Interesting article on why Trump should have learned poker. He went 'all in' on a losing Texas Hold 'em corona virus hand and the US voters are about to call his bluff...
I mean, if we're using poker analogies, his intelligence community and disease experts were basically allowing him x-ray vision on the hands. He was holding a 4 and a 10 off suit, and the virus was nearly guaranteed to get a full house or a flush. And yet, he put all his chips in anyway. Moral of the story is, the house always wins, and nature is the house.
This does, of course, explain how you turn a license to print money (a casino in Atlantic City) into a bankrupt business. Something tells me Trump needed an Ace Rothstein (Robert DeNiro's character from Casino). Instead, he had bunch of Nicky Santoros (Joe Pesci).
Interesting article on why Trump should have learned poker. He went 'all in' on a losing Texas Hold 'em corona virus hand and the US voters are about to call his bluff...
That moment when you're watching Martian Invasion comedies and you realize the President's speech in 'Mars Attacks" that "I want to assure the American people that they still have TWO out of three branches of government working for them, and that ain't bad" after Congress is exterminated is better than the current situation.
It was bound to happen eventually - the White House briefing against Fauci. The rationale for this is that he has a poor record of prediction on the effects of the virus - biblical references to motes and beams come to mind there.
Meanwhile the strategy in places like Florida is for administrations to close their eyes and hum loudly in the hope Covid-19 will get bored and go away. Briefings there refer to the falling death rates and skew towards younger people getting the disease to explain why it's not a problem. The fall in average age does mean death rates will be significantly lower than when deaths peaked in April, but you have to be pretty stupid to fail to notice that the death rate in the US has been climbing now for at least a week (or pretty stupid to think that no-one else will notice that) as the increase in cases in late June starts to feed through - there will almost certainly be over 1,000 deaths reported tomorrow (for the first time in over a month).
As I've said before I would be sympathetic towards a rationale that fairly evaluates the benefits and harms of really cracking down on the disease. From experience to date, I think taking a very strict approach early on (as in New Zealand) looks like the best approach. That allows the virus to be essentially eliminated. That won't remain the case, but vigilance and a robust application of test and trace would then allow it to be kept at insignificant levels with relatively minor impacts on the wider life and economy. However, in places like the US and UK that option is no longer easily available because disease levels are so high already.
Balancing the pros and cons of reopening services is not easy - even if you only look at health outcomes and not wider impacts. In the UK for instance the recent lockdown and concentration of the health service on Covid-19 has left the NHS with a backlog of around 10m cases. Many of those will only affect quality of life, but a significant number (such as delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment) will have a major impact on death rates in future as well. Decisions though should be made on the basis of evidence. It's inevitable that different political views will affect what weighting you give to different impacts, but all impacts should still be taken into consideration. Leaders who deliberately don't do that and lie to their people about why they are taking actions should not be held in high regard.
I referred last week to China's increasing aggressiveness in recent years and one place that is particularly clear is their attempted take-over by force of the South China Sea (passive force, by building military installations on the disputed territory). Looking at the map of the area, China's claims look pretty ridiculous unless backed by historical ownership or control.
The US stated for the first time yesterday that China's claim to the area was unlawful. I think that statement was prompted far less by an impartial weighing of evidence and far more by the current struggle between US and China to be the world's 'superpower'. I think the US are correct to call China out on its actions here, but the concern is that this issue (like that of Taiwan) can become a matter of 'face'. With both countries very sensitive at the moment to how they are perceived internationally the potential for a dispute to spiral is very real. Both countries conducted naval exercises in the area at the same time recently and there have been incidents between ships in the last couple of years - in a worsened climate such incidents could be the trigger for more conflict. I see this morning that the UK has ordered an aircraft carrier to the area and other US allies, such as Australia, may also get involved with providing support.
It seems to me that China is currently attempting to use the Covid-19 crisis to expand its international ambitions. That can be seen as one means of deflecting attention from its role in the initial spread of the disease, but also reflects China's apparent view that other countries are too busy with their internal affairs to act resolutely on international ones. This article from the Global Times can be taken as indicative of Chinese thinking on this issue - effectively that a firm military posture now will result in gains in the area, even if one consequence is limited military conflict.
