,001 |
|
Participation rate |
71.6 | 71.4 | 71.5 | 71.7 | 71.6 | 71.6 | 71.5 | 71.8 | 71.7 |
|
Employed |
80,117 | 80,358 | 80,592 | 80,677 | 81,196 | 81,377 | 81,390 | 81,345 | 81,202 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
68.8 | 68.6 | 68.8 | 69.2 | 69.3 | 69.4 | 69.3 | 69.5 | 69.3 |
|
Unemployed |
3,318 | 3,241 | 3,212 | 2,911 | 2,715 | 2,679 | 2,618 | 2,743 | 2,799 |
|
Unemployment rate |
4.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
|
Not in labor force |
33,078 | 33,511 | 33,377 | 32,925 | 33,330 | 33,274 | 33,405 | 33,023 | 33,180 |
|
Women, 16 years and over |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
133,427 | 133,988 | 134,053 | 133,427 | 134,158 | 134,247 | 134,329 | 133,988 | 134,053 |
|
Civilian labor force |
76,737 | 77,167 | 77,638 | 76,648 | 77,500 | 77,243 | 77,507 | 77,518 | 77,538 |
|
Participation rate |
57.5 | 57.6 | 57.9 | 57.4 | 57.8 | 57.5 | 57.7 | 57.9 | 57.8 |
|
Employed |
73,857 | 74,292 | 74,970 | 73,800 | 74,769 | 74,518 | 74,769 | 74,774 | 74,888 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
55.4 | 55.4 | 55.9 | 55.3 | 55.7 | 55.5 | 55.7 | 55.8 | 55.9 |
|
Unemployed |
2,880 | 2,874 | 2,668 | 2,848 | 2,731 | 2,725 | 2,738 | 2,744 | 2,651 |
|
Unemployment rate |
3.8 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 |
|
Not in labor force |
56,690 | 56,822 | 56,415 | 56,779 | 56,658 | 57,004 | 56,822 | 56,470 | 56,514 |
|
Women, 20 years and over |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
125,177 | 125,770 | 125,841 | 125,177 | 125,907 | 125,998 | 126,082 | 125,770 | 125,841 |
|
Civilian labor force |
73,942 | 74,320 | 74,768 | 73,667 | 74,542 | 74,291 | 74,584 | 74,512 | 74,501 |
|
Participation rate |
59.1 | 59.1 | 59.4 | 58.8 | 59.2 | 59.0 | 59.2 | 59.2 | 59.2 |
|
Employed |
71,396 | 71,785 | 72,413 | 71,169 | 72,130 | 71,881 | 72,200 | 72,097 | 72,179 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
57.0 | 57.1 | 57.5 | 56.9 | 57.3 | 57.0 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 57.4 |
|
Unemployed |
2,546 | 2,535 | 2,355 | 2,497 | 2,411 | 2,411 | 2,383 | 2,415 | 2,323 |
|
Unemployment rate |
3.4 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
|
Not in labor force |
51,235 | 51,450 | 51,073 | 51,511 | 51,365 | 51,706 | 51,498 | 51,258 | 51,340 |
|
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years |
|||||||||
|
Civilian noninstitutional population |
16,702 | 16,622 | 16,606 | 16,702 | 16,696 | 16,692 | 16,686 | 16,622 | 16,606 |
|
Civilian labor force |
5,416 | 5,578 | 5,663 | 5,792 | 5,948 | 5,999 | 5,964 | 6,007 | 6,043 |
|
Participation rate |
32.4 | 33.6 | 34.1 | 34.7 | 35.6 | 35.9 | 35.7 | 36.1 | 36.4 |
|
Employed |
4,655 | 4,851 | 5,012 | 5,019 | 5,218 | 5,278 | 5,213 | 5,273 | 5,378 |
|
Employment-population ratio |
27.9 | 29.2 | 30.2 | 30.1 | 31.3 | 31.6 | 31.2 | 31.7 | 32.4 |
|
Unemployed |
761 | 727 | 651 | 773 | 730 | 721 | 752 | 734 | 665 |
|
Unemployment rate |
14.0 | 13.0 | 11.5 | 13.3 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 12.6 | 12.2 | 11.0 |
|
Not in labor force |
11,286 | 11,044 | 10,943 | 10,909 | 10,748 | 10,693 | 10,722 | 10,614 | 10,562 |
|
Footnotes |
|||||||||
|
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. |
|||||||||
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (table 1), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP also increased 2.1 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was also 2.1 percent. In the second estimate, an upward revision to private inventory investment was offset by a downward revision to nonresidential fixed investment (see “Updates to GDP” on page 2).
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and nonresidential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased (table 2).
Real GDP growth in the fourth quarter was the same as that in the third. In the fourth quarter, a downturn in imports and an acceleration in government spending were offset by a larger decrease in private inventory investment and a slowdown in PCE.
Current dollar GDP increased 3.5 percent, or $184.2 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $21.73 trillion. In the third quarter, GDP increased 3.8 percent, or $202.3 billion (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, the same increase as in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.3 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.
More information on the source data that underlie the estimates is available in the “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file on BEA’s website.
Updates to GDP
In the second estimate, the fourth-quarter growth rate in real GDP was unrevised from the advance estimate. Private inventory investment, exports, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment were revised up. These upward revisions were offset by downward revisions to nonresidential fixed investment, PCE, state and local government spending, and an upward revision to imports. For more information, see the Technical Note and the “Additional Information” section below.
| Advance Estimate | Second Estimate | |
|---|---|---|
| (Percent change from preceding quarter) | ||
| Real GDP | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Current-dollar GDP | 3.6 | 3.5 |
| Gross domestic purchases price index | 1.5 | 1.4 |
| PCE price index | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| PCE price index excluding food and energy | 1.3 | 1.2 |
For the third quarter of 2019, the percent change in real GDI was revised from 2.1 percent to 1.2 percent based on new third-quarter data from the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
2019 GDP
Real GDP increased 2.3 percent in 2019 (from the 2018 annual level to the 2019 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.9 percent in 2018 (table 1).
The increase in real GDP in 2019 reflected positive contributions from PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, state and local government spending, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from residential fixed investment. Imports increased (table 2).
The deceleration in real GDP in 2019, compared to 2018, primarily reflected decelerations in nonresidential fixed investment and PCE, which were partly offset by accelerations in both state and local and federal government spending. Imports increased less in 2019 than in 2018.
Current-dollar GDP increased 4.1 percent, or $846.9 billion, in 2019 to a level of $21.43 trillion, compared with an increase of 5.4 percent, or $1,060.8 billion, in 2018 (tables 1 and 3).
The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in 2019, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in 2018 (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 4).
Measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, real GDP increased 2.3 percent during the period. That compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2018. The price index for gross domestic purchases, as measured from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019, increased 1.4 percent during 2019. That compared with an increase of 2.2 percent during 2018. The PCE price index increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 1.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent (table 6).
* * *
Next release, March 26, 2020 at 8:30 A.M. EDT
Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019
* * *
https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2019-second-estimate
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
President Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
AS DEMOCRATS BATTLED IT out in 14 states on Super Tuesday, President Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries, defeating challengers in a much-expected outcome.
The president won all 14 states, picking up more than 740 delegates. Candidates need at least 1,276 delegates to win the Republican party’s nomination and Trump’s victory brings his count to 859. His opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld has picked up one delegate so far.
AS DEMOCRATS BATTLED IT out in 14 states on Super Tuesday, President Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries, defeating challengers in a much-expected outcome.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who dropped out of the race Wednesday, won American Samoa. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts had a disappointing night, failing to win any state, including her home state of Massachusetts, which went to Biden.
Trump tweeted as the results came in, exclaiming that the “Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN!” He added that it was “selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race.”
The president’s campaign argued Super Tuesday only caused more chaos in the Democratic Party and that, while voters may be excited about Biden, he is a “terrible candidate.”
“The results only increase the likelihood that no candidate will have enough delegates for a first ballot victory at their convention, which only means more chaos! The media is hyperventilating about Joe Biden but everyone should remember that he is just as terrible a candidate right now as he was a few days ago,” the campaign said in a statement.
“President Trump will wipe the floor with whatever Democrat is unlucky enough to be the nominee,” the campaign added.
Mike Bloomberg dramatically quit the presidential race Wednesday morning after a disastrous Super Tuesday and immediately backed Joe Biden.
The billionaire gained just 44 delegates by 10.11am, the time he announced his departure – but ran up a bill of $1 billion.
He immediately and whole-heartedly backed Biden, the night’s big winner, hinting that his vast fortune is now at the former vice-president’s disposal.
‘I’ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it,’ he said.
‘I’ve known Joe for a very long time. I know his decency, his honesty, and his commitment to the issues that are so important to our country – including gun safety, health care, climate change, and good jobs.
‘Today I am glad to endorse him – and I will work to make him the next President of the United States.’
Democrats are also urging Elizabeth Warren to drop out after further pulling votes from frontrunners Biden and Bernie Sanders without winning any states – including her home of Massachusetts.
She was reported by NBC News to he holding talks with aides about ‘the path forward,’ suggesting that she too is on the brink.
And in yet another blow to Warren early Wednesday morning, Biden was declared winner in Maine, the last of the 14 Super Tuesday states to declare – and Warren did not even get the 15 per cent threshold to pick up delegates there.
In the White House Donald Trump took time out of the coronavirus crisis to send a string of mocking tweets about his richer would-be rival and notably about Bloomberg’s campaign aide Tim O’Brien. Trump had tried and failed to sue O’Brien for libel for writing in 2006 that he was not a real billionaire.
Bloomberg had been a late bloomer to the race.
Seeing the relative weakness of frontrunner Biden, and after first saying he would not run for the White House in 2020 the billionaire decided to jump in after all around Thanksgiving.
Out: Mike Bloomberg quit the race hours after a drubbing, saying: ‘After yesterday’s results, the delegate math has become virtually impossible – and a viable path to the nomination no longer exists.’
Like another former New York City Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, who ran for the White House in 2008, Bloomberg decided to skip the first states that held primaries – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
But a change in the Democratic National Committee rules allowed for Bloomberg to still make the Las Vegas debate stage last month.
It was the first time for American voters to see Bloomberg the candidate outside the flurry of television ads his hundreds of millions had bought.
And while the expectation was for Sanders, a democratic socialist, to push back on Bloomberg being there, within the first 10 minutes Warren brought up some of the alleged sexist behavior from the ex-mayor’s past.
‘I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg,’ Warren said. ‘Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk.’
Warren’s debate performance was the beginning of the end.
The results of the single-biggest primary contest night essentially narrowed the field to a two-horse race with Biden edging Sanders.
On Super Tuesday, 14 states and the U.S. territory of American Samoa voted, and Bloomberg only walked away with a win in Samoa – where six delegates were up for grabs.
Every other state was won by either the former vice president or senator from Vermont.
The scale of Biden’s comeback is not in doubt – and neither is Sanders’ ability to keep going, possibly even to the convention in Milwaukee in July.
Biden began by winning state after state, and appeared to stumble when California went to Sanders just after the polls closed there at 8pm – 11pm Eastern.
For the two frontrunners, Sanders’ win in California initially threatened to upend the narrative of the night being a sensational comeback for Biden.
However, the state may yet deliver the kind of resounding win or delegate haul for Sanders that had been forecast.
Sanders had a strong lead, with 87 per cent of the vote in, Biden was running nearly 9 points ahead, and the Vermont senator had garnered over a million votes. In California, Bloomberg also slipped below the 15 per cent threshold he would need to hit in order to collect delegates.
There was a dramatic race playing out through the night in Texas, the night’s second biggest prize. Biden opened up a lead over Sanders early Wednesday morning.
By the time the race was called around 2 am, he was leading Sanders by 50,000 votes, with 89 per cent reporting. Biden was at 33 percent, Sanders was at 30 per cent, and Bloomberg was at 15 per cent – just enough to earn delegates.
As votes continued to come in Wednesday morning, Bloomberg had slipped below that 15 per cent.
There were long lines in Harris County, home to Houston, where Biden was running up strong margins. As in southern states, Biden was running up big margins with the state’s African American voters, but Sanders heavily targeted Latino voters in the state. Biden’s margin, however was bigger.
Some voters were online for six hours, in a state that had pared back polling locations. Biden cleaned up among those who decided who to back late – winning the group 49 to 20 per cent in the state.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called it ‘astounding,’ noting that Biden didn’t spend ‘a penny’ there, speaking on CNN.
Biden staged a dramatic rally in Dallas Monday where he secured endorsements from former presidential rivals Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke. Earlier Monday, Pete Buttigieg had also endorsed the former vice president.
O’Rourke later took Biden out to a Whataburger, a regional chain, for a milkshake.
Across the map there were signs of Biden’s sudden revival.
Biden dealt a humiliating blow to Warren in her home state of Massachusetts – snagging at least 28 delegates out of the state and beating her in her backyard. She vowed to stay in the race all the way to the conventions even as more centrist candidates flocked to 77-year-old former vice president.
He also denied the prize to Sanders, who hails from a neighboring state.
Bloomberg was born there, and had actor Michael Douglas stumping for him in Boston.
But the region where he dominated was the south, with wins stretching from Virginia to Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Biden scored a surprise win in Minnesota.
Warren, hosting a rally in downtown Detroit, called herself ‘the woman who’s going to beat Donald Trump.’
The final details of delegate distribution were yet to be determined as the night wore on. But Biden’s overwhelming performance, and the collapse of Bloomberg and Warren, immediately reset the race, with the prospect that Sanders and his political ‘revolution’ would be up against a long slog against the Demoratic establishment-backed candidate as he was against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Biden rushed to win after win early in the night, with Virginia, North Carolina and Alabama falling in rapid succession.
He took Minnesota without spending a dime on advertising and despite being third in the polls until Amy Klobuchar dropped out on Sunday. She endorsed Biden on Monday.
‘Prediction has been a terrible business and pundits have gotten it wrong over and over,’ she said. ‘Here’s my advice. Cast a vote that will make you proud.’
Then Sanders took some western wins in Utah and Colorado and snared the biggest state of all.
Bernie Sanders seized a victory in California in the last act of a dramatic Super Tuesday which saw Joe Biden win state after state in landslides across the nation – only for his rival to take the biggest prize of all
s Biden raced to a series of state victories, Mike Bloomberg’s campaign said he plans to ‘reassess’ whether he should stay in the race tomorrow. His aides said his campaign chiefs were considering their next move. Dropping out would hand a huge victory to Biden and also the potential for Bloomberg’s almost unlimited resources to be thrown behind him immediately
Donald Trump skewered his critics while toasting his own successes on Twitter as results rolled in from Super Tuesday ballots across the country.
The President reserved most of his ire for ‘Mini’ Mike Bloomberg and Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren, who both had poor showings in the polls.
Hitting out at fellow New York billionaire Bloomberg, Trump branded him ‘the biggest loser of the night, by far’.
‘His ‘political’ consultants took him for a ride,’ Trump tweeted.
‘$700 million washed down the drain, and he got nothing for it but the nickname Mini Mike, and the complete destruction of his reputation. Way to go Mike!’
Trump also took aim at Warren after she failed to win her home state of Massachusetts, landing her a distant third in the delegate stakes.
‘Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren, other than Mini Mike, was the loser of the night. She didn’t even come close to winning her home state of Massachusetts,’ he wrote.
While Trump made sure to put down his rivals, he donated most of his energy to cheering his own successes – albeit while facing token opposition.
As each win rolled in he tweeted out a message of thanks to his supporters, while vowing to retake the presidency in November.
In Los Angeles, before California was called for Sanders, Biden took to the stage and cast himself the victor, regardless if Sanders took both California and Texas.
First, he mixed up his wife Jill and sister Valerie, a characteristic gaffe which has clearly done nothing to put off Democratic voters.
Biden declared: ‘It’s a great night and it seems to be getting even better. They don’t call it Super Tuesday for nothing!’
The former vice president recalled how just days ago the suggestion was that Super Tuesday would mark the end of his campaign.
‘Well it may be over for the other guy,’ Biden said, a clear shot at Sanders.
Energized, coherent and not put off even by two militant vegan protesters who ran onto the stage to protest against the dairy industry, he painted himself as the one Democrat who can take on Trump.
‘A lifelong Democrat, an Obama-Biden Democrat,’ he said to cheers – a pointed way to contrast himself to Sanders, who is an independent senator.
Jill Biden was captured in a photograph grabbing the protester by the arm and grimacing. Symone Sanders, Sanders’ former press secretary who’s not a top Biden adviser, had rushed across the stage to pull a protester off.
It was a return in part to the early days of the race, when Biden held a strong polling lead before the first states voted and caucused. With Sanders on the rise days ago and party leaders warning the democratic socialist could seize the nomination Tuesday, forces coalesced around Biden in South Carolina.
A key factor was the endorsement there of James C. Clyburn, the state’s most senior African American elected official.
In Vermont, Sanders pinned his hopes on California, pivoting to a victory speech and a string of attacks on Biden.
‘Tonight I tell you with absolute confidence we are going to win the Democratic nomination,’ he said.
The path to the nomination in Milwaukee now runs through a mini-Super Tuesday on March 10, when Missouri, Michigan, Washington and Mississippi vote.
Sanders had appeared to be ahead in Michigan but Biden’s upset in Minnesota is likely to weigh heavily there, and the combined demographic of African-Americans and disaffected blue collar voters could play to Biden’s strengths.
The following Tuesday, March 17, offers another selection of massive delegate counts when Florida, Illinois and Ohio all vote, along with Arizona.
The following week, March 24, sees Georgia vote, which Biden’s southern firewall should make a surefire victory.
For Sanders, the loss of momentum from a rocky Super Tuesday could be critical.
In 2016 he stayed in by rallying his base and railing against an ‘establishment’ determined not to give him the nomination and to install an ‘inevitable’ candidate in Hillary Clinton.
That may be more difficult as he faces in Biden an opponent whose comeback narrative offers him some of the advantages of the underdog, and whose narrative of empathy and standing up for those who were left behind overlaps with Sanders’ more radical rhetoric.
The string of endorsements Biden has garnered in the last few days from centrist party figures, including three of his former rivals, have been crucial in driving momentum.
Energized, coherent and not put off even by two militant vegan protesters (pictured) who ran onto the stage to protest against the dairy industry, Biden painted himself as the one Democrat who can take on Trump
Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for president fell flat on Super Tuesday as she was unable to win even her home state of Massachusetts.
Warren lost to both Joe Biden – whose South Carolina win Saturday night restored his frontrunner status – and Bernie Sanders, who represents neighboring state Vermont. Warren was in third place with 22 per cent of the vote with 70 per cent of the votes counted.
‘Predictions are a terrible business. Pundits have gotten it wrong over and over,’ Warren told the Michigan crowd. ‘Cast a vote that will make you proud. Vote from your heart. And vote for the person who you think will make the best president of the United States.’
During her final rally in California Monday night, Warren dismissed the surging Biden as a same-old, same-old Washington politician.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders look over Super Tuesday election results at a campaign center in Denver, Colorado
Tulsi Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, remains in the race though has only campaigned sporadically. She did make a pitch to voters in American Samoa, where she was born, to vote for her Tuesday
People wait to vote during the presidential primary in Santa Monica, California on Super Tuesday
People line up to vote at a polling station on Super Tuesday in Beverly Hills, California
Students at the University of Vermont Franklin fill out voter registration forms at a polling place on Super Tuesday in Burlington, Vermont. At the close of the polls on Tuesday night, Sanders won his home state
Now Biden will have Bloomberg out of his way in order to capture more moderate voters – and Bloomberg’s commitment to help him remove Trump from office.
President Trump, for his part, touted his string of Republican primary victories Tuesday night, tweeting his thanks after state after state was called in his favor.
The president only had token competition – former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld – in the Super Tuesday contests and one state, Virginia, canceled its GOP primary as Trump, like most incumbent presidents, is easily expected to win his party’s nomination.
Trump has played armchair pundit on Twitter as he’s watched the shake-up on the Democratic side.
‘Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, other than Mini Mike, was the loser of the night. She didn’t even come close to winning her home state of Massachusetts. Well, now she can just sit back with her husband and have a nice cold beer!’ Trump tweeted early Wednesday.
The president relished the news that Bloomberg had bowed out.
‘Mini Mike Bloomberg just “quit” the race for President. I could have told him long ago that he didn’t have what it takes, and he would have saved himself a billion dollars, the real cost,’ Trump wrote. ‘Now he will pour money into Sleepy Joe’s campaign, hoping to save face.’
‘It won’t work!’ Trump said.
JOE BIDEN
Age on Inauguration Day 2021: 78
Entered race: April 25, 2019
Career: No current role. A University of Delaware and Syracuse Law graduate, he was first elected to Newcastle City Council in 1969, then won upset election to Senate in 1972, aged 29. Was talked out of quitting before being sworn in when his wife and daughter died in a car crash and served total of six terms. Chaired Judiciary Committee’s notorious Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Ran for president in 1988, pulled out after plagiarism scandal, ran again in 2008, withdrew after placing fifth in the Iowa Caucuses. Tapped by Obama as his running mate and served two terms as vice president. Contemplated third run in 2016 but decided against it after his son died of brain cancer.
Family: Eldest of four siblings born to Joe Biden Sr. and Catherine Finnegan. First wife Neilia Hunter and their one-year-old daughter Naomi died in car crash which their two sons, Joseph ‘Beau’ and Robert Hunter survived. Married Jill Jacobs in 1976, with whom he has daughter Ashley. Beau died of brain cancer in 2015. Hunter’s marriage to Kathleen Buhle, with whom he has three children, ended in 2016 when it emerged Hunter was in a relationship with Beau’s widow Hallie, mother of their two children. Hunter admitted cocaine use; his estranged wife accused him of blowing their savings on drugs and prostitutes
Religion: Catholic
Views on key issues: Ultra-moderate who will emphasize bipartisan record. Will come under fire over record, having voted: to stop desegregation bussing in 1975; to overturn Roe v Wade in 1981; for now controversial 1994 Violent Crime Act; for 2003 Iraq War; and for banking deregulation. Says he is ‘most progressive’ Democrat. New positions include free college, tax reform, $15 minimum wage. No public position yet on Green New Deal and healthcare. Pro-gun control. Has already apologized to women who say he touched them inappropriately
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president
Slogan: Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead
TULSI GABBARD
Age on Inauguration Day: 39
Entered race: Still to formally file any papers but said she would run on January 11 2019
Career: Currently Hawaii congresswoman. Born on American Samoa, a territory. Raised largely in Hawaii, she co-founded an environmental non-profit with her father as a teenager and was elected to the State Legislature aged 21, its youngest member in history. Enlisted in the National Guard and served two tours, one in Iraq 2004-2006, then as an officer in Kuwait in 2009. Ran for Honolulu City Council in 2011, and House of Representatives in 2012
Family: Married to her second husband, Abraham Williams, a cinematographer since 2015. First marriage to childhood sweetheart Eduardo Tamayo in 2002 ended in 2006. Father Mike Gabbard is a Democratic Hawaii state senator, mother Carol Porter runs a non-profit.
Religion: Hindu
Views on key issues: Has apologized for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views; wants marijuana federally legalized; opposed to most U.S. foreign interventions; backs $15 minimum wage and universal health care; was the second elected Democrat to meet Trump after his 2016 victory
Would make history as: First female, Hindu and Samoan-American president; youngest president ever
Slogan: Lead with Love
BERNIE SANDERS
Age on Inauguration Day: 79
Entered race: Sources said on January 25, 2019, that he would form exploratory committee. Officially announced February 19
Career: Currently Vermont senator. Student civil rights and anti-Vietnam activist who moved to Vermont and worked as a carpenter and radical film-maker. Serial failed political candidate in the 1970s, he ran as a socialist for mayor of Burlington in 1980 and served two terms ending in 1989, and win a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990. Ran for Senate in 2006 elections as an independent with Democratic endorsement and won third term in 2018. Challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 but lost. Campaign has since been hit by allegations of sexual harassment – for which he has apologized – and criticized for its ‘Bernie bro’ culture
Family: Born to a Jewish immigrant father and the daughter of Jewish immigrant parents in Brooklyn, New York. First marriage to college sweetheart Deborah Shiling Messing in 1964 ended in divorce in 1966; had son Levi in 1969 with then girlfriend Susan Cambell Mott. Married Jone O’Meara in 1988 and considers her three children, all adults, his own. The couple have seven grandchildren. His older brother Larry is a former Green Party councilor in Oxfordshire, England.
Religion: Secular Jewish
Views on key issues: Openly socialist and standard bearer for the Democratic party’s left-turn. Wants federal $15 minimum wage; banks broken up; union membership encouraged; free college tuition; universal health care; re-distributive taxation; he opposed Iraq War and also U.S. leading the fight against ISIS and wants troops largely out of Afghanistan and the Middle East
Would make history as: Oldest person elected president; first Jewish president
Slogan: Not me. Us.
ELIZABETH WARREN
Age on Inauguration Day: 71
Entered race: Set up exploratory committee December 31, 2018
Career: Currently Massachusetts senator. Law lecturer and academic who became an expert on bankruptcy law and tenured Harvard professor. Ran for Senate and won in 2012, defeating sitting Republican Scott Brown, held it in 2018 60% to 36%. Was short-listed to be Hillary’s running mate and campaigned hard for her in 2016
Family: Twice-married mother of two and grandmother of three. First husband and father of her children was her high-school sweetheart. Second husband Bruce Mann is Harvard law professor. Daughter Amelia Tyagi and son Alex Warren have both been involved in her campaigns. Has controversially claimed Native American roots; DNA test suggested she is as little as 1,064th Native American
Religion: Raised Methodist, now described as Christian with no fixed church
Views on key issues: Was a registered Republican who voted for the party but registered as a Democrat in 1996. Pro: higher taxes on rich; banking regulation; Dream Act path to citizenship for ‘dreamers’; abortion and gay rights; campaign finance restrictions; and expansion of public provision of healthcare – although still to spell out exactly how that would happen. Against: U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Syria; liberalization of gambling
Would make history as: First female president
Slogan: Warren Has A Plan For That
“For most people a mask may actually risk catching the disease rather than preventing it” If you’re thinking about wearing a mask to protect yourself from the coronavirus, you may want to think again. One of the UK’s most senior health officials, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Jenny Harries, has explained the best way of protecting yourself while going about your day to day routine. She’s also given detail answers to questions about the government’s plans to rely on the NHS if an epidemic happens. ► The UK is preparing for a potential epidemic – but will it be ready in time?:
You can also keep up with CDC updates on Coronavirus Disease 2019 by signing up for email updates, syndicating available content, and subscribing to Coronavirus Disease 2019 RSS Feed.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/whats-new-all.html
These are the 10 things you MUST KNOW about CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 to keep your family safe. The video also explains why you should take this outbreak seriously and where to go for CREDIBLE INFORMATION to help you stay ahead of the news curve.
1) Coronavirus Covid-19 is not the flu, it’s not SARS, and it’s not MERS. It’s a completely new virus.
2) Coronavirus Covid-19 is 20x deadlier than the flu.
3) Although 81% of people experience mild symptoms, Coronavirus Covid-19 has a high complication rate.
4) If you contract the virus and you’re older, your chances of dying are higher. But young people in their 20’s and 30’s have died too, so don’t be complacent.
5) Coronavirus Covid-19 can have a very long incubation period, and it spreads asymptomatically.
6) Coronavirus Covid-19 spreads via droplets in the air and AEROSOL!
7) The R0 factor of this virus is incredibly high.
8) There have been reports out of Asia of people getting Covid-19 again, so recovering once does not guarantee immunity afterward.
9) In the United States, we are in the early part of the curve, where it looks like nothing much is happening.
10) Vaccines are not yet available and probably won’t be for 6-18 months, no matter what you read in the headlines.
*****3 TO FOLLOW***** Chris Martenson, Peak Prosperity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVQC1…
Dr. Roger Seheult, MedCram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quDYb…
Dr. John Campbell, Retired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmIRM…
*****SOURCES***** Lessons from the Coronavirus outbreak in China 2019: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama…
Age of Coronavirus deaths: https://www.worldometers.info/coronav…
Outbreak country charts: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitica…
Why some Covid-19 cases are worse than others: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-op…
Too early to compare Coronavirus to Flu: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/w…
Covid-19 Coronavirus reinfection in Japan raises questions:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/202… #coronavirus #covid19
World health officials said Tuesday the mortality rate for COVID-19 is 3.4% globally, higher than previous estimates of about 2%.
“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected, he said.
The World Health Organization had said last week that the mortality rate of COVID-19 can differ, ranging from 0.7% to up to 4%, depending on the quality of the health-care system where it’s treated. Early in the outbreak, scientists had concluded the death rate was around 2.3%.
During a press briefing Monday, WHO officials said they don’t know how COVID-19 behaves, saying it’s not like influenza. They added that while much is known about the seasonal flu, such as how it’s transmitted and what treatments work to suppress the disease, that same information is still in question when it comes to the coronavirus.
“This is a unique virus, with unique features. This virus is not influenza,” Tedros said Monday. “We are in uncharted territory.”
Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s health emergencies program, said Monday that the coronavirus isn’t transmitting the same exact way as the flu and health officials have been given a “glimmer, a chink of light” that the virus could be contained.
“Here we have a disease for which we have no vaccine, no treatment, we don’t fully understand transmission, we don’t fully understand case mortality, but what we have been genuinely heartened by is that unlike influenza, where countries have fought back, where they’ve put in place strong measures, we’ve remarkably seen that the virus is suppressed,” Ryan said.
Medical experts have urged people to stop panic buying face masks, warning that such equipment is not an effective way to protect yourself from the fast-spreading coronavirus.
The advice comes at a time of intensifying concern about COVID-19, which has killed more than 3,000 people worldwide since late last year.
The outbreak was first identified in Hubei province, China, where over 90% of the deaths have been reported. More recently, the virus has been spreading at a faster rate outside China than inside the country.
The WHO has declared the outbreak a global health emergency, with almost 60 countries reporting cases of the coronavirus.
Epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have been at pains to emphasize against an unwarranted scramble for face masks in recent weeks, particularly because such hoarding behavior elevates the prospect of an equipment shortage for medical workers.
“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said via Twitter over the weekend.
“They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
U.S. Surgeon General
✔@Surgeon_General
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
http://bit.ly/37Ay6CmCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a virus (more specifically, a coronavirus) identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China.
cdc.gov
The warning from America’s top doctor is consistent with medical advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has said there is no evidence to support wearing face masks.
Instead, Adams said “the best way to protect yourself and your community is with everyday preventative actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of the respiratory illness.”
It has been suggested wearing face masks could be useful if you’re sick in order to prevent you from sneezing or coughing into somebody’s face, David Heymann, who led WHO’s infectious disease unit at the time of the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003, said at a Chatham House press briefing last month.
But, “a mask that is used to stop getting an infection is sometimes not very effective because people take it off to eat, many times they are worn improperly (and) if they get wet and somebody sneezes on that mask it could pass through.
So, there is really not a lot of evidence (to support wearing masks).”
“One of the most important ways of stopping respiratory outbreaks such as this is washing hands,” Heymann continued.
That’s because “if you touch a patient, if you shake hands, if you touch a door that has a droplet on it — which could theoretically happen — then you touch your face (or) your mouth and you become infected.”
“So, handwashing is the most important. And second is, people who are suspected as being patients, be very careful when you are dealing with them. Avoid face-to-face contact and wash hands when you’re treating,” Heymann said.
“It is very important that people understand that they can prevent themselves from being infected if they follow a few simple measures,” he added.
South Korea, Italy and Iran have all recorded sharp upticks in cases of the coronavirus in recent days, with many other countries imposing travel restrictions on virus-hit areas worldwide.
Infections have now been reported in every continent except Antarctica.
Emily Landon, medical director for infection control at the University of Chicago Medical Center, told CNBC late last week that face masks were “not a great choice” for everyday use.
“First of all, there are multiple different kind of face masks. There is the surgical mask that people wear that doesn’t really seal up very well. That’s super good if you put it on the patient who’s sick because that will contain their secretions and protect everyone around them.”
“However, if you are the one who wants to protect yourself, those N95 masks … are much better,” Landon said.
