OCTOBER 2020

Welcome to the October 2020 edition The Eclectic Kasper.

Here before another Presidential election, we have quite a bit in this edition about politics and society. This includes an “Eclectic Flashback” article that we provided in the October 2012 edition. While people talk about how divided we are today, that article points out how we have always been divided, and that should give us some comfort and perspective in the midst of the divisive rhetoric.

We also turn our modern cancel culture against itself, we discuss the price of promiscuity, and we sound off on how we think the November 2020 election will turn out.

Jesse Hornok continues his series on the wrath of God and we also continue our verse-by-verse commentary on the book of Romans.

We love your feedback, we only ask that it be civil and substantive. Feel free to comment on any of our posts on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page. Or you can send your kind questions or critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK: CULTURE/ SOCIETY: One Nation Divided

    The following article is reproduced from the October 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. It seems just as relevant and true today as it did eight years ago, before another significant election.

    Well, kids, we’re almost there at the big November 2012 election. This is the election that they’ve been telling us is “the most important of our lifetime.” I’ve even heard some say that this is the most critical election since 1860! One pundit proclaimed that this is the second revolutionary war, and some fear that we are more divided as a country than we have ever been (those individuals seem to have forgotten that pesky Civil War!).

    I wanted to put this manner of rhetoric – which comes from both sides of the aisle – into perspective. These statements are used to some degree or another almost every four years. I acknowledge that this is an important election; but every election is important. And we are certainly more polarized than we have been in the past.

    However, history dictates that we are not necessarily more divided than we have been in the past. That is, while we are currently very divided, we have always been divided. We have a record of being one nation divided, people who stand shoulder to shoulder in anxious sectarianism.

    Glancing through results of the popular votes in presidential elections since 1824 yields a fascinating and humbling truth; namely, we’ve always been a nation deeply at odds with one another. You can access these election records from a variety of sources including a basic chart of presidential election results from Wikipedia (whose stats in this instance I have verified elsewhere), or the very detailed charts from the Federal Election Commission’s online document Library, or at the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections website (see here for their data from the 2008 election). What follows are some fascinating tidbits from an analysis of the 46 presidential elections since 1824 (as the Wikipedia article suggests, “No popular votes [were] tabulated prior to 1824 election”).

    Of these 46 elections, eighteen of the winners received less than 50% of the popular vote, in some cases, but not all, owing to the presence of a third party candidate. A few of these below-50% winners became some of our most influential presidents, including Abraham Lincoln (39.65% in 1860), Bill Clinton (43.01% in 1992), and John F. Kennedy (49.72% in 1960).

    In sixteen of these 46 elections, the winner earned just barely above half of the popular vote, specifically, between 50% and 55%. This again, demonstrates the deep division that has always characterized our nation. These contests include Martin van Buren’s slim victory of 50.79% in 1836 and George W. Bush’s second term victory in 2004 with a slender 50.73% majority. Also, the 1880 contest gave the victory to James A. Garfield by a mere 9,070 vote margin. But even the victories closer toward the 55% level, such as those of Andrew Jackson in 1832 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, both of which garnered 54.74% of the popular vote, could hardly be trumpeted as overwhelming mandates from a unified electorate.

    In only four of these 46 elections since 1824 did the victor win with over 60% of the vote, and the highest popular vote, received by Johnson in 1964, was only 61.05%. That is, in even the most “decisive” election, the winner still had virtually four of ten voters cast a ballot against him! And two of these four big winners included the notorious Richard Nixon (60.67% in 1972) and the corrupt and virtually useless Warren G. Harding (60.32% in 1920).

    Even a few of the more renown two-term presidents never procured a majority of the popular vote in either of their victories including Grover Cleveland (48.85% in 1884 and 46.02% in 1892), Woodrow Wilson (41.84% in 1912 and 49.24% in 1916) and Bill Clinton (43.01% in 1992 and 49.23% in 1996).

    While these elections demonstrate the division that Americans have always had, the numbers also betray the fickle nature of the electorate. In the most glaring example, Nixon went from a pathetic victory with 43.42% of the popular vote in 1968 to a stunning win of 60.67% in 1972, only to leave office in shame a few years later.