Why don't countries just ask the island inhabitants to which country they want to belong?
They're virtually uninhabited. There are potentially valuable resources though and the sea also acts as a shipping lane, so there's economic value to argue over in addition to the issues of status.
The Biden team is up with a hell of an ad in Texas focused strictly on that state. It doesn't mention Trump at all, doesn't even allude to him. Yet, at the same time (while on it's surface being totally non-partisan) it's message is impossible to miss. It's saying "he abandoned you, and I won't". I'm not sure political junkies on either end of the spectrum can appreciate how much that probably plays to normal people. They are going to make Trump defend Texas, which isn't QUITE the same as Biden being forced to defend California, but it's damn close. Those are resources they need to be using in the Rust Belt and Florida. You have to wonder how many fronts the Trump campaign can wage an ad war on.
I referred last week to China's increasing aggressiveness in recent years and one place that is particularly clear is their attempted take-over by force of the South China Sea (passive force, by building military installations on the disputed territory). Looking at the map of the area, China's claims look pretty ridiculous unless backed by historical ownership or control.
The US stated for the first time yesterday that China's claim to the area was unlawful. I think that statement was prompted far less by an impartial weighing of evidence and far more by the current struggle between US and China to be the world's 'superpower'. I think the US are correct to call China out on its actions here, but the concern is that this issue (like that of Taiwan) can become a matter of 'face'. With both countries very sensitive at the moment to how they are perceived internationally the potential for a dispute to spiral is very real. Both countries conducted naval exercises in the area at the same time recently and there have been incidents between ships in the last couple of years - in a worsened climate such incidents could be the trigger for more conflict. I see this morning that the UK has ordered an aircraft carrier to the area and other US allies, such as Australia, may also get involved with providing support.
It seems to me that China is currently attempting to use the Covid-19 crisis to expand its international ambitions. That can be seen as one means of deflecting attention from its role in the initial spread of the disease, but also reflects China's apparent view that other countries are too busy with their internal affairs to act resolutely on international ones. This article from the Global Times can be taken as indicative of Chinese thinking on this issue - effectively that a firm military posture now will result in gains in the area, even if one consequence is limited military conflict.
I don't think the U.S is willing to risk engaging China for the time being, a lot of risks and downsides that outweighs the benefits on their part. There have been recent debates as to whether China has the capacity, with it's new missles, to sink an aircraft carrier, and while it might not be true, I'm certain the U.S doesn't want to find out and risk looking like it is losing its control.
I also don't think there is any changing their minds. China is refreshingly resistant to the dog-and-pony show of Westerners and their institutions. Outside of the use of military force, I don't think anything would sway them.
Of course, I'm an outside observer, and besides some friends who regularly travel and do business there who have shaped my opinions, my perspective is one of a complete outsider.
But I think that the days of Americans being able to rely on soft power to dissuade the up and comers is coming to an end, and with it, America's hegemony. I simply don't see them issuing a large scale military response to China's encroachment, and if they did I think they would ultimately lose. Wars require technology, yes, but they also require people willing to fight them. I think China's soldiers would be, on average, much more willing to fight, could be potentially far more numerous, and China is going to pick it's battles on it's home turf, which alone counts for a lot.
I referred last week to China's increasing aggressiveness in recent years and one place that is particularly clear is their attempted take-over by force of the South China Sea (passive force, by building military installations on the disputed territory). Looking at the map of the area, China's claims look pretty ridiculous unless backed by historical ownership or control.
The US stated for the first time yesterday that China's claim to the area was unlawful. I think that statement was prompted far less by an impartial weighing of evidence and far more by the current struggle between US and China to be the world's 'superpower'. I think the US are correct to call China out on its actions here, but the concern is that this issue (like that of Taiwan) can become a matter of 'face'. With both countries very sensitive at the moment to how they are perceived internationally the potential for a dispute to spiral is very real. Both countries conducted naval exercises in the area at the same time recently and there have been incidents between ships in the last couple of years - in a worsened climate such incidents could be the trigger for more conflict. I see this morning that the UK has ordered an aircraft carrier to the area and other US allies, such as Australia, may also get involved with providing support.
