USA elections 2020 - 2021

[Cope]

I can’t see how this line of attack is going to work out for the Dems. By just about every measure, the hardest hit states are all blue states, with the exception of Louisiana, but even in that case, the governor is a Dem. Probably that’s all due to population density and connectedness as well (we know why in Louisiana). In my opinion, pretty much everyone in government was oblivious early on. Maybe voters won’t care, but it seems to me that the liberal media are laying the foundation for arguments that can be used against their own candidates.

I don’t really give anyone a free pass, but the failure was really not at the highest levels in any government, it was a failure of the experts to make the right case strong enough publicly. Plenty were arguing what turned out to be the wrong case, which the press seemed to amplify for whatever reason. I could see what was likely coming based on the early preprints regarding the virus’s properties, but even my one anthropology course on infectious diseases back in the day makes me more qualified on the topic than the vast majority of elected officials. That said, there was no professional consequence for me speaking up and being wrong, and even then, I toned down my predictions, not wanting to come across as a crazy alarmist.

Governments rarely are prepared for major disasters before they happen, unless something similar has happened within recent memory. The majority of the handful of countries that were actually on top the situation were those that were hit by SARS.

These are exactly the points I've been trying to articulate over the past few weeks. The liberal press has been furiously attempting to paint Trump as a charlatan rather than reporting the truth. To this end, they have focused on manufactured drama about racism ("don't you dare call it the Chinese virus!"), HCQ ("It isn't a miracle cure!") state's rights ("the president isn't a king!") and the WHO ("defunding the WHO is a crime against humanity!"). Their contradictory efforts to hold Trump fully responsible for the govt's response while at the same time insisting that he had no authority over individual states is a testament to their deceitfulness. Will people see through it come November? I don't know.

The facts are that disagreements about the science, concerns about the economy, the US's decentralized structure, a general lack of preparedness (by comparison to places like SK) and geographic and demographic factors (climate, population age etc.) are far more relevant factors than the WH's response. It is for this reason that the the US would likely have experienced similar results irrespective of who occupied the presidency.

[Infidel144]

This is fake news. The European Union and the UK were still twiddling their thumbs when Trump declared a national emergency and closed down the US border with Europe. The liberals even threw a tantrum about it, accusing him of xenophobia and "populism" despite the fact that Italy was on fire with the virus. Then, a few days later, the EU shut down its borders too. Your point about domestic quarantines is irrelevant as they are the responsibility of state governors and legislatures, not the White House. The same is true in Europe, where internal lockdowns are the prerogative of national govts, not the EU. So, like the Dem press, you're trying to blame Trump for decisions which were not his to make. The fact that Cuomo didn't quarantine NY until the 23rd of March, for instance, isn't the president's fault.

And the USA Today on March 11 noted that:
"Cities have been locked down, large gatherings banned, canceled or postponed and countless people quarantined in their homes on the advice of local public health agencies and departments."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/5020755002/

[Cyclops]

I agree the current US administration has performed in a middling way, and the existing conditions of loose federal structure and a horribly vampiric healthcare model is not Trump's creation.

I'm basing my criticism of Trump on his inability to read off a teleprompter or remember basic facts moments after being told. His communication style is choppy, meandering from raucously woolly to straight up trolling. As often as not his statements require exegesis by a sympathetic and well informed person before they can understood let alone defended.

Anyone attempting to defend his competence as a leader probably needs a rest from the internet. Trump definitely gets unfair treatment from his opponents, but his very real incompetence has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt when it took three press conferences to set the record straight on all the blunders he made in about ten minutes of brain dead gibbering. He is intellectually unfit for office.

He's a a very antagonistic President and a very poor communicator, at a time when clarity and unity are at a premium, especially given the US particular vulnerabilities.

COVID 19 is a disaster everywhere, but the US situation is definitely not helped by this turd.

[Cope]

I agree the current US administration has performed in a middling way, and the existing conditions of loose federal structure and a horribly vampiric healthcare model is not Trump's creation.