    In summary, of the 46 elections, 29 of the contests (63% of them) were awarded to winners who only earned between 45% to 55% of the popular vote, including the meager 47.28% won by Zachary Taylor in 1848 to the mere 52.87% earned by Barack Obama in 2008.

    The results of this historical survey should actually be encouraging, rather than depressing. Media pundits, who have a vested interest in trying to sensationalize news, point out how split we are as a nation now, and there may be some truth to the idea of polarization. The conservative center of balance has shifted right, which many talking heads like to call the “extreme” right. And the liberal average has slipped toward pure socialism. That is, the right has demonstrably become more conservative, and the left has demonstrably become more liberal. However, the vast philosophical differences that exist between Americans now have always divided us, and probably will continue to do so.

    So, let’s keep the rhetoric in check. We are divided, but we have always been divided, and the presidential elections since 1824 bear that out. If your presidential choice doesn’t get in the White House this year, that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the Republic, and the problem of partisanship in America is not new.

    The United States is strong; we will survive; we are resilient. America, in some form or another, will continue to stand. And we may continue to stand divided, but at least we will continue to stand divided together.

ROMANS: Joy in Tribulation, Romans 5:3-5

    What a year it’s been with a pandemic, an impeachment, political rifts, and urban riots, not to mention the numerous financial, relationship, health, and job difficulties that we all face.

    Is there a purpose to this array of trials and is it possible to find some joy in the midst of these tribulations?

    The one who has trusted in Jesus Christ as her or his Savior has been saved and justified; Jesus’ own righteousness has replaced the sinfulness and transgressions of anyone who believes in Christ’s death and resurrection. We appropriate the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial death and life-giving resurrection through faith in Christ.

    But in addition to providing us forgiveness from sins and eternal life, justification also helps us maintain joy amidst trials and difficulties, and Paul explains this in Romans 5:3-5.

    In Romans 5:1-2, Paul delineated some benefits of our justification; because we have been declared righteous and justified by God through faith, we have received peace, grace and hope. Paul begins v. 3 with the phrase, “but not only that” (v. 3), which is like when you hear someone on an infomercial say, “But wait, there’s more!” There are many benefits that we receive when we believe in Christ as our Savior; we may spend the remainder of this mortal life and much of eternity learning about the profound advantages of justification.

    Here in v. 3, Paul counter-intuitively asserts that we can rejoice and exult in “tribulations.” The word thlipsis means “trouble, distress, hard circumstances, suffering,” and is the same word used of the Great Tribulation at the end of this age (Matt 24:21; Rev 7:14). Usually, however, it refers to present difficulties, persecution and struggles that believers face in the present time (John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Rom 8:35; 12:12; 2 Cor 1:8; Eph 3:13; 1 Thess 1:6; Jas 1:27; Rev 1:9; 2:9).

    Being grateful or excited about one’s own sufferings does not make sense on the surface. That doesn’t feel right to people. That is why the next word, “knowing” is so important. While feelings tell us that we don’t like sufferings and that there seems to be no value to the trials we go through, wisdom, experience and Biblical knowledge demonstrate that suffering can have beneficial ramifications for our spiritual lives.

    Specifically, there is something that tribulations “bring about” or “produce.” Tribulations cause or produce “patience” or “perseverance.” I believe that Paul is using a customary nuance in this phrase, suggesting that tribulations “should” or that they “customarily” produce patience. This, of course, is not always the case. For many unbelievers, the difficulties of life turn them away from God. Many believers, too, do not allow persecution and antagonism to nurture patience and perseverance, but they use these as excuses to fall away and abandon the joys of their faith (Matt 13:21).

    But growing in patience is just one step in the process of maturity that trials can encourage. In verse 4, Paul notes that increased perseverance helps develop our character. The Greek word here is dokime meaning “character, worth; proof, evidence,” and it refers to how someone’s quality or character has been tested and proven (the word also occurs in 2 Cor 2:9, 9:13, 13:3, and Phil 2:22). How does patience produce proven authenticity? The answer seems simple: those who have genuine faith and a legitimate passion for Christ will persevere through difficulty. They demonstrate their authenticity through their patience and perseverance, and their authenticity is bolstered through their trials.