It seems to me that China is currently attempting to use the Covid-19 crisis to expand its international ambitions. That can be seen as one means of deflecting attention from its role in the initial spread of the disease, but also reflects China's apparent view that other countries are too busy with their internal affairs to act resolutely on international ones. This article from the Global Times can be taken as indicative of Chinese thinking on this issue - effectively that a firm military posture now will result in gains in the area, even if one consequence is limited military conflict.
I don't think the U.S is willing to risk engaging China for the time being, a lot of risks and downsides that outweighs the benefits on their part. There have been recent debates as to whether China has the capacity, with it's new missles, to sink an aircraft carrier, and while it might not be true, I'm certain the U.S doesn't want to find out and risk looking like it is losing its control.
I also don't think there is any changing their minds. China is refreshingly resistant to the dog-and-pony show of Westerners and their institutions. Outside of the use of military force, I don't think anything would sway them.
Of course, I'm an outside observer, and besides some friends who regularly travel and do business there who have shaped my opinions, my perspective is one of a complete outsider.
But I think that the days of Americans being able to rely on soft power to dissuade the up and comers is coming to an end, and with it, America's hegemony. I simply don't see them issuing a large scale military response to China's encroachment, and if they did I think they would ultimately lose. Wars require technology, yes, but they also require people willing to fight them. I think China's soldiers would be, on average, much more willing to fight, could be potentially far more numerous, and China is going to pick it's battles on it's home turf, which alone counts for a lot.
I agree with your reasoning and don't think a major fight is likely, but I still think it's a potentially dangerous situation. History has plenty of examples of conflicts which went far beyond the scope originally intended by their instigators - WWI, Vietnam, Afghanistan to name a few.
I think China is essentially following your logic - it wouldn't make sense for other countries to have a major fight over an issue that means so little, so they won't do so. However, this logic may not always apply for a couple of reasons. The first of those is that in some situations the perceived value of an objective can differ radically between parties. Think of the Falkland Islands for instance, where Argentina believed there would be no chance that Britain would be willing to fight for a minor possession on the other side of the world. That calculation would certainly be true if only economics were considered, but once patriotism got involved the calculation was very different. In the case of the South China Sea there's not the same obvious trigger of people to argue over, but it seems quite conceivable to me that China will be demonized in the near future in the way the USSR once was - and that could lead to people being far more willing to fight than they currently are. At this point in time I wouldn't even be certain myself that fighting over this issue would be wrong. I do think there is some danger that China will become more expansionist and militarily oriented in future. Just like the situation in the Rhineland in 1936 this issue could be seen as a testing of the waters and, if other countries back down here in the face of the Chinese military, I would be concerned about further aggression - for instance to end the status of Taiwan as an independent entity.
The second possible trigger for conflict would relate to domestic politics, particularly in the US. If the Biden campaign does not implode, Trump will undoubtedly be looking at ever more extreme options to change the expected outcome. Some of those will be purely domestic in nature - such as challenging the results of the ballot on the grounds of voting fraud (evidence for which I'm sure could be turned up whether it really exists or not). However, a military conflict has often been used in the past as a way of drumming up, at least in the short term, patriotic support for a government - and I'm sure Trump is well aware of that. Getting into such a conflict though can be easier than getting out (particularly if you're concerned about your image).
We arent even in the same ball park. We might be playing different sports at this point.
IIRC - Clinton did enjoy close a healthier lead earlier in the campaign cycle, but never this big and never at this point in the cycle.
Too many variables at this point. My one vote may play a part in Michigan, but I'm not counting on it. Dems picked the wrong candidate so that leaves me in doubt...
Parscale was relived of his duties as campaign manager tonight. I have no sympathy for this grifter anymore than I do anyone else willingly in Trump's orbit, but Parscale isn't the problem, his candidate's refusal to address the biggest health crisis in a century is. I'm fairly sure the twin polls from NBC and Quinnipiac that had Trump losing by 11 and 15 points respectively had something to do with the trigger getting pulled this evening.
