2020 election

2020’s Never Before (and Never Again?) Milestones


MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from RealClearPolitics: Dec. 30, 2020

We’ve all been deluged with lists of 2020 winners, losers, and reasons why everyone is saying good riddance to this challenging, tragic, chaotic, and unusual year.

This one has a different slant: Five “never before and never again” phenomena unique to 2020. (Yes, I know that one must “never say never,” but the following qualify as two-headed freaks of politics and economics.)

We Saw the First President to Be Impeached and Then Run for Reelection

Notably, Trump’s status as only the third U.S. president to be impeached was practically never mentioned during the campaign. (Obviously, both Democrats and Republicans had good reasons to conveniently forget.) But still, the notion of an impeached president running for reelection after winning the nomination of a major party, virtually uncontested, is a political abnormality befitting the plot of a Netflix series. Over time, historians will view this feat as a highly irregular chapter in presidential history, likely never to be repeated.

Both the Losing and Winning Presidential Candidates Won More Popular Votes Than Any President in U.S. History

Therein lies the factual justification for President Trump’s frequent insistence that his winning a record-breaking 74.2 million votes is why he “won” the election. The problem is President-elect Joe Biden holds the overall record with 81.2 million votes. Still, when comparing the number of presidential ballots cast over the last 20 years, Trump’s popular vote “loss” places him in the winner’s circle. Also, remember that he blew past his 2016 total of 62.9 million votes.

It is essential to recognize that never before have presidential candidates won over 70 million votes. Clinton in 2016 won 65.8 million. Obama in 2012 won 65.9 million with 69.4 million in 2008. Bush in 2004 won 62 million, and 50.4 million in 2000. 

In 2020, voter participation at 66.7% of the electorate accounts for Trump and Biden’s historical totals. How does that percentage compare to the last five presidential elections? Take a look:

2016 – 61.4%

2012 – 61.8%

2008 – 63.6%

2004 – 63.8%

2000 – 59.5%

Whether voting participation at 66.7% is a 2020 “never again” abnormality is a good question. Indeed, it was due to the extreme partisanship and dire circumstances facing the nation – which one hopes will never be repeated. But for clues, watch the 2022 midterm elections. During the 2018 midterms, there was a record participation rate of 53.4%, up from 41.9% in 2014, and 2018 heralded 2020’s record turnout.

The First President From the “Silent Generation”

At age 78, Joe Biden is the oldest president to be elected and the first from the “Silent Generation” born between 1928 and 1945.

After Dwight Eisenhower, every postwar president was born either part of the Greatest Generation (1901 to 1927) or a Baby Boomer (1946 to 1964). The switch between these two large and influential generations occurred in 1992 with no going back — until Biden broke the chain.

Here are the seven Greatest Generation presidents in order of serving and their birth year:

John Kennedy: 1917

Lyndon Johnson: 1908

Richard Nixon: 1913

Gerald Ford: 1913

Jimmy Carter: 1924

Ronald Reagan: 1911

George H. W. Bush: 1924

Followed by five Baby Boomer presidents:

Bill Clinton: 1946

George Bush: 1946

Barack Obama: 1961

Donald Trump: 1946

Back to Silent Generation:

Joe Biden: 1942

In modern American presidential history, once a generation comes of age and gains a White House foothold, that generation serves for decades — even fending off attempts to go backward. For example, in 1996, the Greatest Generation’s Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. Then in 2008, the Silent Generation’s John McCain lost to Barack Obama. Whether or not the Baby Boom generation has run its presidential course remains to be seen. (VP-elect Kamala Harris was born in 1964 at the tail end.) And for now, Joe Biden’s generation is no longer “silent” in the White House, with the “going back” quirk just another abnormal political occurrence in a bizarre year.

Largest GDP Quarterly Decline Followed by Largest Quarterly Increase

Never in U.S. history has there been such a severe decline in the gross domestic product as we saw in the second quarter of 2020 with  -31.4%.