    Paul continues that this authenticity produces “hope,” or a greater attention to realities of the future than the circumstances of the present. If our faith is more genuine, proven and authentic, it will be focused on eternal reward, pleasing the unseen God, and desiring the joys of glorification. Sufferings help believers to take less stock in this life, and to give more attention in the next.

    Is there a danger that at the end of this process of enduring trials and learning patience, that one would end up feeling disappointed? Paul notes in v. 5 that hope should not disappoint, because it means that we have God’s love and God’s Holy Spirit present with us now.

    The reason that hope does not disappoint is because a measure of blessing and certainty of that hope provides reassurance in the present time. Specifically, Paul says that the love of God is “poured out” in the hearts of believers. This verb is used for the pouring out of substances, or the shedding of blood, or even the pouring out of God’s eschatological wrath (it is used nine times in Revelation 16). It is used four times in the NT in reference to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which is helpful for appreciating Rom 5:5; though the “substance” that is poured out in this verse is the love of God, the means by which this love is poured out is the Holy Spirit. The love that the members of the Godhead have toward one another overflows on to God’s people by means of the work of the Spirit in believers’ hearts.

    Another point about the word “pour out”: The verb in Greek as well as in English indicates a dramatic amount that is poured out. In the wine/ wineskin imagery, the wine almost completely leaves the broken wineskin (Matt 9:17; Luke 5:37). The overturned coin containers were presumably emptied of their contents (John 2:15). The apocalyptic bowls, too, are presumably emptied, as well (Rev 16). When the mention is made of the shedding of blood, it presupposes a fatal amount of blood loss (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:50; Acts 22:20; Rom 3:15). The implications here for our interpretation of Rom 5:5 are far happier: this is not a “trickle” or “shower” of God’s love, but a flood and deluge of God’s love, pleasure, and enablement which will always be sufficient and abundant for the believer to achieve what God has called us to endure and accomplish.

    This transaction is accomplished “by means of” the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit is a permanent gift given by God “to us.” That is, the Holy Spirit provides a permanent channel of love, encouragement, strengthening, and enablement for the difficulties and challenges that we face.

    We often wonder why we have to go through trials and endure difficulties. Perhaps, however, that is precisely the key. It is exactly on account of enduring trials that we learn patience and that we are able to know and experience joy from God. It is through the difficulties like those in the year 2020 where we are really able to appreciate the salvation that we have, as well as the peace and love that God abundantly provides to His people.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: The Eclectic Kasper Confronts Cancel Culture

    We hear all the time about the cancel culture. And some people like Louis C.K., R. Kelly and Jussie Smollett had good reason to be canceled.

    But it seems like some good, smart, and funny people get canceled recklessly. Who makes these decisions? Who gave certain people the power and ability to judge and cancel others?

    Well, I figure, two can play at this game. If others can use cancel-power, then so can we. Below is an eclectic assortment of the kinds of people that merit an eclectic cancel!

    First, I’m canceling anyone who has the audacity and historical myopia to declare that this election in November is “the most important election of our lifetimes.” Unless your lifespan mirrors that of a mosquito, then this simply can’t be the most important election in our lifetimes. I know that because we have been told that every other presidential and mid-term election for the last twenty years was the most important in our lifetimes. Each one would affect the balance of power in the country, and change the USA permanently. Well guess what: The USA is still here. It has endured good leaders and bad leaders. We are resilient. This rhetoric from both the left and the right is childish and insufferable. It has nothing to do with informing people, but this kind of rhetoric is used only to get people to tune into increasingly pathetic news networks and whip us into a panicked frenzy!

    Speaking of the networks, I’m canceling them, too, whether they’re left, right, and middle (though, honestly, there aren’t any in the middle anymore!). Yes, we’re canceling the news networks, because they’re not news networks anymore, they are only opinion networks. I just wish that any of them had enough honesty to admit that they were opinion networks. NBC, CNN, Fox News, and the rest exist only to endorse a party and a president, and that strategy completely skews everything that they do.

