What if Biden is actually good at this and Twitter, whose cognoscenti insisted for the entire primary that he wasn't, is actually bad at this?
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) October 12, 2020
Just a thought. pic.twitter.com/xCJgkuEES2
What if Biden is actually good at this and Twitter, whose cognoscenti insisted for the entire primary that he wasn't, is actually bad at this?
Just a thought.

Biden's extraordinary polling strength, which by the way predates the coronavirus outbreak, is as much a repudiation of the political elite's collective wisdom as Trump's victory was. We should be talking more about why the elites keeping getting the electorate completely wrong. https://t.co/PyWSIaAo53
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) October 12, 2020
Here's one obvious reason this keeps happening: A constant overemphasis on the votes and issues of the young, who don't typically vote, and an disinterest in the votes of seniors, who are most likely to vote. Trump won them in 2016. Biden is winning them in 2020. Take note! https://t.co/NRDymLybOi
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) October 12, 2020
Alternative:
— tetrakis[3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]borate (@betaturn) October 12, 2020
Biden is not that good at this, Trump is just deeply unpopular right now

Here is the straightforward disproof to the claim that "Biden is only winning because Trump is bad and unpopular": It's not just that Trump's favorability is awful. It's that Biden's favorability has shot UP as the campaign progresses and more voters see him. People like him! pic.twitter.com/DhY6tf23iK
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) October 12, 2020
Here is the straightforward disproof to the claim that "Biden is only winning because Trump is bad and unpopular": It's not just that Trump's favorability is awful. It's that Biden's favorability has shot UP as the campaign progresses and more voters see him. People like him! pic.twitter.com/DhY6tf23iK
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) October 12, 2020
More from Politics
You May Also Like
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the

chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project
starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".
P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!
https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".