US Politics: coughing for peace is like dying for the economy

[DireWolfSpirit]

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, as long as someone does not have enough first-party ballots to win the nomination outright at the convention ANYONE can get the nomination. Including anyone without a single delegate. Suspending or ending a campaign doesn't matter in the least for this. 

Now, after the convention it becomes very weird, especailly as it gets closer to the election date, but before that? Really isn't an issue in the slightest no matter what happens. Biden hits a huge scandal, Biden dies, Biden goes Republican, Biden goes into a coma - any and all of that won't matter in the least as far as picking Sanders or anyone else. And delegates at that point won't matter at all, either. 

If any of the above comes to pass, I'd bet on Coumo being drafted and getting the nom more than Bernie getting it through that default .

Would be interesting, probably beneficial to the cause, as people tend to love shiny new things.

[Mudguard]

14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Apparently back in January Dr. Fauci was saying coronavirus was not a major threat to the US, but I was a bit suspicious of the article that was saying that.

What he did say in January.

And

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dr-fauci-was-correct-more-importantly-he-was-humble

So I went back I read through the transcripts of some of his interviews in January and February, and he did state at the end of January and at least until the middle of February that the risk to the US was low, but he also acknowledged that there was a chance that this could blow up. 

I think the turning point for him was around early March, when it was revealed that testing in the US was completely botched.  It's not clear how involved he was with the testing, which should have been spearheaded by the CDC, so maybe the failure is more on Redfield.  But the initial containment strategy, which he clearly supported, was doomed to failure without aggressive testing, and this should have been obvious.  The testing failures weren't publicly acknowledged until early March, I think.  It's hard for me to imagine that he was completely in the dark about our testing problems, so I don't know why he would have thought containment could realistically work without aggressive testing.

He also was slow to come around on the wearing of facial coverings, only changing his stance recently.  I'm not sure why this was such a blind spot with so many doctors and scientists.

For example, from an interview he did with PBS on January 30th:

Quote

So the public health system is now on top of that. What the concern globally is the rapid sustained person-to-person-to-person transmission, which is going on right now, certainly to a great degree in China.

And the reason the WHO declared this a public health emergency of international concern is because, in other countries outside of China, we're starting to see that sustained transmission from person to person to person. That's the thing we need to be concerned about.

But, right now, the risk in the United States is still low. But with the same breath I say that, I say we are taking this very, very seriously as public health officials and scientists.

On Feb 17, in an interview with USA Today, he still thought the risk was low:

Quote

Q. Bottom line, how worried should people in America be?

A. The risk of coronavirus in this country is still relatively low, but, as I said about the possibility of emerging into a pandemic, this could change. As of today, on the 17th of February, the risk is really relatively low. But we, the public health officials, have to take this seriously enough to be prepared for it changing and there being a pandemic.

Even in March, he thought that it was still possible to stop the outbreak despite the testing problems.  In a NY Times article dated March 8:

Quote

Unflappable though Dr. Fauci may seem, the new coronavirus worries him, especially its spread in the Seattle area and the toll it is taking in a nursing home there. He said he thought it was still possible to stop the disease, but health authorities would have to know where it was to do that, and he said the lack of testing capacity was a huge obstacle.

Test kits sent by the C.D.C. to states were flawed, and it has taken weeks to begin replacing them. And strict regulations from the Food and Drug Administration hampered outside labs’ efforts to begin to do their own tests.

But Dr. Fauci declined to join the chorus of blame against the C.D.C.

“It’s so easy to play Monday morning quarterback,” he said. “Every element of the federal government was working full-speed to try to get this out and get things going.”

After reviewing his comments, I don't think Fauci was unreasonable given the large degree of uncertainty at the beginning, but it's clear that early on, he didn't view SARS-CoV-2 as seriously as Navarro.  For the past month, I agree with 99% of what he says, but he was behind the curve at the beginning. 

[Guest]

Ironically enough, for all that the conventional wisdom that VP picks don't matter, this could possibly be one instance where the pick is critical to keeping the left on board.