    Speaking of presidents, I am canceling anyone who is glad for the illness of or who wishes death upon anyone else. I would never be glad for a sickness to befall someone from the other party, and I don’t celebrate the death of a senator, president, or supreme court justice. I would not be grateful for any politician on either side of the aisle to come down with Covid-19, and no matter who did, I would wish them well and pray for them. Additionally, it just so happens that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provides a timely and strategic opportunity for the GOP; that doesn’t mean that we are glad that she died. When our politics surpass our human decency, then there is something wrong with our politics.    Speaking of RBG, I am cancelling anyone who celebrates Justice Ginsburg as an activist. Perhaps people don’t realize that the role of a judge is not to have an agenda or be an activist; they are to judge according to the Constitution and according to U.S. laws, not according to their own or their party’s political and social aspirations. And those who believe that RBG broke some kind of glass ceiling conveniently forget that the first woman on the supreme court was Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan, and she served a respectable quarter-century from 1981 to 2006. A judge should not be an advocate nor an ideologue, but simply a judge; those who praise RBG as an activist or a pioneer apparently don’t understand her role as a judge.

    Speaking of judging others, I am hereby officially canceling face mask shamers. Many in the area where I live don’t take this face mask thing seriously. I try to wear mine in public more for propriety than anything. But I forgot it recently when I dashed into the Walgreens to grab a battery and some Pringles. When approaching the gentleman who worked there, I apologized for forgetting my mask in the car. He said it was fine, and helped me find the battery that I was looking for. I thanked him, and went and fetched two cans of Pringles. When coming back up front, a masked lady stopped in front of me, about eight feet away, and told me that she forgave me for not wearing a mask. While we all long for forgiveness on one level or another, I was shocked by the self-righteous virtue-signaling of this kook! She then proceeded to tutor me on all the places she puts her mask in the car so that she never forgets to wear it into the store.

    Of course, if you have to tell your child or your husband to wear their mask, that’s one thing. But to stop a complete stranger and bestow on them some kind of social absolution takes a high level of arrogance. This face mask shaming and virtue signaling is getting old in a society where we’re already a bit on edge. So, keep your comments about my mask or my lack of mask to yourself. And, you can keep your fake clemency to yourself, too, or otherwise, I’ll cancel you!

    Finally, for now, at least, I’m cancelling anyone who suggests that the sitting president doesn’t have the right to appoint a nominee for the supreme court. It doesn’t matter how close we are to an election. When someone gets elected as U.S. president, they serve a four-year term; they are not president for three-and-a-half years or for three-and-three-quarters years. They are inaugurated in January and their term extends to inauguration day in January four years later, barring some unfortunate and unforeseen circumstance. I would say the exact same thing if it were a president from another party trying to get someone on the bench in the weeks before an election. There are several examples in our nation’s history where a president has made an election-year nomination to the supreme court, and some presidents have even made such nominations during the lame duck session after the election and before the inauguration (which was in March up until 1933). A sitting president has the duty and right to nominate a supreme court justice to the bench, and the Dem’s wouldn’t hesitate to push a nomination through if the situation were reversed.

    I hereby declare that these eclectic groups of people are canceled. No more mask-shaming, election fear-mongering, and cheering for the death or illness of someone from the other party. You’re cancelled!   

    Stay-tuned, I’m sure we’ll have more people and groups to cancel in a future edition!

    So, who would you like to cancel? Send your thoughts, comments and critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll include good feedback anonymously in a future edition!

THEOLOGY: God’s Wrath: Present or Future? Part 2

        By Guest Author Jesse Hornok

    We have asserted that when the Bible describes the wrath of God, it overwhelmingly refers to God’s present anger against sin. In fact, the consequences of sin is the wrath of God.

    In the OT descriptions of God’s character found numerous times in every genre of the OT, and found first in the mouth of God, He says this about Himself: Exodus 34:17-18 “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

    This description of God then expands numerous times adding, He is “slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.” God’s wrath against sin does have consequences, even to the third and fourth generation, but He is slow to anger, quick to forgive and pardon. Understanding how God visits iniquity to the third and fourth generation is not unfair, it’s simply inevitable. We all understand that our sinful habits are often the product of what we’ve seen or inherited from our parents, and they from their parents. It’s very difficult to break sinful cycles within a family; understanding one’s past family history goes a long way to breaking the cycle.