“Keeping your hands clean so that you don’t touch your face no matter what things you are touching with your hands is a really important piece of preventing infection in hospitals, in schools and everywhere you go.”
“Soap and water works really well. It can dry your hands out a little bit more but when you do it, you want to do it right. That means getting your hands wet with warm water, cleaning them, getting all of the surfaces with soap for 20 seconds — that’s a full time through ‘Happy Birthday’ — and then also rinsing them off afterwards,” Landon said.
Stocks surged on Wednesday as major victories from former Vice President Joe Biden during Super Tuesday sparked a massive rally within the health-care sector.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average soared 1,173.45 points higher, or 4.5%, to 27,090.86. The S&P 500 jumped 4.2% to 3,130.12, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 3.8% to 9,018.09. The Dow posted its second-highest point gain ever, and it was the second time in three days that the 30-stock average swung 1,000 points or higher.
With Wednesday’s rally, all three major averages moved out of correction territory, meaning they are now less than 10% down from their 52-week highs. The tech-heavy Nasdaq also turned positive on the year, up 0.5% in 2020.
Biden scored key primary victories in states including North Carolina, Texas and Arkansas, giving his campaign momentum and increasing his odds of being the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Many investors applaud Biden for his middle-of-the-road tack in contrast to the more progressive policies of Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Tuesday’s primary results sent health-care stocks flying. The S&P health care sector surged 5.8%, posting its best day since 2008. UnitedHealth and Centene jumped 10.7% and 15.6%, respectively. Shares of UnitedHealth had their biggest one-day gain since 2008.
The major averages also got a boost from strong economic data. The U.S. services sector expanded at a faster-than-expected pace in February, data from the Institute for Supply Management showed. ADP and Moody’s Analytics said private payrolls jumped by 183,000 last month, topping expectations. Lawmakers also struck a deal on more than $8 billion in emergency coronavirus funding.
“Investors fear Bernie because he wants to cut off the head of capitalism by raising taxes significantly on the rich and using the funds to provide free everything to everybody else,” said Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research, in a note. “Getting everything for free trumps freedom, according to Bernie. No wonder investors are reacting to him as though he is going to infect us all with the virus of socialism.”
Warren, a former law school professor who specialized in bankruptcy law, is not a favorite on Wall Street as she proposes detailed plans to break up big banks and technology companies and raise taxes.
“Stocks will be even more relieved at Warren’s coming concession as they are at Biden’s big showing,” Ritholtz Wealth Management CEO Josh Brown tweeted. “Wall Streeters have always secretly been more afraid of her than anyone else given her domain expertise.”
Wednesday’s moves come after yet another volatile session for U.S. investors as the Federal Reserve announced Tuesday an emergency interest rate cut in an effort to help pacify investors worried about the economic consequences of the coronavirus.
The decision to cut rates by half a percentage point came two weeks before the Fed’s next scheduled meeting and reflected the central bank’s belief that quick action would be most effective to combat the dampening impact of the virus.
Though stocks initially traded higher, the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite all reversed course to end Tuesday’s session markedly lower. The Dow fell more than 780 points, or 2.9%, and the S&P 500 dropped 2.8% with both indexes back in correction.
The Fed’s “Beige Book” report on Wednesday showed the U.S. economic activity expanded at a “modest to moderate” rate over the past week, citing coronavirus as a risk to the outlook.
“We’re trying to reprice the entire stock market based on an unknown, the coronavirus,” said JJ Kinahan, chief market strategist at TD Ameritrade. “When we have such a large unknown, it’s going to affect people in different ways.”
Impeachment couldn’t stop President Donald Trump’s job approval from rising, but the coronavirus might. As Americans’ near-term view of the economy soured in February, amid worry over the coronavirus and a Dow Jones correction, Trump’s job approval rating relapsed.
Just 41% of Americans approve of how President Trump is handling his job, while 54% disapprove, the March IBD/TIPP Poll finds. That negative 13-point differential has nearly doubled in the past month. In late January, Trump’s job approval registered 44% and disapproval 51%.
Now just 37% of independents give Trump positive reviews, while 57% disapprove. That’s down from 39%-53% in late January.
The drop in Trump’s job approval coincides with a sudden shift in the economic outlook. The U.S. economic outlook just suffered its biggest one-month drop since October 2013 amid spread of the coronavirus, the March IBD/TIPP Poll finds.
The six-month economic outlook index fell to a modestly pessimistic 47.8 from a strongly optimistic 57. Readings above the neutral 50 level reflect optimism.
Trump continues to get positive ratings for his handling of the economy, with 47% approving and 35% disapproving. Still, that’s a big comedown from late January. Back then, 53% of Americans rated his handling of the U.S. economy as good or excellent, while just 28% give him a negative rating.
Joe Biden leads Trump 49% to 46%, the March IBD/TIPP Poll finds, after Trump had cut the margin to 49%-48% in late January.
Sanders now leads Trump 49% to 47%, having trailed 47%-49% a month earlier. Warren leads Trump 48% to 46%, a reversal of her 46%-50% deficit.
Still, a narrow popular vote edge would not necessarily translate into an Electoral College victory for Democrats.
Trump leads all Democrats among self-described investors, with a four-point lead over Biden. He leads Sanders by seven points.
The IBD/TIPP Poll reflects responses from 908 adults contacted via mobile phones and landlines from Feb. 20-29 and carries a 3.3-point margin of error.
Please follow Jed Graham on Twitter at @IBD_JGraham for coverage of economic policy and financial markets.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
U.S. Economic Outlook Suffers Worst Drop In Years On Coronavirus, Dow Jones Fall: IBD/TIPP
Fed’s Emergency Coronavirus Rate Cut: Dow Jumps, Then Quickly Sells Off
IBD Live: Dow Rallies Back Nearly 1,300 Points — Has The Market Bottomed?
These 5 Stocks Should Be On Your Watchlist Amid Coronavirus Threat
Coronavirus Infects Wall Street — Can Biotech Stocks Ride To The Rescue?
AS DEMOCRATS BATTLED IT out in 14 states on Super Tuesday, President Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries, defeating challengers in a much-expected outcome.
The president won all 14 states, picking up more than 740 delegates. Candidates need at least 1,276 delegates to win the Republican party’s nomination and Trump’s victory brings his count to 859. His opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld has picked up one delegate so far.
AS DEMOCRATS BATTLED IT out in 14 states on Super Tuesday, President Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries, defeating challengers in a much-expected outcome.
The president won all 14 states, picking up more than 740 delegates. Candidates need at least 1,276 delegates to win the Republican party’s nomination and Trump’s victory brings his count to 859. His opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld has picked up one delegate so far.
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
Jump to navigationJump to search
A comparison of three major U.S. stock indices: the NASDAQ Composite, Dow Jones Industrial Average, and S&P 500 Index. All three have the same height at March 2000. The NASDAQ spiked during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s, a result of the large number of technology companies on that index.
A stock index or stock market index is an index that measures a stock market, or a subset of the stock market, that helps investors compare current price levels with past prices to calculate market performance.[1] It is computed from the prices of selected stocks (typically a weighted arithmetic mean).
Two of the primary criteria of an index are that it is investable and transparent:[2] The method of its construction are specified. Investors can invest in a stock market index by buying an index fund, which are structured as either a mutual fund or an exchange-traded fund, and “track” an index. The difference between an index fund’s performance and the index, if any, is called tracking error. For a list of major stock market indices, see List of stock market indices.
Stock market indices may be classified in many ways. A ‘world’ or ‘global’ stock market index — such as the MSCI World or the S&P Global 100 — includes stocks from multiple regions. Regions may be defined geographically (e.g., Europe, Asia) or by levels of industrialization or income (e.g., Developed Markets, Frontier Markets).
A ‘national’ index represents the performance of the stock market of a given nation—and by proxy, reflects investor sentiment on the state of its economy. The most regularly quoted market indices are national indices composed of the stocks of large companies listed on a nation’s largest stock exchanges, such as the S&P 500 Index in the United States, the Nikkei 225 in Japan, the NIFTY 50 in India, and the FTSE 100 in the United Kingdom.
Many indices are regional, such as the FTSE Developed Europe Index or the FTSE Developed Asia Pacific Index. Indexes may be based on exchange, such as the NASDAQ-100 or groups of exchanges, such as the Euronext 100 or OMX Nordic 40.
The concept may be extended well beyond an exchange. The Wilshire 5000 Index, the original total market index, includes the stocks of nearly every public company in the United States, including all U.S. stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange (but not ADRs or limited partnerships), NASDAQ and American Stock Exchange. The FTSE Global Equity Index Series includes over 16,000 companies.[3]
Indices exist that track the performance of specific sectors of the market. Some examples include the Wilshire US REIT Index which tracks more than 80 real estate investment trusts and the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index which consists of approximately 200 firms in the biotechnology industry. Other indices may track companies of a certain size, a certain type of management, or more specialized criteria such as in fundamentally based indexes.
Several indices are based on ethical investing, and include only companies that meet certain ecological or social criteria, such as the Calvert Social Index, Domini 400 Social Index, FTSE4Good Index, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, STOXX Global ESG Leaders Index, several Standard Ethics Aei indices, and the Wilderhill Clean Energy Index.[4]
In 2010, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation announced the initiation of a stock index that complies with Sharia‘s ban on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.[5]
Strict mechanical criteria for inclusion and exclusion exist to prevent market domination, such as in Canada when Nortel was permitted to rise to over 30% of the TSE 300 index value.
Ethical indices have a particular interest in mechanical criteria, seeking to avoid accusations of ideological bias in selection, and have pioneered techniques for inclusion and exclusion of stocks based on complex criteria.
Another means of mechanical selection is mark-to-future methods that exploit scenarios produced by multiple analysts weighted according to probability, to determine which stocks have become too risky to hold in the index of concern.
Critics of such initiatives argue that many firms satisfy mechanical “ethical criteria”, e.g. regarding board composition or hiring practices, but fail to perform ethically with respect to shareholders, e.g. Enron. Indeed, the seeming “seal of approval” of an ethical index may put investors more at ease, enabling scams. One response to these criticisms is that trust in the corporate management, index criteria, fund or index manager, and securities regulator, can never be replaced by mechanical means, so “market transparency” and “disclosure” are the only long-term-effective paths to fair markets. From a financial perspective, it is not obvious whether ethical indices or ethical funds will out-perform their more conventional counterparts. Theory might suggest that returns would be lower since the investible universe is artificially reduced and with it portfolio efficiency. On the other hand, companies with good social performances might be better run, have more committed workers and customers, and be less likely to suffer reputation damage from incidents (oil spillages, industrial tribunals, etc.) and this might result in lower share price volatility.[6] The empirical evidence on the performance of ethical funds and of ethical firms versus their mainstream comparators is very mixed for both stock[7][8] and debt markets.[9]
Some indices, such as the S&P 500 Index, have returns shown calculated with different methods.[10] These versions can differ based on how the index components are weighted and on how dividends are accounted. For example, there are three versions of the S&P 500 Index: price return, which only considers the price of the components, total return, which accounts for dividend reinvestment, and net total return, which accounts for dividend reinvestment after the deduction of a withholding tax.[11]
The Wilshire 4500 and Wilshire 5000 indices have five versions each: full capitalization total return, full capitalization price, float-adjusted total return, float-adjusted price, and equal weight. The difference between the full capitalization, float-adjusted, and equal weight versions is in how index components are weighted.[12][13]
An index may also be classified according to the method used to determine its price. In a price-weighted index such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NYSE Arca Major Market Index, and the NYSE Arca Tech 100 Index, the share price of each component stock is the only consideration when determining the value of the index. Thus, price movement of even a single security will heavily influence the value of the index even though the dollar shift is less significant in a relatively highly valued issue, and moreover ignoring the relative size of the company as a whole. In contrast, a Capitalization-weighted index (also called market-value-weighted) such as the S&P 500 Index or Hang Seng Index factors in the size of the company. Thus, a relatively small shift in the price of a large company will heavily influence the value of the index.
Capitalization- or share-weighted indices have a full weighting, i.e. all outstanding shares were included. Many indices are based on a free float-adjusted weighting.
An equal-weighted index is one in which all components are assigned the same value.[14] For example, the Barron’s 400 Index assigns an equal value of 0.25% to each of the 400 stocks included in the index, which together add up to the 100% whole.[15]
A modified capitalization-weighted index is a hybrid between capitalization weighting and equal weighting. It is similar to a capitalization weighting with one main difference: the largest stocks are capped to a percent of the weight of the total stock index and the excess weight will be redistributed equally amongst the stocks under that cap. In 2005, Standard & Poor’s introduced the S&P Pure Growth Style Index and S&P Pure Value Style Index which was attribute-weighted. That is, a stock’s weight in the index is decided by the score it gets relative to the value attributes that define the criteria of a specific index, the same measure used to select the stocks in the first place. For these two indexes, a score is calculated for every stock, be it their growth score or the value score (a stock cannot be both) and accordingly they are weighted for the index.[16]
One argument for capitalization weighting is that investors must, in aggregate, hold a capitalization-weighted portfolio anyway. This then gives the average return for all investors; if some investors do worse, other investors must do better (excluding costs).[17]
Investors use theories such as modern portfolio theory to determine allocations. This considers risk and return and does not consider weights relative to the entire market. This may result in overweighting assets such as value or small-cap stocks, if they are believed to have a better return for risk profile. These investors believe that they can get a better result because other investors are not very good. The capital asset pricing model says that all investors are highly intelligent, and it is impossible to do better than the market portfolio, the capitalization-weighted portfolio of all assets. However, empirical tests conclude that market indices are not efficient.[citation needed] This can be explained by the fact that these indices do not include all assets or by the fact that the theory does not hold. The practical conclusion is that using capitalization-weighted portfolios is not necessarily the optimal method.
As a consequence, capitalization-weighting has been subject to severe criticism (see e.g. Haugen and Baker 1991, Amenc, Goltz, and Le Sourd 2006, or Hsu 2006), pointing out that the mechanics of capitalization-weighting lead to trend following strategies that provide an inefficient risk-return trade-off.
While capitalization-weighting is the standard in equity index construction, different weighting schemes exist. While most indices use capitalization-weighting, additional criteria are often taken into account, such as sales/revenue and net income, as in the Dow Jones Global Titan 50 Index.
As an answer to the critiques of capitalization-weighting, equity indices with different weighting schemes have emerged, such as “wealth”-weighted (Morris, 1996), Fundamentally based indexes (Robert D. Arnott, Hsu and Moore 2005), “diversity”-weighted (Fernholz, Garvy, and Hannon 1998) or equal-weighted indices.[18]
Passive management is an investing strategy involving investing in index funds, which are structured as mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that track market indices.[19] The SPIVA (S&P Indices vs. Active) annual “U.S. Scorecard”, which measures the performance of indices versus actively managed mutual funds, finds the vast majority of active management mutual funds underperform their benchmarks, such as the S&P 500 Index, after fees.[20][21] Since index funds attempt to replicate the holdings of an index, they eliminate the need for — and thus many costs of — the research entailed in active management, and have a lower churn rate (the turnover of securities, which can result in transaction costs and capital gains taxes).
Unlike a mutual fund, which is priced daily, an exchange-traded fund is priced continuously, is optionable, and can be sold short.[22]
Media related to Stock market indexes at Wikimedia Commons
The Influenza Division at CDC collects, compiles and analyzes information on influenza activity year-round in the United States. FluView, a weekly influenza surveillance report, and FluView Interactive, an online application which allows for more in-depth exploration of influenza surveillance data, are updated each week. The data presented each week are preliminary and may change as more data is received.
The U.S. influenza surveillance system is a collaborative effort between CDC and its many partners in state, local, and territorial health departments, public health and clinical laboratories, vital statistics offices, healthcare providers, clinics, and emergency departments. Information in five categories is collected from eight data sources in order to:
It is important to maintain a comprehensive system for influenza surveillance for the following reasons:
1. Virologic Surveillance
U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Laboratories System and the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) – Approximately 100 public health and over 300 clinical laboratories located throughout all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia participate in virologic surveillance for influenza through either the U.S. WHO Collaborating Laboratories System or NREVSS. Influenza testing practices differ in public health and clinical laboratories and each source provides valuable information for monitoring influenza activity. Clinical laboratories primarily test respiratory specimens for diagnostic purposes and data from these laboratories provide useful information on the timing and intensity of influenza activity. Public health laboratories primarily test specimens for surveillance purposes to understand what influenza virus types, subtypes, and lineages are circulating and the age groups being affected.
All public health and clinical laboratories report each week to CDC the total number of respiratory specimens tested for influenza and the number positive for influenza viruses, along with age or age group of the person, if available. Data presented from clinical laboratories include the weekly total number of specimens tested, the number of positive influenza tests, and the percent positive by influenza virus type. Data presented from public health laboratories include the weekly total number of specimens tested and the number positive by influenza virus type and subtype/lineage. In order to obtain specimens in an efficient manner, public health laboratories often receive samples that have already tested positive for an influenza virus at a clinical laboratory. As a result, monitoring the percent of specimens testing positive for an influenza virus in a public health laboratory is less useful (i.e., we expect a higher percent positive). In order to use each data source most appropriately and to avoid duplication, reports from public health and clinical laboratories are presented separately in both FluView and FluView Interactive.
The age distribution of influenza positive specimens reported from public health laboratories is visualized in FluView Interactive. The number and proportion of influenza virus-positive specimens by influenza A subtype and influenza B lineage are presented by age group (0-4 years, 5-24 years, 25-64 years, and ≥65 years) each week and cumulative totals are provided for the season.
Additional laboratory data for current and past seasons and by geographic level (national, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region, and state) are available on FluView Interactive.
Virus Characterization – Most U.S. viruses submitted for virus characterization come from state and local public health laboratories. Due to Right Size Roadmapexternal icon considerations, specimen submission guidance to public health laboratories for the 2019-2020 season is that, if available, 2 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 3 influenza A(H3N2), and 2 influenza B viruses be submitted every other week. Therefore, the numbers of each virus type/subtype characterized should be more balanced across subtypes/lineages but will not reflect the actual proportion of circulating viruses. The goal of antigenic and genetic characterization is to compare how similar the currently circulating influenza viruses are to the reference viruses representing viruses contained in the current influenza vaccines and to monitor evolutionary changes that continually occur in influenza viruses circulating in humans. For genetic characterization, all influenza-positive surveillance samples received at CDC undergo next-generation sequencing to determine the genetic identity of circulating influenza viruses and to monitor the evolutionary trajectory of viruses circulating in our population. Virus gene segments are classified into genetic clades/subclades based on phylogenetic analysis. However, genetic changes that classify the clades/subclades do not always result in antigenic changes. “Antigenic drift” is a term used to describe gradual antigenic change that occurs as viruses evolve to escape host immune pressure. Antigenic drift is evaluated using hemagglutination inhibition and/or neutralization based focus reduction assays to compare antigenic properties of cell-propagated reference viruses representing currently recommended vaccine components with those of cell-propagated circulating viruses.
CDC also tests a subset of the influenza viruses collected by public health laboratories for susceptibility to the neuraminidase inhibitor antivirals (oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir) and the PA cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor (baloxavir). Susceptibility to the neuraminidase inhibitors is assessed using next-generation sequencing analysis and/or a functional assay. Neuraminidase sequences of viruses are inspected to detect the presence of amino acid substitutions, previously associated with reduced or highly reduced inhibition by any of three neuraminidase inhibitorspdf iconexternal icon. In addition, a subset of viruses is tested using the neuraminidase inhibition assay with three neuraminidase inhibitors. The level of neuraminidase activity inhibition is reported using the thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization Expert Working Group of the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS)pdf iconexternal icon. These samples are routinely obtained for surveillance purposes rather than for diagnostic testing of patients suspected to be infected with an antiviral-resistant virus. Susceptibility to baloxavir is assessed using next-generation sequencing analysis to identify PA protein changes previously associated with reduced susceptibility to this medication; a subset of representative viruses is also tested phenotypically using a high-content imaging neutralization test.
Results of the antigenic and genetic characterization and antiviral susceptibility testing are presented in the virus characterization and antiviral resistance sections of the FluView report.
Surveillance for Novel Influenza A Viruses – In 2007, human infection with a novel influenza A virus became a nationally notifiable condition. Novel influenza A virus infections include all human infections with influenza A viruses that are different from currently circulating human seasonal influenza H1 and H3 viruses. These viruses include those that are subtyped as nonhuman in origin and those that cannot be subtyped with standard laboratory methods and reagents. Rapid detection and reporting of human infections with novel influenza A viruses – viruses against which there is often little to no pre-existing immunity – is important to facilitate prompt awareness and characterization of influenza A viruses with pandemic potential and accelerate the implementation of public health responses to limit the transmission and impact of these viruses.
Newly reported cases of human infections with novel influenza A viruses are reported in FluView and additional information, including case counts by geographic location, virus subtype, and calendar year, are available on FluView Interactive.
2. Outpatient Illness Surveillance
Information on outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness is collected through the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). ILINet consists of outpatient healthcare providers in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands reporting approximately 60 million patient visits during the 2018-19 season. Each week, approximately 2,600 outpatient healthcare providers around the country report data to CDC on the total number of patients seen for any reason and the number of those patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) by age group (0-4 years, 5-24 years, 25-49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥65 years). For this system, ILI is defined as fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza. Sites with electronic health records use an equivalent definition as determined by public health authorities.
Additional data on medically attended visits for ILI for current and past seasons and by geographic level (national, HHS region, and state) are available on FluView Interactive.
The national percentage of patient visits to healthcare providers for ILI reported each week is calculated by combining state-specific data weighted by state population. This percentage is compared each week with the national baseline of 2.4% for the 2019-2020 influenza season. The baseline is developed by calculating the mean percentage of patient visits for ILI during non-influenza weeks for the previous three seasons and adding two standard deviations. A non-influenza week is defined as periods of two or more consecutive weeks in which each week accounted for less than 2% of the season’s total number of specimens that tested positive for influenza in public health laboratories. Due to wide variability in regional level data, it is not appropriate to apply the national baseline to regional data; therefore, region-specific baselines are calculated using the same methodology.
Regional baselines for the 2019-2020 influenza season are:
Region 1 — 1.9%
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont
Region 2 — 3.2%
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Region 3 — 1.9%
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
Region 4 — 2.4%
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
Region 5 — 1.9%
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
Region 6 — 3.8%
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Region 7 — 1.7%
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Region 8 — 2.7%
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Region 9 — 2.4%
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada
Region 10— 1.5%
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
ILI Activity Indicator Map: — Data collected in ILINet are also used to produce a measure of ILI activity for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Activity levels are based on the percent of outpatient visits due to ILI in a jurisdiction compared with the average percent of ILI visits that occur during weeks with little or no influenza virus circulation (i.e., non-influenza weeks) in that jurisdiction. The number of sites reporting each week is variable, therefore baselines are adjusted each week based on which sites within each jurisdiction provide data. To perform this adjustment, provider level baseline ratios are calculated for those that have a sufficient reporting history. Providers that do not have the required reporting history are assigned the baseline ratio for their practice type. The jurisdiction level baseline is then calculated using a weighted sum of the baseline ratios for each contributing provider.
The activity levels compare the mean reported percent of visits due to ILI for the current week to the mean reported percent of visits due to ILI for non-influenza weeks. The 10 activity levels correspond to the number of standard deviations below, at or above the mean for the current week compared with the mean of the non-influenza weeks. There are 10 activity levels classified as minimal (levels 1-3), low (levels 4-5), moderate (levels 6-7), and high (levels 8-10). An activity level of 1 corresponds to values that are below the mean, level 2 corresponds to an ILI percentage less than 1 standard deviation above the mean, level 3 corresponds to ILI more than 1, but less than 2 standard deviations above the mean, and so on, with an activity level of 10 corresponding to ILI 8 or more standard deviations above the mean.
The ILI Activity Indicator map reflects the level of ILI activity, not the extent of geographic spread of flu, within a jurisdiction. Therefore, outbreaks occurring in a single city could cause the state to display high activity levels. In addition, data collected in ILINet may disproportionally represent certain populations within a state, and therefore, may not accurately depict the full picture of influenza activity for the whole state. Differences in the data presented here by CDC and independently by some state health departments likely represent differing levels of data completeness with data presented by the state likely being the more complete.
The ILI Activity Indicator Map displays state-specific activity levels for multiple seasons and allows a visual representation of relative activity from state to state. More information is available on FluView Interactive.
3. Summary of the Geographic Spread of Influenza
State and territorial health departments report the estimated level of geographic spread of influenza activity in their jurisdictions each week through the State and Territorial Epidemiologists Report. This level does not measure the severity of influenza activity; low levels of influenza activity occurring throughout a jurisdiction would result in a classification of “widespread”. Jurisdictions classify geographic spread as follows:
Additional data displaying the influenza activity reported by state and territorial epidemiologists for the current and past seasons are available on FluView Interactive.
4. Hospitalization Surveillance
Laboratory confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in children and adults are monitored through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET). FluSurv-NET conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalizations in children younger than 18 years of age (since the 2003-2004 influenza season) and adults (since the 2005-2006 influenza season). The network includes more than 70 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and additional Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IHSP) states. The IHSP began during the 2009-2010 season to enhance surveillance during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. IHSP sites included IA, ID, MI, OK and SD during the 2009-2010 season; ID, MI, OH, OK, RI, and UT during the 2010-2011 season; MI, OH, RI, and UT during the 2011-2012 season; IA, MI, OH, RI, and UT during the 2012-2013 season; and MI, OH, and UT during the 2013-2014 through 2019-20 seasons.
Cases are identified by reviewing hospital laboratory and admission databases and infection control logs for patients hospitalized during the influenza season with a documented positive influenza test (i.e., viral culture, direct/indirect fluorescent antibody assay (DFA/IFA), rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT), or molecular assays including reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)). Data gathered are used to estimate age-specific hospitalization rates on a weekly basis and describe characteristics of persons hospitalized with influenza illness. The rates provided are likely to be an underestimate as influenza-related hospitalizations can be missed if testing is not performed.
Patient charts are reviewed to determine if any of the following categories of high-risk medical conditions are recorded in the chart at the time of hospitalization:
During the 2017-18 season, seven FluSurv-NET sites (CA, GA, MN, NM, NYA, OH, OR) conducted random sampling to select cases ≥50 years for medical chart abstraction, while still performing full chart abstractions of all cases <50 years. During the 2018-19 season, six sites (CA, GA, NM, NYA, OH, OR) conducted random sampling of cases ≥65 years for medical chart abstraction. All other sites performed full chart abstractions on all cases. Data on age, sex, admission date, in-hospital death, and influenza test results were collected for all cases. For each season going forward, including 2019-20, sampling for medical chart abstraction may be considered in cases ≥50 years. In early January of each season, observed case counts across all FluSurv-NET sites will be compared against predetermined thresholds to determine whether sampling will be implemented for the season.
Additional FluSurv-NET data including hospitalization rates for multiple seasons and different age groups and data on patient characteristics (such as virus, type, demographic, and clinical information) are available on FluView Interactive.
5. Mortality Surveillance
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) mortality surveillance data – NCHS collects death certificate data from state vital statistics offices for all deaths occurring in the United States. Pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths are identified based on ICD-10 multiple cause of death codes. NCHS surveillance data are aggregated by the week of death occurrence. To allow for collection of enough data to produce a stable P&I percentage, NCHS surveillance data are released one week after the week of death. The NCHS surveillance data are used to calculate the percent of all deaths occurring in a given week that had pneumonia and/or influenza listed as a cause of death. The P&I percentage for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. The P&I percentage is compared to a seasonal baseline of P&I deaths that is calculated using a periodic regression model incorporating a robust regression procedure applied to data from the previous five years. An increase of 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline of P&I deaths is considered the “epidemic threshold,” i.e., the point at which the observed proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia or influenza was significantly higher than would be expected at that time of the year in the absence of substantial influenza-related mortality.
Additional pneumonia and influenza mortality data for current and past seasons and by geographic level (national, HHS region, and state) are available on FluView Interactive. Data displayed on the regional and state-level are aggregated by the state of residence of the decedent.
Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System — Influenza-associated deaths in children (persons less than 18 years of age) was added as a nationally notifiable condition in 2004. An influenza-associated pediatric death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness that was confirmed to be influenza by an appropriate laboratory diagnostic test. There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death. Demographic and clinical information are collected on each case and are transmitted to CDC.
Additional information on influenza-associated pediatric deaths including basic demographics, underlying conditions, bacterial co-infections, and place of death for the current and past seasons, is available on FluView Interactive.
It is important to remember the following about influenza surveillance in the United States.
For CDC/Influenza Division influenza surveillance purposes, the reporting period for each influenza season begins during Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) week 40 and ends week 39 of the following year. MMWR weeks pdf icon[65 KB, 2 Pages]refer to the sequential numbering of weeks (Sunday through Saturday) during a calendar year. This means that the exact start of the influenza reporting period varies slightly from season to season. The 2019-2020 influenza season began on September 29, 2019 and will end on September 26, 2020.
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
Mike Bloomberg has been declared the loser of Democratic debate after Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders relentlessly attacked the former New York mayor over his past ‘racist’ policies and treatment of women.
Six candidates took the stage Wednesday night in Las Vegas to face-off for a 5-to-1 face-off that ended disastrously for Bloomberg.
Pundits chose Bloomberg as the loser after he became the object of scorn, ridicule and contempt within the first five minutes of the debate.
What is becoming an increasingly bitter nomination fight, the Democratic presidential candidates focused their attacks on Bloomberg on the debate stage.
He has spent more than $400 million so far on advertising that in turn has given him strong standing in state and national polls.
Sanders recalled Bloomberg’s support of stop-and-frisk policing targeting minorities while Warren spoke about how Bloomberg had mocked women.
‘I’d like to talk about who we’re running against, a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians,’ Warren said.
Pundits chose Bloomberg as the loser of Wednesday night’s debate after he became the object of scorn, ridicule and contempt within the first five minutes
Six candidates took the stage Wednesday night in Las Vegas to face-off for a 5-to-1 face-off that ended disastrously for Bloomberg
‘And no I’m not talking about Donald Trump, I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.’
Amy Klobuchar also quipped that, ‘I don’t think you look at Donald Trump and say I think we need someone richer in the White House’.
Former Vice President Joe Biden said Bloomberg condoned racist police practices, and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said Bloomberg was trying to ‘buy out’ the Democratic Party.
But his biggest struggle came when Warren hammered him over allegations of sexism and mistreatment of women in his company.
Bloomberg attempted to defend his record and deflect the attacks on him by turning them into attacks on President Donald Trump.
And he effectively raised questions about whether Americans would embrace a socialist like Sanders.
Cillizza also said the ‘first hour of the debate was an absolute and total disaster for the former mayor’ who was also the third most tweeted about candidate Wednesday night
But the glare was harsh, and the attacks landed with force. Even if you are worth $60billion it is hard to win a 5-on-1 fight.
CNN’s Chris Cillizza said the ‘first hour of the debate was an absolute and total disaster for the former mayor’.
‘He looked lost at times – and those were the best times for him! Warren dunked on him repeatedly. Sanders slammed him. Biden bashed him,’ Cillizza wrote.
Cillizza compared Bloomberg’s performance to that of a pro-wrestling match where ‘everyone decided to gang up on a single wrestler in the ring – and that wrestler was totally and completely caught off-guard’.
ELIZABETH WARREN: RETURN OF THE FIGHTER (WINNER)
Warren rose to prominence in the Democratic field with a fighting spirit that defined the early months of her campaign. But her disappointing showings in Iowa and New Hampshire left her campaign struggling.
But on Wednesday, Warren got back in the fight.
She slammed Bloomberg – which was no surprise as she’s been an antagonist of billionaires playing in politics for years.
But Warren also attacked Klobuchar, saying her health care plan was just a ‘Post-it note’.
She accused Buttigieg of being in debt to his rich campaign supporters and having a healthcare plan that was just a ‘PowerPoint’ designed by his consultants.