I'm basing my criticism of Trump on his inability to read off a teleprompter or remember basic facts moments after being told. His communication style is choppy, meandering from raucously woolly to straight up trolling. As often as not his statements require exegesis by a sympathetic and well informed person before they can understood let alone defended.

Anyone attempting to defend his competence as a leader probably needs a rest from the internet. Trump definitely gets unfair treatment from his opponents, but his very real incompetence has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt when it took three press conferences to set the record straight on all the blunders he made in about ten minutes of brain dead gibbering. He is intellectually unfit for office.

He's a a very antagonistic President and a very poor communicator, at a time when clarity and unity are at a premium, especially given the US particular vulnerabilities.

COVID 19 is a disaster everywhere, but the US situation is definitely not helped by this turd.

In other words, your criticism is superficial, not substantive.

[Heathen Hammer]

I agree the current US administration has performed in a middling way, and the existing conditions of loose federal structure and a horribly vampiric healthcare model is not Trump's creation.

I'm basing my criticism of Trump on his inability to read off a teleprompter or remember basic facts moments after being told. His communication style is choppy, meandering from raucously woolly to straight up trolling. As often as not his statements require exegesis by a sympathetic and well informed person before they can understood let alone defended.

Anyone attempting to defend his competence as a leader probably needs a rest from the internet. Trump definitely gets unfair treatment from his opponents, but his very real incompetence has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt when it took three press conferences to set the record straight on all the blunders he made in about ten minutes of brain dead gibbering. He is intellectually unfit for office.

He's a a very antagonistic President and a very poor communicator, at a time when clarity and unity are at a premium, especially given the US particular vulnerabilities.

COVID 19 is a disaster everywhere, but the US situation is definitely not helped by this turd.

So basically, aside from the usual ORANGE MAN BAD stuff, there are no facts that would hint at Trump's incompetence in this crisis, rather that he was one of the few world leaders who handled the crisis well, especially if compared to places like Canada and France, which don't really have real leadership.

[alhoon]

The growth speed is irrelevant if the death rate remains comparable. What people care about is how many people suffer and/or perish from C19, not how fast it spreads.

The deaths from Coronavirus per capita, as I've pointed out, are growing faster in USA than in the rest of the world. The good news is that USA took measures = 2 weeks later these measures are reflected in less cases = 2-4 weeks after that less cases would become less deaths.
As such, now that USA got their head out of their collective butts, the increase in deaths in April will be less and I expect in May it would be similar to the rest of the developed world.

This is fake news. The European Union and the UK were still twiddling their thumbs when Trump declared a national emergency and closed down the US border with Europe. The liberals even threw a tantrum about it, accusing him of xenophobia and "populism" despite the fact that Italy was on fire with the virus. Then, a few days later, the EU shut down its borders too. Your point about domestic quarantines is irrelevant as they are the responsibility of state governors and legislatures, not the White House. The same is true in Europe, where internal lockdowns are the prerogative of national govts, not the EU. So, like the Dem press, you're trying to blame Trump for decisions which were not his to make. The fact that Cuomo didn't quarantine NY until the 23rd of March, for instance, isn't the president's fault.

Cuomo is an idiot but he's not Trump's idiot, he's Pelosi's idiot (Pelosi is an idiot too, it's not a privilege of just the republicans to be full of partisan idiots). The loyalists in Texas and Florida though could have been persuaded by the PotUS though.
While your argument about domestic quarantines does hold some water, it is not completely accurate. USA is a country. EU is an economic union of sovereign countries. So, it is a better comparison to compare USA with Germany, Austria or Belgium. However, unlike Germany that is big, Belgium and Austria are tiny compared to USA in economy, size and population.
So... that leaves us only with one possible comparison (USA and Germany) and that's simply not good enough.
And Germany didn't do that well either with Federal authority clashing with state authority.

Maybe voters won’t care, but it seems to me that the liberal media are laying the foundation for arguments that can be used against their own candidates.