    Paul understood all this, which is why he laser focuses on God’s wrath and develops this theme in Romans. Here is an overview of every use of the word “wrath” in Romans.

God’s wrath in Romans

The theme statement in Romans

    God’s righteousness is revealed in Romans 1:16-18 “on the basis of faith directed by faith, ‘The one who is righteous by faith shall live’” (translation from Lopez, Romans Unlocked, p. 41). The good news of the gospel reveals both divine righteousness and divine wrath, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

    Paul’s theme in Romans discloses that the gospel presently reveals the power to deliver from sin (the Righteousness of God) and the destructive power of sin (the Wrath of God).

    Many commentators point out that God’s wrath is a present reality in Romans 1. Here is a list put together by my dad, Ken Hornok, a retired pastor of nearly 40 years, defining God’s wrath in Romans 1:

God’s wrath revealed by Law and Government

    Clearly God’s wrath is a present reality against sin. And this theme should guide how we see wrath throughout Romans. Romans 3:5 rhetorically asks whether Jewish unbelief impinges upon God’s righteous ability to inflict wrath. Logically it doesn’t because otherwise God couldn’t judge the world. A litany of charges indicts both Jew and Gentile in sinfulness and reveals God as righteous judge.

    But God can only justly have wrath when the law is revealed, which is one reason why God made Abraham a nation to reveal His commandments, statutes, and laws (Gen 26:5). “The law brings about wrath” (4:15) because only by a revelation of law can there be transgression, bringing about God's justly wrathful response.

    One of God’s tools is human government, which is “God’s minister, an avenger of wrath on him who practices evil” (13:4). We can therefore humbly “be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake” (13:5). Instead of always being concerned about our own retaliation, human government when rightly applied against evil can do God’s work. We then live this out as we “give place to wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (12:19). By doing this we can live peaceably with all men.

    In Part 3 we will examine what Romans says about wrath focusing on its controversial uses in chapters 2 and 11, and then we will apply what “saved from wrath” means in 5:9.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: The Price of Promiscuity

    A few years ago, we were given a price-tag on promiscuity, and it was a very specific amount: $1,000.

    In 2012, a college student named Sandra Fluke became the left’s princess of promiscuity during debates about reproductive rights. Fluke has resurfaced in the news again, reminding us of why she became famous, or infamous, several years ago.

    Sandra Fluke used her fleeting fame in 2012 to make a run for the 26th district in the California State Senate, in which she was definitively defeated by fellow Dem Ben Allen 61.1% to 38.9%. She came back on the scene here in 2020 when she criticized President Trump for awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, with whom she had a famous feud back in 2012. But we will always be grateful to her for her contribution to the discussion about health care in 2012 when she gave us a price-tag on promiscuity.    For years, the left claimed that the GOP was trying to keep women from being able to use or purchase contraceptives. This is curious since a wide variety of contraceptives are readily on many street corner drug stores to people of all genders, races, creeds, and political persuasions. This left many of us scratching our heads, wondering what we were doing to prevent certain women from living in their licentious ways.

    How costly were these licentious ways? In a February 2012 hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Fluke testified that her contraceptives cost some of her fellow students up to a thousand dollar a year. Rush Limbaugh especially got in trouble when he dared to query about the character of an individual who required spending that much money on contraceptives.

    We usually talk about the cost of promiscuity, the cost to one’s emotions, health, the potential to contract diseases, the relational insecurity. But we don’t often consider the actual financial cost. But it does point to some ironies: a person who claims to be responsible enough to spend $150,000 for a three-year law degree can’t scrape together $3,000 for his or her lifestyle choices over the same period of time.

    Some individuals have certain names for people who engage in such high levels of promiscuity that their lifestyle costs $1,000 annually for this alone. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a few of these words. Though he has since apologized, his name for someone who pays that much contraception every year seems entirely appropriate.