Warren rose to prominence in the Democratic field with a fighting spirit that defined the early months of her campaign. But her disappointing showings in Iowa and New Hampshire left her campaign struggling. But on Wednesday, Warren got back in the fight
Warren slammed also fellow liberal Sanders, accusing him of letting his supporters trash anyone with a plan. But it was her prosecutorial approach to Bloomberg over his company’s treatment of women that stood out.
She hit the former mayor hard when it came to his refusal to release women from the nondisclosure agreements with his company regarding complaints of a hostile working environment.
Warren was relentless, leaving the former mayor stumbling and fumbling for a response.
‘Anybody that does anything wrong in our company, we investigate it and if it’s appropriate, they’re gone that day,’ Bloomberg said.
‘Let me tell you what I do at my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there. In my foundation, the person that runs it is a woman, 70 per cent of the people there are women,’ he added.
‘In my company, lots and lots of women have big responsibilities. They get paid exactly the same as men. In city hall, the top person, my deputy mayor was a woman and 40 per cent of our commissioners were women,’ he said.
Warren then hit him harder.
‘I hope you heard what his defense was. I’ve been nice to some women. That just doesn’t cut it. The mayor has to stand on his record. What we need to know is exactly what’s lurking out there,’ she said.
‘He has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, who sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace.
Van Jones tweeted about Warren shortly after the debate, saying: ‘Elizabeth Warren needs Bloomberg like a “lion needs an antelope.” He is the human embodiment of everything she’s against. If @ewarren is effective at landing those blows, the air could very well come out of the Bloomberg bubble.’
BERNIE SANDERS: LEADING THE PACK (WINNER)
Sanders has continuously tried to cement himself as the Democratic frontrunner, and he may have just pulled that off, according to some pundits.
‘The ganging-up on Bloomberg was just fine for Sanders, who, in case you forgot, is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination,’ Cillizza wrote.
Before Wednesday night, Sanders has been hammering Bloomberg for weeks for trying to buy the election, though at a CNN town hall Tuesday night he wouldn’t guarantee he wouldn’t take Bloomberg’s money, which the billionaire candidate promised to the Democratic nominee, should he not be chosen for the job himself.
‘I don’t think we’re going to need that money,’ Sanders eventually said.
Sanders has sprung to the lead for the nomination in the RealClearPolitics polling average on the race with Biden in second and Bloomberg in third.
Sanders has continuously tried to cement himself as the Democratic frontrunner, and he may have just pulled that off, according to some pundits
Sanders and Bloomberg locked horns on political philosophy during the debate, arguing over who’s a communist and who’s a socialist.
Bloomberg was defending his net worth, pointing out he earned it through ‘hard work’ and that he was giving his money away when Sanders argued the workers helped make that money.
‘Mr Bloomberg, it wasn’t you who made all that money. Maybe your workers played some role in that as well,’ Sanders said.
‘And it is important those workers are able to share the benefits also. When we have so many people who go to work every day and they feel not good about their jobs.
‘They feel like cogs in a machine. I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards as well so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.’
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: THE GIFTED DEBATER (WINNER)
Some pundits crowned Buttigieg as one of Wednesday night’s winners.
‘Buttigieg is, without question, the most naturally gifted debater in the Democratic field, meaning he is simply not going to turn in a clunker. He was steady if not spectacular in this debate,’ Cillizza said.
According Cillizza, Buttigieg spent parts of the night taking on Sanders, which is a ‘clear effort to send a signal to voters that he is the most credible alternative to the Vermont senator’.
Buttigieg, who finished in the top two in Iowa and New Hampshire with Sanders, reserved some of his harshest criticism for Sanders.
Some pundits crowned Buttigieg as one of Wednesday night’s winners. Buttigieg, who finished in the top two in Iowa and New Hampshire with Sanders, reserved some of his harshest criticism for Sanders
He warned that Democrats could wake up after more than a dozen states vote on Super Tuesday on March 3 and have only Bloomberg and Sanders left on the ballot.
Buttigieg then quipped that the party may want to nominate ‘someone who is actually a Democrat’.
The crowd inside the Las Vegas casino hadn’t yet finished chuckling and hooting when he continued by saying Sanders ‘wants to burn this party down’ and Bloomberg ‘wants to buy this party out’.
Sanders, a senator from Vermont and avowed democratic socialist, responded by saying that Buttigieg’s campaign has been too reliant on ‘billionaire’ big donors, kicking off another intense exchange.
Their back and forth continued through criticism of Sanders supporters who have frequently been accused of bullying behavior online.
Sanders said he personally had denounced such behavior. This prompted Buttigieg to say he believed the senator but, ‘What it is it about your campaign in particular that seems to be motivating this type of behavior?’
On this night, Buttigieg had the most at stake, with Sanders standing in Nevada polls well ahead of the man who has run even with him in the first two contests.
AMY KLOBUCHAR: WHERE’S THE KLOBENTUM? (LOSER)
The last debate was rocket fuel for Klobuchar. Her strong performance vaulted her to a third-place finish in New Hampshire and onto Nevada.
But it may be hard for lightning to strike twice.
The Minnesota senator was often drowned out in the high-octane bickering Wednesday, or pulled down into the mud.
At one point she pulled from her supply of ready quips, saying of Sanders and Bloomberg as they argued over capitalism that there is ‘a boxing rematch in Vegas on Saturday and these guys should go down there’.
The last debate was rocket fuel for Klobuchar. Her strong performance vaulted her to a third-place finish in New Hampshire and onto Nevada. But it may be hard for lightning to strike twice
The most damaging exchange was between Klobuchar and Buttigieg, who have tangled before.
When asked about her embarrassing gaffe in forgetting the name of Mexico’s president, she had to fend off Buttigieg, who claimed it disproved her argument that her work in Washington has prepared her to be president.
She also alternately scrapped with and aligned with Warren.
‘Are you calling me dumb?’ Klobuchar asked Buttigieg incredulously. Later, she added: ‘I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete.’
A little over a week ago in New Hampshire, Klobuchar clearly stood out. This time was much harder as everyone battled for survival.
FORMER VP JOE BIDEN: THE BYSTANDER (LOSER)
Another candidate in need of a big night to reverse perceptions that his campaign was struggling was Biden.
For a good portion of the debate, he receded. He joined in the attacks on Bloomberg, but largely avoided some of the more testy exchanges.
Biden called the stop and frisks ‘abhorrent’ and the former mayor admitted that it ‘got out of control’.
‘When we discovered – I discovered – that we were doing many, many – too many – stop and frisks, we cut 95 per cent of it out,’ Bloomberg asserted.
Another candidate in need of a big night to reverse perceptions that his campaign was struggling was Biden. For a good portion of the debate, he receded. He joined in the attacks on Bloomberg, but largely avoided some of the more testy exchanges
The former mayor said he is and was trying to ‘learn’ how to change policies to help continuing reduce crime in New York City.
Biden hit back at Bloomberg, claiming he couldn’t apologize it away and said it violated every right people posses.
‘Let’s get something straight. The reason that stop and frisk changed is because Barack Obama sent moderators to see what was going on. When we sent them there to say “this practice has to stop,” the mayor thought it was a terrible idea we send them there – a terrible idea,’ Biden said, invoking the name of one of the most famous Democrats.
‘It’s not whether he apologized or not, it’s the policy. The policy was abhorrent, and it was, in fact, a violation of every right people have,’ he said, claiming Bloomberg pushed back against stopping the policies.
‘He figured out it was a bad idea after we sent in monitors and said it must stop. Even then he continued the policy,’ Biden said on stage.
When Warren said that Biden was ‘in the pocket’ of Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, Biden fought back.
He also tried to return to his ‘Middle Class Joe’ biography about his family’s financial struggles.
Biden did not offer voters any new rationale for voting for him.
Trump speaks in Las Vegas at ceremony for former prisoners, says what happened to Roger Stone was unbelievable.
Roger Stone swerved a federal prison cell Thursday despite a judge slapping the longtime Donald Trump ally with a 40-month sentence for lying to Congress – and savaging not just him but the president.
Stone was convicted last fall of lying to lawmakers over his efforts to procure stolen Democratic Party emails from WikiLeaks in 2016 to boost Donald Trump’s chances of becoming President.
The self-declared political dirty trickster was spared immediate incarceration Thursday while U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson decides whether or not to grant his request for a retrial.
The sentence was far below the nine years demanded by the prosecution before that was over-ruled in a political tumult and furious tweets by Trump.
Instead she turned his sentencing hearing into a stunning rebuke not just of Stone but of the president himself, saying the prosecution was not brought by ‘political enemies,’ and that there was no ‘anti-Trump cabal’ at the hear of the case.
‘He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,’ she said.
‘There was nothing unfair, phony or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution.’
Trump tweeted in rage against the prosecution accusing it of lacking ‘FAIRNESS’ as the hearing was under way in federal court in Washington D.C.
”They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.’ OH, I see, but so did Comey (and he also leaked classified information, for which almost everyone, other than Crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time), and so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI! FAIRNESS?’ the president tweeted.
It was unknown whether Berman Jackson was aware of his latest intervention but it came amid a case roiled by politics and mounting speculation Stone will be pardoned.
Even before she spoke, prosecutors staged their own revolt against the president calling the case ‘righteous’ and demanding a lengthy prison sentence despite their initial call for nine years being over-ruled by Attorney General Bill Barr in one of the main acts of an unfolding constitutional crisis.
Stone, 67, stood in silence as Jackson told a federal courtroom Washington, D.C. that he should spend 40 months -three years and four months – behind bars.
She had savaged him in his sentencing remarks – and rebuked the president himself, possibly for his tweet this morning which was during the first part of her hearing.
‘This case did not arise because Roger Stone was being prosecuted by his political enemies,’ Berman Jackson said.
She said Stone told ‘flat out lies,’ and that his conviction had nothing to do with whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
He was guilty of a ‘corrupt, unlawful,’ campaign to stop his lies being exposed when he threatened Randy Credico, who he named as his ‘go-between’ to Julian Assange, to stop Credico revealing the truth, that there was another go-between.
Stone was also guilty of withholding texts and emails from Congress, prompting Berman Jackson to again lash out at the president.
Grinning: Roger Stone had shown no emotion as he was sentenced, and left the court building with a smile on his face
Lightning rod: Federal judge Amy Berman Jackson will sentence Roger Stone in a case which has caused a crisis to engulf Bill Barr who pleaded with Donald Trump to let him do his job and stop the tweeting about his Department of Justice
And she pointed out that it was a Republican-led inquiry which he had initially defied.
Then she laced into the president, without naming him, saying it was right for sentencing to be done by a judge, ‘Not someone who has a longstanding friendship with the defendant, not someone whose political career was aided by the defendant.’
Stone was joined by a vast entourage led by his wife Nydia as he walked into the federal court, where his legal team has been bolstered by a Mafia lawyer who helped keep John Gotti Jr., head of the Gambino crime family and son of the ‘Teflon Don,’ out of prison.
Pro-Stone demonstrators brought a ‘pardon Roger stone’ banner which they held behind him when he arrived while counter-protesters tried to hurriedly erect an inflatable effigy of Trump as a rat as Stone arrived.
Hours before he arrived Trump launched another fusillade against Stone’s conviction, tweeting: ‘What has happened to Roger Stone should never happen to anyone in our country again.’
Trump’s tweets have plunged his own attorney general, Bill Barr, into a crisis over the rule of law, with the president declaring himself the ‘chief law enforcement officer,’ and demanding Barr ‘clean house.’
His wife Nydia was behind him in the courtroom as Stone, wearing a dark gray chalk stripe double-breasted suit, blue shirt with cutaway collar and sober gray tie, sat beside his attorneys.
Department of Justice attorneys had originally requested a far harsher punishment of seven to nine years only to see their recommendation ripped up by Attorney General William Barr, who drew praise from Trump for labeling it ‘excessive and unwarranted’.
The intervention sparked accusations of political interference, forcing Barr on the defensive as he denied bowing to White House influence and appealed for Trump to curb his explosive Twitter criticisms of Judge Jackson and the supposedly ‘tainted’ case against Stone.
More than 2,000 former justice department employees have since signed a petition calling on the Attorney General to resign.
The original prosecution foursome of Aaron Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed and Michael Marando were replaced for today’s proceedings at Washington, D.C. District Court, having all resigned in protest.
Stone’s sentencing got off to a rocky start when U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said that anyone in the court who did not have a medical reason to wear sunglasses should remove them. Stone had arrived in round sunglasses.
Jackson took the opportunity to grill prosecutors on why the Department of Justice decided last week to submit a second sentencing memorandum, a nod to Attorney General William Barr’s controversial decision to rip up the original seven to nine year recommendation submitted by his own attorneys.
It fell upon newly-assigned federal prosecutor John Crabb to apologize for the ‘miscommunication’, insisting that the original prosecution team – who resigned last week in protest – had acted in ‘good faith’.
Stone stood in silence as Jackson recalled the seven offences of which he was convicted: five counts of making false statements to Congress, a single count of obstructing a congressional proceeding and single count of witness tampering.
That final charge would be of particular significance as she warned Stone his sentence would likely be higher because it involved specific threats of violence.
Last November’s trial heard how Stone bullied the radio host Randy Credico into pleading the Fifth to avoid contradicting his 2016 testimony before Congress, branding him a ‘rat’ and threatening to take away his therapy dog.
In front of the protest: Roger and Nydia Stone walked past the inflatable Trump rat as they made their way into court
Grin and bear it: Roger Stone kept a fixed smile as he headed into court with his wife Nydia on his arm
Raised a smile: Roger Stone’s wife Nydia reacted positively to a group of supporters’ banner calling for Donald Trump to issue the dirty trickster with a pardon
Arm-in-arm: Roger Stone wore a navy blue double-breasted topcoat with contrasting collar, blue cutaway collared shirt and sober gray tie, topped off with a black trilby as he arrived in court with Nydia, his second wife
Asked if he had anything to say, Stone, dressed immaculately in a pinstripe suit, grey tie and suspenders, told Washington, D.C. District Court: ‘Your honor I choose not to speak at this time, thank you very much.’
Jackson slammed the 67-year-old defendant as an ‘insecure person who craves and recklessly pursues attention.’
‘This case did not arise because Roger Stone was being pursued by his political enemies,’ she added.
‘It arose because Roger Stone characteristically injected himself smack into the middle of one of the most significant issues of the day.’
Judge Jackson said Stone had interfered with matters of ‘grave national importance’ and repeatedly lied under oath. She characterized his defense as: ‘So what?’
‘Nothing about this case was a joke. It wasn’t funny,’ she cautioned.
‘This was not Roger being Roger. He lied to congress, he lied to elected representatives.’
The no-nonsense judge praised the ‘professionalism’ of the original four prosecutors, saying their recommendation was ‘true to the record’ and in line with Department of Justice guidelines.
However she agreed with Barr’s revision and said she was concerned seven to nine years would be ‘greater than necessary.’
She sentenced Stone to 40 months for obstruction, 12 months each for the counts of lying to Congress and 18 months for witness tampering, all sentences to be served concurrently.
He was also fined $20,000 and will have to serve two years’ probation. Federal rules means he has to give the court his tax returns.
Judge Jackson quizzed Crabb about how she came to receive two competing sentencing memorandums, noting that the original recommendation had never been formally withdrawn.
Crabb agreed and confirmed the prosecution was still asking for a substantial prison term for Stone, insisting the Justice Department had operated ‘without fear, favor or political influence’.
‘This prosecution was and is righteous,’ he said. ‘This confusion was not caused by the original trial team. There was nothing in bad faith about the prosecution team’s recommendation.’
Quizzed over who had ordered the new memorandum and why, Crabb replied: ‘What I understand is, there was a miscommunication between the Attorney General and the United States Attorney.’
Asked to explain who wrote the second memorandum, he repeatedly declined to say.
‘I cannot engage in discussions on internal deliberations,’ he said, to Judge Jackson’s obvious displeasure.
Ginsberg told the court that Stone had a history of ‘rough, provocative and hyperbolic language’ and that his threats to Credico should not influence his sentence, given that Credico and Stone went back decades and he knew Stone was ‘all bark and no bite.’
Judge Jackson disagreed, saying the sentencing seriousness level jumped from 14 to 27 because of Stone’s threats, witness tampering and efforts to disrupt justice.
‘The defendant refers to this as banter, which it hardly is,’ Jackson added, reeling off a list of insults Stone had directed toward Credico, including ‘rat’ and ‘c**sucker’.
She also slammed Stone over his repeated outbursts during last year’s prosecution, in particular his speaking out via InfoWars host Alex Jones to relay a message to Trump pleading for a pardon the night before he was found guilty.
That was in defiance of a gag order Judge Jackson had earlier slapped on Stone after he posted a mocked up photo of her face in rifle crosshairs online.
Jackson said Stone was deliberately trying to undermine proceedings and was stoking anger towards court officials, risking a scenario in which someone with ‘even less judgment’ could actually do something violent.
‘This is intolerable to the administration of justice. The court should not sit idly by, shrug its shoulders and say, that’s just Roger being Roger,’ she said.
Ratcheting up his sentencing level another two notches, she added: ‘It wasn’t an accident he had a staff that helped him do it. Using the new social media is his sweet spot.
‘He knew exactly what he was doing and in using Twitter and Instagram he deliberately magnified his message.’
Stone’s decades-long career on the shadier margins of US politics appeared to be over last November after he was found guilty of five counts of making false statements to Congress and single counts of obstructing a congressional proceeding and witness tampering.
Jurors agreed the smooth-talking agent provocateur, who briefly served on Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, told a series of ‘whoppers’ when he testified before members of House Intelligence Committee investigating Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
Stone lied to lawmakers when he denied asking Julian Assange for the cache of Democratic Party messages stolen by Russian hackers and further lied about the identity of his go-between to the WikiLeaks founder.
He also concealed numerous texts, emails and telephone conversations in which he discussed WikiLeaks and Assange with then candidate-Trump and senior campaign figures including former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, ex Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and former campaign official Rick Gates.
Acknowledgment: Roger Stone gave a salute to supporters outside court
Counter-protest: Anti-Trump activists put up an inflatable effigy of the president as a rat in time for Roger Stone’s arrival
Publicity opportunity: The Stone spectacle has also been a magnet for a local tour company whose placard made a return to the entrance to court for the sentencing
Ready for the walk: Nydia Stone grasped her husband’s arm as they prepared to walk into court
The net result of him lying ‘over and over and over again’ was that the House Intelligence Committee was impeded in its inquiries and its final report into Russian election inference was inaccurate because it didn’t mention Stone’s true intermediary, prosecutors said.
The tampering charge referred to his effort to bully the comedian and radio host Randy Credico into pleading the Fifth so he would avoid contradicting Stone’s sworn September 26, 2017 testimony.
Stone had told lawmakers that Credico was his ‘back channel’ to WikiLeaks when it was actually the conspiracy theorist and author Jerome Corsi.
When Credico threatened to set the record straight, Stone branded him a ‘c**ksucker’, a ‘rat’ and urged the rattled comic to do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’, referencing a character in Godfather Part II who lies to a congressional committee to help the Corleone family before committing suicide.
He also took aim at Credico’s therapy dog Bianca, a 13-year-old Coton de Tulear, writing in an text message: ‘I’m going to take that dog away from you.’
Prosecutors cited the threats of physical harm and Stone’s repeated media outbursts attacking Judge Jackson as aggravating factors against the former Nixon campaign adviser who has the disgraced former president’s face permanently tattooed on his back.
However Credico was among those who argued against incarceration, saying in a January letter to the judge: ‘I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.’
Tomeka Hart, a former Memphis City Schools Board President, stoked the flames further when she outed herself last Wednesday as the jury forewoman in a Facebook post voicing support for the overruled prosecutors.
‘I have kept my silence for months. Initially, it was for my safety. Then, I decided to remain silent out of fear of politicizing the matter,’ Hart wrote.
‘But I can’t keep quiet any longer. I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis – the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial.
‘It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.
‘For that, I wanted to speak up for them and ask you to join me in thanking them for their service.’
Hart, it further emerged, had unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012 and had participated in anti-Trump rallies and protests.
She had frequently denounced Trump on social media, calling the President and his supporters racists, and posted emojis of hearts and fist pumps after finding Stone guilty last November.
Hart had also re-tweeted a post by pundit Bakari Sellers dismissing Stone’s claims that the FBI used excessive force when they arrested him at his Fort Lauderdale, Florida home in January 2019.
Sellers had listed black victims of ‘police force’, including Sandra Bland, Walter Scott and Eric Gardner, scoffing: ‘But Roger Stone!!! Think about that.’
Stone’s lawyers have already made one failed attempt to secure a re-trial, arguing that a completely different juror, an IRS employee who worked with the Justice Department on criminal tax cases, should have been struck.
The juror admitted reading news articles about Stone’s arrest but denied having any opinions about Stone when asked about it by Judge Jackson in court.
The defense had failed to demonstrate the ‘sort of inherent bias’ that would prompt a retrial, Judge Jackson ruled.
Stone entered the political arena in 1972 when he ditched his studies at George Washington University, supporting Nixon in his re-election campaign then landing a job on his administration.
In one of his first stunts he contributed $135 to one of Nixon’s Republican rivals in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance – then slipped the receipt to a journalist.
During congressional hearings into the Watergate scandal in 1973 it emerged Stone had recruited a spy to infiltrate the campaigns of several of Nixon’s Democratic rivals.
He was fired from his job with then-Senator Bob Dole but went on to work for several more presidential campaigns: those of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and, eventually, his longtime friend Donald Trump, who first hired Stone to lobby for his casino businesses in the 1990s.
The National Enquirer in 1996 revealed that Stone had placed ads on a swingers website seeking sex partners for himself and his second wife Nydia Bertran Stone, 72. Stone later referred to himself in an interview as ‘a libertarian and a libertine’ and a ‘trysexual – I’ve tried everything’.
GUILTY: ROGER STONE
Convicted in November 2019 on seven counts including obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and lying to Congress about his communications with WikiLeaks. Sentenced to 40 months in prison.
Stone was a person of interest to Mueller’s investigators long before his January 2019 indictment, thanks in part due to his public pronouncements as well as internal emails about his contacts with WikiLeks.
In campaign texts and emails, Stone communicated with associates about WikiLeaks following reports the organization had obtained a cache of Clinton-related emails.
According to the federal indictment, Stone gave ‘false and misleading’ testimony about his requests for information from WikiLeaks. He then pressured a witness, comedian Randy Credico, to take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify, and pressured him in a series of emails. Following a prolonged dispute over testimony, he called him a ‘rat’ and threatened to ‘take that dog away from you’, in reference to Credico’s therapy dog, Bianca. Stone warned him: ‘Let’s get it on. Prepare to die.’
GUILTY: MICHAEL FLYNN
Pleaded guilty to making false statements in December 2017. Awaiting sentence
Flynn was President Trump’s former National Security Advisor and Robert Mueller’s most senior scalp to date. He previously served when he was a three star general as President Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency but was fired.
He admitted to lying to special counsel investigators about his conversations with a Russian ambassador in December 2016. He has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.
GUILTY AND IN JAIL: MICHAEL COHEN
Pleaded guilty to eight counts including fraud and two campaign finance violations in August 2018. Pleaded guilty to further count of lying to Congress in November 2018. Sentenced to three years in prison and $2 million in fines and forfeitures in December 2018
Cohen was investigated by Mueller but the case was handed off to the Southern District of New York,leaving Manhattan’s ferocious and fiercely independent federal prosecutors to run his case.
Cohen was Trump’s longtime personal attorney, starting working for him and the Trump Organization in 2007. He is the longest-serving member of Trump’s inner circle to be implicated by Mueller. Cohen professed unswerving devotion to Trump – and organized payments to silence two women who alleged they had sex with the-then candidate: porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. He admitted that payments to both women were felony campaign finance violations – and admitted that he acted at the ‘direction’ of ‘Candidate-1’: Donald Trump.
He also admitted tax fraud by lying about his income from loans he made, money from taxi medallions he owned, and other sources of income, at a cost to the Treasury of $1.3 million.
And he admitted lying to Congress in a rare use of the offense. The judge in his case let him report for prison on March 6 and recommended he serve it in a medium-security facility close to New York City.
GUILTY AND IN JAIL: PAUL MANAFORT
Found guilty of eight charges of bank and tax fraud in August 2018. Sentenced to 47 months in March 2019. Pleaded guilty to two further charges – witness tampering and conspiracy against the United States. Jailed for total of seven and a half years in two separate sentences. Additionally indicted for mortgage fraud by Manhattan District Attorney, using evidence previously presented by Mueller. That indictment was dismissed by the DA is appealing
Manafort worked for Trump’s campaign from March 2016 and chaired it from June to August 2016, overseeing Trump being adopted as Republican candidate at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. He is the most senior campaign official to be implicated by Mueller. Manafort was one of Washington D.C.’s longest-term and most influential lobbyists but in 2015, his money dried up and the next year he turned to Trump for help, offering to be his campaign chairman for free – in the hope of making more money afterwards. But Mueller unwound his previous finances and discovered years of tax and bank fraud as he coined in cash from pro-Russia political parties and oligarchs in Ukraine.
Manafort pleaded not guilty to 18 charges of tax and bank fraud but was convicted of eight counts in August 2018. The jury was deadlocked on the other 10 charges. A second trial on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent due in September did not happen when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and witness tampering in a plea bargain. He was supposed to co-operate with Mueller but failed to.
Minutes after his second sentencing hearing in March 2019, he was indicted on 16 counts of fraud and conspiracy by the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., using evidence which included documents previously presented at his first federal trial. The president has no pardon power over charges by district and state attorneys.
GUILTY: RICK GATES
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and making false statements in February 2018. Awaiting sentence
Gates, a Trump campaign official, was Manafort’s former deputy at political consulting firm DMP International. He admitted to conspiring to defraud the U.S. government on financial activity, and to lying to investigators about a meeting Manafort had with a member of congress in 2013. As a result of his guilty plea and promise of cooperation, prosecutors vacated charges against Gates on bank fraud, bank fraud conspiracy, failure to disclose foreign bank accounts, filing false tax returns, helping prepare false tax filings, and falsely amending tax returns.
GUILTY AND JAILED: GEORGE PAPADOPOLOUS
Pleaded guilty to making false statements in October 2017. Sentenced to 14 days in September 2018, and reported to prison in November. Served 12 days and released on December 7, 2018
Papadopoulos was a member of Donald Trump’s campaign foreign policy advisory committee. He admitted to lying to special counsel investigators about his contacts with London professor Josef Mifsud and Ivan Timofeev, the director of a Russian government-funded think tank.
He agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation but is now highly critical of it.
There’s a deadly virus spreading from state to state. It preys on the most vulnerable, striking the sick and the old without mercy. In just the last few months, it has claimed the lives of at least 39 children.
The virus is influenza, and it poses a far greater threat to Americans than the coronavirus from China that has made headlines around the world.
“When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comparison,” said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “Coronavirus will be a blip on the horizon in comparison. The risk is trivial.”
To be sure, the coronavirus outbreak, which originated last month in the Chinese city of Wuhan, should be taken seriously. The virus can cause pneumonia and is blamed for more than 7,000 illnesses and more than 170 deaths.
The World Health Organization on Thursday declared the outbreak a global emergency requiring a coordinated international response after the number of cases spiked sharply over the last few days. But officials warn much remains unknown.
In the United States, at least six cases of the virus have been reported, including the first case of person-to-person infection. Public health workers are monitoring dozens of additional patients.
And yet, Americans aren’t particularly concerned.
Fewer than half of adults got a flu shot last season, according to the CDC. Even among children, who can be especially vulnerable to respiratory illnesses, only 62% received the vaccine.
If Americans aren’t afraid of the flu, perhaps that’s because they are inured to yearly warnings. For them, the flu is old news. Yet viruses named after foreign places — such as Ebola, Zika, and Wuhan — inspire terror.
“Familiarity breeds indifference,” Schaffner said. “Because it’s new, it’s mysterious, and comes from an exotic place, the coronavirus creates anxiety.”
Some doctors joke that the flu needs to be rebranded.
“We should rename influenza; call it XZ-47 virus or something scarier,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Measles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has killed 5,000 people in the last year — more than twice as many as Ebola. Yet UNICEF officials have noted that the measles, which many Americans no longer fear, has gotten little attention. Nearly all the measles victims were children under 5.
The big question, so far unknown, is just how easily the virus is transmitted from an infected person to others. Officials warn much remains unknown, but each patient with the new coronavirus appears to be infecting about two other people.
By comparison, patients with SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, spread the infection to an average of two to four others. Each patient with measles — one of the most contagious viruses known to science — infects 12 to 18 unvaccinated people.
Health officials worry that the new coronavirus could resemble SARS — which appeared suddenly in China in 2002 and spread to 26 countries, sickening 8,000 people and killing 774, according to the WHO.The U.S. dodged a bullet with SARS, Schaffner said. Only eight Americans became infected and none died, according to the CDC. Yet SARS caused a global panic, leading people to shutter hotels, cancel flights, and close businesses.
Coronaviruses can be unpredictable, said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. While some patients never infect anyone else, people who are “super-spreaders” can infect dozens of others.
At Seoul, South Korea’s Samsung Medical Center in 2015, a single emergency-room patient infected 82 people —patients, visitors, and staff — with a coronavirus called MERS, or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. The hospital partly shut down to control the virus.
“This is one of the finest medical centers in the world, on par with the Cleveland Clinic, and they were brought to their knees,” Osterholm said.
Yet MERS has never posed much of a threat to the United States.
Only two patients in this country — health-care providers who had worked in Saudi Arabia — have ever tested positive for the virus, according to the CDC. Both patients survived.
Hotez, who is working to develop vaccines against neglected diseases, said he worries about unvaccinated children. Most kids who die from the flu haven’t been immunized against it, he said. And many were previously healthy.
“If you’re worried about your health, get your flu vaccination,” Hotez said. “It’s not too late.”
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus-infection-death-risk-influenza-20200129.html
The deadly coronavirus rapidly sweeping the world kills up to 15 per cent of patients over the age of 80, scientists have revealed.
Chinese health officials carried out the biggest ever study on the never-before-seen strain of the virus, using data from 72,000 cases.
Results showed the SARS-CoV-2 virus posed the greatest threat to older patients and those with underlying conditions, such as cancer and heart disease.
Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention researchers also found 80.9 per cent of infections are mild. Less than five per cent are critical.
More than 73,000 cases have been recorded worldwide, with 99 per cent in China. Almost 1,900 patients have already died.
Residents walk through a disinfection channel set up as a protective measure against the coronavirus at the entrance to their compound in Tongzhou, east of Beijing
A child wearing a face mask plays near a slide at a commercial and residential complex in a residential complex in Beijing
A medical worker takes a swab for testing from a Chinese paramilitary police officer in Shenzhen, Guangdong province
Cases of a mysterious pneumonia-causing virus first emerged in the now-deserted Chinese city of Wuhan late last year.
Researchers blamed a seafood market in Hubei city that illegally sold wild animals for being the source of the virus.
The virus has no known cure and most patients who are struck down recover within a couple of weeks without needing medical treatment.
Those who develop more serious infections in their lungs, such as pneumonia, need expert medical care to stop their illness turning deadly.
They looked at 72,314 confirmed, suspected, clinically diagnosed, and asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 illness across China as of February 11.
COVID-19 is the name of the disease caused by the virus, which has effectively been named as SARS-2 by the World Health Organization.
Results showed the overall case-fatality ratio – the percentage of patients who die – was just 2.3 per cent.
And more than 73,000 patients have been struck down with the deadly SARS-CoV-2 infection, including nearly 1,000 outside of China
Almost 1,900 people have now died from the killer coronavirus rapidly sweeping the world
In comparison, SARS – which only infected a fraction of patients during the 2002/03 epidemic – killed around 10 per cent.
While the death rate for MERS, another type of coronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012, is even higher (34 per cent).
One of the world’s deadliest diseases, Ebola, kills around half of all patients it strikes. Ebola is not caused by any type of coronavirus.
When data for the SARS-CoV-2 infection was broken down, researchers found over-80s had the highest fatality ratio at 14.8 per cent.
The likelihood of death was just eight per cent of patients aged between 70 and 79, and 3.6 per cent for those in their sixties.