That is what happened when a robust economy was forced to shut down due to the COVID pandemic. No previously recorded quarterly decline even comes close to what occurred during April, May, and June. For comparison, during the Great Recession (2007-2009), the largest GDP decline was “only” 8.4%, recorded during the fourth quarter of 2008.  Decades earlier, in the first quarter of 1958, there was a 10% decline.

Then, in the third quarter of 2020, growth was 33.4%, a phenomenal swing.

Never before and likely never again will our nation experience such back-to-back lows to highs. Meanwhile, recovery is happening, albeit slowly. According to Kiplinger’s 2020 forecast, the estimated GDP growth rate will be -3.5%. Another organization predicts GDP will shrink by -3.6%.

By comparison, the GDP growth rate in 2019 was 2.3%, down from 2.9% in 2018.

A notable frame of reference was in 1932, the worst year of the Great Depression, when GDP shrunk by -13%.

Therefore, even though the U.S. economy experienced a “never before” swing between the second and third quarters, potentially ending 2020 with “only” about a -3.5% decline in growth is still terrible, but not catastrophic.   

Record-Breaking One Year Increase in the National Debt 

At this writing, the national debt is $27.5 trillion, up from $22.7 trillion in 2019. This one year increase of $4.8 trillion is a “never before” statistic. But “never again” is unlikely based on this number: The U.S. Debt Clock projects that in 2024, at current rates of spending, the national debt will increase to $49.1 trillion. That averages to a $5.4 trillion increase every year over the next four years.

In perspective, and for now, the current one-year debt increase is alarming. For example, in 1980, the debt was $934 billion. Ten years later, in 1990, it had jumped to $3.2 trillion. Then in 2000, it was $5.6 trillion. By 2004 it climbed to $7.5 trillion. And in 2017, the debt had crept up to $20.2 trillion. Currently, and only three years later, the national debt has increased by $7.3 trillion to $27.5 trillion and climbing fast.

Remember when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility? Now, get ready for the “tax and spend” Democrats.

Though 2020 has been a year with numerous “never again/never before” events and occurrences, the one-year national debt increase of $4.8 trillion represents a future acceleration due to off-the-charts spending that will continue unabated — and could be our national undoing.

As Our Divided Nation Votes, Pray for a Peaceful Outcome


MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from RealClearReligion on Oct. 30, 2020

Whether you are voting for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or another candidate, my Election Day advice is the same: Pray for a peaceful outcome.

Remember, this is America, the world’s oldest democracy that many believe the Almighty had a hand in birthing. Our nation grew into a proud example of representative government without election-related violence ever associated with the quadrennial exercise of choosing our next leader.

Yet today, there are numerous mainstream media reports of militias forming. For example, at NPR: “Five states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Oregon – have the highest risk of seeing increased militia activity around the elections: everything from demonstrations to violence.”

On Sunday, a veteran Republican strategist told me he firmly believes a civil war is imminent if Trump wins. And I say perhaps the reverse is possible if Biden wins. After all, on several occasions, the president has publicly stated that if he loses, the election was “rigged.” Not surprising, since I know many Republicans who think that all this talk about a landslide is good news for Trump, not Biden. (Check out Rush Limbaugh’s radio show transcript from October 14.)

Then a handful of Republicans and boatloads of Democrats have told me that a Biden landslide would guarantee the most peaceful outcome. How could Trump rally his troops for an uprising if the results are indisputable?

That is one question on a list of thoughts, observations, and prayers for my last column of this nature before Election Day.

Topping the list is a strong feeling that Americans are totally fed up with the Electoral College. If an alien from Pluto observed the election campaign, it would think that the United States had only six states. The alien would beam back to the Mothership that two of those states reigned supreme – Pennsylvania and Florida – and those voters ruled over Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona.

Currently, Republicans generally oppose ending the Electoral College after losing the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 and still winning the White House. Moreover, the GOP thinks that big “blue” population states would tilt the election to the Democratic nominee. But, if (BIG if) Biden were to win Texas – the “red” state “crown jewel” with 38 electoral votes – Republicans could quickly have a change of heart and start embracing a direct presidential popular vote.