    Perhaps more important than the label, however, is the character of an individual who not only commits this much promiscuity but who then expects others to pay for it. Fluke’s assertion is that contraceptives should be covered by health care so that she and her fellow-students can live their lifestyle for free. This is the character of the person that liberals use as a poster child for uninhibited promiscuity in an effort to get the rest of us to foot the bill for their choices. Interesting the moral bastions of culture that champion liberal causes: Margaret Sanger, Larry Flynt, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, and now Sandra Fluke.

    People seem to forget that human intercourse is such a beautiful, life-generating institution that it should cost something and that it is never free. The first time one engages in it in the proper marital context, it knits two people together in a superlatively profound and lasting way; but that stability and joy costs each individual some of their own personal freedom. The first time one engages in it outside the proper context of marriage, the cost is a loss to that individual of a priceless and unrecoverable gift that he or she would thereafter never be able to offer to the one they marry. The fleeting gratification of an affair costs profound trust, which one may never re-attain. And of course, even in a marriage situation, if you want to prevent pregnancy it costs you something, either a little for short-term solutions and more for permanent fixes. And post-conceptual contraceptives and abortifacients cost something, too. They are really not “birth” control, but “death” control; they cost a legally and socially innocent human life.

    If someone wants live this way, then they have every right in this country to do so in ways that are not illegal. In a relatively free society, you have the freedom to live the way you want to live; you just don’t have the freedom to compel others pay that bill.

    Of course, there is another method of birth control that is rarely mentioned in public discourse. This method is 100% effective and it doesn’t require government intervention. It is also completely free and comes without any expectation that I should help you foot the bill for it. This backwater, antiquated, near-obsolete method for birth control is called abstinence. Perhaps those who can’t afford “conventional” birth control should give this free method a try.

    Here’s another question: If the government is expected to support habitual and recreational intercourse, why shouldn’t I expect the government to pay for my habits and recreation? I like biking, fishing and music, but I don’t expect tax-payers to subsidize my blown bike tires and fishing lures. We fund those who have bad sexual habits and chemical addictions; nobody helps me fund my CD-purchasing addiction (seriously, I have purchased way too many CDs!).

    I habitually and recreationally write my own web journal; why should I not expect the government to pay for my web expenses (after all, my free speech is much more in line with the U. S. Constitution than someone else’s free sex!). If the government provides funds to many people for day care, food stamps, and college tuition, why shouldn’t it pay for my web domain costs? Where, precisely does this madness stop?

    So, here’s my deal for Sandra Fluke and others in her one-grand-per-year club: since you don’t pay for my habits and recreation, don’t expect me to pay for yours. If you chose to engage in $1,000 per year in promiscuity, then pay for it yourself!

    One of the most beautiful acts of human nature is also an expensive act; it will cost you in one way or another. You cannot have promiscuity that is both consequence-free and financially-free.

    Promiscuity is expensive; Fluke said it herself. It comes with a high price tag; just don’t expect me to foot the bill.

POLITICS: Why I Think Trump Will Win the Election

    We here at The Eclectic Kasper are not professional pollsters, and we do not have inside information. But we’re just reading the signs of the times and trying to pull them together into a cohesive trajectory.

    My honest opinion is that I strongly think that Donald Trump will win the November 2020 election over Joe Biden. Here’s why:

    Violent urban riots are always bad for Democrats. Most people (other than the urban rioters) like peace in their streets. They don’t like the instability that comes with urban riots, and the GOP is better-known as the party of law and order. This is not just an impression, however. Princeton professor Omar Wasow studied public opinion in the 1960s and found that urban unrest had a negative effect for democrats. Democrat political analyst David Shor reminded us of this back in May, and summarized Wasow’s study: “Post-MLK- assassination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon.” While protestors, looters and rioters may feel like their anger and violence is justified, their methods may backfire by encouraging voters to support a strong GOP leader.

    A good economy is always good for Republicans. Strong economic conditions help the GOP, and bad economic conditions hurt Republicans. This may explain why Barack Obama was elected in both 2008 and 2012; the first time, he was elected when there were bad economic conditions not of his making, and the second time he benefited from bad economic conditions that he was responsible for. The Dow Jones Industrial Average demonstrates a fairly steady climb over the months since the deep downturn and shutdowns because of Covid. This gradual climb means that we are getting close to returning the economy to pre-Covid levels, and this trajectory bodes well for Trump and the GOP. Like James Carville noted back in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid!” There are many social causes that take up a lot of ink and airtime today. However, most people still vote their pocketbook; they want lower taxes, less regulation, cheaper gas, and lower prices. A stronger economy helps make these aspirations into practical realities for most voters.