The case-fatality ratio was less than 1.5 per cent for patients in their fifties, and less than 0.5 per cent for everyone else – meaning roughly one in 200 will die.
There were no deaths among children aged up to nine, despite at least two cases of newborn babies infected through their mothers.
In contrast, the death rate for flu is around 0.1 per cent, according to the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC).
Older adults have weaker immune systems, meaning it is harder for the body to fight off a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 or flu.
Patients with heart disease were most likely to die from the virus, followed by those with diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and hypertension.
CCDC academics also found 80.9 percent of infections were classified as mild, 13.8 percent as severe and only 4.7 percent as critical.
And men are more likely to die (2.8 per cent) than women (1.7 per cent). But experts have yet to work out why men are more vulnerable.
Nearly 86 percent of those who have contracted the illness either lived in or travelled to Wuhan.
And 3,019 health workers have been diagnosed and five had died as of February 11, the report said.
The epidemic, which has seen cases in almost 30 countries, reached its ‘first peak’ between January 24 and 26, the report said.
It suggests there is has been a ‘downward trend’ in the overall epidemic curve since February 11 – meaning the spread of the disease was slowing.
A separate group of scientists published their findings about the virus on bioRxiv – an archive of papers before they have been peer-reviewed.
Scientists at the University of Texas at Austin found SARS-CoV-2 was 20 times more likely to bind to human cells than its original predecessor.
South China Morning Post reports the team said the virus shares the same host-cell receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), with SARS.
The researchers wrote: ‘Compared with SARS-CoV, 2019-nCoV appears to be more readily transmitted from human to human.
‘The high affinity of 2019-nCoV for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human to human.’
Schools were shuttered, churches told worshipers to stay away and some mass gatherings were banned as cases of a new virus swelled Friday in South Korea, the newest front in a widening global outbreak.
The country said two people have died and 204 have been infected with the virus, quadruple the number of cases it had two days earlier, as a crisis centered in China has begun strongly reverberating elsewhere.
The multiplying caseload in South Korea showed the ease with which the illness can spread. Though initial infections were linked to China, new ones have not involved international travel.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
[youtub e=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U]
| Monday, February 10 |
| Sunday, February 9 |
| Saturday, February 8 |
| Friday, February 7 |
| Thursday, February 6 |
| Wednesday, February 5 |
| Tuesday, February 4 |
| Monday, February 3 |
| Sunday, February 2 |
| Friday, January 31 |
| February 10, 2020 – Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Primary As Biden Falls, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Bloomberg Rises In Primary, Runs Strong Against Trump |  |
PDF format
Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail
In the wake of the Iowa caucuses and heading into the New Hampshire primary, there is a dramatic shift in the Democratic primary race for president as Senator Bernie Sanders claims frontrunner status for the first time, overtaking former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Sanders gets 25 percent of the vote among Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic, while Biden gets 17 percent, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg receives 15 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren gets 14 percent, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg receives 10 percent, and Senator Amy Klobuchar gets 4 percent. No other candidate tops 2 percent.
In a January 28th poll, prior to the Iowa caucuses, Biden had a modest lead with 26 percent of the vote while Sanders got 21 percent, Warren had 15 percent, Bloomberg received 8 percent, Klobuchar got 7 percent, and Buttigieg received 6 percent.
“Biden scrambles to bounce back in frigid New Hampshire after an icy slide to 17 percent, his lowest national number,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Analyst Tim Malloy.
“Is the Bloomberg camp prepping the white horse for him to ride to the rescue? Maybe not yet, but without setting foot in Iowa or New Hampshire, he is suddenly a looming shadow over the primary field,” Malloy added.
Among moderate and conservative Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is now a close race for the top spot. This group had favored Biden by a wide margin, but his challengers are making inroads. Today, Biden receives 22 percent, Bloomberg gets 21 percent, Sanders gets 17 percent, and Buttigieg receives 12 percent.
Biden no longer dominates on the key question of electability, as 27 percent say Biden has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, while 24 percent say Sanders, 17 percent say Bloomberg, and 9 percent say Buttigieg. In the January 28th poll, Biden led on this question with 44 percent, followed by Sanders at 19 percent and Bloomberg at 9 percent.
“Clearly Biden’s fourth place finish in Iowa has hurt the perception of what was his biggest strength – electability,” Malloy said.
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Among all registered voters, Democratic candidates lead President Trump in general election matchups by between 4 and 9 percentage points, with Bloomberg claiming the biggest numerical lead against Trump:
President Trump’s favorability rating is underwater, as 42 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of him, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view of him. However, it is his best favorability rating since a March 7th, 2017 poll, when his favorability rating was a negative 43 – 53 percent.
Like President Trump, the top four Democratic candidates in the primary are viewed more unfavorably than favorably. Warren has the worst net score (favorable minus unfavorable) among all registered voters, with Biden close behind. Biden’s favorability numbers have been declining over the last year since his positive 53 – 33 percent favorability rating in a December 19th, 2018 poll. In today’s poll:
TRUMP JOB APPROVAL
Less than a week after President Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial and delivered his State of the Union address, the president’s job approval continues to match his highest approval number, with 43 percent of voters saying they approve of the job President Trump is doing and 53 percent saying they disapprove. This remains essentially unchanged since mid-December 2019. Broken down along party lines, Republicans approve 89 – 9 percent, Democrats disapprove 94 – 4 percent, and independents are split with 46 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving.
Looking at how President Trump compares to his two predecessors at the same point in their re-election years, voters gave President Obama a slightly negative 45 – 49 percent job approval rating in February of 2012, and President Bush a slightly positive 48 – 45 percent job approval rating in February of 2004. Unlike President Trump, though, both presidents had hit higher approval ratings in their previous years in office. President Obama had hit a high of 59 percent approval in 2009, and President Bush received a high of 83 percent approval in 2001.
“Fresh from acquittal by the Senate, feistily throwing haymakers in every direction, the president presumably has a strong economy to ride all the way to Election Day. The Democrats are facing a reinvigorated and formidable Trump,” added Malloy.
THE ECONOMY
President Trump continues to score high marks on his handling of the economy. Voters approve 54 – 42 percent of his handling of the economy, compared to his all-time high of 57 – 38 percent on January 13th, 2020. Republicans approve 97 – 3 percent, Democrats disapprove 81 – 15 percent, and independents approve 59 – 37 percent.
When asked about their personal financial situations, voters say 59 – 20 percent that they are better off financially than they were in 2016, the last presidential election year, while 19 percent say their financial situation is the same. This compares to a December 10th, 2019 survey that found 57 percent were better off, 22 percent were worse off, and 19 percent were the same.
Overall, 70 percent of voters describe the nation’s economy as excellent or good and 29 percent describe it as not so good or poor. That is just slightly lower than the all-time high set on December 16th, 2019, when 73 percent said excellent or good and 25 percent said not so good or poor.
POST-IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
American voters are evenly split, 49 – 49 percent, on the Senate’s decision to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment. Republicans approve 95 – 4 percent, independents approve 53 – 45 percent, and Democrats disapprove 90 – 8 percent.
Despite the acquittal, voters say 55 – 40 percent that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump does not clear him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter. Republicans say 81 – 12 percent that the acquittal clears the president of wrongdoing, while Democrats 91 – 6 percent and independents 54 – 40 percent say it does not. By 51 – 46 percent, voters say the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial.
Voters say 59 – 35 percent that the Senate impeachment trial was conducted unfairly.
From February 5 – 9, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,519 self-identified registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. The survey includes 665 Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than a dozen states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.
Visit poll.qu.edu or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Email poll@qu.edu, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
1. How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
A lot 54% 59% 61% 45% 53% 55% 60% 51%
Some 28 25 26 35 29 28 27 30
Only a little 12 11 8 15 11 13 9 12
None at all 5 4 5 5 7 4 4 6
DK/NA - 1 - - - 1 - -
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
A lot 36% 49% 60% 66% 54% 57% 56% 51% 50%
Some 37 36 25 18 30 27 28 33 22
Only a little 18 10 11 11 9 12 10 12 22
None at all 9 5 3 5 7 4 5 4 6
DK/NA - - 1 1 - - - 1 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
A lot 59% 77% 55% 53% 58% 59% 64% 49% 69% 57%
Some 28 18 33 31 29 28 25 36 23 28
Only a little 8 5 9 9 5 10 6 10 6 7
None at all 5 1 3 7 8 3 5 5 2 9
DK/NA - - - - - - - - - -
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
A lot 61% 50% 43% 56% 60% 69% 60% 59% 60%
Some 26 36 39 31 29 18 24 28 31
Only a little 8 8 11 6 10 7 11 6 8
None at all 5 6 7 7 1 6 5 8 1
DK/NA - - - - - - - - -
TREND: How much attention have you been paying to the election campaign for president; a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?
OnlyA None
A lot Some Little AtAll DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 54 28 12 5 -
Jan 28, 2020 50 28 15 7 1
Jan 13, 2020 51 28 14 8 -
Dec 16, 2019 54 25 14 7 -
Dec 10, 2019 51 29 15 6 -
Nov 26, 2019 49 29 15 7 1
Oct 24, 2019 51 27 14 7 -
Oct 14, 2019 54 25 11 9 -
Oct 08, 2019 53 24 15 8 -
Sep 25, 2019 48 25 17 8 1
See additional trend information at top of page
2. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Biden 17% 5% 14% 22% 14% 19% 14% 27% 16% 12%
Sanders 25 44 27 17 32 20 22 19 17 30
Warren 14 27 20 6 10 16 16 8 17 13
Klobuchar 4 1 3 6 5 4 6 - 8 4
Gabbard 1 1 - 1 2 - - - - -
Buttigieg 10 8 11 12 10 11 14 4 16 10
Yang 2 - 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 4
Bennet - - - - - - - 1 - -
Steyer 1 - - 1 - 1 1 - 1 1
Patrick - - - - - - - - - -
Bloomberg 15 4 12 21 13 16 15 22 16 12
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 5 - - - 2 - 4 - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 1 - 2 2 1 2 - - 4
DK/NA 10 5 9 11 10 10 9 13 8 10
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Biden 19% 9% 6% 13% 18% 27% 15% 17% 17%
Sanders 24 26 54 30 11 8 31 26 18
Warren 13 16 15 16 15 12 12 14 17
Klobuchar 4 4 2 4 4 6 2 7 4
Gabbard 1 - 2 1 - - 1 - 1
Buttigieg 9 17 6 10 16 9 11 9 11
Yang 3 1 5 2 - 1 2 3 2
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - 1
Steyer - 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 1
Patrick - - - - - - - - -
Bloomberg 14 17 5 13 18 22 11 18 16
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - - 4 - - 3 - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 - 2
DK/NA 10 7 4 5 16 13 9 7 9
PREFER CANDIDATE Q6
Shares Most
Views Elect
Biden 14% 18%
Sanders 35 15
Warren 9 18
Klobuchar 1 7
Gabbard 2 -
Buttigieg 7 14
Yang 3 2
Bennet - -
Steyer 1 -
Patrick - -
Bloomberg 14 16
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 1
DK/NA 9 10
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote? (Trend information is available upon request back through Mar 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Jan 13 Dec 16 Dec 10 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Oct 08
2020 2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 17 26 25 30 29 24 21 27 26
Sanders 25 21 19 16 17 13 15 11 16
Warren 14 15 16 17 15 14 28 30 29
Klobuchar 4 7 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
Gabbard 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 - -
Buttigieg 10 6 8 9 9 16 10 8 4
Yang 2 3 5 3 4 2 1 2 3
Bennet - - 1 - 1 2 - 1 1
Steyer 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 -
Patrick - - 1 - - - na na na
Bloomberg 15 8 6 7 5 3 na na na
Delaney na - - - 1 - - - -
Booker na na 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
Castro na na na 1 1 2 1 1 1
Williamson na na na - 1 - - - -
Bullock na na na na na - - - -
Harris na na na na na 3 5 4 3
Sestak na na na na na - - - -
Messam na na na na na na - - -
O'Rourke na na na na na na 1 2 1
Ryan na na na na na na - - 1
de Blasio na na na na na na na na na
Gillibrand na na na na na na na na na
Gravel na na na na na na na na na
Hickenlooper na na na na na na na na na
Inslee na na na na na na na na na
Moulton na na na na na na na na na
Swalwell na na na na na na na na na
SMONE ELSE 1 - - - - - 1 - 1
WLDN'T VOTE 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 2 1
DK/NA 10 11 11 10 11 11 9 8 8
2a. (If candidate chosen q2) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................
CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q2................................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Tot Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Made up 42% 46% 60% 30% 28% 25%
Might change 56 54 39 69 70 73
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 2 2
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
CANDIDATE CHOSEN.....
MadeUp Change DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 42 56 1
Jan 28, 2020 43 55 1
Jan 13, 2020 35 63 1
Dec 16, 2019 38 61 1
Dec 10, 2019 39 59 2
Nov 26, 2019 33 64 3
Sep 25, 2019 34 63 3
2b. (If candidate chosen q2) Who is your second choice?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Tot Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Biden 15% - 20% 8% 19% 33%
Sanders 11 19 - 33 11 4
Warren 16 13 37 - 26 7
Klobuchar 7 10 - 7 26 5
Gabbard - - - - 1 -
Buttigieg 13 17 7 25 - 21
Yang 4 - 11 4 5 1
Bennet - - - - - 1
Steyer 1 3 2 - - 3
Patrick 1 - - 4 - -
Bloomberg 6 21 4 3 9 -
No first choice 12 - - - - -
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - - - 1 4
DK/NA 13 17 18 14 2 21
TREND: (If candidate chosen) Who is your second choice?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Jan 13 Dec 16 Dec 10 Nov 26
2020 2020 2020 2019 2019 2019
Biden 15 15 13 13 13 12
Sanders 11 11 18 14 11 11
Warren 16 17 19 21 16 20
Klobuchar 7 7 3 5 5 4
Gabbard - 1 1 1 - 1
Buttigieg 13 12 7 9 11 10
Yang 4 4 2 2 3 2
Bennet - - - - - -
Steyer 1 2 2 1 1 1
Patrick 1 - 1 - 1 -
Bloomberg 6 5 7 6 4 2
Delaney na - - - - -
Booker na na 4 3 4 2
Castro na na na 1 - -
Williamson na na na - 1 -
Bullock na na na na na -
Harris na na na na na 6
Sestak na na na na na -
No first choice 12 12 12 10 12 12
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - 1 - 1 -
DK/NA 13 13 11 14 16 16
3. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – would be the best leader?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Biden 22% 16% 23% 23% 17% 25% 17% 38% 20% 13%
Sanders 22 37 21 17 28 18 19 16 14 27
Warren 14 27 17 8 10 17 18 7 20 14
Klobuchar 3 2 3 5 4 3 5 1 6 4
Gabbard 1 1 - 1 2 - - - - -
Buttigieg 10 6 10 12 12 9 13 3 15 11
Yang 2 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 1 4
Bennet - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - -
Steyer 1 - - 1 - 1 1 - 1 1
Patrick - 1 - - - - - 1 - -
Bloomberg 13 3 12 16 14 12 15 12 17 12
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - - - - - -
DK/NA 11 6 9 14 7 14 9 18 6 15
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Biden 24% 15% 12% 20% 23% 30% 20% 25% 18%
Sanders 21 26 49 27 10 6 26 24 16
Warren 14 17 14 20 15 9 12 13 21
Klobuchar 4 3 1 4 4 4 3 5 3
Gabbard 1 - 2 1 - - 1 - 1
Buttigieg 9 13 8 10 13 8 7 12 13
Yang 2 1 5 2 - 2 2 2 3
Bennet 1 - - 1 1 - 1 - 1
Steyer - 3 1 - 1 1 1 - 1
Patrick - - - - - 1 - - -
Bloomberg 13 15 6 10 15 20 11 14 14
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - - - - -
DK/NA 12 8 4 5 17 19 15 6 9
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think would be the best leader? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 22 31 32 26 28 32 33 36 26
Sanders 22 18 14 12 13 9 13 12 15
Warren 14 17 19 19 24 28 22 17 15
Klobuchar 3 6 3 3 3 2 1 1 1
Gabbard 1 1 1 - - - 1 - 1
Buttigieg 10 5 6 12 8 7 5 5 4
Yang 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 -
Bennet - - - - - - - - -
Steyer 1 1 1 - - 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 13 9 8 3 na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - - -
Booker na na 2 1 1 1 2 1 3
Castro na na 1 - - 1 1 - 1
Williamson na na - - - - - 1 -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 4 4 4 7 9 16
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na 1 1 1 1 1
Ryan na na na na - - - - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na - - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - 1 1 1 - - -
DK/NA 11 11 12 15 13 11 12 15 15
4. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best policy ideas?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Biden 14% 5% 12% 18% 13% 14% 11% 25% 13% 7%
Sanders 27 45 35 17 31 24 26 23 21 34
Warren 16 31 22 9 14 18 20 11 24 13
Klobuchar 4 - 4 6 5 4 7 1 7 5
Gabbard 1 1 - 1 2 - - - - -
Buttigieg 9 6 7 11 10 8 12 3 14 9
Yang 4 1 5 5 6 3 3 3 2 4
Bennet - - - - - - - 1 - -
Steyer 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Patrick - - 1 - - - - - - -
Bloomberg 10 6 7 13 9 12 9 17 9 10
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - - - - - - 1
DK/NA 13 3 7 18 9 15 10 15 7 16
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Biden 14% 14% 6% 11% 15% 20% 10% 17% 11%
Sanders 28 25 50 33 18 10 32 29 22
Warren 16 17 15 19 18 13 11 15 24
Klobuchar 4 6 1 3 6 7 2 7 5
Gabbard 1 - 2 1 - - 1 - 1
Buttigieg 8 11 5 8 11 9 9 7 11
Yang 4 6 7 5 2 2 4 4 5
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - 1
Steyer 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1
Patrick - - 1 - - - - - 1
Bloomberg 11 9 5 7 12 17 12 10 9
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - - 1 1 - -
DK/NA 14 8 8 11 14 19 16 10 8
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best policy ideas? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 14 18 23 15 15 16 17 21 11
Sanders 27 22 19 15 20 12 16 16 18
Warren 16 21 19 23 30 40 32 26 31
Klobuchar 4 6 3 4 3 2 1 1 1
Gabbard 1 - 1 - - - 1 1 1
Buttigieg 9 6 8 14 9 6 5 5 3
Yang 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 -
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - -
Steyer 1 2 1 1 - 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 10 6 4 - na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - - -
Booker na na 2 - 1 1 1 1 2
Castro na na 1 1 - - - 1 1
Williamson na na - - - - - 1 -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 2 4 1 5 6 8
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na 1 2 1 1 -
Ryan na na na na - - - - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na 1 - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - 1 1 - - - -
DK/NA 13 16 16 19 13 16 17 20 22
5. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think – has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Biden 27% 22% 32% 26% 24% 28% 23% 40% 22% 24%
Sanders 24 48 19 18 35 17 24 14 20 30
Warren 5 9 5 4 4 6 6 2 7 5
Klobuchar 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 - 3 1
Gabbard - - - - - - - - - -
Buttigieg 9 8 6 11 8 10 11 4 12 9
Yang 1 - 1 1 2 - - 1 - -
Bennet - - - - - - - 1 - -
Steyer - - - - - - - 1 - -
Patrick - 1 - - - - - 1 - -
Bloomberg 17 3 17 22 15 18 17 25 20 12
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1
DK/NA 15 8 17 17 12 18 16 11 15 18
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Biden 29% 16% 22% 23% 26% 30% 27% 27% 23%
Sanders 23 28 56 27 14 8 29 23 22
Warren 4 9 4 3 6 7 5 5 6
Klobuchar 1 3 1 2 - 2 1 2 1
Gabbard - - - - - - - - -
Buttigieg 8 10 7 11 12 5 9 8 10
Yang 1 2 1 2 - 1 1 - 1
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - 1
Steyer - - - - 1 - - - -
Patrick - - - - - 1 - - -
Bloomberg 17 16 4 18 23 22 12 19 21
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - 1 - 1 - 1 1
DK/NA 15 17 5 13 19 23 15 13 13
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Regardless of how you intend to vote in the Democratic primary for president, which candidate do you think has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election? (Trend information is available upon request back through Apr 2019)
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Feb 10 Jan 28 Dec 16 Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2020 2020 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 27 44 44 46 42 48 49 51 42
Sanders 24 19 15 10 14 7 12 10 13
Warren 5 7 9 10 20 21 9 8 9
Klobuchar 1 2 1 1 1 - - - -
Gabbard - - 1 1 - - - - 1
Buttigieg 9 2 3 6 2 2 1 1 1
Yang 1 1 1 1 - - 1 - -
Bennet - - - 1 - - - - -
Steyer - 1 - - 1 1 - - na
Patrick - - - - na na na na na
Bloomberg 17 9 7 3 na na na na na
Delaney na - - - - - - 1 -
Booker na na - - 1 1 1 1 1
Castro na na - - - - - - -
Williamson na na - - - - - - -
Bullock na na na - - - - - -
Harris na na na 1 3 1 6 8 14
Sestak na na na - - - - - -
Messam na na na na - - - - -
O'Rourke na na na na - 1 2 - -
Ryan na na na na - - 1 - -
de Blasio na na na na na na - - -
Gillibrand na na na na na na - - -
Gravel na na na na na na - - -
Hickenlooper na na na na na na - - -
Inslee na na na na na na - - -
Moulton na na na na na na - - -
Swalwell na na na na na na na na -
SMONE ELSE - - - - 1 - 1 - -
DK/NA 15 16 19 20 15 16 17 20 17
6. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Shares views 46% 49% 49% 43% 47% 45% 37% 62% 32% 47%
Most electable 49 44 49 53 48 50 59 31 65 47
DOESN'T MATTER(VOL) 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1
DK/NA 4 6 - 3 5 3 3 5 2 5
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Shares views 46% 46% 68% 50% 40% 28% 56% 44% 39%
Most electable 50 49 28 44 55 68 40 51 59
DOESN'T MATTER(VOL) 1 - - 2 - 1 1 1 -
DK/NA 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 2
TREND: (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Thinking about the 2020 Democratic primary for president, if all other things are equal, would you prefer a candidate that most shares your views on issues or a candidate that you think is the most electable?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..
Shares Most DOESN'T
views elect MATTER DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 46 49 1 4
Aug 06, 2019 46 50 1 3
Mar 28, 2019 51 45 1 3
7. (If Democrat or Democratic leaner) Do you think Iowa should continue to be the first state in the nation to vote in the presidential nomination process, or don’t you think so?
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Yes/Should continue 17% 14% 14% 20% 18% 16% 16% 17% 12% 22%
No 64 71 66 61 67 62 65 68 68 59
DK/NA 19 15 20 19 15 22 20 15 20 18
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Yes/Should continue 16% 19% 30% 14% 14% 12% 19% 20% 12%
No 65 61 59 65 70 64 67 58 67
DK/NA 19 20 11 21 16 24 14 21 21
8. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Biden 50% 6% 92% 48% 43% 57% 54% 33%
Trump 43 92 4 41 49 37 40 60
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - - 3 2 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 - 3 5 3 3 2 3
DK/NA 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Biden 55% 52% 43% 54% 39% 48% 44% 81% 62%
Trump 32 39 52 44 56 45 50 12 29
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 5 2 1 - 1 3 2 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 4 3 - 3 2 2 4 3
DK/NA 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 4
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Biden 99% 85% 94% 99% 96%
Trump 1 3 - 1 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - 10 6 1 -
DK/NA - 1 - - 1
TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
SMONE WLD'T
Biden Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 50 43 2 3 2
Dec 10, 2019 51 42 2 2 3
Oct 08, 2019 51 40 2 3 4
Aug 28, 2019 54 38 1 2 4
Jun 11, 2019 53 40 1 2 4
Sep 24, 2015 51 40 1 4 4
Aug 27, 2015 48 40 2 5 5
Jul 30, 2015 49 37 3 6 5
9. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Sanders 51% 4% 93% 48% 45% 57% 52% 35%
Trump 43 92 4 43 50 38 41 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - - 2 1 1 2 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
DK/NA 3 2 1 4 2 3 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Sanders 64% 53% 43% 50% 38% 49% 44% 85% 64%
Trump 31 41 53 44 56 46 51 10 31
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
DK/NA 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Sanders 92% 100% 98% 97% 83%
Trump 1 - - - 10
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 - 2 3 2
DK/NA 4 - - - 3
TREND: If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
SMONE WLD'T
Sanders Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 51 43 1 2 3
Dec 10, 2019 51 43 2 2 3
Oct 08, 2019 49 42 2 3 4
Aug 28, 2019 53 39 1 3 4
Jun 11, 2019 51 42 1 2 4
Jun 01, 2016 48 39 3 6 5
Mar 23, 2016 52 38 2 5 3
Feb 18, 2016 48 42 2 5 4
Feb 05, 2016 49 39 2 6 5
Dec 22, 2015 51 38 1 6 4
See additional trend information at top of page
10. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Warren 48% 4% 94% 41% 40% 56% 52% 31%
Trump 44 92 4 46 53 36 41 62
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 2 2 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 - 1 6 2 3 2 3
DK/NA 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Warren 53% 49% 42% 51% 35% 47% 41% 85% 56%
Trump 34 42 53 45 60 44 51 10 35
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 5 1 1 2 1 3 2 - 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2
DK/NA 4 5 2 1 3 3 3 3 5
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Warren 93% 94% 100% 98% 89%
Trump 1 2 - - 6
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - 1 - 2 2
DK/NA 6 1 - - 2
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Elizabeth Warren the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
SMONE WLD'T
Warren Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 48 44 2 2 3
Dec 10, 2019 50 43 2 2 3
Oct 08, 2019 49 41 2 3 4
Aug 28, 2019 52 40 1 3 4
Jun 11, 2019 49 42 1 3 5
11. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Buttigieg 47% 6% 88% 43% 37% 57% 56% 33%
Trump 43 90 6 42 52 36 38 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 2 3 1 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 - 3 4 4 1 1 1
DK/NA 5 3 2 9 5 5 3 4
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Buttigieg 49% 48% 42% 52% 37% 51% 44% 72% 48%
Trump 40 37 52 43 57 44 50 13 34
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 5 2 1 2 1 1 5 4
DK/NA 5 8 3 4 3 4 4 7 11
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Buttigieg 87% 82% 96% 100% 87%
Trump 3 9 1 - 7
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 - - 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 6 3 - 1
DK/NA 4 1 - - 5
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Pete Buttigieg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Butti- SMONE WLD'T
gieg Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 47 43 2 3 5
Dec 10, 2019 48 43 2 2 4
Aug 28, 2019 49 40 2 3 7
Jun 11, 2019 47 42 1 3 7
12. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Klobuchar 49% 6% 92% 43% 40% 57% 55% 33%
Trump 43 91 5 42 51 36 40 60
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - - 3 2 2 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 1
DK/NA 4 2 2 7 4 4 3 4
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Klobuchar 51% 50% 43% 52% 38% 49% 44% 80% 57%
Trump 35 39 52 44 57 44 50 13 31
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 4 1 - 2 1 1 2 4
DK/NA 6 6 3 3 3 4 4 4 6
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Klobuchar 97% 87% 97% 99% 90%
Trump - 6 - - 6
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 - - 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 5 - 1 -
DK/NA 2 1 3 - 4
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Amy Klobuchar the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Klobu- SMONE WLD'T
char Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 49 43 2 2 4
Dec 10, 2019 47 43 2 2 5
13. If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Bloomberg 51% 6% 92% 48% 42% 59% 56% 36%
Trump 42 90 3 41 49 35 39 59
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - - 2 2 1 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 1 3 4 3 2 2 2
DK/NA 3 3 1 5 4 2 3 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Bloomberg 56% 52% 45% 53% 39% 52% 46% 86% 53%
Trump 32 38 50 44 55 44 49 7 34
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 4 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 4 3 - 2 1 2 6 3
DK/NA 4 5 2 2 3 2 3 2 6
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS................
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2......................
Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Bloomberg
Bloomberg 97% 85% 95% 96% 100%
Trump 1 4 1 1 -
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 2 1 - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 7 3 3 -
DK/NA 1 2 - - -
TREND: If the election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Michael Bloomberg the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Bloom- SMONE WLD'T
berg Trump ELSE VOTE DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 51 42 2 3 3
Dec 10, 2019 48 42 2 3 5
14. Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 43% 10% 75% 43% 37% 48% 47% 30%
Unfavorable 50 84 21 49 54 46 48 63
Hvn't hrd enough 5 4 3 7 6 5 4 5
REFUSED 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 34% 49% 38% 50% 35% 42% 39% 72% 45%
Unfavorable 52 45 56 44 59 52 56 20 46
Hvn't hrd enough 11 4 4 4 5 4 4 7 9
REFUSED 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 75% 63% 76% 80% 69% 79% 76% 82% 79% 73%
Unfavorable 21 36 22 15 27 17 20 11 19 23
Hvn't hrd enough 3 1 2 5 4 3 2 7 2 3
REFUSED 1 - - 1 - 1 1 1 - 2
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 75% 75% 48% 81% 79% 89% 70% 76% 77%
Unfavorable 21 20 46 17 16 8 26 19 21
Hvn't hrd enough 3 5 6 2 4 2 3 5 2
REFUSED 1 - - - 1 1 1 - 1
TREND: Is your opinion of Joe Biden favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 43 50 5 2
Dec 10, 2019 44 47 7 2
Oct 14, 2019 41 43 14 3
Sep 25, 2019 45 45 9 2
May 21, 2019 49 39 11 2
Dec 19, 2018 53 33 12 2
Jan 17, 2018 53 29 17 1
Sep 24, 2015 50 34 14 1
Aug 27, 2015 48 39 11 1
Jul 30, 2015 49 39 10 2
See additional trend information at top of page, including Democratic/Democratic leaner trends
15. Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 44% 8% 76% 44% 43% 46% 41% 32%
Unfavorable 49 88 18 50 51 47 54 62
Hvn't hrd enough 5 4 5 4 4 6 3 5
REFUSED 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 60% 48% 34% 39% 35% 38% 37% 71% 63%
Unfavorable 34 45 60 51 60 56 58 20 26
Hvn't hrd enough 5 6 4 8 4 5 4 6 10
REFUSED - 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 76% 91% 79% 68% 79% 74% 71% 80% 70% 73%
Unfavorable 18 9 13 25 15 20 23 12 25 20
Hvn't hrd enough 5 1 5 6 4 5 4 5 3 5
REFUSED 2 - 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 76% 74% 85% 78% 69% 72% 77% 78% 70%
Unfavorable 18 19 11 18 24 19 13 20 24
Hvn't hrd enough 5 3 2 4 3 8 8 1 4
REFUSED 1 4 1 - 4 1 2 1 2
TREND: Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 44 49 5 1
Dec 10, 2019 44 48 7 1
Oct 14, 2019 39 47 12 2
Sep 25, 2019 40 51 8 2
May 21, 2019 41 48 8 3
Dec 19, 2018 44 42 12 3
Jan 17, 2018 48 38 13 1
Mar 23, 2016 50 37 12 1
Feb 18, 2016 51 36 12 1
Feb 05, 2016 44 35 19 2
See additional trend information at top of page, including Democratic/Democratic leaner trends
16. Is your opinion of Elizabeth Warren favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 39% 4% 77% 33% 34% 43% 44% 26%
Unfavorable 47 84 13 49 53 41 48 58
Hvn't hrd enough 13 11 10 16 11 15 8 15
REFUSED 1 1 - 2 1 - 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 45% 39% 36% 40% 31% 38% 35% 65% 40%
Unfavorable 41 43 53 48 59 48 53 16 39
Hvn't hrd enough 14 17 11 11 10 13 12 17 21
REFUSED - 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 74% 87% 75% 70% 75% 74% 76% 73% 78% 73%
Unfavorable 14 10 15 16 14 14 15 8 17 13
Hvn't hrd enough 11 3 9 14 10 12 8 17 4 15
REFUSED - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - -
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 77% 64% 82% 71% 78% 75% 75% 75% 73%
Unfavorable 13 17 13 13 12 12 9 17 19
Hvn't hrd enough 10 18 5 17 8 12 15 8 8
REFUSED - 2 - - 2 - - - -
TREND: Is your opinion of Elizabeth Warren favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 39 47 13 1
Dec 10, 2019 38 45 16 1
Oct 14, 2019 36 39 23 2
Sep 25, 2019 39 41 19 1
May 21, 2019 32 41 25 2
Dec 19, 2018 30 37 31 2
Jul 08, 2014 24 15 61 -
Dec 11, 2013 17 19 63 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
17. Is your opinion of Pete Buttigieg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 36% 10% 59% 38% 33% 39% 49% 27%
Unfavorable 32 56 13 29 39 26 30 38
Hvn't hrd enough 31 34 26 32 27 34 20 34
REFUSED 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 32% 37% 37% 39% 36% 40% 38% 38% 27%
Unfavorable 31 29 34 34 39 29 34 16 27
Hvn't hrd enough 36 34 28 26 24 30 27 42 46
REFUSED 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 60% 62% 62% 60% 60% 60% 71% 42% 77% 61%
Unfavorable 13 30 7 10 18 10 11 13 11 11
Hvn't hrd enough 26 8 28 29 21 28 18 42 12 28
REFUSED 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 -
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 59% 64% 47% 57% 68% 66% 53% 57% 71%
Unfavorable 13 13 30 15 6 6 16 13 13
Hvn't hrd enough 26 23 23 27 23 27 31 30 13
REFUSED 2 - - 1 3 1 - 1 3
TREND: Is your opinion of Pete Buttigieg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 36 32 31 1
Dec 10, 2019 31 29 39 1
Sep 25, 2019 28 28 43 1
May 21, 2019 23 19 57 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
18. Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 32% 10% 58% 28% 30% 35% 43% 20%
Unfavorable 22 45 9 13 27 18 19 28
Hvn't hrd enough 44 44 33 58 42 47 38 50
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 25% 29% 34% 41% 30% 33% 32% 50% 27%
Unfavorable 19 19 25 23 27 20 23 8 17
Hvn't hrd enough 54 50 40 35 43 45 44 43 56
REFUSED 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 57% 62% 51% 59% 57% 56% 63% 56% 68% 55%
Unfavorable 8 17 5 6 13 5 6 5 6 7
Hvn't hrd enough 35 19 44 34 30 38 30 38 25 37
REFUSED 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 58% 51% 41% 52% 64% 69% 51% 63% 59%
Unfavorable 9 6 17 9 6 2 9 4 12
Hvn't hrd enough 33 41 41 38 30 29 40 33 28
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1
TREND: Is your opinion of Amy Klobuchar favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 33 22 44 1
Dec 10, 2019 24 23 51 1
Sep 25, 2019 20 25 54 1
May 21, 2019 16 19 64 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
19. Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 34% 8% 58% 35% 30% 39% 40% 22%
Unfavorable 40 71 18 35 46 34 39 50
Hvn't hrd enough 25 21 23 29 24 26 20 28
REFUSED - - - 1 - - 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 29% 34% 35% 40% 27% 34% 31% 60% 28%
Unfavorable 36 38 42 40 50 39 44 11 36
Hvn't hrd enough 35 27 22 20 22 26 24 29 36
REFUSED - 1 1 - - 1 1 - -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 58% 41% 57% 65% 50% 63% 60% 63% 65% 52%
Unfavorable 18 36 17 11 25 13 17 7 17 16
Hvn't hrd enough 24 22 26 24 25 23 22 30 18 30
REFUSED - 2 - - - 1 1 - - 2
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 58% 56% 38% 54% 66% 70% 50% 62% 61%
Unfavorable 18 15 36 20 8 6 19 16 20
Hvn't hrd enough 23 27 25 25 25 24 30 21 19
REFUSED - 2 - - 1 - - 1 -
TREND: Is your opinion of Michael Bloomberg favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 34 40 25 -
Dec 10, 2019 21 40 37 1
Dec 19, 2018 22 32 44 2
Feb 18, 2016 21 26 50 2
Feb 05, 2016 20 25 53 2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
20. Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 28% 10% 44% 29% 30% 26% 32% 23%
Unfavorable 20 36 11 15 22 19 21 24
Hvn't hrd enough 51 53 45 55 48 54 46 53
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 37% 26% 25% 26% 30% 26% 28% 26% 31%
Unfavorable 15 18 22 24 22 22 22 11 10
Hvn't hrd enough 48 54 54 50 48 51 49 63 59
REFUSED - 2 - 1 1 1 1 - -
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 43% 59% 46% 37% 51% 38% 47% 26% 48% 46%
Unfavorable 11 14 4 12 10 11 11 10 11 11
Hvn't hrd enough 46 27 50 51 39 50 41 64 40 43
REFUSED - - - 1 - 1 1 - 1 -
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 44% 42% 54% 35% 42% 42% 38% 44% 49%
Unfavorable 11 7 12 10 9 13 11 10 13
Hvn't hrd enough 45 52 35 54 49 46 51 46 38
REFUSED 1 - - 1 - - - - -
TREND: Is your opinion of Andrew Yang favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 28 20 51 1
Sep 25, 2019 20 27 52 1
May 21, 2019 8 13 76 2
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
21. Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 17% 3% 31% 17% 16% 18% 21% 12%
Unfavorable 25 45 13 19 28 21 23 30
Hvn't hrd enough 58 51 55 64 55 60 55 57
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 12% 11% 21% 23% 16% 18% 17% 23% 12%
Unfavorable 21 20 29 27 29 24 27 13 21
Hvn't hrd enough 67 68 50 49 54 58 56 65 67
REFUSED - 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......................................
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHITE......
LIBERAL..... Mod/ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Wht Blk Yes No
Favorable 32% 37% 32% 30% 32% 32% 36% 27% 38% 33%
Unfavorable 12 19 10 11 15 10 13 10 14 12
Hvn't hrd enough 56 44 58 59 52 58 50 63 48 54
REFUSED 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1
PARTYID..... AGE IN YRS.............. INCOME.............
Dem DemLn 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ <50k 50-100 100k+
Favorable 31% 35% 21% 19% 45% 42% 31% 31% 32%
Unfavorable 13 5 14 15 7 12 12 9 16
Hvn't hrd enough 55 58 65 65 48 44 56 60 51
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 - 2 - - 1
TREND: Is your opinion of Tom Steyer favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hav't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 17 25 58 1
Sep 25, 2019 7 22 69 1
See Democratic/Democratic leaner trends in additional trend information at top of page
22. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Favorable 42% 89% 4% 41% 50% 35% 38% 58%
Unfavorable 55 9 95 55 48 62 60 37
Hvn't hrd enough 1 - 1 2 1 1 1 1
REFUSED 2 2 - 2 2 2 1 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Favorable 33% 37% 52% 42% 54% 43% 48% 12% 31%
Unfavorable 63 59 47 54 43 54 49 86 64
Hvn't hrd enough 3 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 3
REFUSED 2 3 - 2 2 2 2 1 2
TREND: Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Hvn't
Fav Unfav HrdEn REF
Feb 10, 2020 42 55 1 2
Dec 10, 2019 40 57 2 2
Oct 14, 2019 39 56 2 3
Sep 25, 2019 38 55 4 3
May 21, 2019 38 57 2 3
Jan 15, 2019 41 56 2 2
Dec 19, 2018 40 56 2 2
Feb 21, 2018 37 59 2 2
Jan 17, 2018 38 58 3 1
Oct 11, 2017 39 57 2 2
See additional trend information at top of page
23. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG Wht
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Evang
Approve 43% 89% 4% 46% 51% 36% 41% 60% 79%
Disapprove 53 9 94 50 46 60 58 36 19
DK/NA 3 2 2 4 3 3 1 4 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 37% 41% 51% 42% 57% 45% 51% 10% 32%
Disapprove 59 56 47 54 41 52 47 86 62
DK/NA 4 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 5
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
App Dis DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 43 53 3 Jan 28, 2020 43 52 5 Jan 13, 2020 43 52 5 Dec 16, 2019 43 52 5 Dec 10, 2019 41 55 4 Nov 26, 2019 40 54 6 Oct 23, 2019 38 58 5 Oct 14, 2019 41 54 5 Oct 08, 2019 40 54 6 Sep 30, 2019 41 53 6
See additional trend information at top of page
23a. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove q23) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG Wht
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Evang
Approve strongly 35% 77% 3% 30% 40% 30% 30% 51% 69%
Approve smwht 9 12 1 15 11 6 11 9 10
Disapprove smwht 6 4 6 8 6 7 4 6 3
Disapprove strongly 47 4 88 42 40 53 53 30 16
DK/NA 4 2 3 5 4 4 1 4 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve strongly 25% 29% 42% 38% 45% 37% 40% 7% 23%
Approve smwht 11 12 9 4 13 8 10 3 9
Disapprove smwht 12 6 4 4 5 5 5 8 10
Disapprove strongly 47 49 42 50 36 47 42 77 51
DK/NA 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 5 6
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?
APPROVE...... DISAPPROVE.....
Strngly Smwht Smwht Strngly DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 35 9 6 47 4
Jan 28, 2020 34 8 6 47 5
Jan 13, 2020 34 9 6 46 6
Dec 16, 2019 34 9 5 46 6
Dec 10, 2019 31 10 5 49 4
Nov 26, 2019 32 7 4 50 6
Oct 23, 2019 28 9 4 53 5
Oct 14, 2019 31 10 5 48 5
Oct 08, 2019 29 11 6 47 7
Sep 30, 2019 35 6 4 48 7
See additional trend information at top of page
24. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 39% 81% 8% 36% 43% 36% 34% 53%
Disapprove 57 16 89 59 54 59 63 42
DK/NA 4 3 2 4 4 5 2 5
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 35% 34% 45% 41% 46% 41% 43% 16% 35%
Disapprove 59 62 52 54 51 55 53 82 53
DK/NA 6 4 3 6 3 4 4 2 12
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?
App Dis DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 39 57 4 Dec 16, 2019 37 57 7 Nov 26, 2019 32 60 8 Oct 14, 2019 28 64 8 Sep 30, 2019 33 61 6 Jun 12, 2019 27 66 7 Mar 05, 2019 27 66 8 Jan 29, 2019 30 65 6 Jan 15, 2019 29 63 8 Dec 19, 2018 28 63 9
See additional trend information at top of page
25. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 37% 5% 73% 28% 31% 43% 41% 25%
Disapprove 60 94 25 69 67 54 57 73
DK/NA 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 33% 39% 33% 44% 29% 36% 33% 63% 41%
Disapprove 63 59 66 52 69 61 65 34 53
DK/NA 4 2 1 4 2 3 2 3 7
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?
App Dis DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 37 60 3 Dec 16, 2019 39 56 5 Nov 26, 2019 36 57 8 Oct 14, 2019 35 58 8 Sep 30, 2019 32 62 6 Jun 12, 2019 34 59 7 Mar 05, 2019 38 56 6 Jan 29, 2019 38 57 5 Jan 15, 2019 37 56 7 Dec 19, 2018 32 59 9
See additional trend information at top of page
26. Would you say that Donald Trump – is honest, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 37% 82% 4% 31% 40% 33% 32% 53%
No 58 12 95 63 54 63 63 42
DK/NA 5 6 1 6 6 4 5 6
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 27% 30% 45% 41% 45% 40% 42% 10% 26%
No 68 65 50 55 49 56 52 86 70
DK/NA 5 5 5 4 6 5 5 3 4
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump is honest, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 37 58 5 Sep 30, 2019 37 57 6 Mar 05, 2019 30 65 5 Jan 15, 2019 34 61 5 Nov 20, 2018 36 58 5 Sep 10, 2018 32 60 9 Jul 03, 2018 38 58 4 Jun 06, 2018 35 59 6 Mar 21, 2018 38 57 5 Jan 25, 2018 35 60 5
See additional trend information at top of page
27. Would you say that Donald Trump – has good leadership skills, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 43% 88% 8% 40% 50% 37% 36% 63%
No 55 11 90 57 48 61 61 36
DK/NA 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 43% 37% 49% 42% 54% 45% 49% 14% 33%
No 56 60 50 55 44 53 49 86 64
DK/NA 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump has good leadership skills, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 43 55 2 Mar 05, 2019 39 58 3 Jan 15, 2019 39 58 3 Nov 20, 2018 42 55 3 Sep 10, 2018 38 57 5 Jul 03, 2018 43 55 2 Jun 06, 2018 41 56 4 Mar 21, 2018 41 56 3 Jan 25, 2018 38 59 3 Jan 10, 2018 39 59 2
See additional trend information at top of page
28. Would you say that Donald Trump – cares about average Americans, or not?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 44% 91% 5% 43% 50% 38% 40% 61%
No 55 8 94 54 48 61 59 38
DK/NA 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes 35% 39% 53% 44% 55% 46% 50% 12% 34%
No 63 59 46 54 43 53 49 86 63
DK/NA 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3
TREND: Would you say that Donald Trump cares about average Americans, or not?
Yes No DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 44 55 2 Mar 05, 2019 39 58 3 Jan 15, 2019 43 55 2 Nov 20, 2018 42 53 4 Sep 10, 2018 41 55 4 Jul 03, 2018 43 55 2 Jun 06, 2018 42 55 3 Mar 21, 2018 43 53 4 Jan 25, 2018 40 57 3 Jan 10, 2018 38 59 2
See additional trend information at top of page
29. Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as president, or doing more to divide the country as president?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Unite 37% 82% 3% 34% 43% 32% 32% 55%
Divide 57 12 95 57 51 62 63 38
DK/NA 6 6 2 9 5 6 5 7
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Unite 31% 32% 45% 39% 49% 39% 43% 9% 29%
Divide 66 61 49 55 45 55 51 88 67
DK/NA 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 2 4
TREND: Do you feel that Donald Trump is doing more to unite the country as President, or doing more to divide the country as President? (Prior to Feb 22, 2017 “will do more”)
Unite Divide DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 37 57 6 Aug 28, 2019 30 62 8 Jul 03, 2018 36 58 5 Feb 07, 2018 35 60 6 Jan 17, 2018 31 64 5 Dec 12, 2017 32 62 7 Oct 11, 2017 37 58 5 Sep 27, 2017 35 60 5 Aug 23, 2017 31 62 7 Apr 19, 2017 36 59 6
See additional trend information at top of page
30. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – the economy?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 54% 97% 15% 59% 62% 47% 50% 70%
Disapprove 42 3 81 37 34 49 47 27
DK/NA 4 1 4 4 4 5 3 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 50% 54% 59% 52% 66% 55% 60% 28% 46%
Disapprove 44 42 39 44 31 42 37 69 44
DK/NA 5 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 10
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the economy?
App Dis DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 54 42 4 Jan 13, 2020 57 38 5 Dec 10, 2019 54 42 4 Oct 23, 2019 48 48 4 Oct 14, 2019 49 46 5 Sep 25, 2019 48 47 5 Aug 28, 2019 46 49 5 May 21, 2019 48 45 7 Mar 05, 2019 49 45 7 Jan 29, 2019 46 51 3
See additional trend information at top of page
31. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling – foreign policy?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 43% 90% 5% 43% 51% 37% 40% 61%
Disapprove 53 8 92 54 47 58 58 36
DK/NA 3 2 3 3 2 5 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 36% 42% 51% 42% 57% 45% 50% 9% 33%
Disapprove 59 55 48 53 43 51 47 87 57
DK/NA 4 3 2 5 1 4 2 3 10
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling foreign policy?
App Dis DK/NA Feb 10, 2020 43 53 3 Jan 13, 2020 43 53 4 Dec 10, 2019 40 56 4 Oct 23, 2019 35 61 4 Oct 14, 2019 37 57 5 Sep 25, 2019 37 57 6 Aug 28, 2019 38 56 6 May 21, 2019 37 58 6 Mar 05, 2019 38 56 6 Jan 29, 2019 37 58 5
See additional trend information at top of page
32. Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Excellent 25% 55% 3% 20% 30% 20% 24% 34%
Good 45 38 46 51 48 42 53 44
Not so good 21 5 35 21 17 26 16 16
Poor 8 1 15 6 5 10 7 5
DK/NA 2 1 1 2 - 3 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Excellent 15% 20% 31% 29% 33% 25% 29% 6% 14%
Good 48 49 40 43 49 48 49 30 47
Not so good 28 20 22 18 13 17 16 42 32
Poor 7 9 7 8 3 8 6 21 4
DK/NA 2 2 1 1 - 2 1 1 3
TREND: Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
Not so
Exclnt Good Good Poor DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 25 45 21 8 2
Dec 16, 2019 26 47 19 6 2
Dec 10, 2019 22 47 22 8 2
Oct 23, 2019 17 44 26 10 2
Sep 25, 2019 16 43 28 11 2
Aug 28, 2019 18 43 27 10 2
Jun 11, 2019 19 51 20 8 1
May 21, 2019 22 49 20 8 1
Jan 15, 2019 15 49 26 9 2
Dec 18, 2018 14 51 25 10 1
See additional trend information at top of page
33. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going for you financially; are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Very satisfied 37% 64% 20% 36% 39% 36% 42% 42%
Smwht satisfied 38 29 44 40 41 36 42 37
Smwht dissatisfied 14 4 23 13 12 17 8 14
Very dissatisfied 8 2 12 10 7 9 6 6
DK/NA 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Very satisfied 23% 40% 43% 41% 42% 42% 42% 15% 34%
Smwht satisfied 47 38 34 37 44 36 40 38 34
Smwht dissatisfied 23 14 11 12 9 13 11 25 24
Very dissatisfied 6 6 11 7 4 7 6 19 6
DK/NA 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
34. Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Better off 59% 84% 36% 60% 67% 52% 60% 68%
Worse off 20 3 33 21 17 22 16 15
SAME(VOL) 19 11 29 18 15 24 22 16
DK/NA 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Better off 68% 60% 60% 49% 73% 56% 64% 37% 56%
Worse off 15 22 22 19 12 19 16 41 20
SAME(VOL) 16 17 16 28 14 24 19 21 22
DK/NA 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 3
TREND: Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than you were in 2016?
Better Worse
off off SAME DK/NA
Feb 10, 2020 59 20 19 2
Dec 10, 2019 57 22 19 2
Sep 25, 2019 50 25 22 3
May 21, 2019 52 21 23 4
35. As you may know, the Senate has voted to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment, which means he will remain in office. Do you approve or disapprove of the Senate’s decision?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 49% 95% 8% 53% 57% 43% 45% 68%
Disapprove 49 4 90 45 42 55 52 31
DK/NA 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 45% 47% 56% 47% 62% 52% 57% 16% 39%
Disapprove 51 51 43 51 36 47 42 83 57
DK/NA 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3
36. As you may know, the articles of impeachment were based on President Trump’s actions involving Ukraine. Do you think that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump clears him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter, or don’t you think so?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Clears him 40% 81% 6% 40% 46% 34% 36% 56%
No 55 12 91 54 49 60 59 40
DK/NA 5 7 3 6 5 6 5 4
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Clears him 29% 37% 48% 40% 52% 41% 46% 14% 31%
No 65 57 47 55 45 53 49 81 62
DK/NA 6 5 4 5 3 6 5 5 7
37. Regardless of the Senate’s verdict, do you think the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial, or would you say the charges were not serious enough for him to have been impeached and put on trial?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Serious enough 51% 8% 89% 49% 44% 57% 54% 36%
Not serious enough 46 91 9 49 52 40 44 60
DK/NA 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Serious enough 59% 54% 42% 52% 38% 52% 45% 79% 54%
Not serious enough 36 44 56 46 59 46 52 21 39
DK/NA 5 2 2 3 4 2 3 1 6
38. Do you think that the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was conducted fairly or unfairly?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Fairly 35% 54% 18% 39% 40% 30% 34% 41%
Unfairly 59 41 78 56 56 62 61 54
DK/NA 6 5 4 6 4 8 5 5
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Fairly 29% 32% 41% 35% 41% 34% 37% 21% 34%
Unfairly 65 61 54 58 56 59 58 74 54
DK/NA 6 7 5 7 3 7 5 5 12
39. Are you concerned that President Trump will seek help from a foreign government in his 2020 presidential re-election campaign, or aren’t you concerned about that?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Concerned 47% 6% 85% 45% 40% 54% 53% 32%
No 50 92 13 53 58 44 46 65
DK/NA 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Concerned 47% 51% 41% 52% 36% 49% 43% 73% 43%
No 50 47 57 45 63 49 56 23 52
;
ust under a fifth of cases of the killer coronavirus in Hubei – the deserted Chinese province at the centre of the outbreak – result in death, leading scientists have today claimed.
Officials have repeatedly claimed the death toll is around two per cent, making the SARS-like infection far less deadly than similar coronaviruses and more severe than the flu.
But virologists tracking the escalating outbreak say the case-fatality ratio is much higher in Hubei than elsewhere in China because only the most severe patients are coming forward to be treated.
Figures show the actual toll in Hubei – the province home to Wuhan – is 871 deaths from 29,631 infected patients. But Imperial College London researchers believe it will be closer to the 18 per cent mark.
More than 40,000 people across the world have now caught the unnamed infection, with eight cases now recorded in the UK, 12 in the US and 15 in Australia. The virus is spread on surfaces and through coughs and sneezes.
It comes as the World Health Organization chief today warned the coronavirus crisis publicised so far could ‘only be the tip of the iceberg’ amid fears that thousands of cases are going missing.
Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus in China yesterday on the deadliest day of the six-week outbreak so far. But the number of new patients diagnosed appears to be dropping day-by-day.
Figures show the highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which also began in China, killed around 10 per cent of the 8,000 patients it struck during a worldwide epidemic in 2002/03.
And the World Health Organization says the death rate for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) is even higher – at around 34 per cent. It was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012.
One of the world’s deadliest diseases, Ebola, kill around half of all patients it strikes. Ebola is much different to this new coronavirus because it is caused by a separate family of viruses.
The Imperial College London team, who has tracked the coronavirus outbreak first began six weeks ago, said they estimate the overall case-fatality ratio is still likely to be around one per cent.
Experts have repeatedly said potentially thousands of patients may not go to their doctor for treatment because they may have such minor symptoms – such as a cough and fever – that they do not need to seek help.
Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the Imperial team, wrote: ‘Outside mainland China, countries alert to the risk of infection being imported via international travel have instituted surveillance for 2019-nCoV infection with a broader set of clinical criteria for defining a suspected case, typically including a combination of symptoms (cough and fever) combined with recent travel history to the affected region (Wuhan/Hubei).
‘Such surveillance is therefore likely to pick up clinically milder cases as well as the more severe cases also being detected in mainland China.
‘However, by restricting testing to those with a travel history or link, it is also likely to miss other symptomatic cases (and possibly hospitalised cases with atypical pneumonia) that have occurred through local transmission or through travel to other affected areas of China.’
The researchers added: ‘It is important to note that the differences in these estimates does not reflect underlying differences in disease severity between countries.
‘CFRs seen in individual countries will vary depending on the sensitivity of different surveillance systems to detect cases of differing levels of severity and the clinical care offered to severely ill cases.
‘All CFR estimates should be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in mainland China is unclear.’
Figures also show 910 people have now died across the world, with all but two deaths recorded in mainland China
Professor Ferguson added: ‘It’s not more severe in Hubei than elsewhere. It’s just that they’re only detecting and reporting the most severe cases there. We estimate there are at least 10 times more cases than reported in Hubei. Most of which likely have rather milder symptoms.’
In other developments today, police in the UK have been given the power to seize people trying to escape coronavirus quarantine and force them back into isolation in handcuffs.
A law-change was revealed after an patient staying at Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China.
Government sources said those who returned to the UK on the evacuation flights on January 31 were given a ‘very clear choice’ and had to sign contracts saying they would remain in isolation for a fortnight.
But a source involved with the Arrowe Park incident said: ‘We found we didn’t have the necessary enforcement powers to make sure they didn’t leave.’
Police will now be able to force people to remain in the units and, if they leave, to arrest them for committing an offence and take them back to the quarantine facility, MailOnline understands.
The new rule comes as England today announced its fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth cases of the virus – all of the three men and a woman are linked to the fourth patient, who has now been dubbed a ‘super-spreader’.
The fourth patient was a businessman who returned to the UK from a conference in Singapore via a ski chalet in France, where other Britons were subsequently taken ill with the virus.
The Department of Health today declared the outbreak a ‘serious and imminent’ threat to the British public as it announced new powers to fight the spread.
In other developments to the outbreak today:
A total of five people have now been diagnosed in Brighton. The four new cases have been linked to the first man who was diagnosed there after returning from the Alps
Nearly 100 people died from coronavirus yesterday on the deadliest day of the outbreak so far.
The death toll in mainland China rose by 97, taking the number of global fatalities to 910.
Another 3,062 cases were reported in China yesterday – an increase of 15 per cent compared to Saturday which put an end to a series of daily declines.
The latest surge in deaths is a setback to hopes that China’s drastic quarantine measures might be working.
Workers disinfect closed shops in the city of Wuhan at the centre of the outbreak today, where millions of people remain under quarantine
Roads in Beijing and Shanghai had significantly more traffic than in recent days and the city of Guangzhou was resuming normal public transport today.
However, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said 60 per cent of its member companies were planning mandatory work-from-home policies.
Tens of millions of people in Hubei province were not returning to work, as the province at the centre of the outbreak remained under lockdown.
China has built two hospitals for virus patients in Wuhan and sent thousands of extra doctors, nurses and other health care workers to the city of 1 million people.
Most access to Wuhan was suspended on January 23 and restrictions have expanded since then to cities with a total of 60 million people.
China said today that 27 foreigners had been infected with the virus in the country, including two of the country’s 908 deaths.
Two people have died outside mainland China, one in Hong Kong and the other in the Philippines, taking the global toll to 910.
More than 360 cases of the virus have been confirmed outside China, bringing the total to at least 40,531.
The fatality toll has passed the 774 people believed to have died in the 2002-03 SARS outbreak, another viral outbreak that originated in China.
The total of more than 40,000 confirmed cases of the new virus vastly exceeds the 8,098 sickened by SARS.
A security officer suited in protective gear checks passports of passengers boarding a cargo plane in Wuhan
Medical workers in protective suits attend to novel coronavirus patients at the intensive care unit of a hospital in Wuhan
Hong Kong has reported seven more cases, raising its total to 36 after the virus spread at a family gathering attended by two relatives from mainland China.
Meanwhile in Japan, another 60 people on the Diamond Princess cruise ship were today confirmed to have the virus, taking the total to around 130.
Passengers on the ship have been confined to their cabins in a two-week lockdown with confirmed virus patients taken to hospital on the mainland.
World Health Organisation chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said there are tentative signs the virus was stabilising, but said there may be more infections abroad in people who have never travelled to China.
Asian stock markets slid today amid signs that optimism over China’s disease control might be premature.
Chinese businesses are reeling from anti-disease measures that closed shops, restaurants and factories and disrupted travel.
The government has promised tax cuts and subsidies to farmers, supermarkets, producers of medical supplies and companies that contribute to anti-disease work.
Doctors scan a patient’s lungs at Huoshenshan temporary hospital built for patients diagnosed with coronavirus in Wuhan
A passenger stands at the balcony of the cruise ship Diamond Princess anchored off the Yokohama Port in Japan where another 60 cases have been confirmed
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66265219/1198919974.jpg.0.jpg)
“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say ‘I pray for you’ when they know that that’s not so. So many people have been hurt and we can’t let that go on.”
The National Prayer Breakfast is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., usually on the first Thursday in February. The founder of this event was Abraham Vereide.[1] The event—which is actually a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners—has taken place since 1953 and has been held at least since the 1980s at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue NW. The National Prayer Breakfast, held in the Hilton’s International Ballroom, is typically attended by some 3,500 guests, including international invitees from over 100 countries. It is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a Christian organization. Initially called the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, the name was changed in 1970 to the National Prayer Breakfast. It is designed to be a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships. Since the inception of the National Prayer Breakfast, several U.S. states and cities and other countries have established their own annual prayer breakfast events. Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the annual event.
Donald Trump slammed Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney for using their faith to justify their actions in the impeachment process during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.
He did not mention the two by name but his meaning was clear.
‘I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say I pray for you when they know that’s not so. So many people have been hurt, and we can’t let that go on. I will be discussing that a little bit later at the White House,’ he said.
Romney was the lone Republican to find Trump guilty on one article of impeachment: abuse of power. He said in his remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday that it was his faith – Romney is a devout Mormon – that led him to that decision.
The president admitted he was having trouble liking his political enemies now that his impeachment trial is over.
”We are grateful to the people of this room for the lovely show to religion, not one religion, but many religions. They are brave, they are brilliant, they are fighters, they like people and sometimes they hate people. I’m sorry. I apologize. I am trying to learn. Not easy. It’s not easy. When they impeach you for nothing, and you’re supposed to like them, it’s not easy, folks. I do my best,’ he said.
Trump was acquitted on both articles of impeachment by the Senate on Wednesday, bringing to a close the fourth month, contentious process that led to a new level of bitter relations between the White House and congressional Democrats.
Harvard professor Arthur Brooks, in his key note address at the breakfast, urged those present not to hold political enemies in contempt, but to do as Jesus preached and ‘love your enemies.’
‘I don’t know if I agree with you,’ Trump said to Brooks when it was his turn to speak. And then he proceeded to launch his attacks on Pelosi and Romney.
The president addressed the impeachment inquiry at the top of his remarks and, earlier, had triumphantly held up newspaper headlines announcing his acquittal. The audience cheered his move.
‘My family, our great country and your president has been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people. They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing, very badly hurt our nation,’ Trump said.
‘They know what they are doing is wrong but they put themselves far ahead of our great country. Weeks ago and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows was right,’ he added.
The president and the speaker were meetingfor the first time since the impeachment verdict at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.
Trump walked to the head table to applause and held up the front pages of USA Today and The Washington Post with their oversized headlines proclaiming his acquittal by the Senate.
‘Acquitted’ read USA Today. ‘Trump Acquitted’ was the Washington Post’s headline.
Pelosi stood and clapped as President Trump entered the room. She simply looked on as he displayed the newspapers declaring him acquitted.
Speaker Pelosi led a prayer for the poor
Both the president and the speaker were seated at the head table but on opposite sides of the podium.
They did not interact.
Trump shook hands with his side of the head table when he entered the 68th Annual National Prayer Breakfast and did not walk over to the other side of the podium, where the vice president and the speaker were seated.
Pelosi spoke first, leading a prayer for the poor. The president head bowed during her prayer. He did not applaud when she was done.
Vice President Mike Pence, when he arrived ahead of the president, shook hands with the speaker and sat a few chairs down from her.
Several members of Congress and members of the president’s Cabinet attended the annual breakfast.
‘The lord works in mysterious ways. I do not think he could have picked a better day to bring us all together,’ House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said in his prayer.
The president thanked McCarthy and the breakfast hosts in his opening remarks.
Mitt Romney cited his faith as the reason for his guilty vote on Trump
Trump went after Romney in the wake of the Wednesday’s impeachment vote. He tweeted a video accusing the Utah senator of being a ‘Democrat secret asset’ and criticized him for his failed 2008 presidential campaign.
‘Had failed presidential candidate @MittRomney devoted the same energy and anger to defeating a faltering Barack Obama as he sanctimoniously does to me, he could have won the election,’ the president tweeted.
Romney cited his faith as one of the reasons for his guilty vote. He voted to acquit the president on the second charge: obstruction of Congress.
‘The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator juror, I swore an oath before god to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before god as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced,’ Romney said.
And the Republican senator from Utah acknowledged he expected to feel the president’s wrath for his decision.
‘I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before god demanded it of me?,’ he said.
It was also the first time Trump and Pelosi met since Tuesday’s State of the Union address when Trump refused to shake her hand at its beginning and she ripped up the text of his remarks at its conclusion.
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.
In the early 21st century, many politicians, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal the provision, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. These efforts have been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible.[1] On May 4, 2017, Trump signed an executive order “to defend the freedom of religion and speech” for the purpose of easing the Johnson Amendment’s restrictions.[2][3]
Page from the Congressional Record containing a transcript of the passage of the amendment
Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) describes organizations which may be exempt from U.S. Federal income tax. 501(c)(3) is written as follows:[4]
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.[bolding added]
The Johnson Amendment is the emboldened portion of this provision beginning with the words “and which does not participate in, or intervene in ….”[5] The amendment affects nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax exemptions,[6]which are subject to absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of tax-exempt status if violated.[7] Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[8][9] The Johnson Amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, not just religious 501(c)(3) organizations.