Oh, it won't be the first time, I give you that. As mentioned, it's not that Democrats acted correctly.
Or that EU is acting correctly, mind you. It's not just quarantine... USA leads the charge when it comes to "the day after" as I mentioned several times and nobody seems to care.
The rest of the big economies are dragging their feet when USA passes large stimuli.

[Heathen Hammer]

USA made a mistake of relying on international organizations like WHO, that sabotaged international response to pandemic, including response in US. The difference is that competent leaders withdrew from funding it, while incompetent ones haven't learned from mistake of relying on organization that killed thousands of their citizens via inaction and misinformation.

[Cope]

The deaths from Coronavirus per capita, as I've pointed out, are growing faster in USA than in the rest of the world. The good news is that USA took measures = 2 weeks later these measures are reflected in less cases = 2-4 weeks after that less cases would become less deaths.
As such, now that USA got their head out of their collective butts, the increase in deaths in April will be less and I expect in May it would be similar to the rest of the developed world.

Fake news.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Cuomo is an idiot but he's not Trump's idiot, he's Pelosi's idiot (Pelosi is an idiot too, it's not a privilege of just the republicans to be full of partisan idiots). The loyalists in Texas and Florida though could have been persuaded by the PotUS though.
While your argument about domestic quarantines does hold some water, it is not completely accurate. USA is a country. EU is an economic union of sovereign countries. So, it is a better comparison to compare USA with Germany, Austria or Belgium. However, unlike Germany that is big, Belgium and Austria are tiny compared to USA in economy, size and population.
So... that leaves us only with one possible comparison (USA and Germany) and that's simply not good enough.
And Germany didn't do that well either with Federal authority clashing with state authority.

My point is not that the EU has the same structure as the United States, it's that the decision to issue internal quarantines is the prerogative of state governors and legislatures, just as it is the prerogative of national govts in Europe. Trump cannot be blamed for decisions which were not his to make. As I said above, the Dems and their media wing will continue to find fault with the WH's C19 response, but we'll have to see how things pan out before we know how Trump will react their attacks during the election campaign.

[alhoon]

Fake news.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Very interesting. I will run it at some point to confirm, but frankly it seems legit. I like the approach "We count after it reaches 0.1/million" +rep
A pity that such interesting details need one to search to find, it won't help in the elections.

[Aexodus]

Anyone know where the UK sits on that graph?

@Alhoon, what made you think American deaths were growing faster?

[Cyclops]

In other words, your criticism is superficial, not substantive.

What a a superficial response. I guess you don't have anything more than a glib non answer.

The president has demonstrated his unfitness for office in public in a measurable way. Basic reading errors, poor memory and poor comprehension demonstrate this.

His shockingly poor poor performance when left alone with foreign leaders (remember his submission to Putin? Deplorable weakness) confirms the man is an intellectual weakling.

[Cope]

What a a superficial response. I guess you don't have anything more than a glib non answer.

The president has demonstrated his unfitness for office in public in a measurable way. Basic reading errors, poor memory and poor comprehension demonstrate this.

His shockingly poor poor performance when left alone with foreign leaders (remember his submission to Putin? Deplorable weakness) confirms the man is an intellectual weakling.

What you're complaining about is the president's presentation, communication and alleged lack of education/intellect, not his policy positions. This sort of classism (where you become distressed by the absence of the usual bourgeois tones) is fairly typical among Trump detractors. It is isn't a substantive criticism. That's why you have to use forced, dramatic language like "unfitness", "shockingly poor" and "deplorable weakness" as placeholders for an actual critique.

The complaint about Putin is a case in point: it is both an extension of the liberal media narrative about a Russian conspiracy (which turned out to be false) and an appearance (ie. superficial) based criticism. It isn't related to the US's policies toward Russia (which have tightened considerably since 2016).

[Cyclops]

What you're complaining about is the president's presentation,

Wrong. I am criticising his stupid errors of fact, including failing to recall recently discussed details or read off an idiot sheet.

communication

His communication style is unclear, and often requires someone else to clarify it.

...and alleged lack of education/intellect...

He made factual errors that caused brief stockmarket dives. He has demonstrated an insufficient mental capacity to deliver basic information.