Furthermore, a blue Texas under the electoral vote system would mean a significant chunk of the 2024 presidential campaign energy and attention would shift to winning the Lone Star State. Watch closely because, according to the RealClearPolitics Texas poll averages, Trump only leads Biden by 2.3 percentage points – within the margin of error in a state that Trump won by nine percentage points in 2016. If you are a Republican, pray that Texas does not go “blue.”

Second on my observation list, if Trump loses, his refusal to appeal to swing voters might prove to be his reelection campaign’s most egregious strategic error.

In June 2019, I wrote an RCP piece headlined “How GOP Insiders View Trump’s ‘Base-Only’ 2020 Strategy,” after being prompted and intrigued by a Trump quote in a Time Magazine interview. When asked if the president should reach out to swing voters, Trump replied, “I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that.”

Yikes, bravado red flag warning!

At that time, the economy was humming along strong, and “Contagion” was a virus horror movie. Still, Trump’s RCP job approval average in mid-2019 hovered around 44% – exactly where it is today – a remarkedly stable number that would foretell a tough reelection.

It’s worth quoting Mark McKinnon’s prescient quote from my piece. McKinnon was speaking from experience as the chief media strategist for George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign. Talking about Trump’s base-only strategy, he said, “It’s a risky strategy because in order to be successful, it means the campaign has to suppress turnout with Democrats to a level at or lower than it was in 2016. And given what we saw in 2018, Democratic turnout is likely to be significantly higher.”

Today’s record early-voting turnout and accusations of Republicans trying to suppress the vote are double scourges striking Team Trump that point to the inherent flaws of a base-only strategy. Not only lousy public relations for the GOP but when the voting pie grows, even a solid, static base serves up a smaller piece.

However, since the election is not over and if the president wins through prayers and Divine Intervention, then his base-only strategy will be considered brilliant but risky and non-traditional – like so much of Trump’s presidency.

Third on my list is a Trump action that could be looked back upon as a crucial turning point that did immense harm if he were to lose reelection. A poignant example of Trump serving his base with a “red meat all the time and to hell with blue land” attitude, this event took center stage Monday night when Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as the Supreme Court’s newest member. Justice Barrett, a lovely, brilliant, pious, well-qualified woman, offers Trump the opportunity to please his base, especially “values voters” like no other presidential act.

Yet, rushing her through Senate confirmation in record time could yield some Election Day consequences, impact Supreme Court decisions for decades to come, and result in “court packing” if Biden wins. But for this discussion, let’s focus on the Senate optics.

The nation is hurting. No new COVID-related economic relief packages were passed, and now the Senate is adjourned until after the election. What signal does that send to non-base voters? Trump and GOP Senate leaders only had the base in mind when they rammed Barrett through while millions were in the process of voting. Furthermore, were those antics on the minds of record numbers of women and minority voters waiting in long lines to vote on Monday and through Election Day?

My last and overarching thoughts about the 2020 election is that Americans are sick of division. They are tired of all the Trump drama. Americans want to be unified, and Joe Biden, flawed as he is, offers that hope for millions of voters. Will this be a “hope over fear” election where unity wins over division? Or will Americans vote to keep the status quo? Never forget that for the vast majority of religious Republicans, Trump is their hope for a better America and with thousands of prayer groups asking to keep him in office.

Nevertheless, if “Blue America” defeats Trump and the Republican Party with resounding force, then the president and GOP leaders should look in the mirror and say, “We were the dividers. We fostered fear over hope. But we will be back in 2022 and 2024 when the Democrats overreach and with a kinder gentler message.”

In the end, no matter who wins, America will be transformed with God’s help.

But in the meantime and on Election Day, pray for peace. And depending on the outcome, an orderly transition, if that be His Will.


Myra Adams is a media producer and conservative political and religious writer with numerous national credits. She is also Executive Director of www.SignFromGod.org, a ministry dedicated to educating people about the Shroud of Turin. Contact: MyraAdams01@gmail.com or on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

With GOP Voters, Trump’s ‘Likability’ Is, and Is Not, a Problem


MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from RealClearPolitics – Oct. 23, 2020

“But you can tell the story of why this year might genuinely be different as well! In particular, you can see how there may be many Republican-leaning voters who genuinely like his [Trump’s] policies but dislike him personally on such a visceral level that they cannot bring themselves to vote for him.” – Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics senior elections analyst, Oct. 20, “What a Big Biden Win Would Look Like.”