The benefit of 501(c)(3) status is that, in addition to the organization itself being exempt from taxes, donors who itemize may also take a tax deduction for their contributions to the organization.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, contributions to political campaign funds, or public statements of position in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, are disallowed. However, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides), voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives, if conducted in a non-partisan manner, are not prohibited.[8]
Lyndon B. Johnson during his tenure as Senator from Texas and before becoming Vice President
The amendment was to a bill in the 83rd Congress, H.R. 8300, which was enacted into law as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The amendment was proposed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas on July 2, 1954. The amendment was agreed to without any discussion or debate and was included in Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736).[10] The provision was considered uncontroversial at the time, and continued to be included when the 1954 Code was renamed as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 during the Ronald Reagan administration.[11][unreliable source?]
In the 2010s, the Alliance Defending Freedom made attempts to challenge the Johnson Amendment through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative, which urges Protestant ministers to violate the statute in protest. The ADF contends that the amendment violates First Amendment rights.[12]
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for the repeal of the amendment.[13] On February 2, 2017, after becoming President, Trump vowed at the National Prayer Breakfast to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment,[14] White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced to the press that Trump “committed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment”, “allowing our representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution”,[15] and Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.[16][17]
On May 4, 2017, Trump signed the “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.”[18] The executive order does not (nor can it[19]) repeal the Johnson Amendment, nor does it allow ministers to endorse from the pulpit, but it does direct the Department of Treasury that “churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be.” Douglas Laycock, speaking to The Washington Post, indicated that he was not aware of any cases where such implied endorsements have caused problems in the past.[20] Walter B. Jones Jr. had been the principal congressional advocate for repealing the speech restriction altogether and had support from the Family Research Council in modifying religious speech language in the Kevin Brady sponsored tax re-write legislation styled, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[21]
The final version of the major tax rewrite legislation passed in December 2017 does not include the House repeal of the Johnson Amendment because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the Byrd Rule for reconciliation legislation.[22][23][24]
Efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have been criticized for a number of reasons. One concern is that political campaign contributions funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations would be tax-deductible for donors, and that such contributions would not be disclosed, since churches are exempt from reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations. Under this critique, repeal would have the potential of creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made without regard to other campaign financing laws.[25][26][27] This concern was validated by Congressional testimony from Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, saying of a repeal provision later removed from the tax bill passed in late 2017 “it’s a diversion of some of the substantial growth in political contributions into a deductible form that is not deductible today.”[28]
Other concerns include the potential damage to public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations if they were to begin endorsing candidates. Polls have shown that majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose churches endorsing political candidates[29][30]The National Council of Nonprofits, a network of more than 25,000 nonprofit organizations, released a statement opposing the proposed repeal legislation.[31] Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations has also stated their opposition to the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment.[32] Numerous efforts to preserve the protections of the Johnson Amendment include a letter in support of nonprofit nonpartisanship signed by more than 5,500 organizations,[33] a Faith Voices letter signed by more than 4,300 religious leaders,[34] a letter that more than 100 denominations and major religious organizations signed,[35] and a letter from the National Association of State Charity Officials[36]
There has also been concerns from clergy and lay Christians about the potential that a total repeal would cause churches to transform into partisan super PACs.[citation needed]
The Catholic Church does not allow church funds to be spent on behalf of political candidates nor endorsements from the pulpit regardless of the legal permissibility.[37]
President Trump celebrated his Senate acquittal on Thursday with a freewheeling speech at the White House where he blasted the ‘vicious and mean’ Democrats, attacked ‘evil and dirty’ cops, thanked his ‘very good friends’ for their support and apologized to his family for what he put them through.
‘This is a day of celebration because we went through hell,’ he told a packed room of about 200 supporters in the East Room of the White House.
The president spoke – without the use of a teleprompter – for a little more than hour that veered back and forth between thanking his allies and blasting his enemies.
He began his remarks with his favorite hit term on the investigations into him and his presidency: ‘witch hunt.’
‘We’ve been going through this now for over three years. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops. It was a leakers and lawyers. This should never happen to another president, ever. I don’t know that other presidents would have been able to take it,’ he said.
And he ended with an apology to his family, including young son Barron.
‘I want to apologize to my family for having them have to go through a phony, rotten deal by some very evil and sick people,’ he said. ‘And Ivanka is here, my sons, my whole family. And that includes Barron. He’s up there, he’s a young boy.’
Ivanka left her seat in the audience to come up to the podium and hug her father after his apology. First lady Melania Trump did the same.
‘I just want to thank my family for sticking through it. This was not part of the deal,’ the president said.
Trump also name-dropped those he blamed for impeaching him, re-upping his litany of attacks against the same people he has blamed since the first investigation of his presidency started.
Former FBI Director James Comey was the first opponent who came up.
‘Had I not fired James Comey – who was a disaster, by the way – it’s possible I may not have even been standing here right now,’ Trump said. ‘When I fired that sleazebag, all hell broke out,’ he later added.
He blamed the top FBI officials for his problems. ‘It was the top scum, and the FBI people don’t like the top scum,’ he said.
The president also had choice words for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, Sen. Mitt Romney, Hunter Biden, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe – and the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
SCROLL DOWN TO READ TRUMP’S FREEWHEELING SPEECH IN FULL
President Trump hugs his daughter Ivanka Trump at his victory speech in the White House’s East Room Thursday
First lady Melania Trump (left) kisses President Trump (right) at the end of his speech Thursday in the East Room
Comey’s May 2017 firing led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller who took over the Russian interference probe.
The president referred to the Russia probe as ‘all bulls***’ to the East Room crowd.
That investigation wasn’t directly related to why Trump was impeached – over a scheme to hold up around $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the president to announce investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden.
Trump attacked the former vice president’s son for his work on the board of a Ukrainian gas company and for a Chinese hedge fund. He also reiterated his argument his July 25 phone call with newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was perfect.
‘He’s a new president, seems like a very nice person, by the way. His whole thing was corruption. He’s going to stop corruption. We have a treaty, a signed treaty that we will work together to root out corruption in Ukraine. I probably have a legal obligation … to report corruption. They don’t even think a corrupt way son who made no money, that got thrown out of the military, that had no money at all, is working for $3 million upfront, $83,000 a month. And that’s only Ukraine. Then goes to China, picks up $1.5 billion. Then goes to Romania, I hear, and many other countries. They think that’s okay. Because, if it is, Ivanka in the audience? Boy, my kids could make a fortune,’ he said.
The East Room was filled with the president’s Republican Congressional and political allies. Lawmakers like Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik and Matt Gaetz, who all vocally defended the president during the House impeachment investigation. GOP senators who voted to acquit him were there too, including Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and, of course, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Trump had personalized shout outs for many of them:
The president’s impeachment legal team came in the room before Trump and was greeted with a standing ovation from the audience and shouts of ‘Bravo!’
Trump, too, was greeted by a crowd on its feet.
He held up a copy of the Washington Post in triumph as his supporters cheered him on.
‘It was the only good headline I’ve ever had in the Washington Post,’ Trump said, showing off a newspaper with the words ‘Trump acquitted’ in large typeface across the front. Trump said he might even frame it.
Rep. Matt Gaetz stands as he is acknowledged by President Trump during a speech that lasted longer than an hour
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is photographed in the East Room before the president delivered remarks
Attendees of President Trump’s East Room speech included (from left) second lady Karen Pence, Vice President Mike Pence, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Attorney General Bill Barr
He had nicer things to say about those in the room.
Lee, a Republican senator from Utah, got some attention from the president, in part because Lee’s counterpart, Sen. Mitt Romney, had voted alongside Democrats on voting in support of one article of impeachment.
Trump told Lee to deliver a message to the people of Utah: ‘Tell them I’m sorry about Mitt Romney.’
‘We can say, by far, Mike Lee is the most popular senator in the state,’ Trump said.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who also loudly backed the president during impeachment hearings, was spotted wearing a ‘quit Mitt’ button to the White House event.
Trump complimented another Judiciary Committee member, Rep. John Ratcliffe, for being straight out of Central Casting.
‘If we’re doing a remake of Perry Mason,’ he said, nodding at Ratcliffe. ‘There’s nobody in Hollywood like this.’
The president also suggested that Rep. Steve Scalise became more attractive after recovering from a gun shot wound.
‘You weren’t that good looking,’ Trump said. ‘You look good now.’
The president also talked of Scalise’s wife’s devotion to the Louisiana Republican, as Trump had met her when her husband was in the emergency room.
‘A lot of wives wouldn’t give a damn,’ Trump remarked.
Trump also made colorful comments about Rep. Jim Jordan, another prominent defender.
‘When I first got to know Jim I said, heh, he never wears a jacket, he’s obviously very proud of his body,’ the president said.
Jordan was a collegiate wrestling champion and later a college-level coach.
The Ohio Republican did wear a jacket to Trump’s speech Thursday.
Trump also asked lawmakers to stand up if they had something to say.
That prompted retiring Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, to briefly stand and say, ‘This reflection today is a small reflection of the support you have.’
‘We got your back,’ Meadows said.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told a Fox News Channel audience Thursday what to expect from his remarks – that the president had previewed himself when he slammed Pelosi and Romney at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.
‘He is going to be honest,’ Grisham told Fox News, ‘going to speak with honesty and with humility and he and the family went through a lot. I think he’s also going to talk about just how horribly he was treated and, you know, that maybe people should pay for that.’
‘People should be held accountable,’ she added.
The president went after Pelosi and Romney for using their faith to justify their actions in the impeachment process during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.
And, in his remarks later that day in the East Wing, he stood by what he said at the breakfast.
‘I had Nancy Pelosi sitting four seats away and I’m saying things that a lot of people wouldn’t have said, but I meant everything. I meant every word of it,’ he said.
At the breakfast, the president did not mention the two by name but his meaning was clear.
‘I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say I pray for you when they know that’s not so. So many people have been hurt, and we can’t let that go on. I will be discussing that a little bit later at the White House,’ he said.
Romney was the lone Republican to find Trump guilty on one article of impeachment: abuse of power. He said in his remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday that it was his faith – Romney is a devout Mormon – that led him to that decision.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, has repeatedly said she prays for the president. She was seated at the head table during Trump’s remarks and shook her head at one point during them. She pursed her lips a few times as he spoke. The speaker launched the impeachment inquiry into the president in September.
Back at the White House, Trump had no problem uttering Pelosi’s name. He called her a ‘vicious horrible person’ and said that Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and one of the Democrats’ House impeachment managers, was a ‘horrible person.’
‘She may pray, but she prays for the opposite,’ Trump said of the speaker.
At the prayer breakfast, the president admitted he was having trouble liking his political enemies now that his impeachment trial is over.
‘We are grateful to the people of this room for the lovely show to religion, not one religion, but many religions. They are brave, they are brilliant, they are fighters, they like people and sometimes they hate people. I’m sorry. I apologize. I am trying to learn. Not easy. It’s not easy. When they impeach you for nothing, and you’re supposed to like them, it’s not easy, folks. I do my best,’ he said.
Donald Trump slammed Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney for using their faith to justify their actions in the impeachment trial and inquiry
Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on the opposite of the head table from President Trump
Speaker Pelosi sat grimed during President Trump’s remarks
Trump was acquitted on both articles of impeachment by the Senate on Wednesday, bringing to a close the fourth month, contentious process that led to a new level of bitter relations between the White House and congressional Democrats.
Harvard professor Arthur Brooks, in his key note address at the breakfast, urged those present not to hold political enemies in contempt, but to do as Jesus preached and ‘love your enemies.‘
‘I don’t know if I agree with you,’ Trump said to Brooks when it was his turn to speak. And then he proceeded to launch his attacks on Pelosi and Romney.
The president addressed the impeachment inquiry at the top of his remarks and, earlier, had triumphantly held up newspaper headlines announcing his acquittal. The audience cheered his move.
‘My family, our great country and your president has been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people. They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing, very badly hurt our nation,’ Trump said.
‘They know what they are doing is wrong but they put themselves far ahead of our great country. Weeks ago and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows was right,’ he added.
The president and the speaker were meeting for the first time since the impeachment verdict at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.
Trump walked to the head table to applause and held up the front pages of USA Today and The Washington Post with their oversized headlines proclaiming his acquittal by the Senate.
‘Acquitted’ read USA Today. ‘Trump Acquitted’ was the Washington Post’s headline.
Pelosi stood and clapped as President Trump entered the room. She simply looked on as he displayed the newspapers declaring him acquitted.
President Trump waved around a USA Today headline proclaiming his acquittal on impeachment
Both the president and the speaker were seated at the head table but on opposite sides of the podium.
They did not interact.
Trump shook hands with his side of the head table when he entered the 68th Annual National Prayer Breakfast and did not walk over to the other side of the podium, where the vice president and the speaker were seated.
Pelosi spoke first, leading a prayer for the poor. The president head bowed during her prayer. He did not applaud when she was done.
Vice President Mike Pence, when he arrived ahead of the president, shook hands with the speaker and sat a few chairs down from her.
Several members of Congress and members of the president’s Cabinet attended the annual breakfast.
‘The lord works in mysterious ways. I do not think he could have picked a better day to bring us all together,’ House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said in his prayer.
The president thanked McCarthy and the breakfast hosts in his opening remarks.
‘Had failed presidential candidate @MittRomney devoted the same energy and anger to defeating a faltering Barack Obama as he sanctimoniously does to me, he could have won the election,’ the president tweeted.
Romney cited his faith as one of the reasons for his guilty vote. He voted to acquit the president on the second charge: obstruction of Congress.
‘The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator juror, I swore an oath before god to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before god as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced,’ Romney said.
And the Republican senator from Utah acknowledged he expected to feel the president’s wrath for his decision.
‘I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before god demanded it of me?,’ he said.
It was also the first time Trump and Pelosi met since Tuesday’s State of the Union address when Trump refused to shake her hand at its beginning and she ripped up the text of his remarks at its conclusion.
After the president finished giving his annual address Tuesday night, Pelosi stood up and ripped the pages in half, dropping them on her desk.
The extraordinary clash between the two started when with Trump snubbed Pelosi’s outstretched hand after he came into the House chamber.
Trump handed Pelosi a copy of his speech when he reached the speaker’s dais – the same place she presided over his impeachment vote two months ago – but simply turned away as the Speaker took her copy of his speech, then stood in front of a chamber which echoed with cries of ‘four more years’ from Republicans – and where Democrats sat stone-faced.
Pelosi was visibly taken aback after Trump turned away from her offer.
Earlier, Trump delivered an astonishing snub to Nancy Pelosi as he started his State of the Union speech Tuesday, ignoring her as she offered him a handshake
After the Senate acquitted the president on Wednesday, Pelosi said after the vote that the president remains a ‘threat’ that the House will continue to combat through its lawsuits against the administration and with the public.
‘Sadly, because of the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution, the President remains an ongoing threat to American democracy, with his insistence that he is above the law and that he can corrupt the elections if he wants to. The House will continue to protect and defend the checks and balances in the Constitution that safeguard our Republic, both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion,’ she said in a statement.
Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, speaks on stage ahead of the fourth Democratic primary debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2019. Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images file.Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images file
Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is calling on Iowa Democratic officials to immediately recanvass Monday’s caucus vote after days of uncertainty and growing concerns about “inconsistencies” found in the data.
“Enough is enough,” Perez said in a tweet. “In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass.”
A recanvass is essentially a double-checking of the vote. Iowa officials would have to hand -audit the caucus worksheets and reporting forms to ensure that they were correctly calculated and reported.
In a statement released later Thursday, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price did not address the request from Perez and instead said that the party would take on a recanvass if any of the presidential campaigns request it.
“We owe it to the thousands of Iowa Democratic volunteers and caucusgoers to remain focused on collecting and reviewing incoming results,” Price said, noting that officials “identified inconsistencies in the data and used our redundant paper records to promptly correct those errors. This is an ongoing process in close coordination with precinct chairs, and we are working diligently to report the final 54 precincts to get as close to final reporting as possible.”
FEB. 6, 2020 02:21
As of Thursday morning, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg was clinging to the narrowest of leads in Iowa over Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 97 percent of the caucus vote released.
Buttigieg was at 26.2 percent and Sanders had 26 percent, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., running behind the pair of leaders at 18.2 percent. Former Vice President Joe Biden had 15.8 percent, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., at 12.2 percent and other candidates were in low single digits.
Sanders told reporters Thursday that he is not concerned about the DNC’s call for a recanvassing.
“We won an 8-person election by some 6,000 votes,” Sanders said. “That is not going to change.”
Klobuchar told NBC News on Thursday that she supported the process.
“You have to make sure that every single vote was counted,” she said. “Sometimes in caucuses things can be close.”
Iowa Democratic caucus results are not actual votes cast. The percentages, based on partial returns of the estimated number of state convention delegates won by each candidate through the caucus process, are known as state delegate equivalents, or SDEs.
The totals were put out by the Iowa Democratic Party over the past two days after chaos over the caucuses Monday night. More data may be released Thursday.
NBC News has not called a winner in the first-in-the-nation contest.
In addition to the estimates of convention delegates, the Iowa Democratic Party also released two other numbers:
In voters’ initial candidate preference at the caucuses, Sanders had 24.7 percent, or 42,672 votes, and Buttigieg took 21.3 percent, or 36,718 votes.
In voters’ reallocated preference, Sanders had 26.5 percent, or 44,753 votes, and Buttigieg had 25 percent, or 42,235 votes. The reallocated preference is the raw tally taken after the caucus process known as realignment. If a caucusgoer’s initial candidate preference did not receive enough support to meet the precinct location’s viability threshold (15 percent in most caucus locations), the caucusgoer is allowed to shift his or her support — or realign — to another candidate who did attain viability.
Results from the contest were delayed by what organizers said was a problem with a smartphone app. Final tallies had been expected that evening, but instead, partial results were released Tuesday and the remainder Wednesday.
Nevada’s Democratic Party, which had planned to use the app for its Feb. 22 caucus, said a day after the fiasco in Iowa that it would not use the app after all. The state’s Democratic Party said Tuesday that it had previously developed backup plans for its reporting systems and was in the process of “evaluating the best path forward.”
Cybersecurity experts who examined a public version of the smartphone app told NBC News it contained technical and design flaws and appeared to have been rushed into use.
Caucusgoers gathered Monday at nearly 1,700 sites across Iowa to tally support for their preferred candidates. As the delay stretched on into Tuesday, candidates came out to give speeches that sounded a lot like declarations of victory despite no numbers to support or refute them.
The state has 41 pledged delegates up for grabs, and the high-stakes contest traditionally plays a major role in determining who is a legitimate contender in the race.
Even with only a little more than 90 percent reporting in Iowa, Buttigieg on Wednesday night continued to tout the caucus as a win, telling a New York fundraiser that “we remain in the lead.”
“There is just no question that Monday in Iowa represents an astonishing victory for our vision, for our candidacy and for this country,” the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor said according to a pool report.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup’s four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003.
These results are from Gallup’s Mood of the Nation poll, conducted Jan. 2-15, which also recorded a 20-year high in Americans’ confidence in the U.S. economy. The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy — though the happiness figure, while high, is on the low end of what Gallup has measured historically for that question.
Despite some variation, solid majorities of Americans have reported being satisfied with their personal life over the past few decades, with an average of 83% satisfied since 1979. The historical low of 73% was recorded in July 1979, as the effects of that year’s oil crisis took a toll on U.S. motorists. During that poll’s fielding dates, then-President Jimmy Carter delivered his “malaise speech,” which was interpreted by some as placing blame on Americans themselves for the rough economic spot the country was in.
A 2019 survey on 10 aspects of Americans’ lives found that they are most satisfied with their family life, their education and the way they spend their leisure time — and least satisfied with the amount of leisure time they have, their household income and their job.
Gallup has asked a follow-up question since 2001 to measure the extent to which Americans are satisfied or dissatisfied with their personal life. The 65% of U.S. adults who are currently “very satisfied” marks a new high in the two-decade trend.
The more nuanced satisfaction ratings reveal that the relatively small four-percentage-point drop in personal satisfaction from 2007 to 2008 — as the global economic crisis unfolded — obscured greater movement (12 points) in the percentage “very” versus “somewhat” satisfied.
Household income, political party affiliation and marital status are associated with the largest subgroup differences in Americans’ satisfaction with their personal life.
Roughly 95% of Americans who live in high-income households, who identify as Republicans and who are married say they are satisfied with their personal life — and about three in four among each of these groups are very satisfied.
Meanwhile, adults in low-income households are the least likely to say they are satisfied with their life, followed by Democrats and unmarried adults. Among each of these groups, small majorities report being very satisfied. Low-income Americans hold the distinction of having the lowest percentage very satisfied.
Smaller differences in personal satisfaction are seen by race and gender. Whites are a bit more likely than nonwhites to say they are satisfied (92% vs. 86%, respectively) or very satisfied (67% vs. 59%) with their personal life. And men report slightly higher levels of satisfaction than do women.
| Satisfied | Very satisfied | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| $100,000+ | 96 | 76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Republicans | 93 | 80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Married | 93 | 74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| College graduate only | 93 | 71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Men | 92 | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Postgraduate | 92 | 66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Age 18-34 | 92 | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| $40,000-<$100,000 | 92 | 66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Whites | 92 | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Age 55+ | 90 | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Have children under 18 | 90 | 68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Have no children under 18 | 89 | 64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Some college | 89 | 63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Independents | 89 | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Age 35-54 | 87 | 63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| High school or less | 87 | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Women | 87 | 63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nonwhites | 86 | 59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Unmarried | 86 | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Democrats | 86 | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <$40,000 | 80 | 54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GALLUP, JAN. 2-15, 2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It’s likely no coincidence that Americans’ heightened satisfaction with their personal life comes as confidence in the U.S. economy and their personal finances are also at long-term or record highs. That two in three Americans are very satisfied is reflective of this upbeat moment in time, and whether these sentiments carry through the coming decade will be something to watch.
The vast majority of Americans in all major demographic and political subgroups are content with the way their lives are going, but the additional question on how satisfied they are provides more insight. Some groups — wealthier households, Republicans, married people — report especially high levels of satisfaction, while lower-income Americans, Democrats and those who are unmarried report more tepid satisfaction.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1367 December 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1366 December 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1365 November 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1364 November 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1363 November 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1362 November 19, 2019
And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain
I’ve lived a life that’s full
I’ve traveled each and every highway
But more, much more than this
I did it my way
Regrets, I’ve had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall
And did it my way
I’ve loved, I’ve laughed and cried
I’ve had my fill my share of losing
And now, as tears subside
I find it all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say – not in a shy way
Oh no, oh no, not me
I did it my way
For what is a man, what has he got
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way
Yes, it was my way
Writer/s: Claude Francois, Gilles Thibaut, Jacques Revaux, Paul Anka
Publisher: JEUNE MUSIQUE EDITIONS, BMG Rights Management, CONCORD MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC
Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind
January 22, 2020 5:21 PM
A very common refrain among loyal defenders of President Donald Trump amid the current impeachment proceedings is that, because there was no crime committed, he cannot be removed from office. It is a rather shockingly simple defense that parades one’s middle school level of understanding of the Consitution or is a willfully misleading take designed to misinform the misinformable.
Enter conservative thought leader National Review into this strange legal defense phenomenon, to publish a remarkably banal take in the form of a scathing Op-Ed that rather embarrasses Trump’s loyal defenders. It’s banal not because of National Review’s editorial wisdom, but because we sadly find ourselves in a political moment when even the banalest takes need to be said.
Editors behind the column say of this “no-crime” defense: “Instead of sticking to the most defensible case for a Senate acquittal of Trump, Republicans from the president on down are making arguments that range from the implausible to the embarrassing.”
The op-ed features a remarkably effective, if not on-the-nose, headline “Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime” which features the following nut graf:
Hence the claim now being advanced half-heartedly by Republicans that presidents cannot be impeached for any abuse of power unless that abuse took the form of a criminal violation of a statute. The consensus of those who have studied this question is to the contrary. Jonathan Turley, the Republicans’ star witness in the House hearings about the constitutional issues raised by impeachment, has repudiated this view. Attorney General William Barr has in the past denied it. The Founding-era debates about impeachment are clear that Congress was to be able to remove a president from office if he had exercised his legal powers in an abusive way. One example that came up during those debates: What if the president tacitly encouraged a crime and then pardoned the perpetrator? The pardon power is arguably unreviewable, and certainly very nearly so. It was left to the judgment of a majority of the House and a supermajority of the Senate, as always under the supervision of the voters, whether a president’s conduct had rendered his continuation in office intolerable.
The National Review editors don’t so much chide Republicans for what seems a foolhardy errand of alleging the “no-crime” defense, but rather it arrives at a rather thoughtful suggestion that Republicans would be better served by arguing that President Trump’s behavior, while objectionable, should be left to voters.
Attempts to impeach presidents have thus frequently combined charges of crimes with charges of non-criminal abuses. A categorical denial of the latter class of charge would do violence to the Constitution and one of its checks on presidential misconduct. Republicans would be better off arguing that in this case the president’s behavior, while objectionable, should be left, as scheduled, to the judgment of the voters directly — an argument that already has the support of most voters in polls and accords with Senate Republicans’ actual beliefs. There is no need for constitutional contortions.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Director of National Intelligence Director Joseph Maguire’s handling of a whistleblower complaint involving a phone call between Donald Trump and Ukraine’s president. In his opening statement during a hearing featuring Maguire, Schiff emphasized the need for whistleblower complaints to be presented to Congress to prevent leaking, which Schiff said would threaten U.S. national security. Schiff later admitted that he included words in his opening statement that the president did not say, noting that his characterization was meant to be taken “at least, in part, in parody.”
Scientists now believe that the deadly virus spreading around the globe from China was passed to humans from snakes sold at the open-air market in Wuhan.
Researchers at Peking University believe that 2019-nCoV, the SARS-like coronavirus that’s infected more than 500 people worldwide and killed 17, is made up of a combination of one that affects bats and another, totally unknown coronavirus.
They think genetic material from the two recombined, picked up a protein that lets viruses bind to certain host cells – including those of humans.
When they analysed the genes of strains affecting various host animals, the team found that snakes were susceptible to the most similar version of the coronavirus, and likely provided a ‘reservoir’ for the viral strain to grow stronger and replicate.
Sold alongside a menagerie the included live koalas, rats and wolf pups at the Huanan Seafood Market in central Wuhan – now thought to be the outbreak’s epicentre – snakes likely then served as the jumping-off point for the virus to begin infecting humans.
Photo of a store at Wuhan Huanan Seafood Market selling wild animals including live wolf pups, koalas and civets
‘Results derived from our evolutionary analysis suggest for the first time that snake is the most probable wildlife animal reservoir for the 2019-nCoV,’ the authors wrote in the Journal of Medical Virology.
‘New information obtained from our evolutionary analysis is highly significant for effective control of the outbreak caused by the 2019-nCoV-induced pneumonia.’
Most types of virus have many different strains, but no all of them occur in all places, and not every strain can infect every species.
For their new study, the Peking University team sequenced the genomes of 272 strains of coronavirus.
The new strain that’s emerged from China is only the seventh version of a coronavirus known to infect humans.
Four are common causes of colds and generally don’t lead to severe illnesses.
Deadlier coronaviruses include severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), first seen in China in 2003 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) which emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2013.
And now, the new mysterious Chinese coronavirus known – for now – as 2019-nCoV, which cropped up at the Huanan Seafood Market in December.
Where animals mix and mingle, so do the viruses the carry. And when viruses mix and mingle, they can exchange genetic material, mutating and become novel strains.
This seems to be the case with the current coronavirus outbreak.
According to the new study, the new coronavirus’s genetic material – RNA, unlike some viruses that are composed of DNA – looks to be a cross-breed of a strain known to infect bats and one for which they couldn’t pinpoint a known match.
What species a virus is able to infect depends on what proteins it has on the surfaces of its cells, and whether they can bind to the receptors on the surfaces of other animals’ cells.
So somewhere along its evolutionary path, 2019-nCoV picked up a protein or protein keys that turned the lock to give it access to snakes.
From there proliferated and mutated in such a way that may have given it access to humans shopping the Huanan Seafood Market.
The market has since been closed and has been labelled ‘ground zero’ by local authorities.
The highly-contagious virus has killed 17 people and infected hundreds in China, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong and the US.
A list of prices for one of the businesses operating at the market showed a menagerie of animals available for sale including live foxes, crocodiles, wolf puppies, giant salamanders, snakes, rats, peacocks, porcupines, koalas and game meats.
The study authors believe their work likely narrows down the source of the virus from the list of 112 live animals and animal products that were sold at the market that’s likely the outbreak’s epicenter.
The highly-contagious virus has killed 17 people and infected hundreds in China, South Korea , Japan , Thailand , Hong Kong and the US
‘Freshly slaughtered, frozen and delivered to your door,’ said the price list for the vendor called Wild Game Animal Husbandry for the Masses.
Gao Fu, director of the Chinese centre for disease control and prevention, said in Beijing on Wednesday that authorities believe the virus likely came from ‘wild animals at the seafood market’ though the exact source remains undetermined.
China bans the trafficking of a number of wild species or requires special licences, but regulations are loose for some species if they are commercially farmed.
The Beijing News published a photo on Tuesday showing the same vendor’s now-shuttered store front, as authorities in white hazmat suits milled about.
The paper also quoted other merchants as saying trade in wildlife took place up until the market was shuttered for disinfection shortly after the outbreak.
A number of the early sufferers of the coronavirus were employees of the market.
AFP tried unsuccessfully to contact the vendor.
Experts have warned it is ‘possible’ the virus will hit Australia.
Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy met with Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the Department of Health’s National Incident Room in Canberra.
‘We do have a lot of traffic from China and I think it’s quite possible we will get some cases here but I’m very confident that we’re well prepared to respond if we do,’ Professor Murphy said.
‘We currently have over 10 million masks even though we distributed 3.5 million during the bushfires, so we’ve got a good stockpile.’
Mr Morrison was adamant that the country was well-equipped.
‘The states and Commonwealth are working together to stay ahead of this,’ Mr Morrison said.
A Melbourne man was rushed to hospital for respiratory problems after a trip to China but was later cleared.
Another man in Brisbane was also suspected of contracting the disease but was cleared on Wednesday.
Australia will begin screening passengers that land from Wuhan where a new deadly virus was discovered last month.
The new screening efforts will only be in place at Sydney Airport where three direct flights from Wuhan land per week on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
When China Eastern Airlines flight MU749 lands on Thursday, passengers will be met by biosecurity staff from New South Wales Health and Border Force officials.
Huanan seafood market has been closed while Authorities carry out checks and cleaning
Passengers are expected to be screened for high temperatures with thermal imaging – but the method is not 100 per cent successful because people can harbour the coronavirus with no symptoms for days.
Anyone who does have a high temperature or is feeling unwell will be interviewed by officials.
It comes as US health authorities on Tuesday announced the first case of a person on American soil being diagnosed with the virus as millions of travelers prepare to take flights for Lunar New Year on Saturday.
SARS was also found in civets in wildlife markets in China, with many scientists believing the bat virus infected the cat-like creatures and then humans who ate them.
Following SARS, China cracked down on consumption of civets and some other species, but conservationists say the trade continues.
China has so far won praise for its openness and handling of the current outbreak in stark contrast to SARS, when it was accused of stifling information and failing to cooperate with the rest of the world.
Updated 4:25 PM ET, Thu January 23, 2020
An outbreak of new coronavirus in China has sickened more than 600 people and killed at least 17, while spreading to countries around the world.
The travel restrictions imposed on Wuhan were extended to at least four more cities. At least 18 people have died and more than 600 have been sickened by a mysterious illness, health officials said.
By
RIGHT NOW
The authorities confirmed the first death outside of the virus’s epicenter, in a province more than 600 miles to the north. But the World Health Organization held off on declaring a global health emergency.