Trump isn't talking about a single thing the vast majority of voters care about at this point. He and everyone around him think "owning the libs" is a viable campaign strategy. All that is coming out of him is performative bullshit about statues, Joe Biden wanting to "abolish the suburbs" and his daughter violating the Hatch Act to make a point in a cultural battle over a canned bean company that 80% of the country doesn't even know is taking place.
When he does talk about the virus, he keeps repeating the absolutely bonkers theory that if we tested half as much, we'd have half as many cases, and at this point I'm convinced he actually believes this is a salient and coherent thing to say rather than being batshit crazy. The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
Republicans no longer represent me. They are total moronic anti-science dipshits at this point. If I had to vote right now I'd vote Biden instead of pissing my vote away on a Libertarian. That is seriously how bad Trump is. I'm a fucking conservative and I see no way I can religitamately vote for this asshole...
A day after we learned hospitals had been directed to send all data to HHS instead of the CDC, the CDC website goes dark on COVID-19 data. Literally flat-out telling us the public has no right to know about the scope of the outbreak. Besides being the prime of example that ALL they know how to do is try cover-up the problem rather than fix it, this is some deep, dark authoritarian shit:
I’d be worried if the rest of the COVID numbers go dark. For now, the CDC is still updating cases and deaths per county. The extent of the outbreak is still known.
If things get too dark, or Trump begins to lie about hospital numbers (most likely to happen), expect doctors and nurses to start blowing whistles if not actual hospitals in hard hit places.
His 30% base will still think it’s BS, but the rest of America will know who to listen too.
I still think they are letting it get out of control on purpose so come November they can start shutting polling places down for “safety reasons” if not attempt to delay the election outright.
We're in serious trouble. We're now seeing 70k cases a day and the death count is now back up over a 1000 a day. The failure here should never be allowed to be forgotten or forgiven. What is the illegitimate Governor of Georgia Brian Kemp doing?? Signing an order that cities cannot issue mask mandates. It's a death cult.
If Florida and Texas don't lock down, the cost will be incalcuable.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
In other news: the Governor of Georgia signed an executive order which made all "mask mandates" in Georgia illegal. So no city can compel its citizens to wear a mask. Atlanta is ignoring the rule for now, but the Governor is suing the city in order to force them to stop the mask ordinance.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
In other news: the Governor of Georgia signed an executive order which made all "mask mandates" in Georgia illegal. So no city can compel its citizens to wear a mask. Atlanta is ignoring the rule for now, but the Governor is suing the city in order to force them to stop the mask ordinance.
So... that's awful.
Atlanta is full of a high percentage of African-Americans. Georgia is in play. You do the math. As I've pointed out before, within 48 hours of data showing what demographic groups were being hit hardest (African-Americans, Latinos, and the elderly), the push to reopen everything began in full force. At this point I'm convinced they see it as a way to kill off Democratic voters and send out a couple 100,000 less Social Security checks each month. It also, for the 1000th time, proves the conservative "belief" in local governance is a crock of shit.
Frankly, no government would act this way unless they were flat-out certain they'd never have to face the will of the voters in Novmeber. Which makes me even more certain they have something incredibly nefarious planned 108 days from now. Kemp, especially, has already done a dry run in 2018. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw 15 hour lines in Atlanta in November, by design.
Another brilliant plan. Since many schools would ostensibly open in about five weeks, why wouldn't we waste 40% of the time they could be preparing by not having a set of guidelines for another 14 days?? Even guidelines they are specifically and purposefully watering down. Shit, why not release them 48 hours before the first day of classes??:
The first signs of polling data on school re-opening are out, and (shocker) just like nearly every other issue right now, damn near 2/3 of the country doesn't agree with Trump or trust him on this issue. Frankly, at this point it wouldn't even matter if he was right. The majority of people are just going to instinctively recoil at everything he is suggesting.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
I'm cool with that. I can't really fault the way they handled the economic side of the coronavirus response. After it was all said and done people on federal unemployment got 10k+ in the span of a few months.
It won't work though, every sign points to him being destined to fail. At this point, it is very well deserved.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
I'm cool with that. I can't really fault the way they handled the economic side of the coronavirus response. After it was all said and done people on federal unemployment got 10k+ in the span of a few months.