To this point, Biden has made only lukewarm gestures towards integrating more progressive policies into his platform (adopting Warren's bankruptcy plan, expanding his free education programs, etc.) which aren't likely in and of themselves to get truculent Sanders supporters to back him. A real progressive pick who has Sanders' full-throated backing could do a lot to heal some of those bitter divides.

The flip side of that is Biden deciding to double down by picking another moderate. That will be interpreted as a "fuck you" to the left. 

Imo, Biden can pull a coup and win goodwill by adopting a M4A proposal (not necessarily Sanders' proposal), with a longer transition period. This crisis has laid bare how ridiculous our labyrinthine healthcare system is, and how easy it is to cut through that absurdity, just as soon as the entrenched interests propping up that system end up being hoisted by their own petard, drowning under the rules that they lobbied to be set in place. 

The real factor in all this, however, is that this election ultimately boils down to being a referendum on how Trump handles this crisis. If, by end of summer, U.S. deaths are held to a relatively low level (50,000 official tally maybe - I keep trying to imagine a death toll that's high enough to get Americans to pay attention; 2 months ago I would have said 15,000-20,000 would, now I have absolutely no idea), if we have a deep, but short recession, and the economy is on it's way to getting back to normal, if things open back up and the pandemic doesn't return, then Trump will win in a landslide, regardless of what Democrats do or say. Trump realizes this; that's why he's trying to appropriate $2 trillion for his campaign fund. I'm not sure if some Democrats have realized that yet or not.

None of that is realistic, of course. But that's the reality.

[BigFatCoward]

If Trump is right and the 'miracle cure' he keeps shouting about turns out to help, he will win this election, if he is wrong it makes no difference to his chances. Genius move. 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

My fear is that the Democrats may be making the same mistake that was made back in 2004.  Running a candidate on the theory that the he will be better the better bet to beat the incumbent as opposed to nominating someone that is generating excitement within the party.  I'm no fan of Sanders but he at least would be able to match Trump's energy.  Biden, I'm not so sure about.

Is it too late for a do over and perhaps look to Governor Cuomo?

Governor Cuomo already has one heck of an important job, and is actually doing it.  What is the point of taking away one of the few politicians actually performing his job on behalf of his voters -- like governor Hogan -- to spend his days raising money for pod casts that few voters are listening to?  What good would it do to pull him away from this job and have the state that voted for him go down the drain in the way the southern governors are doing to their states?

There are others, like Elizabeth Warren.

[sologdin]

f Trump is right and the 'miracle cure' he keeps shouting about

trump's faith in wunderwaffe seems familiar.

[Frey family reunion]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Governor Cuomo already has one heck of an important job, and is actually doing it.  What is the point of taking away one of the few politicians actually performing his job on behalf of his voters -- like governor Hogan -- to spend his days raising money for pod casts that few voters are listening to?  What good would it do to pull him away from this job and have the state that voted for him go down the drain in the way the southern governors are doing to their states?

There are others, like Elizabeth Warren.

Alas, you're probably correct.  I've just been very impressed with the way Cuomo has handled an almost impossible situation.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This piece from Elizabeth Bruenig in the Times really resonated with me.

In particular:

Quote

There is so little freedom in the world. Even here, now, in our celebrated liberal democracy, social mobility is incredibly limited compared to that in countries of comparable development, and there appears to be very little we can do about it. One freedom that cannot be taken from you is your freedom not to like the status quo — your freedom to be angry, disaffected, unimpressed, your refusal to be cajoled, soothed or consoled with small tokens of influence devoid of real power. Mr. Sanders, ill tempered and impatient with pleasantries, embodied that freedom, and he offered it to you.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

22 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

The acting Navy Secretary who criticized Captain Crozier has resigned.

This is super surprising. I can't remember who linked the audio of his crazy ass speech, but watching it on soundcloud and seeing people comment on specific moments of the speech was hilarious. Fuck that guy.

20 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta saying on CNN that the few studies that have been done wrt hydroxychloroquine all excluded several high-risk categories, including people with heart disease, high blood pressure, etc., because of fears of negative side effects with these high-risk patients.