After two days of deliberations, an emergency committee convened by the World Health Organization decided not to declare a global health emergency — but planned to meet again within 10 days, acknowledging the “urgency” of the situation.
The committee had first planned to issue a recommendation on Wednesday about whether to declare an emergency (the decision ultimately falls to the W.H.O.’s director general). Such a declaration would give the W.H.O. broader authority to shape different countries’ responses. But committee members were split.
On Thursday, after news of Wuhan’s travel restrictions and the increased death count emerged, the committee met again, and decided not to recommend the declaration. Several members thought it was “still too early,” the W.H.O. said in a news release.
Agency officials explained that although the disease has reached beyond China, the number of cases in other countries is still relatively small, and the disease does not seem to be spreading within those countries.
“At this time, there is no evidence of human to human transmission outside China,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director general, said at a news conference in Geneva. “That doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”
“Make no mistake,” he said. “This is an emergency in China, but it has not yet become a global health emergency. It may yet become one.”
Only five global public health emergency declarations have been made in the past. The decisions are fraught, with health authorities wary of causing panic, or of suggesting that governments cannot handle outbreaks on their own.
Still, the W.H.O. called on the Chinese government to share more information on how it was handling the crisis.
A patient died in the province of Hebei — more than 600 miles north of the city where the outbreak began — after contracting the new coronavirus, the provincial authorities announced on Thursday. It was the first confirmed death outside of the virus’s epicenter.
The victim was an 80-year-old man who had lived in the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak originated, for more than two months, according to Hebei’s provincial health department. Wuhan is a major port city of 11 million in the province of Hubei, where all of the 17 previously reported deaths have taken place.
The victim died on Wednesday, but officials did not confirm that he had died of the coronavirus until Thursday, the Hebei provincial announcement said.
The announcement did not say when the man had returned to Hebei Province from Wuhan, but said that he had developed chest tightness and difficulty breathing after his return. Like many of the other confirmed victims of the virus, he appeared to have other underlying health issues: After being admitted to a hospital, he also was treated for high blood pressure, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the authorities said.
The authorities expanded travel restrictions to several Chinese cities near Wuhan hours after announcing that the death toll and number of cases had risen sharply. Currently, at least 18 victims have been confirmed dead and more than 600 infected, according to Chinese officials.
The Chinese authorities on Thursday morning closed off Wuhan by canceling flights and trains leaving the city, and suspending buses, subways and ferries within it. Late on Thursday, the local authorities also announced that they would suspend for-hire vehicles and limit taxis, beginning at noon on Friday.
Roughly 30,000 people fly out of Wuhan on an average day, according to air traffic data. Many more leave using ground transportation like trains and cars.
By evening, officials planned to also close off Huanggang, a city of seven million about 30 miles east of Wuhan, shut rail stations in the nearby city of Ezhou, which has about one million residents, and impose travel restrictions on the smaller cities of Chibi and Zhijiang.
In Huanggang, public transportation and departing trains stopped at midnight. Residents are not allowed to leave the city without special permission, according to a government statement. In Ezhou, all rail stations were to be closed.
Separately, the provincial authorities in Hubei announced late Thursday some restrictions for the entire province, not just specific cities. Travel agencies are prohibited from taking customers and organizing tours, for example, and business trips are being suspended.
Schools throughout the province, which have breaks scheduled for the Lunar New Year holiday, will postpone their post-break start dates indefinitely.
In Beijing, the government said it would cancel large public gatherings for the holiday, including fairs at temples that usually draw shoulder-to-shoulder crowds, and the Forbidden City, a popular tourist attraction in the heart of the capital, will close starting on Saturday.
Coronaviruses are named for the spikes that protrude from their membranes, which resemble the sun’s corona. They can infect both animals and people, and cause illnesses of the respiratory tract, ranging from the common cold to severe conditions like SARS.
Symptoms of infection include a high fever, difficulty breathing and lung lesions. Milder cases may resemble the flu or a bad cold, making detection difficult. The incubation period — the time from exposure to the onset of symptoms — is believed to be about two weeks.
While the headlines are alarming, health experts cautioned that it was too early to gauge the severity of the outbreak. There are too many unknowns: Where did it start? How easily does it spread? How does it compare to other coronaviruses, like SARS?
Dr. William Schaffner, a specialist in infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said the illness should be viewed in perspective. While a new virus spreading internationally gets more attention, the much more common influenza virus is the bigger hazard for most people, he said.
“If I look at this winter respiratory season, influenza is going to cause many more illnesses and more deaths than this coronavirus,” he said. “It’s one of those circumstances where, if familiarity doesn’t breed contempt, it certainly breeds a certain nonchalance.”
The virus has sickened hundreds of people in Asia and at least one person in the United States.
As anxiety about the virus has grown, governments around the world have taken precautions to isolate anyone displaying symptoms, though several cases have proved not to be the coronavirus.
Health officials in the United States said on Thursday that there could be a second infection in the country, after the authorities in Washington State confirmed earlier this week that a man there had fallen sick with the Wuhan coronavirus. The second possible patient was in Brazos County, Texas, where officials said they were keeping a patient isolated at home while they did additional testing.
Vietnam’s Ministry of Health announced on Thursday that it had confirmed two cases of the coronavirus, in two male Chinese patients.
In Mexico, two out of five potential coronavirus cases were officially ruled out by the Health Ministry on Thursday after comprehensive tests were conducted, according to state and federal government officials.
A health official said that one of the patients, a 57-year-old professor, had been diagnosed with a common cold.
Across Wuhan on Thursday, residents — some wearing masks, some sniffing or coughing — visited hospitals and clinics seeking treatment. In interviews with a New York Times correspondent in the city, some said they were angry about the sudden lockdown. Others said they were confused by the restrictions.
Outside the Wuhan No. 3 Hospital, Yang Lin, said she had come to the hospital to see if a sniffling cold she had might be the coronavirus. After a quick check, the doctors told her not to worry. But she was not reassured.
“They said it was just a common cold, and told me to get some medicine and go home,” Ms. Yang, 28, said. “But how am I to know? They didn’t even take my temperature. It’s just not responsible.”
The outbreak is testing Wuhan’s health care system. Several Wuhan residents said on social media websites that they had gone from hospital to hospital, waiting in lines for hours, only to be sent home with medicine and instructions to seek further treatment later if symptoms persisted in a few days.
Doctors told some patients that there was a shortage of hospital beds as well as testing kits, according to posts on Chinese social media sites.
China’s Ministry of Finance said on Thursday that it would allocate 1 billion yuan, or about $144 million, to officials in Hubei to fight the virus, though it did not specify how the money would be used.
Wuhan officials also said that they would construct a new hospital specifically for coronavirus patients. The new hospital was ordered built within six days, according to People’s Daily, the ruling Communist Party’s main newspaper.
Cheng Shidong, a doctor at the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, said in an interview that his hospital had set up 100 beds to receive infected patients, but that it didn’t have enough protective material, such as masks and suits, for the medical staff.
In Wuhan, Ms. Yang said that while she was in a pharmacy buying medicine, another person complained that he thought he had the coronavirus but had not been isolated. The city’s medical system, especially its smaller hospitals, seems unprepared for the influx of patients, she said.
“I’m willing to accept that we have to stay in Wuhan, O.K., but the medical care needs to keep up,” she said. “You shouldn’t tell us we can’t leave, and then give us second-rate medical care. That’s unfair.”
China’s health commission, which has tightly controlled news about the toll of the outbreak, released on Thursday its most detailed list of the people who have died of the disease.
The first 17 people were largely older men, many with underlying health problems. All died in Hubei Province, which includes the city of Wuhan.
The first confirmed death was a 61-year-old man who went to a hospital in Wuhan on December 27, weak with a fever and a cough. He was transferred to another hospital as his condition worsened, and he was later attached to a machine that helped oxygenate his blood. But he died on Jan. 9.
Twelve of the other 17 deaths in Hubei were also men, and four were women, officials said. The youngest victim was a 48-year-old woman who died on Monday. The oldest were two 89-year-old men.
Separately on Thursday, the health authorities in Hebei Province, to the north of Hubei Province, announced that an 80-year-old man there had died, bringing the death count to 18.
Many of the victims had underlying conditions like cirrhosis of the liver, hypertension, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. Most had gone to the hospital with a fever and a cough, though at least three had no fever when they were admitted, according to the health commission.
While a full picture of the virus is still unknown, medical experts found positive signs in the fact that the disease did not appear to be killing young and otherwise healthy people.
“The majority of fatal cases are elderly and/or have a chronic disease that would increase their susceptibility to infectious diseases,” said Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York.
In an unusually blunt interview, Dr. Guan Yi, a professor of infectious diseases in Hong Kong and expert on SARS, criticized the authorities in Wuhan for acting too slowly and obstructing his efforts to investigate the outbreak.
Dr. Guan, who helped successfully identify the coronavirus that caused SARS during the 2002-2003 outbreak in China, told the influential Chinese magazine Caixin that he was deeply frustrated by the city government’s response to the spread of the virus.
He and his team had visited Wuhan on Tuesday hoping that they could track the animal that was the source of the coronavirus but were shocked to find that residents at a market were not taking any precautions or wearing masks. No special measures were in place at the airport to disinfect surfaces and floors, either. This showed that the city government was being complacent despite the urgent orders handed down by Beijing, he said.
“I thought at the time, we had to be in a ‘state of war’, but how come the alarm has not been raised?” he told Caixin. “Poor citizens, they were still preparing to ring in the New Year in peace and had no sense about the epidemic.”
He also criticized the local authorities for disinfecting the market where many infections had been traced to, saying that made it difficult for researchers to investigate where the virus came from.
“I consider myself a veteran in battles,” he said, citing his experience with bird flu, SARS, and other outbreaks. “But with this Wuhan pneumonia, I feel extremely powerless.”
There are growing concerns that the Chinese authorities are underreporting the number of people who are ill with the virus. Relatives of patients say that some hospitals, strapped for resources as they deal with an influx of patients, are turning sick people away or refusing to test them for the coronavirus.
Many people remain skeptical of the government’s official statistics, with memories of the effort to cover up the severity of the SARS outbreak still fresh.
In Wuhan, Kyle Hui, an architect from Shanghai, said that doctors at Tongji Hospital declined to test his stepmother for the virus, even though she was showing symptoms like a cough and a fever. She died on Jan. 15 of “severe pneumonia,” according to a copy of her death certificate.
Mr. Hui said that hospital workers treated his stepmother as if she had the coronavirus, wearing hazmat suits. After she died, the hospital instructed the family to cremate the body immediately. Mr. Hui said that after her death, doctors informed the family that they suspected his stepmother had the coronavirus.
“I’m very sad my stepmother left without any dignity,” Mr. Hui said during an interview this week in a cafe in Wuhan. “There was no time to say goodbye.”
Chris Buckley, our chief China correspondent, headed to Wuhan from Beijing to cover the outbreak. He is sending live dispatches from his trip.
11 A.M. — ABOARD THE G79 HIGH SPEED TRAIN
The G79 high speed train from Beijing to Hong Kong, which stops in Wuhan, was crowded with holiday passengers. The train was a hubbub of conversation, much of it about the deadly coronavirus and the lockdown around Wuhan.
Guo Jing, a worker from northeast China, was headed with two friends for a holiday in Macau. After some hesitation, they had taken off their masks. “They’re too uncomfortable inside,” Mr. Guo said. “My view is we have to be careful but not panic. If you’re the panicky type, then you wouldn’t be on this train.”
Chris Buckley 储百亮
✔@ChuBailiang
Time to get back onto Twitter. I’m about to arrive in Wuhan to see how the city is coping under the lockdown and the menace of the coronavirus. Also follow live updates at the Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share …
1:37 P.M. — ABOARD THE G79 HIGH SPEED TRAIN
Half an hour out from Wuhan, the train is quite crowded with passengers. When I explain that I’m getting off at Wuhan, the reactions vary from advice — wear masks, don’t go, drink lots of water — to mordant jokes that I may be there a long time.
“You should know that they probably won’t let people out until the New Year holiday is over,” said one woman, who would only give her family name, Yang.
2:29 P.M. — WUHAN
Wuhan Railway Station, usually thronging with people in the days before the Lunar New Year holiday, is very empty. An announcement playing on a loop over the speakers tells the few people here that residents cannot leave the city and the station is temporarily closed.
Scientists have been scrambling to understand the source of the coronavirus, in particular, the animals from which the virus may have jumped to humans. Many of the cases in Wuhan were connected to a market that sold live poultry and exotic animal meats. The market was closed and disinfected.
Early epidemiological research is indicating that it may have come from wild animals such as bamboo rats and badgers, said Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a prominent Chinese scientist who was the country’s leading expert during the SARS outbreak, during an interview with state media on Monday. Named for its bamboo-heavy diet, the cat-sized bamboo rat has become a somewhat popular delicacy in recent years in China, promoted for its purported health properties.
A group of Chinese researchers from the eastern city of Tianjin and Nanjing in the south, said the Wuhan coronavirus may have originated from Chinese horseshoe bats, according to a study they published in the Chinese Journal of Bioinformatics on Tuesday.
China’s National Genomics Data Center said the Wuhan virus was 88 percent genetically similar to a SARS-like coronavirus that was collected from bats in China in 2017.
Still another group of Chinese scientists suggested that snakes were the “most probable wildlife animal reservoir” for the novel coronavirus, then transmitted to humans, in an article published in the Journal of Medical Virology Wednesday.
But that assessment immediately drew fire from the international health community.
The study’s lead author, Wei Ji of the Peking University Health Science Center School of Basic Medical Sciences, did not actually find the new coronavirus in a snake, noted David Robertson, a professor at the University of Glasgow. Instead, Dr. Ji and his colleagues compared the genomes of an assortment of viruses and hosts and claimed to find a similarity between the genomes of the new virus and snakes.
The announcement that the city of Wuhan would be temporarily sealed off from the outside world starting at 10 a.m. on Thursday came while most residents were asleep at 2 a.m.
Some decided to flee the city.
Residents were seen hauling their luggage to a train station in the early hours before the citywide lockdown took effect, the Chinese news outlet Caixin reported. Several people said they would buy tickets for any destination as long as they could leave Wuhan, the magazine reported.
Lines of passengers in masks and down jackets, lugging suitcases, formed outside the major Hankou railway station just 20 minutes before the cutoff time, a live video by media outlet The Paper showed.
Han Zhen and Wang Mengkai, two migrant workers from Henan Province, said they had rushed to the railway station in order to leave on Wednesday night, but missed the last train out.
Both said they were frustrated by the sudden lockdown and were scrambling to find a way home.
“It’s serious but not that serious,” said Mr. Wang, who works in an electronics parts factory. “We’re trying to figure out how we can get home. If we can’t get out on a train, we’ll try putting together a car with a driver.”
Asked if they were motivated to leave by fear of the virus, Mr. Han said: “No, we are not scared.”
“It’s the New Year, we just have to go home,” he said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
Jump to navigationJump to search
A rotavirus
A virus is a biological agent that reproduces inside the cells of living hosts. When infected by a virus, a host cell is forced to produce thousands of identical copies of the original virus at an extraordinary rate. Unlike most living things, viruses do not have cells that divide; new viruses are assembled in the infected host cell. But unlike still simpler infectious agents, viruses contain genes, which gives them the ability to mutate and evolve. Over 5,000 species of viruses have been discovered.[1]
The origins of viruses are unclear: some may have evolved from plasmids—pieces of DNA that can move between cells—while others may have evolved from bacteria. A virus consists of two or three parts: genes, made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information; a protein coat that protects the genes; and in some viruses, an envelope of fat that surrounds the protein coat and is used, in combination with specific receptors, to enter a new host cell. Viruses vary in shape from the simple helical and icosahedral to more complex structures. Viruses range in size from 20 to 300 nanometres; it would take 33,000 to 500,000 of them, side by side, to stretch to 1 centimetre (0.39 in).
Viruses spread in many ways. Just as many viruses are very specific as to which host species or tissue they attack, each species of virus relies on a particular method for propagation. Plant viruses are often spread from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, known as vectors. Some viruses of animals, including humans, are spread by exposure to infected bodily fluids. Viruses such as influenza are spread through the air by droplets of moisture when people cough or sneeze. Viruses such as norovirus are transmitted by the faecal–oral route, which involves the contamination of hands, food and water. Rotavirus is often spread by direct contact with infected children. The human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is transmitted by bodily fluids transferred during sex. Others, such as the Dengue virus, are spread by blood-sucking insects.
Viral infections can cause disease in humans, animals and even plants. However, they are usually eliminated by the immune system, conferring lifetime immunity to the host for that virus. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses, but antiviral drugs have been developed to treat life-threatening infections. Vaccines that produce lifelong immunity can prevent some viral infections.
hide Virus Glossary |
|---|
Scanning electron micrograph of HIV-1 viruses, coloured green, budding from a lymphocyte
In 1884 the French microbiologist Charles Chamberland invented a filter, known today as the Chamberland filter or Chamberland–Pasteur filter, that has pores smaller than bacteria. Thus he could pass a solution containing bacteria through the filter and completely remove them from the solution.[2] In the early 1890s the Russian biologist Dmitri Ivanovsky used this filter to study what became known as the tobacco mosaic virus. His experiments showed that extracts from the crushed leaves of infected tobacco plants remain infectious after filtration.
At the same time several other scientists proved that, although these agents (later called viruses) were different from bacteria, they could still cause disease, and they were about one hundredth the size of bacteria. In 1899 the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck observed that the agent multiplied only in dividing cells. Having failed to demonstrate its particulate nature, he called it a “contagium vivum fluidum“, a “soluble living germ”.[3] In the early 20th century the English bacteriologist Frederick Twort discovered viruses that infect bacteria,[4] and the French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d’Herelle described viruses that, when added to bacteria growing on agar, would lead to the formation of whole areas of dead bacteria. Counting these dead areas allowed him to calculate the number of viruses in the suspension.[5]
With the invention of the electron microscope in 1931 by the German engineers Ernst Ruska and Max Knoll came the first images of viruses.[6] In 1935 American biochemist and virologist Wendell Meredith Stanley examined the tobacco mosaic virus and found it to be mostly made from protein.[7] A short time later, this virus was separated into protein and RNA parts.[8] A problem for early scientists was that they did not know how to grow viruses without using live animals. The breakthrough came in 1931, when the American pathologist Ernest William Goodpasture and Alice Miles Woodruff grew influenza and several other viruses in fertilised chickens’ eggs.[9] Some viruses could not be grown in chickens’ eggs, but this problem was solved in 1949 when John Franklin Enders, Thomas Huckle Weller and Frederick Chapman Robbins grew polio virus in cultures of living animal cells.[10] Over 5,000 species of virus have been discovered.[11]
Viruses co-exist with life wherever it occurs. They have probably existed since living cells first evolved. The origin of viruses remains unclear because they do not form fossils, so molecular techniques have been the most useful means of hypothesising how they arose. However, these techniques rely on the availability of ancient viral DNA or RNA but most of the viruses that have been preserved and stored in laboratories are less than 90 years old.[12][13] Molecular methods have only been successful in tracing the ancestry of viruses that evolved in the 20th century.[14] New groups of viruses might have repeatedly emerged at all stages of the evolution of life.[15] Three main theories speculate on the origins of viruses:[15][16]
There are problems with all of these hypotheses: the regressive hypothesis does not explain why even the smallest of cellular parasites do not resemble viruses in any way. The escape hypothesis does not explain the structures of virus particles. The coevolution, or virus-first hypothesis, contravenes the definition of viruses, in that they are dependent on host cells.[19] But viruses are recognised as ancient and to have origins that pre-date the divergence of life into the three domains.[20] This discovery has led modern virologists to reconsider and re-evaluate these three classical hypotheses.[20][15]
A simplified diagram of the structure of a virus
A virus particle, also known as a virion, consists of genes made from DNA or RNA which are surrounded by a protective coat of protein called a capsid.[21] The capsid is made of many smaller, identical protein molecules which are called capsomers. The arrangement of the capsomers can either be icosahedral (20-sided), helical or more complex. There is an inner shell around the DNA or RNA called the nucleocapsid, which is formed by proteins. Some viruses are surrounded by a bubble of lipid (fat) called an envelope.
Viruses are among the smallest infectious agents, and most of them can only be seen by electron microscopy. Most viruses cannot be seen by light microscopy (in other words, they are sub-microscopic); their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm. They are so small that it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to stretch to one cm.[21] By contrast bacterial sizes are typically around 1 micrometre (1000 nm) in diameter, and the cells of higher organisms a few tens of micrometres. Some viruses such as megaviruses and pandoraviruses are relatively large. At around 1 micrometer, these viruses, which infect amoebae, were discovered in 2003 and 2013. They are around a thousand times larger than influenza viruses and the discovery of these “giant” viruses astonished scientists.[22]
Genes are made from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and, in many viruses, RNA (ribonucleic acid). The biological information contained in an organism is encoded in its DNA or RNA. Most organisms use DNA, but many viruses have RNA as their genetic material. The DNA or RNA of viruses consists of either a single strand or a double helix.[23]
Viruses reproduce rapidly because they have only a few genes compared to humans who have 20,000–25,000.[24] For example, influenza virus has only eight genes and rotavirus has eleven. These genes encode structural proteins that form the virus particle, or non-structural proteins, that are only found in cells infected by the virus.[25]
All cells, and many viruses, produce proteins that are enzymes called DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase which make new copies of DNA and RNA. A virus’s polymerase enzymes are often much more efficient at making DNA and RNA than the host cell’s.[26] However, RNA polymerase enzymes often make mistakes, and this is one of the reasons why RNA viruses often mutate to form new strains.[27]
In some species of RNA virus, the genes are not on a continuous molecule of RNA, but are separated. The influenza virus, for example, has eight separate genes made of RNA. When two different strains of influenza virus infect the same cell, these genes can mix and produce new strains of the virus in a process called reassortment.[28]
Diagram of a typical eukaryotic cell, showing subcellular components. Organelles: (1) nucleolus (2) nucleus (3) ribosome (4) vesicle (5) rough endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (6) Golgi apparatus (7) cytoskeleton (8) smooth ER (9) mitochondria (10) vacuole (11) cytoplasm (12) lysosome (13) centrioles within centrosome (14) virus particle shown to approximate scale
Proteins are essential to life. Cells produce new protein molecules from amino acid building blocks based on information coded in DNA. Each type of protein is a specialist that usually only performs one function, so if a cell needs to do something new, it must make a new protein. Viruses force the cell to make new proteins that the cell does not need, but are needed for the virus to reproduce. Protein synthesis consists of two major steps: transcription and translation.
Transcription is the process where information in DNA, called the genetic code, is used to produce RNA copies called messenger RNA (mRNA). These migrate through the cell and carry the code to ribosomes where it is used to make proteins. This is called translation because the protein’s amino acid structure is determined by the mRNA’s code. Information is hence translated from the language of nucleic acids to the language of amino acids.
Some nucleic acids of RNA viruses function directly as mRNA without further modification. For this reason, these viruses are called positive-sense RNA viruses.[29] In other RNA viruses, the RNA is a complementary copy of mRNA and these viruses rely on the cell’s or their own enzyme to make mRNA. These are called negative-sense RNA viruses. In viruses made from DNA, the method of mRNA production is similar to that of the cell. The species of viruses called retroviruses behave completely differently: they have RNA, but inside the host cell a DNA copy of their RNA is made with the help of the enzyme reverse transcriptase. This DNA is then incorporated into the host’s own DNA, and copied into mRNA by the cell’s normal pathways.[30]
Life-cycle of a typical virus (left to right); following infection of a cell by a single virus, hundreds of offspring are released.
When a virus infects a cell, the virus forces it to make thousands more viruses. It does this by making the cell copy the virus’s DNA or RNA, making viral proteins, which all assemble to form new virus particles.[31]
There are six basic, overlapping stages in the life cycle of viruses in living cells:[32]
The range of structural and biochemical effects that viruses have on the host cell is extensive.[33] These are called cytopathic effects.[34] Most virus infections eventually result in the death of the host cell. The causes of death include cell lysis (bursting), alterations to the cell’s surface membrane and apoptosis (cell “suicide”).[35] Often cell death is caused by cessation of its normal activity due to proteins produced by the virus, not all of which are components of the virus particle.[36]
Some viruses cause no apparent changes to the infected cell. Cells in which the virus is latent and inactive show few signs of infection and often function normally.[37] This causes persistent infections and the virus is often dormant for many months or years. This is often the case with herpes viruses.[38][39]
Some viruses, such as Epstein-Barr virus, often cause cells to proliferate without causing malignancy;[40] but some other viruses, such as papillomavirus, are an established cause of cancer.[41] When a cell’s DNA is damaged by a virus, and if the cell cannot repair itself, this often triggers apoptosis. One of the results of apoptosis is destruction of the damaged DNA by the cell itself. Some viruses have mechanisms to limit apoptosis so that the host cell does not die before progeny viruses have been produced; HIV, for example, does this.[35]
Norovirus. Ten Norovirus particles; this RNA virus causes winter vomiting disease. It is often in the news as a cause of gastro-enteritis on cruise ships and in hospitals.
Common human diseases caused by viruses include the common cold, the flu, chickenpox and cold sores. Serious diseases such as Ebola and AIDS are also caused by viruses. Many viruses cause little or no disease and are said to be “benign”. The more harmful viruses are described as virulent. Viruses cause different diseases depending on the types of cell that they infect. Some viruses can cause lifelong or chronic infections where the viruses continue to reproduce in the body despite the host’s defence mechanisms.[42] This is common in hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections. People chronically infected with a virus are known as carriers. They serve as important reservoirs of the virus. If there is a high proportion of carriers in a given population, a disease is said to be endemic.[43]
There are many ways in which viruses spread from host to host but each species of virus uses only one or two. Many viruses that infect plants are carried by organisms; such organisms are called vectors. Some viruses that infect animals, including humans, are also spread by vectors, usually blood-sucking insects. However, direct transmission is more common. Some virus infections, such as norovirus and rotavirus, are spread by contaminated food and water, hands and communal objects and by intimate contact with another infected person, while others are airborne (influenza virus). Viruses such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C are often transmitted by unprotected sex or contaminated hypodermic needles. It is important to know how each different kind of virus is spread to prevent infections and epidemics.[44]
Peppers infected by mild mottle virus
There are many types of plant virus, but often they only cause a loss of yield, and it is not economically viable to try to control them. Plant viruses are often spread from plant to plant by organisms (vectors). These are normally insects, but some fungi, nematode worms and single-celled organisms have been shown to be vectors. When control of plant virus infections is considered economical (perennial fruits, for example) efforts are concentrated on killing the vectors and removing alternate hosts such as weeds.[45] Plant viruses are harmless to humans and other animals because they can only reproduce in living plant cells.[46]
The structure of a typical bacteriophage
Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria and archaea. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses officially recognises 28 genera of bacteriophages that belong to 11 families.[47] They are important in marine ecology: as the infected bacteria burst, carbon compounds are released back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth. Bacteriophages are useful in scientific research because they are harmless to humans and can be studied easily. These viruses can be a problem in industries that produce food and drugs by fermentation and depend on healthy bacteria. Some bacterial infections are becoming difficult to control with antibiotics, so there is a growing interest in the use of bacteriophages to treat infections in humans.[48]
Animals, including humans, have many natural defences against viruses. Some are non-specific and protect against many viruses regardless of the type. This innate immunity is not improved by repeated exposure to viruses and does not retain a “memory” of the infection. The skin of animals, particularly its surface, which is made from dead cells, prevents many types of viruses from infecting the host. The acidity of the contents of the stomach destroys many viruses that have been swallowed. When a virus overcomes these barriers and enters the host, other innate defences prevent the spread of infection in the body. A special hormone called interferon is produced by the body when viruses are present, and this stops the viruses from reproducing by killing the infected cell and its close neighbours. Inside cells, there are enzymes that destroy the RNA of viruses. This is called RNA interference. Some blood cells engulf and destroy other virus infected cells.[49]
Two rotavirus particles: the one on the right is coated with antibodies which stop its attaching to cells and infecting them
Specific immunity to viruses develops over time and white blood cells called lymphocytes play a central role. Lymphocytes retain a “memory” of virus infections and produce many special molecules called antibodies. These antibodies attach to viruses and stop the virus from infecting cells. Antibodies are highly selective and attack only one type of virus. The body makes many different antibodies, especially during the initial infection; however, after the infection subsides, some antibodies remain and continue to be produced, often giving the host lifelong immunity to the virus.[50]
Plants have elaborate and effective defence mechanisms against viruses. One of the most effective is the presence of so-called resistance (R) genes. Each R gene confers resistance to a particular virus by triggering localised areas of cell death around the infected cell, which can often be seen with the unaided eye as large spots. This stops the infection from spreading.[51] RNA interference is also an effective defence in plants.[52] When they are infected, plants often produce natural disinfectants which destroy viruses, such as salicylic acid, nitric oxide and reactive oxygen molecules.[53]
The major way bacteria defend themselves from bacteriophages is by producing enzymes which destroy foreign DNA. These enzymes, called restriction endonucleases, cut up the viral DNA that bacteriophages inject into bacterial cells.
The structure of DNA showing the position of the nucleosides and the phosphorus atoms that form the “backbone” of the molecule
Vaccination is a way of preventing diseases caused by viruses. Vaccines simulate a natural infection and its associated immune response, but do not cause the disease. Their use has resulted in the eradication of smallpox and a dramatic decline in illness and death caused by infections such as polio, measles, mumps and rubella.[54] Vaccines are available to prevent over fourteen viral infections of humans[55] and more are used to prevent viral infections of animals.[56] Vaccines may consist of either live or killed viruses.[57] Live vaccines contain weakened forms of the virus, but these vaccines can be dangerous when given to people with weak immunity. In these people, the weakened virus can cause the original disease.[58] Biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques are used to produce “designer” vaccines that only have the capsid proteins of the virus. Hepatitis B vaccine is an example of this type of vaccine.[59] These vaccines are safer because they can never cause the disease.[57]
Since the mid 1980s, the development of antiviral drugs has increased rapidly, mainly driven by the AIDS pandemic. Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, which are molecules very similar, but not identical to DNA building blocks. When the replication of virus DNA begins, some of these fake building blocks are incorporated. As soon as that happens, replication stops prematurely—the fake building blocks lack the essential features that allow the addition of further building blocks. Thus, DNA production is halted, and the virus can no longer reproduce.[60] Examples of nucleoside analogues are aciclovir for herpes virus infections and lamivudine for HIV and hepatitis B virus infections. Aciclovir is one of the oldest and most frequently prescribed antiviral drugs.[61]
Other antiviral drugs target different stages of the viral life cycle. HIV is dependent on an enzyme called the HIV-1 protease for the virus to become infectious. There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors, which bind to this enzyme and stop it from functioning.[62]
Hepatitis C is caused by an RNA virus. In 80% of people infected, the disease becomes chronic, and they remain infectious for the rest of their lives unless they are treated. There is an effective treatment that uses the nucleoside analogue drug ribavirin combined with interferon.[63] Treatments for chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus by a similar strategy using lamivudine and other anti-viral drugs have been developed.[64] In both diseases, the drugs stop the virus from reproducing and the interferon kills any remaining infected cells.
HIV infections are usually treated with a combination of antiviral drugs, each targeting a different stage in the virus’s life-cycle. There are drugs that prevent the virus from attaching to cells, others that are nucleoside analogues and some poison the virus’s enzymes that it needs to reproduce.[62] The success of these drugs is proof of the importance of knowing how viruses reproduce.