...not his policy positions.

I agree the policy positions of his administration have been of middling quality.

This sort of classism (where you become distressed by the absence of the usual bourgeois tones) is fairly typical among Trump detractors. It is isn't a substantive criticism. That's why you have to use forced, dramatic language like "unfitness", "shockingly poor" and "deplorable weakness" as placeholders for an actual critique.

Weak ad hominem is weak. Got an explanation for Trump's mistakes? Did he up basic facts because I'm a "Liberal"?

The complaint about Putin is a case in point: it is both an extension of the liberal media narrative about a Russian conspiracy (which turned out to be false) and an appearance (ie. superficial) based criticism. It isn't related to the US's policies toward Russia (which have tightened considerably since 2016).

I don't feel Trump is Putin's collaborator, just his . Trump embarrassed his country and his security services with his weak-arsed capitulation, and his craven retraction was just as weak.

You've failed to address the point about Trump's inability to repeat or read basic facts.

Concession accepted.

[Cope]

You've failed to address the point about Trump's inability to repeat or read basic facts.

You haven't provided any specific examples which can be addressed. The usual rhetoric and table pounding (I note your increased used of censored words) doesn't form part of a substantive critique. Pointing that out - as well as noting your argument's classist undertones and overstated language - is not a personal attack against you (ie. an ad hom).

Concession accepted.

Thus ends another internet argument.

[Cyclops]

Be good to have a president with a working brain, Trump vs Biden is lightweight contest at best on current and past form.

You haven't provided any specific examples which can be addressed....

I didn't realise you were ignorant of Trumps humiliation and backtracking in Reykjavik and you didn't see his address, I think it was on 12th March, where they had to have all those subsequent press conferences to clean up the chaos he created by his inability to read or remember.

Obviously if you're unfamiliar with the guy you might react like you did, no hard feelings. He gets a lot of unfair stick in the stupid US media, the one side is as absurdly critical as the other is idolatrous. I'm puzzled by the "Classist" thing though, is that really a criticism of the obnoxious orange in the US? I mean Trump used to hang out with the Clintons, and that paedo pimp, the billionaire one Epstein. Doesn't money equal class in the US?

[alhoon]

Anyone know where the UK sits on that graph?

@Alhoon, what made you think American deaths were growing faster?

That During March, Confirmed Coronavirus deaths in USA went from 42 to 186000 (x4400) while in say... Italy, they went from 1700 to 106000 (x62).

However, in that analysis I didn't take into account Sumkiz's very valid point of "trusting the number of death is much more reliable" + "Let's do that per capita after 0.1 deaths per million instead of "March" " in Cope's link.

0.1 deaths per million is perhaps a bit too low for countries like Italy with 60M people... but I can adjust the graph slightly to "1 per million". I.e move all those lines to "touch" at the Y=1 which also has the benefit of being "a few days later" than the unreliable 0.1/M. That "few days later" means that we've started to see the full effects in each country. Thus the increase in deaths should be much more correlated to the increase in cases.

Italy and Spain are a bit of an exception because their medical system kinda flooded and clogged leading to more deaths than it would be. As such, yes, USA seems to be doing not-that-bad. They are doing a little better than the "bad" cases. So... baddish. But then, we have to account for the increased traffic and movement in USA because it's a huge economy with businesses and soldiers all around the world.
I take all that to mean... they are doing moderately OK.

Aex: I can pick up the data at some point, run them in matlab and present graphs. It will take some time, but time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. However if I do these graphs, they will go to the Corona thread, not this.

Let's talk about Trump rolling out a plan, a solid one even if not perfect, before Biden in the opposition did anything of the sort.
How it is relevant that Biden is in the opposition?
But my dear fellow members, people that are not in power can propose things that are not really enforceable but sound plausible! I.e. Biden could have rolled out a "In his shoes I would do A, B and C!!!" without sweating too much whether B would hit something semi-obscure or A could theoretically be challenged in the courts and that it would be unlikely for the senate to pass C.

[Gaidin]

In something of an innovation, Ms. Stacey Abrams is actively seeking the Democratic nomination for the Vice-Presidency of the United States —

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/polit...ent-joe-biden/

The article ends with an indication of the Biden campaign's present thinking on the question of the vice-presidential pick —



The quote cited supra may be found in this, shall we say, highly sympathetic article in Elle magazine —
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-...ice-president/


Some may recall Leader Abrams for her unsuccessful bid to be elected as the first women of color as governor of Georgia in 2018. She lost by a slim margin to Republican Stacey Evans who, as Georgia Secretary of State, was responsible for overseeing the self-same election. She was reluctant to concede the race due to alleged irregularities in the tabulation of the vote but eventually did so. It appears that Leader Abrams's dissatisfaction remains unallayed. She continues working toward her concern for election reform from her own website —
https://fairfight.com/

If it would be of interest, a précis of her interesting life and estimable career may be perused here —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Abrams

What the article doesn't tell you is that a loud, blatantly public application for vice-presidential candidate is typically a great way not to get it if history is any indication. Usually the one selected has been outrageously quiet and has let the presidential candidate make the decision.

[Love Mountain]

What the article doesn't tell you is that a loud, blatantly public application for vice-presidential candidate is typically a great way not to get it if history is any indication. Usually the one selected has been outrageously quiet and has let the presidential candidate make the decision.

She's really not that loud despite what the headlines say. I have to admit, I was expecting a rather stereotypical and obnoxious rhetoric from Stacey Abrams, but she's a civilized and well-spoken political candidate. I can also tell you that it is unlikely to matter how loud or quiet a VP pick is. What matters is how they shape the message. I can't identify any super partisan issues with Abrams, she's mostly focused on criminal justice reform, fair elections, and healthcare. These are not controversial or divisive topics in the Democratic polity. What's questionable is what she actually brings to the table. She may bring some Georgia votes, which could be an important state to win, but there are other VP candidates who would be a more strategic choice.

Warren might be a good pick, but her political capital has been largely spent, and half of her progressive voters are probably dissatisfied with her at this point. Her other demographics are frequently cited as white, educated women, but I think they're likely to vote for Biden anyway. Massachussetts is also a blue stronghold. Same could be said of Kemala Harris.

I also think Black voters will vote Biden anyway so there is no need to pick an African American VP. Klobuchar might've negotiated a VP spot when she endorsed Biden and Minnesota is an important state. Midwest is an area of prime interest this election. The Midwest is full of potential VP picks, Tammy Baldwin, Sen. from Wisconsin. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. from Illinois, and the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer.

[Gaidin]

Georgia is nice for a campaign spot. But that's actually the shortest stick in why you pick a VP. Hell the entire campaign is the shortest stick on who you choose a VP for. The campaign lasts for, at this point in time, seven months out of a possible 55 months you'd have a VP name. And that's without a VP-name for the Democratic campaign right now. Who is good at the things you haven't exactly specialized in your career with? Who are you comfortable running the country with? Who do you trust to speak their mind to you in spite of you being President behind closed doors?

Bluntly speaking, if the next seven months is the only level of thought you're putting into this position, you're really not thinking very deeply about this.

[Love Mountain]

Georgia is nice for a campaign spot. But that's actually the shortest stick in why you pick a VP. Hell the entire campaign is the shortest stick on who you choose a VP for. The campaign lasts for, at this point in time, seven months out of a possible 55 months you'd have a VP name. And that's without a VP-name for the Democratic campaign right now. Who is good at the things you haven't exactly specialized in your career with? Who are you comfortable running the country with? Who do you trust to speak their mind to you in spite of you being President behind closed doors?

Every White House is different. Sometimes the VP is the second most important person in the White House. Sometimes it's the Chief of Staff. I don't doubt that at the moment, picking a VP is an entirely political calculation rather than a thoughtful decision on who the best person would be.

Bluntly speaking, if the next seven months is the only level of thought you're putting into this position, you're really not thinking very deeply about this.

I don't know what you mean. The only thing you should be thinking about is winning. Everything else is sorta secondary at this point.