What Trende wrote is true, but also there is an opposite reaction — Republicans who admit that they personally despise the president but are voting for him anyway because they like his policies.

Such contradictions in voter behavior diminish the chances of predicting the presidential winner once afforded by a light-hearted, hypothetical question asking voters: “Who would you rather have a beer with?” 

(Note: After searching during this election cycle, I have yet to find that question asked by any polling company.)

When this theoretical, quadrennial beer question entered the political domain (around 2004, based on my research), pollsters concocted that pop-culture scenario to gauge “likability” as a factor in predicting outcome. To be clear, that poll served as a metaphor only, as two recent commanders-in-chief – and at least one candidate for the job – did not drink.  

After all, beer sharing aside, Americans are not only voting for a president but someone who they will invite into their homes over the next four years.

However, it just so happened that the “have a beer” question was a decent predictor of who would win the White House.

For example, in 2004, a poll found that 57.3% of undecided voters preferred President George W. Bush as a drinking buddy over Sen. John Kerry. Voters picked Bush even though he abstained from drinking, while Kerry — his “elite” Democratic challenger — was perceived as more “snobby.”  

During the 2008 election pitting Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, I read a revealing modern twist on the beer bro’ question from a young male’s perspective. He said that McCain would be “more fun one-on-one in a bar crawl.” But, Obama “would get me into better clubs” and “make sure the ladies paid equal attention to me.” Now that is some focus-group insight! A window into why Obama’s perceived magnetic personality and nice-guy image was key to his decisive 2008 win over McCain, who was considered more hot-tempered.  

In 2012 when President Obama was up for reelection, he again won the brew challenge with favorability numbers that surpassed his weaker job approval rating while running against Republican Mitt Romney. (As a member of the Mormon faith, Romney did not drink.)

That data from a June 2012 report on Mediaite also quoted an MSNBC guest describing Romney as a “geeky, awkward candidate on the campaign trail” who “doesn’t project a lot of personal warmth. He doesn’t seem the kind of guy you’d want to sit down and have a beer with.” Likeability was a significant factor in 2012, and the more popular Obama was overwhelmingly reelected.

Then in June 2016, Rasmussen reported polling results for the presidential candidate with whom “likely voters” would prefer to have a beer. Donald Trump won 45% to Hillary Clinton’s 37%, with 18% undecided.

Yet, Trump and Clinton were nearly tied at 42% to 41% when likely voters were asked which candidate “they’d prefer to invite home to dinner with them and their families.” Again, a large percentage, 17%, were unsure. Those mid-year polling results predicted the tough, unsettled race that lay ahead.

Four years later, we are less than two weeks from what everyone calls “the most important election of our lifetime.” (In a December 2019 RCP piece, I argued that voters think that way about every presidential election.)

Now let’s revisit the all-important beer-buddy question from a new perspective. Sean Trende’s analysis about Republicans who like Trump’s policies but won’t vote for him due to his unlikeable personality is supported by Politico’s Tom Alberta, who wrote:

“Generations of pollsters and journalists have fixated on the question of which candidate voters would rather have a beer with—a window into how personality translates into political success. Here’s the thing: Americans have been having a beer with Trump for the past four years—every morning, every afternoon, every evening. He has made himself more accessible than any president in history, using the White House as a performance stage and Twitter as a real-time diary for all to read. Like the drunk at the bar, he won’t shut up.”

Nonetheless, for the vast majority of Republicans, Trump is their favorite “drunk” who “won’t shut up,” and they don’t want him to. Millions of loyal, banner-waving, rally attending, MAGA hat wearers enthusiastically love and support the president because of what he has done, will continue to do, and are gladly voting to keep him in office.

Even Republicans who find Trump personally abhorrent will hold their nose and cast their vote with the other hand. I know this firsthand because these voters are my friends.