Has anyone heard anything about this?

I haven't heard about this specifically, but I do know hydroxychloroquine has severe side effects that are related to heart issues. It'd make sense they were excluded from the study, but it's not a safe, harmless drug people should take a chance on as Trump insists.

19 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I am starting to wonder a bit about Trumps hostile attitude towards even casual criticism of the various medical supply shortages.  It's almost like he has a direct hand in some sort of illicit profiteering scheme and is attempting to squelch inquiries that might reveal it.  So, suppose he is up to such a scheme, and persistent journalists unearth it over the next month or two.  Potentially as big as a mess as the Ukraine thing? Congressional investigation or a repeat of the Mueller probe?

There is a bit coming out about this already.

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Oh good, what my day needed is an eruption of "Now Trump is definitely going to win!" whining from the very people whose carefully-nurtured resentment will make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well, a significant risk exists here, and a lot of these voters are still being tone policed and shouted down to (that they better do the right thing and vote for Biden). On the other side, a recent Trump tweet: 

So far, that Tweet officially puts him ahead of reaching out to Bernie's disenfranchised voters. It's built on deception and preying on the beliefs of this voting group, but if the Dems don't shift course, I have some real concerns about Trump winning again.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

My fear is that the Democrats may be making the same mistake that was made back in 2004.  Running a candidate on the theory that the he will be better the better bet to beat the incumbent as opposed to nominating someone that is generating excitement within the party.  I'm no fan of Sanders but he at least would be able to match Trump's energy.  Biden, I'm not so sure about.

Is it too late for a do over and perhaps look to Governor Cuomo?

I think Gov. Cuomo is less appealing than Biden, to be honest. He presents as a progressive, but it seems his approach to governing is not progressive at all. He cut the medicaid expansion, for example. 

[Frey family reunion]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

I think Gov. Cuomo is less appealing than Biden, to be honest. He presents as a progressive, but it seems his approach to governing is not progressive at all. He cut the medicaid expansion, for example. 

I don't have any issue with Biden as president.  My concern is with Biden as the candidate.  He recently did a few interviews where it looked like he already had one foot in the grave.  

As for president, I'm more interested in someone that can get stuff done even if it means compromising on certain idealogical beliefs (I know heaven forbid in today's polarized climate).  That's where I think Sanders would have trouble in governing.  I think Biden would probably be pretty capable with that(or at least as capable as anyone can be today).

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, a significant risk exists here, and a lot of these voters are still being tone policed and shouted down to (that they better do the right thing and vote for Biden). On the other side, a recent Trump tweet: 

So far, that Tweet officially puts him ahead of reaching out to Bernie's disenfranchised voters. It's built on deception and preying on the beliefs of this voting group, but if the Dems don't shift course, I have some real concerns about Trump winning again.

 

It is a limp and perfunctory outreach, but it is more than a tweet:

Quote

Using a livestream to address supporters from his home state of Delaware, Biden seemed ready to move past the primary. He paid tribute to the Vermont senator for advancing key issues like affordable health care and combating climate change.

“Sen. Sanders and his supporters have brought a remarkable passion and tenacity to all of these issues. Together they have shifted the fundamental conversation in this country,” Biden said. “So let me say, especially to the young voters who have been inspired by Sen. Sanders, I hear you. I know what’s at stake. I know what we have to do.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election/after-big-wins-biden-makes-appeal-to-young-sanders-voters-i-hear-you-idUSL1N2BB08A

Of course, if Bernie voters aren't listening, maybe it doesn't count. It just seems to me Bernie voters are, at this point, trying to judge Biden more harshly than Trump. I won't belabor how much I dislike Biden, but I am kind of sick of the choads on my feed telling me that he and Trump are 90% the same.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

 

It is a limp and perfunctory outreach, but it is more than a tweet:

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election/after-big-wins-biden-makes-appeal-to-young-sanders-voters-i-hear-you-idUSL1N2BB08A

Of course, if Bernie voters aren't listening, maybe it doesn't count. It just seems to me Bernie voters are, at this point, trying to judge Biden more harshly than Trump. I won't belabor how much I dislike Biden, but I am kind of sick of the choads on my feed telling me that he and Trump are 90% the same.