It won't work though, every sign points to him being destined to fail. At this point, it is very well deserved.
I'm cool with more stimulus where it's needed, for sure. Less cool about openly trying to buy elections. In fairness, this has always been the case (on both sides of the spectrum) - with Republicans promising to cut your taxes and Democrats promising to improve welfare systems.
I guess the major difference is that neither side has ever tried to do that thing in the middle of a major emergency in order to buoy their chances at being reelected.
The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
In other news: the Governor of Georgia signed an executive order which made all "mask mandates" in Georgia illegal. So no city can compel its citizens to wear a mask. Atlanta is ignoring the rule for now, but the Governor is suing the city in order to force them to stop the mask ordinance.
So... that's awful.
Perhaps this is what they're thinking. The problem with such a plan is that it would not be effective. Or, at least, it would be less effective than getting people money in the late summer/early fall. I don't have the data on hand, but there's been a strong correlation between the party in power's performance in November elections and economic numbers from the second and third quarters of the year. And the publication of these indicators all tend to lag their actual existence, same thing with numbers like jobs/unemployment reports.
So, I think it's incredibly foolish for Republicans to think a last minute stimulus is going to be more effective than a mid-year stimulus, if that is indeed their plan. Even worse would be a promised post-election one.
Trump isn't governed by any ideology and in this case he's not really the one holding things up. The House Democrats did pass a second stimulus of $3 trillion back in May. McConnell's Senate has failed to take it up. My personal hypothesis isn't that they're crafting some cynical election plan. It's that they're ideologues. They legitimately do not think bailing out regular citizens to a generous degree is good policy.
There are only two issues that remotely matter, COVID-19 and the economy. They are actively making the first one worse by the day, and are doing nothing about the second besides saying "get back out there", which has the added effect of making issue #1 worse still. Even the #3 issue of racial injustice is a DISTANT third in what's on the mind of voters. Every 24 hours, they have less time to turn this around, and I see no indication there is any sense of urgency from Trump to do what he needs to do. He is only focused on distracting from the virus, not meeting it head on, and as long as that's the case, the numbers will not shift. I check RCP everyday (which, again, has a SLIGHT lean towards Republicans compared to 538 historically). Trump has gained no ground with anything he has trotted out the last month. Because everyone thinks it's bullshit compared to the virus.
No path exists for Trump without Florida. In fact, I didn't even seriously consider that the Democrats could even contest it, much less win it. Yet Biden is up by 6%. Trump can't fix his Ron DeSantis problem in the Sunshine State. Because DeSantis didn't just celebrate a touchdown at the 50 yard line about a month ago, he did an elaborate end zone dance while standing next to the Vice President outside the White House. And now he looks like the biggest dipshit in American politics. And he's a Trump acolyte to the bone.
Mostly agreed. One caveat I'd say is voters' view of Trump's corruption/incompetence seem to matter as well. I think if an otherwise normal politician was suffering under a similar crisis and even a similar result as Trump, they might have a lot better numbers. A number of governors, who may not be doing a very good job, are enjoying sky high approval ratings.
Trump was able to mask his general incompetence and corruption to a large number of voters when all we had was a limited look at his private career. But his public career has been undeniable. And I think a fair number of conservative voters are completely disillusioned now.
This is absolutely no different than if FDR hadn't been concerned about how the war in Europe was proceeding. Hell, at this rate, if there is no vaccine in the early half of 2021, there is an outside chance we could hit WWII-level death numbers. If he isn't interested in the job, then we'll find someone who is. What's sad is how inevitable this all feels in retrospect. A life-long con artist as the head of the political party that hasn't believed the government is a legitimate tool for any public good since 1980:
I think that maybe some are missing the Trump modus operandi, deflect. Grab a woman by her hoo haa, throw up a smoke screen, he has made it work over and over again. Give the press and the American people something else to think about to forget long enough and he can come out ahead. I personally think he has gone way beyond that, the emails that would make us forget about this disaster would have to be the mother of all emails. He hasn’t just stuck to emails though has he? Kill a another general? Gonna be tricky at this point, been there done that, might be hard to pull it off again. He really has put himself in a box.