Last week while making a point in my controversial Trump piece, I included a text received the prior week from a dear friend who is a Republican leader explaining why I had to support Trump. It read in part:

“Pay attention to ISSUES, not personalities.”

In so many words, that is the mantra I hear repeatedly, and often this way: “Your house is on fire; do you care if the fireman is a jerk?”

Furthermore, reacting to my piece last week, RCP readers sent me numerous Gmails. These mostly angry messages exposed the schism facing our nation when millions of voters would relish that proverbial “beer” with Trump because of what he is doing for America. An example:

“Trump is one of the few people standing between mainstream American and the precipice.”

Also, I heard from Republicans who want to kick Trump out of that proverbial bar, such as this RCP reader:

“I have never seen the virtue of a group of people so much undermined by one person than the typical Republican has been by Trump.” The reader ended his long message writing, “Thank you and God Bless You for writing your article and making me feel less alone. I now have some hope.”

Finally, before I go drink a beer, here is an RCP reader’s message that best represents the view of most Trump-voting Republicans:

“Yes, President Trump’s tweets are boisterous in nature and hurt him. Yes, he certainly has flaws. At least I know he will fight for my rights and has demonstrated a willingness to do so. That’s why I’m voting for him…I can overlook everything else.”

Hey Trump campaign, an RCP reader just wrote your next commercial!

How the Hispanic Vote Is Growing in Power


MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE.

Reposted from RealClearPolitics – Sept. 18, 2020

Those who follow politics know that the future is uncertain for an overwhelmingly white Republican Party, due to clear-cut demographic trends. Voters who identify with the GOP are more likely to be male, over age 50, have no college degree, live in rural areas, and worship as Christians.

I joined the College Republicans in the aftermath of Watergate when the GOP was also in decline. Yet, our handful of student members were optimistic that conservative governing principles would eventually prevail. In 1980, that is precisely what happened: Ronald Reagan was elected.

Forty years later, conservative governing principles are largely passé, and Republican gatherings resemble a focus group of aging white Americans. Moreover, in 2020 whites are projected to be 66.7% of the voting total, dipping from 70% in 2016 and down steeply from 88% in 1980.

In the last three presidential elections, the Republican nominees lost the popular vote but won the shrinking white electorate by sizable margins. Trump in 2016: 57% to 37%. Romney in 2012: 59% to 39%. McCain in 2008: 55% to 43%.

Turning to the current White House race, a recent national Fox News poll found a significant shift in white voters’ presidential preference. Among likely white voters, President Trump is leading Joe Biden 54% to 43%. But Biden’s campaign is celebrating that 11-point gap because, in 2016, Trump won whites by 20 percentage points over Hillary Clinton. If these Fox poll percentages hold, Trump’s nine-point decrease among two-thirds of the electorate will make it statistically challenging for him to win the popular vote and, more importantly, the Electoral College.

In the meantime, election reporting is fixated on the Hispanic vote, and for good reasons. This is the first election when Hispanics are projected to be the nation’s largest minority voting group, at 13.3% of the electorate, surpassing the projected 12.5% for African Americans.

Compare those percentages to 2016 when Hispanics were at 11%, just behind African Americans at 12%. (In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama boosted African American participation to 13%, a record high.)

I vividly recall when the national Hispanic vote was only 7% around the turn of the century – and the mantra among anxious GOP strategists was “We can’t lose the Hispanic vote like we lost the black vote.” And in the next breath came some variation of “or we will go the way of the Whigs.” The strategists were fearful because “safe” red states such as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida had growing numbers of Hispanic voters who were voting Democratic at 60% or more. Unfortunately for my party, the continuation of that trend is exactly what has happened.

Since around 2000, when the Hispanic vote started to gain traction, the Republican Party’s success in attracting this group has been dismal. Over 60% of Hispanics have voted for the Democrat presidential nominee in every presidential election starting with 1992, shown below with one sub-60% exception.

What follows are Hispanic presidential voting percentages since that year and their share of voting totals shown in parentheses.