 

That's the hardest thing--are Bernie supporters hearing this? I didn't know about it (though I appreciate seeing it now), and I feel I'm more open to checking out different sources of reporting. The supporters who tell you he and Trump are the same, I am hoping, are that low turnout wing of even Bernie's base, and their silent protest hopefully won't have any impact.

Those same types actually believe what Trump said, that Warren not dropping out cost Bernie. I just can't fathom that. We'll see. I think the majority of his supporters will get over this sore spot, and Biden needs to be a bit more flexible in how he attracts them.

We'll see. Anyone who thinks letting Trump run wild another four years is a good message to the establishment is fucking nuts as likely there won't be an establishment anymore (if Trump wins).

[DMC]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

None of that is realistic, of course. But that's the reality.

This hurt my head.

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

That's the hardest thing--are Bernie supporters hearing this? I didn't know about it (though I appreciate seeing it now), and I feel I'm more open to checking out different sources of reporting. The supporters who tell you he and Trump are the same, I am hoping, are that low turnout wing of even Bernie's base, and their silent protest hopefully won't have any impact.

Those same types actually believe what Trump said, that Warren not dropping out cost Bernie. I just can't fathom that. We'll see. I think the majority of his supporters will get over this sore spot, and Biden needs to be a bit more flexible in how he attracts them.

We'll see. Anyone who thinks letting Trump run wild another four years is a good message to the establishment is fucking nuts as likely there won't be an establishment anymore (if Trump wins).

So you weren't aware of this speech and you weren't aware of things Biden was doing to stay visible in the early days of the Covid crisis. Why is this information not getting to you?

I share your concerns that Biden and the Democratic establishment are too inflexible or up their own asses to properly reach out to Bernie supporters. But it doesn't seem like they're listening, or open to being swayed.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

This hurt my head.

Okay?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Of course, if Bernie voters aren't listening, maybe it doesn't count. It just seems to me Bernie voters are, at this point, trying to judge Biden more harshly than Trump. I won't belabor how much I dislike Biden, but I am kind of sick of the choads on my feed telling me that he and Trump are 90% the same.

So you are spending time with Susan Sarandon again?

On that note, it seems like the idea of flattening the curve is applicable to the learning curve of some Sanders supporters.

I read an article over at 538 where the author basically said, that Sanders (and Warren) have pushed the entire political discussion within the DNC to the left. Which by itself is a success for them. But the downside, they were unable to really standout policy wise, which was one of the reason why the progressive wing of the Democrats failed to win. They gave a few more, like them only accounting for around a third of the voters, thus it was effectively over once Buttigieg and Klobuchar bowed out to endorse Biden.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

It is a limp and perfunctory outreach, but it is more than a tweet:

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election/after-big-wins-biden-makes-appeal-to-young-sanders-voters-i-hear-you-idUSL1N2BB08A

Of course, if Bernie voters aren't listening, maybe it doesn't count. It just seems to me Bernie voters are, at this point, trying to judge Biden more harshly than Trump. I won't belabor how much I dislike Biden, but I am kind of sick of the choads on my feed telling me that he and Trump are 90% the same.

 

But isn't it kind of the point that Biden needs far more than a limp and perfunctory outreach to Sanders supporters? 

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But isn't it kind of the point that Biden needs far more than a limp and perfunctory outreach to Sanders supporters? 

Simon's initial point was that Biden hadn't done ANY outreach, which was not correct. I think there's something to investigate as to why it's so common for Sanders supporters to have no idea what Biden has been up to. Media bubbles? Just ignoring information? Some combination?

I do think Biden needs to be doing more. I just wonder if he's trying to lie low during the worst of the medical crisis.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But isn't it kind of the point that Biden needs far more than a limp and perfunctory outreach to Sanders supporters? 

What precisely do you have in mind?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

What precisely do you have in mind?

 Friends being at each other's throats. 

Seems to be the case at least.