Now my concern, what will he use next? It would have to be big, like really, really big. I don’t think it will work now, the virus is not just going to go away on it’s own, but I am waiting for it. Every time he gets cornered he does something big to distract away from his missteps. I hope it won’t happen but it will.
I've noticed the death rates suddenly spiking this week in the NYTimes and it's distressing. I know there's not going to be a quick turnaround. People are just going to keep dying.
San Antonio is in the thick of things. My girlfriend is transporting COVID patients every day at work. We're approaching the point where the nationwide death count will be 50 times the size of 9/11. I remember when it was only 10 times.
There aren't a lot of things that have killed this many Americans. I wish our government was trying to keep us safe.
Comments
I mean, if we're using poker analogies, his intelligence community and disease experts were basically allowing him x-ray vision on the hands. He was holding a 4 and a 10 off suit, and the virus was nearly guaranteed to get a full house or a flush. And yet, he put all his chips in anyway. Moral of the story is, the house always wins, and nature is the house.
This does, of course, explain how you turn a license to print money (a casino in Atlantic City) into a bankrupt business. Something tells me Trump needed an Ace Rothstein (Robert DeNiro's character from Casino). Instead, he had bunch of Nicky Santoros (Joe Pesci).
He can't up short on his bluffing.
Now he's changed his tune to "WE need to live with it."
Thanks for the lies, Donnie.
Meanwhile the strategy in places like Florida is for administrations to close their eyes and hum loudly in the hope Covid-19 will get bored and go away. Briefings there refer to the falling death rates and skew towards younger people getting the disease to explain why it's not a problem. The fall in average age does mean death rates will be significantly lower than when deaths peaked in April, but you have to be pretty stupid to fail to notice that the death rate in the US has been climbing now for at least a week (or pretty stupid to think that no-one else will notice that) as the increase in cases in late June starts to feed through - there will almost certainly be over 1,000 deaths reported tomorrow (for the first time in over a month).
As I've said before I would be sympathetic towards a rationale that fairly evaluates the benefits and harms of really cracking down on the disease. From experience to date, I think taking a very strict approach early on (as in New Zealand) looks like the best approach. That allows the virus to be essentially eliminated. That won't remain the case, but vigilance and a robust application of test and trace would then allow it to be kept at insignificant levels with relatively minor impacts on the wider life and economy. However, in places like the US and UK that option is no longer easily available because disease levels are so high already.
Balancing the pros and cons of reopening services is not easy - even if you only look at health outcomes and not wider impacts. In the UK for instance the recent lockdown and concentration of the health service on Covid-19 has left the NHS with a backlog of around 10m cases. Many of those will only affect quality of life, but a significant number (such as delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment) will have a major impact on death rates in future as well. Decisions though should be made on the basis of evidence. It's inevitable that different political views will affect what weighting you give to different impacts, but all impacts should still be taken into consideration. Leaders who deliberately don't do that and lie to their people about why they are taking actions should not be held in high regard.
The US stated for the first time yesterday that China's claim to the area was unlawful. I think that statement was prompted far less by an impartial weighing of evidence and far more by the current struggle between US and China to be the world's 'superpower'. I think the US are correct to call China out on its actions here, but the concern is that this issue (like that of Taiwan) can become a matter of 'face'. With both countries very sensitive at the moment to how they are perceived internationally the potential for a dispute to spiral is very real. Both countries conducted naval exercises in the area at the same time recently and there have been incidents between ships in the last couple of years - in a worsened climate such incidents could be the trigger for more conflict. I see this morning that the UK has ordered an aircraft carrier to the area and other US allies, such as Australia, may also get involved with providing support.
It seems to me that China is currently attempting to use the Covid-19 crisis to expand its international ambitions. That can be seen as one means of deflecting attention from its role in the initial spread of the disease, but also reflects China's apparent view that other countries are too busy with their internal affairs to act resolutely on international ones. This article from the Global Times can be taken as indicative of Chinese thinking on this issue - effectively that a firm military posture now will result in gains in the area, even if one consequence is limited military conflict.
Why don't countries just ask the island inhabitants to which country they want to belong?