2016: Clinton 66%-Trump 28% (11%)

2012: Obama 71%-Romney 27% (10%)

2008: Obama 67%-McCain 31% (9%)  

2004: Kerry 53%-Bush 44% (7%)

2000: Gore 62%-Bush 35% (7%) 

1996: Clinton (record holder) 73%-Dole 21% (5%)

1992: Clinton 61%-Bush 25% (2%)

Currently there are numerous reports about how Biden is not attracting Hispanic voters compared to previous Democratic incumbents and nominees — especially Hillary Clinton. Therefore, the Trump campaign should be encouraged since numerous polls, such as the one cited earlier from Fox News, show that among likely Hispanic voters, Trump is earning 41% compared to 57% for Biden. (Remember that nationally in 2016, Trump only won 28% of Hispanics.)

But among registered Hispanic voters, the Fox poll shows Trump dipping to 38% with the same 57% for Biden. In a national You/Gov poll, again measuring registered Hispanic voters, Trump sinks to 30% with 52% for Biden and 12% “not sure.”

Next, let’s look at battleground Florida, where it is almost imperative that the president win the state’s 29 electoral votes if he hopes to secure a second term. Last week a St. Pete poll of likely voters had Biden winning the Hispanic vote 53.3% to Trump’s 41.5%.

This week, a Monmouth poll of registered voters shows Biden leading Trump among Florida’s Hispanics 58% to 32%. To compare, in 2016 Clinton lost the state to Trump by 1.2 percentage points, but won Florida’s diverse Hispanic vote 62% to 35%. So this survey is not good news for either candidate since both are down from 2016 percentages, but Trump’s deficit of 26 points mirrors his gap four years ago.

Now let’s examine the 2020 battleground states through the lens of 2016 Hispanic voting by party along with their percentage of the state’s voting total. Note that the states listed below are likely to increase their percentage of Hispanic voters by about two points or more this year. The states selected are all “toss-ups,” according to the RealClearPolitics 2020 Electoral College map and presented in order of the largest Hispanic electorate.

Texas: (D) 61% (R) 34% (24%)

Florida: (D) 62% (R) 35% (18%)

Nevada: (D) 60% (R) 29% (18%)

Arizona: (D) 60% (R) 30% (16%)

Pennsylvania: (D) 74% (R) 22% (6%)

Michigan: (D) 59% (R) 38% (5%)

North Carolina: (D) 59% (R) 39% (5%)

Wisconsin: (D) 63% (R) 34% (4%)

Ohio: (D) 68% (R) 28% (3%)

All we know for sure in mid-September is that 2020 will be another step up for the growing Hispanic electorate’s clout in close battleground states and, ultimately, the national election.

Circling back to the GOP’s “losing the Hispanic vote” mantra of decades ago, there was much discussion about how Hispanics “should be Republicans.” The thinking was that, in general, Hispanics are conservative, family-oriented, and religious, with many starting and owning businesses. However, in the ensuing years, this bloc has remained in the Democrat fold, likely because of immigration issues and “not feeling welcome” in the GOP.

By now, their two-thirds support for Democrats is a well-established voting pattern. That, combined with Asian voters also trending toward Democrats, the shrinking (and always split) white vote, and African Americans virtually in lockstep with Democrats, suggests a daunting long-term future for the Republican Party. But I remind myself that after President Ford’s 1976 election loss, I had the same thought.  

Of course, there is always the possibility that a GOP presidential candidate will emerge who “looks like the new America.” Already, three prominent Republicans come to mind, but let’s save that discussion for after November.

The Guns of November


Credit: Wade Vandervort/Las Vegas Sun via AP

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE.

Reposted from RealClearPolitics – Sept. 3, 2020

A veteran GOP political strategist told me he likens the current state of America to pressure building inside a volcano and predicts, “It will blow its top immediately after the election.”

Living in Florida, perhaps I watch too much of The Weather Channel, but my own election natural disaster analogy resembles the tracking of a monster hurricane as it moves closer to the U.S. mainland. Based on present conditions, we know at least a Category 3 will strike late on Nov. 3 and gather strength on Nov. 4 or 5. Virtually everyone is aware of the potential for devastation, and millions are taking pro-active precautions — buying guns and ammunition.

