I can before I make a decision, just in case.

I think that I'll probably take it. But here's the other interesting thing about this Oxford-AstraZeneca story. The accident may have discovered something that's really, really important, in the same way that yellow sticky notes were discovered by accident and I think penicillin was discovered by accident and a lot of things get discovered by accident. Could it be, and some of the scientists have speculated, that there is something about giving a half dose and sort of maybe priming your body a little bit, you know, it's like putting down a primer coat of paint or something, and then a month later when you give the full dose, what if that makes the vaccination way, way better?

Could it be that they accidentally discovered an effect that is monstrously important, which is if you give people a small dose of a drug, let your body acclimate, and then give them a bigger dose? Is that something that could work in other situations or is it something unique to this one vaccination? Or is it just bad data? Could be any of those things. But possibly it's a gigantic, possibly a gigantic discovery that we're just seeing the first glimmer of. Maybe. You never know. I like to look on the bright side.

Well, the big story of course is that Trump has authorized the GSA to fund and assist in the Biden transition. Does that mean that President Trump in his secret inner thoughts is really conceding? Well, we don't know his secret inner thoughts. We don't know them at all. But I would say if he is consistent with his past, he keeps his options open. Why wouldn't you? Everything we know about Trump is that he always keeps his options open. So he does have technically a path to the presidency, another term.

So the fact that he's doing something in case it goes the way most people think it's going to go, at the same time he's keeping his option open in court, etc., nothing wrong with that. Completely consistent and does not tell us his state of mind. In the same way that it made sense to do Operation Warp Speed by producing a bunch of vaccines before we had tested them just so we'd have them ready in case they worked. It's the same thing. Good risk management is what Trump did with Warp Speed. He said let's put a billion dollars into it or probably multiple billion to make the vaccines just in case they're safe. We'll find out later but we could always just throw the vaccines away if we have to.

So same reason they should do the transition, just in case it goes the way it looks like it's going to go, and still keep your options open.

So apparently there's some data out that 79 percent of Trump supporters believe the election was fraudulent. 79 percent. Now do you remember back in 2016 one of the biggest criticisms that I personally received was, "Scott, are you telling me you think that President Trump or candidate Trump at the time, are you telling me you think Trump is persuasive? Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any evidence he's persuasive." Well, how about convincing 79 percent of his supporters that an election had been thrown? You can't get much more persuasive than that.

Now keep in mind that persuasion tends to only work on your own team. It's not like the Democrats are persuading the Republicans or vice versa. That's sort of not a thing. Used to be a little bit but it's not really a thing at the moment. So watching Trump persuade his own base is really a remarkable thing. Do you think anybody else could have persuaded 79 percent of their base to think the election was rigged? Maybe. I don't know. But it's still pretty impressive, right? Yeah. Oh yes.

And then in the comments somebody's reminding me that 30 percent of Democrats think the election was fraudulent. 30 percent. That's about as persuasive as you can get. Or is it? We're going to get to that in a moment. We'll talk about whether it would be reasonable to assume, as these many people have, that the election was fraudulent in the face of, don't the Democrats tell us every single day there's no evidence? Where's all the evidence? If you have zero evidence, how could you possibly convince 79 percent of the people that fraud happened with zero evidence? How does that happen?

Well, it could be because there is evidence and Democrats just say there isn't. You know, I would say the sworn statements from over 200 people that they personally observed irregularities is evidence. So here's a question for you. Just hold this question in the back of your head because it will get funnier over time. All right, so we'll just put it in there now and let it simmer. It's going to get better. And here's the thought. Democrats have said that Trump has done tremendous damage in his first term and indeed one of the reasons for them wanting to replace him is to prevent the further tremendous damage that he would do.

So how long is it going to take Biden to fix all of that damage? And what was the damage? Can somebody remind me what the damage is that Biden is fixing? Is it the climate? Because there's a big difference in the climate opinion, right? But correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't the Trump administration lowered our emissions below the Paris Accords if we had stayed in them? So it doesn't look like there's much to fix in terms of the climate because we were actually doing great.

What about the Middle East? Will Biden go in there and fix everything that Trump broke in the Middle East? Well no, actually it looks like Trump fixed the Middle East or at least it's heading in the right direction. Israel's making friends with a number of neighboring countries like never before. Iran seems to be marginalized and things seem to be relatively less war-like than normal. So I don't know what he's fixing there.

How about the economy? Trump had the economy just humming along until coronavirus of course. Now will Biden fix the coronavirus? There's not much he can do for the economy. The economy's going to do what it does. But will Biden come in and on inauguration day he's going to come in and say, "People, people, wear your masks," and then people will? If this is my understanding of how this is going to work, people who had been under a Trump administration because he was a little less, let's say, assertive about wearing masks, he agrees with it but he's not really pushing it. It feels as if when Trump was, let's say, a little tepid, a little lukewarm about masks, that that caused people to wear fewer masks. That's the claim, right?

So when Biden becomes president, will you be more likely to wear a mask? So in the comments tell me. Because obviously the Democrats were all wearing masks, as my understanding. I mean you could fact-check that but my understanding is that since Democrats don't listen to Trump or they want to do whatever is the opposite he says, you would expect the Democrats were already wearing their masks, right? I mean sure, maybe sometimes they get caught without one but let's say generally they're wearing their masks.

Oh, in the comments you think I'm wrong. You think Democrats are not wearing masks. Well that doesn't make any sense. How could it be that Democrats are not wearing masks completely because they're not listening to Trump because they're Democrats? Oh well. Anybody who believes that Biden is going to tell the public to wear masks and then we just will, I don't think you understand how people work. I don't think he's going to fix the mask thing.

And how about if he does some kind of a national standard for the states? Are the states going to say, "Oh well that's what we're waiting for. We're waiting for that national standard"? I don't think so. I think the states are going to say, "We're all different. Every state's different. How about we know what we're supposed to do. We're listening to the same experts now. Why don't we do it our way and you do it your way and maybe we'll see who did better?" I don't know exactly what Biden's going to fix. Do you? Can you give me a list of all the things that Trump broke? What did he break? What did he break that's going to get fixed?

Because this is a very basic belief of the Democrats. Not only that Trump might do bad things but that he already broke stuff. Now let's say you say, "Scott, Scott's got the obvious one is the coronavirus. The United States has higher death rate than a lot of places and therefore Trump broke that." Now suppose I say, okay, let's take that as a given. If I accepted that that's true, isn't that in the past? Because how do you fix the past? Is Joe Biden going to use his time machine to go back and fix the past? I don't think that's an option.

So what is it he's going to do that would be that different than what Trump would have done if he had a second term? I feel like the mask wearing is going to be pretty similar. I feel like the shutdowns are going to be pretty similar. And I feel like the vaccines are going to come out and be delivered pretty similarly. So even if you accepted, oh we hate what Trump already did in the past and even if you accept that it was, you know, a mistake and caused X number of lives, even if you believe that, how does that translate into the future? Because now we actually understand the situation in a way we didn't before.

So now that we understand it better, still not quite informed but more informed, I would expect a Democrat and a Republican to look pretty much the same. You know, they might have a difference in what school. So did Trump break school? No, it looks like the Democrats broke that and the teachers unions. I think the teachers unions broke the schools. That wasn't Trump. He tried to break the teachers unions.

All right, s