Viruses are the most abundant biological entity in aquatic environments[65]—there are about one million of them in a teaspoon of seawater[66]—and they are essential to the regulation of saltwater and freshwater ecosystems.[67] Most of these viruses are bacteriophages, which are harmless to plants and animals. They infect and destroy the bacteria in aquatic microbial communities and this is the most important mechanism of recycling carbon in the marine environment. The organic molecules released from the bacterial cells by the viruses stimulate fresh bacterial and algal growth.[68]
Microorganisms constitute more than 90% of the biomass in the sea. It is estimated that viruses kill approximately 20% of this biomass each day and that there are fifteen times as many viruses in the oceans as there are bacteria and archaea. Viruses are mainly responsible for the rapid destruction of harmful algal blooms,[69] which often kill other marine life.[70] The number of viruses in the oceans decreases further offshore and deeper into the water, where there are fewer host organisms.[71]
Their effects are far-reaching; by increasing the amount of respiration in the oceans, viruses are indirectly responsible for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by approximately 3 gigatonnes of carbon per year.[71]
Marine mammals are also susceptible to viral infections. In 1988 and 2002, thousands of harbour seals were killed in Europe by phocine distemper virus.[72] Many other viruses, including caliciviruses, herpesviruses, adenoviruses and parvoviruses, circulate in marine mammal populations.[71]
Jump to navigationJump to search
 |
This article may be affected by a current event. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (January 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
|
 Location of Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak, in China.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date | 12 December 2019 – present | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Origin: Wuhan, Hubei, China | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Casualties | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases as of 23 January 2020
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An outbreak of the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV was initially identified during mid-December 2019 in the city of Wuhan in central China, as an emerging cluster of people with pneumonia with no clear cause, which was linked primarily to stallholders who worked at the Huanan Seafood Market, which also sold live animals. Chinese scientists subsequently isolated a new strain of the coronavirus – given the initial designation of 2019-nCoV – which has been found to be at least 70 percent similar in genome sequence to SARS-CoV. With the development of a specific diagnostic PCR test for detecting the infection, a number of cases were confirmed in people directly linked to the market and in those who were not directly associated with it. Whether this virus is of the same severity or lethality as SARS is unclear.[13][14][15][16]
On 20 January 2020, Chinese premier Li Keqiang urged decisive and effective efforts to prevent and control the pneumonia epidemic caused by a novel coronavirus.[17] As of 23 January 2020, 18 deaths have occurred, all in China, and there is evidence of human-to-human transmission. Extensive testing has revealed over 600 confirmed cases, some of whom are healthcare workers.[18][19][20] Confirmed cases have also been reported in Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, the United States,[19] Singapore,[9] and Vietnam.[7]
On 23 January 2020, the WHO decided against declaring the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.[21] The WHO had previously warned that a wider outbreak was possible,[22] and there were concerns of further transmission during China’s peak travel season around the Chinese New Year.[15][23] The sudden increase in occurrences of the disease has raised questions relating to wildlife trade, uncertainties surrounding the virus’s ability to spread and cause harm,[24] whether the virus has been circulating for longer than previously thought, its origin and the possibility of the outbreak being a super-spreader event.[16][25][23][26][27]
The first suspected cases were reported on 31 December 2019,[28] with the first instances of symptomatic illness appearing just over three weeks earlier on 8 December 2019.[29] The market was closed off on 1 January 2020, and people who showed signs and symptoms of the coronavirus infection were isolated.[28] Over 700 people, including more than 400 healthcare workers who came into close contact with possibly infected individuals, were initially monitored.[30] After the development of a specific diagnostic PCR test for detecting the infection, the presence of 2019-nCoV was subsequently confirmed in 41 people in the original Wuhan cluster,[13][31] of which two were later reported to be a married couple, one of whom had not been present in the marketplace, and another three who were members of the same family that worked at the marketplace’s seafood stalls.[32][33] The first confirmed death from the coronavirus infection occurred on 9 January 2020.[34]
On 23 January 2020, Wuhan was placed under quarantine, in which all public transport in and out of Wuhan have been suspended.[35] The cities of Huanggang, Ezhou, Chibi and Zhijiang, adjacent to Wuhan, will also be placed under a similar quarantine from 24 January 2020 onwards.[36][37]
Replication cycle of a coronavirus
As the inaugural cluster of cases with “pneumonia of unknown cause” was linked to a wholesale animal and fish market, which had a thousand stalls selling chickens, pheasants, bats, marmots, venomous snakes, spotted deer and the organs of rabbits and other wild animals (Ye wei), i.e. bushmeat, the immediate hypothesis was that this was a novel coronavirus from an animal source.[14][38][39][40]
Coronaviruses mainly circulate among animals, but have been known to evolve and infect humans, as has been seen with SARS, MERS and four other coronaviruses found in humans which cause mild respiratory symptoms like in the common cold. All six can spread from human to human.[41][42] In 2002, with an origin in civet horseshoe bats from live animal markets, an outbreak of SARS started in mainland China, and with the help of a few super-spreaders and international air travel, reached as far as Canada and the United States, resulting in over 700 deaths worldwide. The last case occurred in 2004.[41][43][44] At the time, China was criticised by the WHO for its handling of the epidemic.[45] Ten years after the onset of SARS, the dromedary-camel-related coronavirus, MERS, resulted in 750 deaths in over 27 countries.[41] The Wuhan outbreak’s association with a large seafood and animal market, has led to the presumption of the illness having an animal source.[42] This has resulted in the fear that it would be similar to the previous SARS outbreak,[43][46] a concern exacerbated by the expectation of a high numbers of travelers for Chinese New Year, which begins on 25 January 2020.[47]
Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province and is the seventh-largest city in China, with a population of more than 11 million people. It is a major transportation hub of the country, long known in China as “Nine Provinces’ Thoroughfare” (九省通衢). It is approximately 700 miles (1,100 km) south of Beijing,[48] 500 miles (800 km) west of Shanghai, and 600 miles (970 km) north of Hong Kong.[49] It is considered today as the political, economic, financial, commercial, cultural and educational center of Central China. Direct flights from Wuhan also connect with Europe: six flights weekly to Paris, three weekly to London, and five weekly to Rome.[50]
Since 2000, the World Health Organization has coordinated international reactions against several new diseases such as MERS, SARS (2003–2004), 2009 swine flu and others.
| NCBI genome ID | MN908947 |
|---|---|
| Genome size | 30473 bp |
| Year of completion | 2020 |
Sequences of Wuhan betacoronavirus show similarities to betacoronaviruses found in bats; however, the virus is genetically distinct from other coronaviruses such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS).[51] Like SARS-CoV, it is a member of Beta-CoV lineage B.[52]
Five genomes of the novel coronavirus have been isolated and reported including BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01/2019, BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-04/2020, BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-05/2019, BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019, and BetaCoV/Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019 from the China CDC National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Pathogen Biology, and Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital.[51][53][54] Its RNA sequence is approximately 30 kbp in length.[51]
On 22 January 2020, scientists from Peking University, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Ningbo University and Wuhan Biology Engineering College published an article, concluded that snakes were the most likely natural reservoir for the 2019-nCoV.[55][56] This is disputed by some other scientists, who argue that the wildlife reservoir must be bird or mammal.[56]
Confirmed cases outside of mainland China include three women and one man in Thailand, one man in Japan, one woman in South Korea, one woman in Taiwan, two men in Hong Kong, two men in Vietnam, one nurse in Saudi Arabia, one man in Singapore, one man in Macau and one man in the United States.[10][57][58][59][25] The figures are supported by experts including Michael Osterholm.[60]
On 17 January, an Imperial College group in the UK published an estimate that there had been 1,723 cases (95% confidence interval, 427–4,471) with onset of symptoms by 12 January 2020. This was based on the pattern of the initial spread to Thailand and Japan. They also concluded that “self-sustaining human-to-human transmission should not be ruled out”.[61][62] As further cases came to light, they later recalculated that “4,000 cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan City… had onset of symptoms by 18th January 2020”.[18][20] A Hong Kong University group has reached a similar conclusion as the earlier study, with additional detail on transport within China.[63]
On 20 January, China reported a sharp rise in cases with nearly 140 new patients, including two people in Beijing and one in Shenzhen.[64] As of 23 January, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases stands at 650, including 633 in Mainland China, 4 in Thailand, 3 in Hong Kong, 2 in Macau, 2 in Vietnam, one in Japan, one in South Korea, one in Taiwan, one in Saudi Arabia, one in Singapore and one in the United States.[12][65][66][67][68][69]
Chinese government announced at 23:00 (UTC+8) 23 January to shut down Chibi City effective at 00:00 on 24 January, preceded by the prefecture-level cities of Huanggang, Ezhou, and Wuhan.[70]
Reportedly, Wuhan City government has demanded a state-owned enterprise (中建三局集团) to re-construct an accommodation in Wuhan into a Virus Therapy Center at the fastest speed comparable to that during the SARS outbreak in 2003.[71]
An epidemiologist and SARS virologist with teams consisting of medical specialists who just flew back to Hong Kong after their one-day inspection in Wuhan told correspondants that the Wuhan Outbreak is at least 10 times larger than that of SARS, calling people to stay away from Wuhan as soon as possible.[72][73][74][75]
Some posts on Weibo showed that hospital in Wuhan has already overloaded with thousands of people with fever and were highly critical of the reliability of the figures from the Chinese government although such posts are now deleted due to unknown reasons.[76]
Number of cases in Greater China
Map of the 2019-nCoV outbreak (as of 23 January 2020):
(The Saudi Arabia case is uncertain.)
Since 31 December 2019, some regions and countries near China tightened their screening of selected travellers.[16] The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) later issued a Level 1 travel watch.[38][77] Guidances and risk assessments were shortly posted by others including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and Public Health England.[78] In China, airports, railway stations and coach stations installed infrared thermometers. People with fevers are subsequently taken to medical institutions after being registered and given masks.[65]
Top 20 flight routes from Wuhan with data on the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index for each country
An analysis of air travel patterns was used to map out and predict patterns of spread, and was published in the Journal of Travel Medicine in mid-January 2020. Based on information from the International Air Transport Association (2018), Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei had the largest volume of travellers from Wuhan. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Sydney and Melbourne in Australia were also reported as popular destinations for people traveling from Wuhan. Using the validated tool, the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index (IDVI), to assess ability of managing a disease threat, Bali was reported as least able in preparedness, while cities in Australia were most able.[29][79]
Reported suspected cases of novel coronavirus in Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s Centre for Health Protection (CHP) added the term “unidentified pneumonia” to their list of notifiable diseases to expand their authority on quarantine. The Hong Kong government also shortened hospital visits and made it a requirement for visitors to wear face masks. Screening was tightened at airports and train stations with connections to Wuhan.[44] In the first week of 2020, 30 unwell travelers from Wuhan were tested. Most were found to be positive for other respiratory viruses.[77][80] On 22 January 2020, a mainlander man, age 39, who traveled from Shenzhen developed symptoms of pneumonia. The man had been to Wuhan in the previous month. He tested positive for 2019-nCoV and was hospitalised in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kowloon. A 56-year old man from Ma On Shan, who had visited Wuhan, had also tested positive for 2019-nCoV, raising the number of confirmed cases to two.[5][81]
The Hong Kong government designated the Lady MacLehose Holiday Village in Sai Kung as a quarantine centre. On 23 January 2020, three people who had come into close contact with the two aforementioned cases were quarantined, including two medical workers and a visitor from Australia.[82]
A 30-year-old Chinese national who had previously travelled to Wuhan developed a fever on 3 January 2020 and subsequently returned to Japan on 6 January. He tested positive for 2019-nCoV during a hospital admission between 10 and 15 January 2020. He had not visited the Huanan Seafood Market, but possibly had close contact with an affected person in Wuhan.[58][83]
As of 22 January 2020, Macau has confirmed two cases of 2019-nCoV, that of a 52-year-old woman, and a 66-year-old man, both from Wuhan.[6]
Singapore’s Ministry of Health (MOH) issued a health advisory on the pneumonia outbreak on 2 January 2020, and implemented temperature checks for passengers arriving in Changi Airport from Wuhan the following day.[84] On 20 January 2020, temperature screening at Changi Airport was extended to all travellers coming from China. In addition, individuals with pneumonia who had travelled to Wuhan within 14 days before the onset of symptoms will be isolated in hospital. MOH also issued a reminder to hospitals and general practitioners to be vigilant for cases with pneumonia who have recently traveled to Wuhan.[85][86] On 22 January, quarantine measures were extended to travelers who arrived from China and display symptoms.[87] Three more suspected cases were detected on 22 January 2020. At the same time, the MOH began to form a multi-ministry taskforce to tackle the virus. The MOH also advised against non-essential trips to Wuhan[88] and later expanded the travel advisory to the whole of Hubei.[89]
The first case was confirmed on 23 January 2020 involving a 66-year-old China national from Wuhan who flew from Guangzhou via China Southern Airlines flight CZ351 with 9 companions and stayed at Shangri-La’s Rasa Sentosa Resort and Spa. Contact tracing of the hotel staff and flight passengers has begun.[90] Preliminary tests also showing positive results for a 53-year-old. Another 28 suspected cases were detected as a result of enhanced testing. Border control measures were enhanced and extended to land and sea checkpoints from 24 January 2020.[9]
A suspected case was reported in South Korea on 8 January 2020, with the person isolated as a result.[91] There have been four suspected cases since then, and a confirmed case on 20 January 2020.
On 21 January 2020, the first case in Taiwan was confirmed in a 50-year-old woman who just returned to Taoyuan International Airport from her teaching job in Wuhan.[11] She reported her signs to the patrols on her own initiative and was then sent hospitalised upon arrival without formal domestic entry and is being treated in quarantine.[11]
Among the 4 suspected cases reported, 3 have been tested negative in the initial screenings.[38][77][92]
In Thailand, screening passengers arriving from Wuhan at four different airports began on 3 January 2020, and a number of suspected cases have been found to have other common respiratory conditions.[59][93]
On 13 January 2020, Thailand witnessed the first confirmed case of 2019-nCoV outside China. The affected individual was a 61-year-old Chinese woman who is a resident of Wuhan; she had not visited the Huanan Seafood Market, but was noted to have been to other markets. She developed a sore throat, fever, chills and a headache on 5 January, flew directly with her family and a tour group from Wuhan to Suvarnabhumi airport in Bangkok on 8 January, where she was detected using thermal surveillance and was hospitalised that same day. Four days later, using RT-PCR, she tested positive for the new coronavirus.[29][94][95][94]
Thailand’s second case occurred in a 74-year-old woman who arrived in Bangkok on a flight from Wuhan on 17 January.[57]
On 21 January 2020, an 18-year-old male patient suspected who arrived in Chiang Mai from Wuhan was hospitalized with a high fever. Blood samples were sent to Bangkok for further analysis.[96][97]
On 22 January 2020, the Thai Ministry of Public Health announced a report for two additional confirmed cases of infection found in Thailand. The third was a 68-year-old man, a Chinese tourist like previous cases. The fourth was a 73-year-old Thai woman, who had returned from Wuhan, the first case for Thai citizen.[98][99]
The first confirmed case of the new coronavirus in the United States, a man in his 30s from Snohomish County, Washington, was announced by the CDC on 21 January 2020.[100] The man had traveled from Wuhan to Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on 15 January and reported four days later to the Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington, after feeling ill with symptoms of pneumonia.[12][101][102]
Between 60,000 and 65,000 people travel from Wuhan to the United States every year, with January being a peak.[103] At San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, arriving passengers began to be screened for symptoms of the virus ahead of the Chinese New Year peak travel season. As the number of cases started to increase, O’Hare International Airport in Chicago and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport have also started screening arriving passengers.[104][105]
Two suspected cases of pneumonia were detected on 14 January 2020 after two Chinese tourists arrived in Vietnam through Da Nang International Airport with a fever. The tourists were quarantined, and later released after having tested negative for the virus.[106]
Prime Minister of Vietnam Nguyễn Xuân Phúc has ordered relevant ministries, including Health, Transport, Foreign Affairs, Public Security, Defence, Information and Communications, Culture, Sports and Tourism, Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, Agriculture and Rural Development, to deploy measures to prevent and counter the spread of the disease into Vietnam, as well as to warn Vietnamese citizens not to visit the epidemic areas.[107] Deputy minister Đỗ Xuân Tuyên said that Vietnam is considering to close border with China as a necessary countermeasure.[108] Saigon Tourist announced that it has cancelled all tours to or transit in Wuhan.[109]
The first two cases of confirmed infected were hospitalized on 22 January and treated at Cho Ray Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City. One case is a Chinese man travelling from Wuhan to Hanoi to visit his son living in Vietnam. The second is the man’s son who is believed to have contracted the disease from his father.[110]
As of 22 January, Nepal, Hong Kong and Taiwan were monitoring suspected cases, per the ECDC.
The Health Secretary of the state of Minas Gerais reported on 22 January a suspected case from a 35 year old Brazilian woman who arrived in Belo Horizonte on 18 January from Shanghai, who self-reportedly did not visit Wuhan. Medical tests are underway to confirm the case.[111][112]
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has implemented signage in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal airports to raise awareness of the virus and has added a health screening question to the electronic kiosks for passengers arriving from central China; however, there are no direct flights from Wuhan to Canada.[113][114]
As of 22 January, six people were put under observation in Quebec after showing signs of a respiratory virus since recently returning from China.[115] On the following day, the Minister of Health Patty Hajdu said that five or six people were being monitored for signs of coronavirus, including at least one person in Quebec and another in Vancouver.[116]
One patient, a tourist from China, has been placed in isolation ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Sabah for suspected infection of the virus.[117][118]
A suspected case was reported in Nepal on 16 January 2020. The Nepali national had returned from Wuhan and was quarantined in Kathmandu.[119]
One suspected case involved a five-year old child from Wuhan who had arrived in Cebu City on 12 January 2020. Samples from the child were sent to the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine in Muntinlupa for testing. The case tested positive for a “non-specific pancorona virus”, although it has yet to be determined if the pathogen is the 2019-nCoV.[120]
Samples from the child had been sent to a laboratory in Australia for further testing and the authorities are awaiting the results. Three other travellers from China were checked by authorities at another airport, but they did not show symptoms that corresponded with the warning issued by the World Health Organization about the virus from Wuhan.[121] Another two suspected cases tested negative for the virus, and were allowed to return home.[122]
The outbreak has prompted urging from at least a member of the House of Representatives. Muntinlupa representative Ruffy Biazon sent a letter dated on 22 January 2020 to the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) to suspend flights from Wuhan to any part of the Philippines. Royal Air Charter Service operates direct flights from Wuhan to Kalibo in Aklan.[123]
On 22 January 2020, a 23 year old Russian man arriving in Pulkovo Airport, St. Petersburg, from Shanghai was hospitalised.[124]
Four suspected cases underwent testing in Scotland on 23 January: three in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow. All had recently been to Wuhan.[125] Heathrow Airport has tightened surveillance of the three direct flights that it receives from Wuhan every week. Each of these flights will be met by a Port Health team, comprising principal port medical inspector, port health doctor, administrative support, and team leader. In addition, all airports in the UK will have written guidance available for unwell travellers.[78]
Local health officials in Brazos County Texas are investigating a suspected case of 2019-nCoV. The patient is a Texas A&M student who had recently travelled from Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus originated. The patient is currently in isolation at his home, while the precautionary testing is being done. Results of the testing are expected to be completed by 24 January.[126]
On 22 January an American Airlines passenger arriving at Los Angeles International Airport from Mexico City received medical attention upon arrival, American spokesman Curtis Blessing said. He was transported to a medical center for disease control for precautionary reasons. [127]
Enhanced screening measures have been set up at Shahjalal International Airport in Bangladesh.[128]
The Cambodian Ministry of Health has taken preventive measures by installing thermal scanners at Phnom Penh International Airport, Siem Reap International Airport and Sihanouk International Airport to prevent the entry of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The thermal scanners are operated by the quarantine service personnel sent by the Ministry of Health. Currently, no case has been detected yet.[129]
The Government of India issued a travel advisory to its citizens, particularly for Wuhan, where about 500 Indian medical students study.[130]
It was announced that passengers arriving at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport from China would undergo thermal screening.[131] Later, the procedures were extended to six other major international airports.[132]
The director general of the Ministry of Health, Noor Hisham Abdullah, said thermal scanners were being used to screen travellers at border points, and that the Malaysian health authorities were placed on high alert following the global outbreaks.[133]
Airlines and the main international airport Schiphol are, as of 22 January, not taking extra measures yet against the spread of the virus, stating the lack of direct flights from or to Wuhan.[134]
As a precaution against the virus, North Korea is to temporarily ban foreign tourists until the government feels that the virus is well under control.[135]
The Panamanian government has enhanced its sanitary control measures at all ports of entry, in preparation for the arrival of the virus.[136]
The Ministry of Health in Sri Lanka informed the Quarantine Unit at Bandaranaike International Airport to screen passengers for symptoms. Additionally, the ministry warned that infants, children, pregnant mothers, elderly and people who suffer from chronic diseases among other issues should avoid visiting crowded places when possible.[137]
The Ministry of Health announced that Turkey has arranged quarantine rooms, inspection centres and thermal cameras for screening at the airports as added precautions, even though the World Health Organization does not consider them necessary for the country.[138]
On 23 January 2020, Dubai Airport announced that travelers arriving directly from China would have their temperatures screened.[139]
Reported symptoms have included fever in 90% of cases,[13] fatigue and a dry cough in 80%,[13][140] and shortness of breath in 20%, with respiratory distress in 15%.[38][77][140] Chest x-rays have revealed signs in both lungs.[38][77] Vital signs were generally stable at the time of admission of those hospitalised.[140] Blood tests have commonly shown low white blood cell counts (leucopenia and lymphopenia).[13]
On 15 January 2020, the WHO published a protocol on diagnostic testing for 2019-nCoV, developed by a virology team from Charité Hospital in Germany.[141]
.jpg)
Airport screening
2019-nCoV does not currently have an effective medicine treatment or vaccine, though efforts to develop some are underway.[142][143] Its symptoms include, among others, fever, breathing difficulties and coughing,[144] which have been described as “flu-like“.[145] To prevent infection, the WHO recommends “regular hand washing, covering mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing… [and] avoid[ing] close contact with anyone showing symptoms of respiratory illness (such as coughing and sneezing).”[51] Though there are no specific treatments for general human coronaviruses, the U.S. CDC provides generic advice that an infected person can relieve their symptoms by taking regular flu medications, drinking fluids and resting.[146] Some countries require people to report flu-like symptoms to their doctor, especially if they have visited mainland China.[147]
The situation in Wuhan is being monitored with respect to the forthcoming third round of the 2020 AFC Women’s Olympic Qualifying Tournament, some of which is due to be played there over the course of the tournament’s span from 3 February 2020 to 9 February 2020.[148] On 22 January 2020, the AFC announced that it would be moving the Group A matches previously scheduled to be played in Wuhan—which included the respective squads from Australia, China PR, Taiwan and Thailand—to Nanjing instead due to the coronavirus outbreak.[149]
An effective quarantine on travel in and out of Wuhan was imposed from 23 January 2020, 10:00 onwards. Flights and trains in and out of Wuhan, public buses, the metro system and long-distances coaches were suspended until further notice. The move is an effort to stop the spread of the virus out of Wuhan, and to ensure the health and safety of the people, according to China’s Xinhua News Agency. Large-scale gatherings and group tours were also required to be suspended.[150] Various logistic issues have occurred after the quarantine, including rising food prices[151] and difficulty for medical staff commuting to the hospital.[152]
 |
Look up Wuhan pneumonia in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1413, March 13, 2020, Story 1: President Trumps Declares A National Emergency — Unleashes Full Power of United States Government — $50 Billion in New Funding To Deal With COVID-19 Pandemic — Videos- Story 2: House Expected To Pass Family First Coronavirus Response Bill Supported By President Trump — Videos –Story 3: United State Stock Market Rallies — Best Day Since 2008 — Consumer Sentiment Beating Expectations At 95.9 — Videos
Posted on March 15, 2020. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Anthropology, Banking System, Bernie Sanders, Biological and Chemical, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, China, Coal, College, Congress, Consitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, COVID-19 or Coronavirus, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Diet, Disasters, Diseases, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Eating, Economics, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, Eugenics, European History, European Union, Exercise, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Flu, Food, Fourth Amendment, France, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Germany, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Great Britain, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Italy, Japan, Joe Biden, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Medicine, Mental Illness, Mike Pence, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Natural Gas, News, North Korea, Novel Coronavirus or COVID-19, Obesity, Oil, Oil, Overweight, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Psychology, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Sciences, Social Security, South Korea, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Uncategorized, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending | Tags: $50 Billion in New Funding To Deal With COVID-19 Pandemic, 13 March 2020, America, American People Want No Politics With Response to COVID-19, Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Chinese Communist Coughing Crisis, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Consumer Sentiment Beating Expectations At 95.9, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, House Expected To Pass Family First Coronavirus Response Bill Supported By President Trump, Individualism, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Trump Declares National Emergency, Progressive Pandemic Panic Pusher, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1413, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United State Stock Market Rallies -- Best Day Since 2008, United States of America, Unity, Unleashes Full Power of United States Government, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1413 March 13, 2020 posted as soon as possible
Pronk Pops Show 1412 March 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1411 March 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1410 March 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 9, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1409 March 5, 20
Pronk Pops Show 1408 March 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1407 March 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1406 March 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1405 February 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1404 February 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1403 February 26, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1402 February 25, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1401 February 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1400 February 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1399 February 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1398 February 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1397 February 12, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1396 February 11, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1395 February 10, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1394 February 7, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1393 February 6, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1392 February 5, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1391 February 4, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1390 February 3, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1389 January 31, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1388 January 30, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1387 January 29, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1386 January 28, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1385 January 27, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1384 January 24, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1383 January 23, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1382 January 22, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1381 January 21, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1380 January 17, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1379 January 16, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1378 January 15, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1377 January 14, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1376 January 13, 2020
Pronk Pops Show 1375 December 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1374 December 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1373 December 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1372 December 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1371 December 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1370 December 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1369 December 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1368 December 4, 2019
Story 1: President Trumps Declares A National Emergency — Unleashes Full Power of United States Government — $50 Billion in New Funding To Deal With COVID-19 Pandemic — Videos
BREAKING: Donald Trump declares a national emergency
Trump declares National Emergency over coronavirus
Trump declares national emergency over coronavirus pandemic
Tucker: Regular life is all but suspended
Hannity: Major businesses working with Trump on coronavirus
Trump declares virus emergency; Pelosi announces aid deal
President Donald Trump on Friday declared the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency in order to free up more money and resources. But he denied any responsibility for delays in making testing available for the new virus, whose spread has roiled markets and disrupted the lives of everyday Americans.
Speaking from the Rose Garden, Trump said, “I am officially declaring a national emergency,” unleashing as much as $50 billion for state and local governments to respond to the outbreak.
Trump also announced a range of executive actions, including a new public-private partnership to expand coronavirus testing capabilities with drive-through locations, as his administration has come under fire for being too slow in making the test available.
Trump said, “I don’t take responsibility at all” for the slow rollout of testing.
Late Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a deal with the Trump administration for an aid package from Congress that aims at direct relief to Americans — free testing, two weeks of sick pay for workers, enhanced unemployment benefits and bolstered food programs.
“We are proud to have reached an agreement with the Administration to resolve outstanding challenges, and now will soon pass the Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” Pelosi announced in a letter to colleagues. The House was poised to vote.
The crush of late-day activity capped a tumultuous week in Washington as the fast-moving virus shuttered the capital’s power centers, roiled financial markets and left ordinary Americans suddenly navigating through self-quarantines, school closures and a changed way of life.
The White House was under enormous pressure, dealing with the crisis on multiple fronts as it encroached ever closer on the president.
Trump has been known to flout public health advice — eagerly shaking hands during the more than hour-long afternoon event — but acknowledged he “most likely” will be tested now after having been in contact with several officials who have tested positive for the virus. “Fairly soon,” he said.
Still, Trump said officials don’t want people taking the test unless they have certain symptoms. “We don’t want people without symptoms to go and do that test,” Trump said, adding, “It’s totally unnecessary.”
Additionally, Trump took a number of other actions to bolster energy markets, ease the financial burden for Americans with student loans and give medical professionals additional “flexibility” in treating patients during the public health crisis.
“Through a very collective action and shared sacrifice, national determination, we will overcome the threat of the virus,” Trump said.
Central to the aid package from Congress, which builds on an emergency $8.3 billion measure approved last week, is the free testing and sick pay provisions.
Providing sick pay for workers is a crucial element of federal efforts to stop the rapid spread of the infection. Officials warn that the nation’s healthcare system could quickly become overwhelmed with gravely sick patients, as suddenly happened in Italy, one of the countries hardest hit by the virus.
The ability to ensure paychecks will keep flowing — for people who stay home as a preventative measure or because they’re feeling ill or caring for others — can help assure Americans they will not fall into financial hardship.
Hopes for swiftly passing the package seemed to be fading throughout the day as talks dragged on and Trump dismissed it during as “not doing enough.”
Ahead of Trump’s new conference, Pelosi delivered a statement from the speaker’s balcony at the Capitol imploring the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to “put families first” by backing the effort to provide Americans with relief.
“Our great nation has faced crisis before,” Pelosi said. “And every time, thanks to the courage and optimism of the American people, we have prevailed. Now, working together, we will once again prevail.”
Pelosi and Mnuchin engaged in days of around-the-clock negotiations with cross-town phone calls that continued even as Trump was speaking, both indicating earlier they were close to a deal.
They both promised a third coronavirus package will follow soon, with more aggressive steps to boost the U.S. economy, which economists fear has already slipped into recession.
The financial markets closed on an upswing after one of the worst nosedives since the 1987 downturn.
For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia.
The vast majority of people recover. According to the World Health Organization, people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe illness may take three to six weeks to be over it.
Trump said he was gratified that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro tested negative for the virus, after the pair sat next to each other for an extended period of time last weekend at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. A senior aide to Bolsonaro tested positive.
Trump’s daugher, Ivanka Trump, worked from home Friday after meeting with Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, now in isolation at a hospital after testing positive for the coronavirus. White House spokesman Judd Deere said she was evaluated by the White House Medical Unit and it was determined that because she was exhibiting no symptoms she does not need to self-quarantine.
Attorney General William Barr, who also met with the Australian official, was staying home Friday, though he “felt great and wasn’t showing any symptoms,” according to his spokeswoman Kerri Kupec.
Several lawmakers, including some close to Trump, have also been exposed to people who tested positive for the virus, and are self-isolating.
Among them are Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Rick Scott, who were at Trump’s club on the weekend. Graham announced Friday that he also met with the Australian official who has now tested positive. And GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who had previously isolated himself after a potential exposure at a conservative conference in Washington, said Friday he met with a Spanish official and is now self-quarantining.
Hospitals welcomed Trump’s emergency declaration, which they and lawmakers in Congress had been requesting. It allows the Health and Human Services Department to temporarily waive certain federal rules that can make it harder for hospitals and other health care facilities to respond to an emergency.
The American Medical Association said the emergency declaration would help ensure America’s health care system has sufficient resources to properly respond to the ongoing outbreak.
Trump has struggled to show he’s on top of the crisis, after giving conflicting descriptions of what the U.S. is doing to combat the virus. On Wednesday he announced he would ban travel to the U.S. from Europe, and on Friday he suggested extending that to the U.K. because of a recent rise in cases.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health, said more tests would be available over the next week, but warned, “We still have a long way to go.”
Fauci said Friday, “There will be many more cases. But we’ll take care of that, and ultimately, as the president said, this will end.”
___
Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani, Alan Fram, Lauran Neergaard, Martin Crutsinger, Laurie Kellman, Michael Balsamo and Kevin Freking in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.
https://apnews.com/83b0c8e168548fd453b0c177dd1f203a
Story 2: House Expected Passes Family First Coronavirus Response Bill Supported By President Trump — Videos
House Passes Coronavirus Relief Bill
House approves coronavirus response bill supported by Trump
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will pass coronavirus legislation
Mnuchin: Trump is very interested in putting money into the economy
PBS NewsHour West live episode, March 13, 2020
Story 3: United State Stock Market Rallies — Best Day Since 2008 — Consumer Sentiment Beating Expectations At 95.9 — Videos
The Dow Is Soaring – Here’s Why the Stock Market Is Cheering Trump
Barry Sternlicht: Stock market will make a comeback from coronavirus
El-Erian on markets: ‘It’s getting less scary than it has been for a while’
Cramer’s game plan for the trading week of March 16
Jim Cramer: Not sure this stock market sell-off can be stopped
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1408-1413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1400-1407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392 1399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )