8834 E 34 Rd Suite #131 25053 , Cadillac, MI 49601
(231) 577-6899‬

The 2020 City of Detroit General Election Results

Disclaimer: I am a Mugwump, a politically homeless conservative. Generally speaking, I view the world through the lens of issues vs. partisanship. I am objective, unhappy with "Republicans" as a whole but will NEVER EVER play for other team, Democrats.

The purpose of my research into the City of Detroit 2020 Election Results was to approach the data and analysis from an objective and unbiased perspective. Granted, deep down inside I was partially motivated by wanting to uncover voting irregularities and/or anomalies. Many conservatives believe there is a smoking gun, where is this smoking gun?

This article is a lengthy read, I would certainly appreciate if you read the whole article but for those that are limited on time or simply would like a Cliff Notes version, I have summarized observations, conclusions, and some recommendations below.

Observations & Conclusions

  • Comparing 2016 vs. 2020 popular election there is no proof, or smoking gun, of irregularities and/or anomalies in the city of Detroit.
  • Election data including Population, Total Eligible Voters, Registered Voters, Ballots Cast, Percentage Democrat vs. Republican in Detroit has been extremely consistent over 4 election cycles; 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020. The consistency is well within the reach of any standards of deviation.
  • Election data is easily and publicly accessible for elections from 2008 to 2020.
  • Prior to 2008, election data is not publicly accessible via the internet.
  • For presidential elections from 2008-2020, the city of Detroit has voted for Democratic candidates at a rate between 93-97% (97.87% to be exact).
  • In 2008 Detroit voted 97.87% for Democratic candidate Barack Obama and 97.53% for Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2012. OPINION: This is problematic.
  • For presidential election from 2008-2020, the city of Detroit has voted for Republican candidates at a rate between 1-5%. OPINION: This is problematic.
  • Considering all cities in the US with a population of greater than 500,000, Detroit has the biggest spread between percentage of Democrat vs. Republican, the closest city I have researched is 80/20 (NOTE: This is partially anecdotal, I have analyzed data from Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Memphis but not yet other big cities).
  • The same city clerk, Janice Winfrey, in Detroit has been responsible for all elections from 2008-2020.
  • Considering 2020 election results, once again, there are no irregularities or anomalies in relation to ANY election across 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, THOUGH over the course of 4 elections a 93/97 to 1/5 Democrat vs. Republican spread is in comparison to other big cities is an anomaly.
  • Considering the fact that Janice Winfrey has been responsible for all elections from 2008-2020 and there are what may be considered anomalies compared to other cities, a comparison of 2000 and 2004 election data vs 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 would provide more context into the history of presidential voting in Detroit.

Here is a copy of a paragraph from the end of this article;

The sidebar narrative regarding the Detroit City Clerk, in context, may or may not be significant to the conversation of election improprieties. Given that the results for all general elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) since the current City Clerk have had very consistent results. All presidential general election results between 2008 and 2020 fall within the range of 95-98% for Democrats and 1.5-5% for Republicans. Myself, I would certainly like to know the results, the data, the margins, and the spread for the elections BEFORE the current city clerk took office, i.e. 2000 and 2004. IF there is a lack of consistency between 2008-2020 vs. 2000-2004, than I firmly believe and would advocate for a MAJOR investigation into the City of Detroit Clerk's Office. Likewise, IF there is consistency between 2008-2020 vs. 2000-2004, than I would conclude Detroit is a Democrat bastion and that Republicans have historically ignored, neglected, and/or written off.

A Moral Dilemma

I shared my results with a handful of trusted friends and intellectuals across the political spectrum.

The general response from my left-of-center friends was; "I told you so, it's been a nothing burger since day one."

No offense to my left-of-center friends there are irregularities, anomalies, and levels of fraud during EVERY election. The goal and objective of every American I believe should; A) be aware of irregularities, and B) to have an interest and stake in understanding the scope and depth of these issues.

The general response from my right-of-center friends was (believe it or not); "That's great, but how are you going to make money with this?"

No offense to any of my right-of-center friends, I put time into this analysis without bias and without any consideration of monetizing the effort. I am just a concerned citizen with an appetite for truth. If my research proved to be a smoking gun, I would surmise that they would be more interested in distributing this information than someone being compensated for research that does not support a party line.

The moral dilemma here is that as small of an influence as I am in the grand scheme of the world and society as a whole, this research may empower the left-of-center argument, "I told you there is no evidence of fraud."

Who do I share these conclusions with? I finally came to realization if I want to be true to the world and myself, it's best to simply publish the findings especially since I have 100% confidence in my analysis.

This moral dilemma was mentally and emotionally mitigated, at least partially, by a Supreme Court ruling (or what's legally called a Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint) for the State of Texas vs. States of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding absentee ballot voter fraud (CLICK HERE TO READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING). I was not aware of the Supreme Court's ruling prior to my research, I only became aware of it after I finished my research. The Supreme Court ruling was eerily similar to my independent results and conclusions, albeit the courts ruling was written in legalese where as mine is written from more technicalese.

FROM THE RULING: "The statistics hold true for the increase in Presidential Election Votes as a Percentage of 2016 Votes—Detroit increase: 3.5%. When compared to 2016, President Trump gained a higher percentage of votes in Detroit in 2020, with Trump receiving 3.1% of the vote in 2016 and 5.0% in 2020."

State of Texas vs. States of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

CONCLUSION - If there was voter fraud in the city of Detroit in the 2020 election, there would be an anomalous and/or disproportionate increase in number of votes from 2016 to 2020 in favor of Democrats vs. Republicans. The total increase is number of votes (election day votes plus absentee votes) in 2020 proportionally favored the Republican candidate compared to 2016 for Trump/Pence. They acquired a larger percentage of the vote and the total increase in ballots actually favored the Republican candidate as witnessed by their increase from 3.1% to 5.0% vote share in Detroit with a negligible increase in total ballots cast, 240,936 vs 257,619 for a total of about 16,000 more votes in 2020.

The 2020 General Election

The result of this divide between party lines is very important, because this conversation and controversy is driving policy making decisions, policies in which we all have a vested interest.

Republicans are actively promoting policy changes that are centered on more control, more transparency, and stricter voting rules especially rules as they relate to absentee ballots.

Democrats, on the other hand, are advocating for wider adoption of absentee ballots, larger voting windows (i.e. when absentee ballots can be cast/returned), and overall policies that make it easier for voters to vote.

Michigan, more specifically Detroit, was the center of attention and widespread controversy for the 2020 General Election. Lots of rumors and news coverage of fraud abound still to this day in March 2022, especially on right leaning news sources.

If the basis or widespread voter fraud is, "Just look at the widespread fraud in Detroit?", the data says otherwise, at least on the surface.

Arguments: Objective vs. Subjective vs. Process

Detroit - A Monopoly for the Democrats

I spent the good part of many sleepless nights reviewing and analyzing official Wayne County and the city of Detroit voting data for the 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections.

Comparing the last two elections, 2016 vs. 2020, the total number of ballots, votes, and percentage of vote (republican vs. democrat) is consistent and well within a range of acceptable deviation. Consistency enough for me as a conservative, and hopefully anyone with common sense, to conclude that even IF there was some improprieties there is simply not enough fuel in the "widespread voter fraud in Detroit" tank to make it to the destination, the destination being that the 2020 Presidential Election results in Michigan are highly suspect.

The image below is a screen capture of the official (signed) 2016 election results from the Wayne County, MI website.

NOTE: Click here for a link to the official 2016 election results report.


  • Total Registered Voters - 511,786
  • Total Ballots Cast - 248,780
  • Total Voter Turnout (Including Absentee)- 48.61%
  • Clinton/Caine Total Votes - 234,871
  • Clinton/Caine Percentage of Vote - 94.95%
  • Total Trump/Pence Votes - 7,682
  • Trump/Pence Percentage of Vote - 3.11%

The image below is a screen capture of the official (signed) 2020 election results from the Wayne County, MI website.

NOTE: Click here for a link to the official 2020 election results report.


  • Total Registered Voters - 506,306
  • Total Ballots Case - 257,619
  • Total Voter Turnout (Including Absentee) - 50.88%
  • Biden/Harris Total Votes - 240,936
  • Biden/Harris Percentage of Vote - 93.93%
  • Total Trump/Pence Votes - 12,889
  • Trump/Pence Percentage of Vote - 5.02%


  • Total Registered Voters (2016 vs 2020) - 511,786 vs. 506,306
  • Total Ballots Case (2016 vs 2020) - 240,936 vs 257,619
  • Total Voter Turnout (2016 vs. 2020)- 50.88% vs. 48.61%
  • Democrat Total Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 234,871 vs. 240,936
  • Democrat Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 94.95% vs. 93.93%
  • Total Republican Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 7,682 vs. 12,889
  • Republican Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 3.11% vs. 5.02%


  • Total Registered Voters (2016 vs 2020), 506,306 vs. 511,786 - A 1.1% increase in total registered voters. Two external factors; 1) The population of Detroit has been declining for decades and 2) 2020 activist efforts to get eligible voters to register. In my opinion, the two factors above cancel each other out and in combination with naturally occurring factors such as average population age, etc. provide ample justification for the 1.1% increase in total registered voters.
  • Total Ballots Cast (2016 vs 2020), 240,936 vs 257,619 - A 3.5% increase in total ballots case. The total increase in number of votes, 3.5%, is within range of expected results given the focus on voter mobilization by left-of-center people, groups, and organizations. The total increase in ballots cast, once again, favored the republican candidates.
  • Total Voter Turnout (2016 vs. 2020), 50.88% vs. 48.61% - A 1.87% increase in voter turnout is well within an acceptable range of deviation. Once again, there are two external factors; 1) COVID restrictions and lockdowns would result in lower voter turnout is countered by 2) 2020 efforts to get eligible voters to register. Mathematically, a 1.87% increase in voter turnout is well within an acceptable range of deviation from 2016 to 2020 even in the face of COVID restrictions.
  • Democrat Total Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 234,871 vs. 240,936 - A 2.5% increase in total Democrat votes. The combination of increase in registered voters and voter turnout justify the increase of total votes.
  • Democrat Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 94.95% vs. 93.93% - A 1.02% decrease in the percentage of votes. Once again, well within any range of deviation.
  • Total Republican Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 7,682 vs. 12,889 - A 67.8% increase in total Republican votes. The combination of increase in registered voters, voter turnout, and proportional amplification (BTW, I made that term up) justify the increase in total votes. NOTE: proportional amplification simply means a relatively large percentage increase or decrease for smaller sample sizes, i.e. if you achieve a 1 vote increase by starting from 1 you have a 100% increase vs. a 1 vote increase by starting from 100 which is a 1% increase.
  • Republican Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 3.11% vs. 5.02% - A 1.89% increase in the percentage of vote. Once again, well within any accepted range of deviation.


A gentle reminder that I am a conservative, albeit an open minded and objective conservative that looks at issues with as little bias as humanly possible. For those not familiar with how the conservative and republican worlds work in 2022, depending how far you stray from the official party line and doctrine, it's VERY easy to outcast a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Certainly, a segment of conservatives and republicans will read this article to be RINO material, so be it!

Okay, given the disclaimer above, I still felt an instinctive drive to dig deeper. There has to be more to this story, after all the entire of my local conservative network (like 100% of them) are convinced there was widespread improprieties.

First of all, speaking strictly proportionally and as a function of percentages, the 2020 election had a greater positive impact on Trump/Pence than it did for Biden/Harris in 2020. A 67% increase in votes for Republicans vs. a 1.02% decrease for Democrats. This comparison is certainly worth mentioning but must be taken as a grain of salt because of the aforementioned proportional amplification.

Given the election results comparison between 2016 and 2020, IF you insist that there was improprieties in 2020 then you have to also put 2016 under the same microscope since 2016 and 2020 results were very similar.

IF you are going to 2016 and 2020 under the same microscope, one of the next logical steps would be to use other comparables, other comparables would be 2012, 2008, 2004, etc. There are publicly available results and data available for both the 2008 and 2012 elections however there is not enough detail and granularity in the publicly available data to provide any apples-to-apples analysis between elections. I could not find any election results or data for 2000 or 2004.

The comps for the 2008 and 2012 General Elections fall inline with 2016 and 2020, the total ballots, votes, and percentages are very similar.



SIDEBAR (NARRATIVE) - Metro Detroit and Michigan conservatives have an ax to grind with the City Clerk in Detroit. The incumbent city clerk, self identified as a non-partisan (for the position of City Clerk she is non-partisan, but certainly not a non-partisan beyond that), recently won their 5th term in 2021 as city clerk having first been elected in 2005. Having been elected to office in 2005, the current City Clerk has administered 4 General Elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020).

As rumors circulate, many conservatives will point their finger at the City Clerk as the "wire puller" and democrat puppet behind the scenes coordinating proposed election fraud. There are negative stories in the media about the current City Clerk however none of the stories in circulation have anything to do with voter fraud.

The sidebar narrative regarding the Detroit City Clerk, in context, may or may not be significant to the conversation of election improprieties. Given that the results for all general elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) since the current City Clerk have had very consistent results. All presidential general election results between 2008 and 2020 fall within the range of 95-98% for Democrats and 1.5-5% for Republicans. Myself, I would certainly like to know the results, the data, the margins, and the spread for the elections BEFORE the current city clerk took office, i.e. 2000 and 2004.


#1) My conclusion is that on the surface, in context, and in isolation there are no anomalies or reasons to believe that there was voter fraud with the 2020 election in the city of Detroit.

I am in the middle of researching US cities with populations above 500,000 people, analyzing and reporting on the percentage of vote for Democrats and Republicans. So far, the results and data I have researched have proved that Detroit has, by far, the biggest difference in favor of Democrats vs. Republicans. Please note, capturing data from different states, counties, and cities is EXTREMELY challenging and time consuming as all states, counties, and cities report their data differently. This is a hobby, not a job, so this research will take some time.

If you view the totality of all election results between 2008 and 2020 (not in isolation), one can make the argument that an average 96.5% for Democrat presidential candidates to 2.5% for Republican presidential candidates (the other 1% being for 3rd party candidates), this spread is certainly worth investigation, especially considering that other notorious progressive urban areas and large cities do not come remotely close to matching Detroit's Democratic voting history.

#2) Conservatives and republicans currently and have historically neglected Detroit in terms of campaigning and disseminating their message and platform. Elections are the process (game) of winning votes. Winning votes is partially a function of "Election Economics", meaning making conscious decisions how and where to spend your resources, time, and money. Conservatives and republicans have, by and large, written off major urban areas not worth their resources, time, or money.

Perhaps conservativism is incompatible with urban or big city politics, many people will make that argument. I believe contrary to that belief and that argument, I believe that conservativism is completely compatible with urban area and big city politics. Conservatives and republican candidates have just done a HORRIBLE job of constructing and delivering a message that resonates with urban America. There is a LOT of meat to put on the bones to what I mentioned above, unfortunately that is not in scope for this article (stay tuned?!?!).


The two opposing sides to the debate of voting and election integrity both have merit. I would surmise that everybody, or nearly everybody, agrees with the two following statements:

  • Voting is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE, as a society we should ensure that every single citizen has equal access and opportunity to vote.
  • Election Integrity is CRITICAL. Election integrity is not just preventing improprieties, it's about continuity of government, it's about confidence in our system, it's about mutual respect.

If we can all, or mostly, agree on the two statements above the challenge then becomes how do you develop policy that satisfies the masses. Unfortunately, the policy making part is what leads to gridlock, friction, political warfare, mudslinging, and name calling.

I truly believe the path forward is TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, specifically blockchain or blockchain-life technology. I also believe we will not witness widespread election technology changes in my lifetime (FYI, I am 50 years d).

Widespread election technology changes will require citizens to understand and trust technology at a much more detailed level. That will just not happen until the citizens are more densely represented by generations of voters that grew up with technology, grew up with a smart phone in their hand.

Right now, older conservatives and their power elites will refuse to engage in discussions about introducing new technology to elections. They will cite Dominion Software, Amazon/AWS, Facebook/Meta, and technology censorship as reasons to not trust technology.

Right now, older progressives and their power elites will seriously resist discussions about introducing new technology to elections. Granted, my guess is that progressives are more willing (way more willing) to engage in discussions, newer technology is decentralized and ultimately flies in the face of concentration of power. More simply stated, decentralized blockchain technology means less power and control at the federal level.

Mostly Peaceful Protests

MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS COMPANY BIO Have you recently offended black voters and need to deflect their discontent? Are you trailing in the polls to your conservative opponent because of recent insensitive comments?  We can help.  We are Mostly Peaceful Protests.  Coordinating with our friends in the mainstream media and social media, we can stir up a diversion that can last anywhere from a few days of looting to an entire summer of civil unrest; whatever is necessary to take the heat off you and direct it at your opponent on the other side of the isle.  Remember Joe Biden’s famous “Then You Ain’t Black” gaffe.  We fixed that, and we can do the same for you. We partner with groups like BLM and Antifa to relieve business owners of their surplus inventory, as well as remodel their brick-and-mortar storefronts; often with the help of insurance claims.  And we are experts in logistics.  Need hundreds of identical protest signs that all look handmade?  Maybe you need a pallet of bricks strategically placed on a hard to access street corner, or you need to outfit your group with matching uniforms and armor.  We have you covered.  Does the problem of people having real jobs leave you with too few people to put on a real protest?  We can bus or fly in professional protestors to make your protest one for the ages.  We have the infrastructure in place to deliver supplies and coordinate troop movements so precisely that police agencies will be trapped behind shields and barriers for hours.  We are Mostly Peaceful Protests. MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS T-SHIRTS

Why Are We Using Gender Neutral Pronouns?

Disclaimer: I am a Mugwump, a politically homeless conservative. Generally speaking, I view the world through the lens of issues vs. partisanship. I am objective, unhappy with "Republicans" as a whole but will NEVER EVER play for other team, Democrats.

For years I avoided Twitter but recently jumped back into the Twitter-Sphere. One immediate observation is that my "leftish" friends/followers are using pronouns in their bio. I knew pronouns was a "thing" but did not thoroughly understand the depths at which gender neutral pronouns have gripped society.

So, I send messages, emails, and even pick up the phone and discuss pronouns with some of my "woke" friends attempting to make some sense of it. To be brutally honest, after 5-6 conversations I had not received an explanation that made much sense to me, or appeased my appetitive to understand why it's such a big "thing". Then, finally an in-person conversation and debate with a progressive friend helped me better understand the "pro" gender neutral position, that is not say it persuaded me at all to change my beliefs, but I now certainly understand the other side of the argument better. That conversation and debate will follow, shortly.

Next step, I jump into the rabbit holes of the internet attempting to make sense of it all. Finally, I find some content, articles, and information that help me better understand pronouns.

As someone that has worked in technology (software developer) and sales/marketing automation for 25 years, I found the linked article below to be helpful in explaining, from a marketing perspective, the intent of pronouns.


In my Neanderthal mind, which my leftish friends like to refer to, here is how I interpret and perceive pronouns, specifically gender neutral pronouns.

Since the beginning of time, mankind has always made the assumption that a person with male body parts is a male (he, him) and female body parts is female (her, she). This assumption according to some is wrong and does not consider a percentage of the population in which this assumption does not apply. The introduction of gender neutral pronouns is a cultural and societal means of which to be more inclusive for the percentage of the population in which traditional pronoun assignment does not apply.

Now that I better understand the raging debate of gender neutral pronouns, I find it a necessity to dig a little bit deeper, actually a LOTTA bit deeper. For me, there are two very serious issues/questions that need to be addressed in this conversation.

  • Freedom of Speech - At what point does social acceptance and "education" of gender neutral pronouns intrude on Freedom of Speech?
  • Violating Other People's Rights - Essentially, anything and everything that is ever said will NEVER be 100% received an noble or righteous, inevitably someone will be offended. Do you draw a line, if so where do you draw the line?

I will write more in the future about Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, and Violating 3rd Party's Rights. For the remainder of this article, I would like to share a real in person debate I had with a friend, a very smart, educated, informed, and passionate progressive (i.e. a self-admitted borderline communist).

A Recent Debate - Conservative vs. Progressive Perspectives

I want to share an exchange and debate, an in-person debate over a cup of tea, with MAWA contributor Beauregard "Bo" Bolshevik about gender identity. Bo is an attorney who has practiced law for 30+ years so these are NOT easy debates, always mutually respectful but never easy.

The conversation was prompted in discussion about the male turned female swimmer Lia Thomas, who is now breaking collegiate records as a female swimmer although they (please note my proper use of gender neutral pronoun here) were born as a male.

I asked Bo; What % of people do you think are trans, or people that struggle with trans identity?

Bo answered 3%.

My response to Bo; the number is far less than 3%, I believe it's closer to 0.1% (1/1000).

The conversation dovetails into the mental and physical conditions that contribute to transgenderism and our conversation focuses specifically on Klinefelter Syndrome, where a biological male is born an extra X chromosome. People with Klinefelter Syndrome have an affinity for transgenderism, an affinity in this case meaning physical, mental, and emotional.

Next, we search for the what rate of males are born with this condition, depending on the study or data you cite the prevalence will fall between 1/500 - 1/700, which is between 0.14% and 0.2%.

For this conversation and debate, we only focused on male-to-female transgenderism. That said, it's a safe assumption, I believe, to assume a relative similar percentage of female-to-male transgenderism, mathematically speaking; IT'S NOT ADDITIVE, IT'S RELATIVE AND PROPORTIONAL.

So, now that we have some REAL numbers to launch a debate from, I ask the question.

Can we agree that people who have transgender tendencies is far closer to 0.1% than 3%, can we assume 0.5% for the sake of this conversation?

Bo agrees, for the sake of this debate and conversation we use 0.5%.

NOTE: Bo and I understand and agreed that there are many other conditions that contribute to transgenderism, therefore we agreed 0.14-0.2% is low, 0.5% was a number we could use as a baseline for the conversation. In the moment, we used 0.5-1% as an acceptable assumed range, even though I believe 1% is high, we both agreed 0.14% is low.

The next question we discuss;

Since the beginning of time, regardless of whether you are for creation or evolution, there have been males and females. Why are we re-engineering society, culture, and mankind to accommodate 0.5% of the population?

Bo's position; "Until recently, humans have never fully considered gender identity. Historically, they always considered gender to whatever the doctor says when a baby is born, 'Congratulations on your baby boy/girl.' What the doctor has done is assigned SEX but not GENDER."

My position; "It's a biological fact that when a baby is born with a penis, they are a boy. When a baby is born with a vagina, it's a girl. Without any physical health complications, that baby boy will grow up with the ability produce offspring as a contributing male, and the baby girl will grow up with the ability to produce offspring as a contributing female."

This is where the debate train derailed! From this point forward we could not find any common ground, once again our frequent conversations are ALWAYS mutually respectful. When Bo and I get to this point we simply agree to disagree.

For me, a Type A, left brained, common sense, issue oriented, conservative, I have to ask the rhetorical question; "Is the world SERIOUS about re-engineering societal norms, history, tradition, etc. for 0.5% of the population?" If ever there is an issue that could or should be extended as a plebiscite, this may be one of those issues. Myself, I would relent to a vote of the masses, a true plebiscite. If my American brothers and sisters voted that indeed gender neutral pronouns along with gender identity is a road we wish to travel, I would not like it but I would follow the law. Likewise, I would hope that people with opposing views would relent to a popular opinion. Is "majority rule" realistic? Unfortunately, not.

Bo and I are friends and do business together, we are mutually respectful, we are not policy makers, and we understand that when we reach a point in a heated debate we better stop because we do not want ideological differences to ruin a long enduring friendship. That said, both Bo's representation (progressives) and my representation (conservatives) have a job to do, and that is to resolve differences and create policy that best reflects the wishes of the American people and THAT IS NOT AN EASY JOB.

The End of the Pandemic: Dem Poll Numbers are Plummeting.

Many on the right have questioned the effectiveness off mask requirements and vaccine mandates. I was one of them. But now that the end of the pandemic has suddenly appeared, I must reconsider my stance. It appears that mask requirements and vaccine mandates did bring about the end of the pandemic; not because the scientific evidence supports them, but rather because these two items drove down the democrat polling numbers so low, that the Biden administration and the DNC had to change course immediately in a desperate attempt to save their party heading into the next election.     

We all know now, and probably most knew all along, if only in the back of their minds, that masks do not prevent the spread of Covid 19. Cotton masks have been nothing more than bite sized security blankets for NPR and MSNBC viewers, making them feel as though they have some control over a virus that can not be seen or controlled. The science has always shown that anything short of an N-95 mask is useless for preventing the spread of the virus.

But that has not stopped liberal politicians and their minions from requiring their use everywhere for nearly two years. They did however have their benefits. If accomplishing nothing more than helping intelligent people identify who you voted for, and what your mental state is, they also allowed NPR, MSNBC and CNN viewers to venture out into the world during these unstable times without having full on panic attacks.

We can also be quite certain that the politicians who mandated these face diapers, knew all along that they were ineffective, which is why so many of them were caught not wearing theirs. But the effectiveness that they were after was never the prevention of the spread of the virus, but rather the spread of complete panic. Much like instructing school children in the 60's and 70's to take safety under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack, these masks were an instrument for giving the ignorant a feeling of control over their destiny.

As you are reading this, you are asking the logical question: If they wanted to avoid complete panic, why didn't they just change the reporting and not oversell the fear? This is where the balancing act comes in. Democrats NEEDED widespread fear in order to manipulate the masses to win the 2020 election. You can't change voting procedures unless there is the possibility of death all around you. So they needed to keep everyone at DEFCON 1, but then they had to arm those same people with a weapon to defend themselves. And that weapon was the face mask.

I am by no means diminishing the seriousness of Covid-19. I have had more than my share of friends, family and associates get severely ill or die from it. So please do not take this writing as me making light of the virus. I am just shining light on the ludicrous manner in which it has been handled.

I am also not an anti-vaxxer. I had the vaccine, but not enthusiastically. I made a decision based on my health conditions, what I do for a living, and who I am around. But I strongly oppose vaccine mandates because I believe each person should be able to make their own decision whether or not they want the vaccine in their body or their child's body. It is unamerican to force people to do something to their body that they do not want to do.

In the end, both of these stances by the democrats, along with the destruction of our economy via their shutdowns, has led to enough unhappiness by the voting populous that they are now forced to change their direction or face the largest defeat ever seen in American politics this November. The democrats have been following the science all along. Unfortunately, that science has been political science, and as long as enough people were afraid and leaned left for protection, they were able to continue their stranglehold on America. Fortunately for us, that tide has turned. Their poll numbers are at all-time lows, and therefor, no matter what the Covid numbers are, they are declaring the Pandemic over. Stay Safe, and God Bless!