Last month, Fox Business reported, “Gun sales surged 135% year-over-year in July to about 2 million and have already matched all of last year, according to a report released earlier this week by research consultancy Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting. Sales were up 145% in June, 80% in May and 71% in April.”

A Brookings Institute report based on data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System found, “In just the first six months of 2020, approximately 19 million firearms have been sold, representing more than one firearm for every 20 Americans.”

Notably, gun sales dramatically rose in response to the George Floyd protests, resulting in 150,000 per day on June 2 and 3. August gun sales, to be reported in about a week, are projected to set another record — contributing to surpassing the total 2019 U.S. gun sales in only eight months. Women are part of this national gun buying spree, comprising 40% of first-time owners, according to NSSF, the trade association for the firearms industry.

More detailed information about female owners can be found in a recent survey by A Girl & a Gun Women’s Shooting League. A fast-growing national organization with 138 chapters, AG & AG promotes gun ownership, safety, training and “encouragement,” while redefining “girls night out” with shooting range social events. What about “suburban women” — that highly sought-after voting group? Some will be “packing heat” on Election Day, just as they do every day in their attractive “carry purses.”

All this gun-buying data reminds me of a song lyric — “Paranoia strikes deep/ into your life it will creep” — from 1967’s “For What It’s Worth.” This protest anthem by Buffalo Springfield was recently resurrected during the Democratic National Convention, but performed with a modern twist.

Americans have become paranoid about Election Day since the daily violence and upheaval we are seeing could be perceived as a warm-up for post-election chaos when either Joe Biden or Donald Trump “wins.” My quotation marks are in anticipation that determining the next president could take days, weeks, or even months — plunging our nation into levels of civil unrest not seen since the Civil War. We can expect various mail-in ballot controversies, along with potentially millions of rejected or fraudulent ballots to trigger something resembling the “Election Lawyers Full-Employment Act” with endless lawsuits at every state and local level.

The critical question is when the winner is ultimately announced, will the losing candidate accept defeat and calm his supporters? Will they listen to him anyway? In the interim, if both sides are claiming victory, chaos could reign. Municipal police departments, as we’ve already seen, are ill-equipped to handle large numbers of violent protesters. And based on explosive gun sales, these mobs might be armed.

With paranoia striking deep, unprecedented small arms sales have caused a nationwide ammunition shortage. In a July NRA report headlined “Manufacturers Struggle to Keep Up With Soaring Ammunition Sales,” a spokesman from Brownells, a weapons and ammo company, said, “Ammunition continues to fly off the shelves.”

The August edition of NRA Shooting Illustrated was headlined, “Ammo Shortage May Last Until 2021” and mentioned Winchester Ammunition experiencing a 17% increase in orders over the last three months.

A banner atop Winchester’s website reads:

PRODUCT DEMAND NOTICE: Like many manufacturers in the shooting sports industry, we are experiencing an extremely high demand for our products. We are continuing to manufacture and ship our high quality products on a daily basis. We appreciate the support and thank you for choosing Winchester.

John Fischer, CEO of Winchester parent company Olin, was quoted saying, “We expect this elevated level of demand to continue at least until the end of the year.” And why is ammo demand predicted to remain “elevated”? NRA Shooting Illustrated cited perhaps the understatement of the year:

“A Presidential election in November will have an impact on the prediction.”  

Circling back to election weather analogies, the most optimistic forecast is a “political hurricane” goes “out to sea.” Imagine a clear winner is declared late on Nov. 3 or early into the next day. There are peaceful coast-to-coast celebrations for our newly elected or re-elected president, and all is well across the “Armed States of America.”

Conversely, the hurricane could strike as a mild regional tropical storm or, worse case, strengthen to a Category 5. If the latter, our nation could “blow its top,” resulting in disrupted supply chains and nationwide curfews. There might be widespread deployment of the National Guard or the most dreaded scenario — President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, deploying federal troops and declares martial law.

After seeing that A Girl & a Gun has a chapter near me, it might be time for a “girls night out” at the gun range because November is coming.