    Elections always favor the incumbent. While ten to fifteen percent of the population verges on being obsessed about politics, most of the population doesn’t care as much. They are not familiar with scandalous stories regarding “Scooter” Libby, “Operation Fast and Furious,” David Petraeus, or the Steele dossier. Most Americans see a familiar name, and they cast their ballot for it. Incumbency only barely favored Obama, but it favored him nonetheless despite the still struggling economy in 2012 and Obama’s lack of first-term accomplishments. Even those who study it do not fully understand the “incumbency advantage,” but it is a powerful advantage nonetheless that I think will benefit Trump more than the current polls are acknowledging.

    Trump is doing better in some polls than he was four years ago against Hillary. It is a foregone conclusion that the polls skew toward the left, because they tend to over sample Democrats. Some of these unintentionally under sample Republicans, who are less likely to respond to polls, to answer their phones when they get calls from unknown numbers, or who don’t like answering a poll via text. But even given that, the comparison between 2016 and 2020 is intriguing. Here are some observations from Doug Schoen in a Fox News article: “In Pennsylvania, Biden leads by 3-points, yet Clinton led by 6-points at this point in 2016.” Or another example: “In Michigan, Biden has an average 7-point lead, yet Clinton led by over 11-points at this stage.” And again, “In Wisconsin, Biden leads by approximately 6-points, while Clinton led by 7-points.” And despite these examples of Hillary leading in the polling in 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Thought the polls look bad for Trump now, many looked worse four years ago, and he won anyway. This is a good sign for him this time around.

    There is no October surprise for Trump. There has not been an October surprise this time around, except perhaps more revelations about Hunter Biden’s involvement with Russia, China and Ukraine, as well as information suggesting that Joe Biden may have had money funneled to him from foreign sources through Hunter. Or perhaps Trump’s October surprise was contracting Covid, which just had the effect of making him more empathetic. But what else can be said about Trump? He has been exonerated regarding Russia, regarding impeachment, regarding his taxes, and regarding a host of other issues. There are no more surprises, which brings me to the power of the familiar . . .

    Trump is known and familiar. In the 2016 election, people were unsure about Trump. Some voted for Hillary because she was a woman, and some did because she was a well-known factor in politics. Trump was unknown; how would he govern and how conservative would he be? But he now has a conservative track record of good governance and conservative values. By now we know him: you either like his style, his tweets, his tactics, or you don’t. Ben Shapiro has recently affirmed that he will vote for Trump this time around though he didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I think there will be many conservatives, Republicans, and maybe even some never-Trumpers, who weren’t so sure in 2016, but are much more certain about and familiar with Trump now.    The Trump rallies are significant indicators. The numbers and enthusiasm at Trump rallies demonstrate a fervor that is simply lacking on the Democrats side. Joe Biden has drawn dozens, perhaps hundreds of people to his rallies over the last several months, with few exceptions. On October 21, allegedly super-popular former president Barack Obama held a drive-in rally in Philadelphia in support of Joe Biden, and about three hundred cars showed up. At a rally in Florida on Saturday, October 24, Obama drew about 280 cars and an approximated 400 people. Consider the contrast with the thousands and even tens-of-thousands that attend Trump rallies. At these rallies he speaks plainly, directly, and inserts entertaining jabs at opponents and at the press, as well. Working in Joe Biden’s favor is the reality that there doesn’t seem to be the same hatred for him than there was for Hillary; people just didn’t like her for a variety of reasons, both related to personality as well as policy. That said, there does seem to be a palpable lack of enthusiasm for Biden, if not hatred or disgust. There seems, on the other hand, to be no lack of enthusiasm on the GOP side.

    Comparisons to 2016, concerns about the accuracy of polling, and the sheer enthusiasm on the GOP side lead me to believe that Trump will win the election; these factors suggest that this may be an even larger win for Trump than most people have considered possible.