They're virtually uninhabited. There are potentially valuable resources though and the sea also acts as a shipping lane, so there's economic value to argue over in addition to the issues of status.
The Falkland Islanders were asked. They chose to remain British. The Argentinians chose to ignore their decision.
I don't think the U.S is willing to risk engaging China for the time being, a lot of risks and downsides that outweighs the benefits on their part. There have been recent debates as to whether China has the capacity, with it's new missles, to sink an aircraft carrier, and while it might not be true, I'm certain the U.S doesn't want to find out and risk looking like it is losing its control.
I also don't think there is any changing their minds. China is refreshingly resistant to the dog-and-pony show of Westerners and their institutions. Outside of the use of military force, I don't think anything would sway them.
Of course, I'm an outside observer, and besides some friends who regularly travel and do business there who have shaped my opinions, my perspective is one of a complete outsider.
But I think that the days of Americans being able to rely on soft power to dissuade the up and comers is coming to an end, and with it, America's hegemony. I simply don't see them issuing a large scale military response to China's encroachment, and if they did I think they would ultimately lose. Wars require technology, yes, but they also require people willing to fight them. I think China's soldiers would be, on average, much more willing to fight, could be potentially far more numerous, and China is going to pick it's battles on it's home turf, which alone counts for a lot.
I agree with your reasoning and don't think a major fight is likely, but I still think it's a potentially dangerous situation. History has plenty of examples of conflicts which went far beyond the scope originally intended by their instigators - WWI, Vietnam, Afghanistan to name a few.
I think China is essentially following your logic - it wouldn't make sense for other countries to have a major fight over an issue that means so little, so they won't do so. However, this logic may not always apply for a couple of reasons. The first of those is that in some situations the perceived value of an objective can differ radically between parties. Think of the Falkland Islands for instance, where Argentina believed there would be no chance that Britain would be willing to fight for a minor possession on the other side of the world. That calculation would certainly be true if only economics were considered, but once patriotism got involved the calculation was very different. In the case of the South China Sea there's not the same obvious trigger of people to argue over, but it seems quite conceivable to me that China will be demonized in the near future in the way the USSR once was - and that could lead to people being far more willing to fight than they currently are. At this point in time I wouldn't even be certain myself that fighting over this issue would be wrong. I do think there is some danger that China will become more expansionist and militarily oriented in future. Just like the situation in the Rhineland in 1936 this issue could be seen as a testing of the waters and, if other countries back down here in the face of the Chinese military, I would be concerned about further aggression - for instance to end the status of Taiwan as an independent entity.
The second possible trigger for conflict would relate to domestic politics, particularly in the US. If the Biden campaign does not implode, Trump will undoubtedly be looking at ever more extreme options to change the expected outcome. Some of those will be purely domestic in nature - such as challenging the results of the ballot on the grounds of voting fraud (evidence for which I'm sure could be turned up whether it really exists or not). However, a military conflict has often been used in the past as a way of drumming up, at least in the short term, patriotic support for a government - and I'm sure Trump is well aware of that. Getting into such a conflict though can be easier than getting out (particularly if you're concerned about your image).
We arent even in the same ball park. We might be playing different sports at this point.
IIRC - Clinton did enjoy close a healthier lead earlier in the campaign cycle, but never this big and never at this point in the cycle.
Too many variables at this point. My one vote may play a part in Michigan, but I'm not counting on it. Dems picked the wrong candidate so that leaves me in doubt...
Trump isn't talking about a single thing the vast majority of voters care about at this point. He and everyone around him think "owning the libs" is a viable campaign strategy. All that is coming out of him is performative bullshit about statues, Joe Biden wanting to "abolish the suburbs" and his daughter violating the Hatch Act to make a point in a cultural battle over a canned bean company that 80% of the country doesn't even know is taking place.
When he does talk about the virus, he keeps repeating the absolutely bonkers theory that if we tested half as much, we'd have half as many cases, and at this point I'm convinced he actually believes this is a salient and coherent thing to say rather than being batshit crazy. The Senate Republicans are offering what amounts to jack-shit in regards to a second stimulus, and from a purely electoral point of view, I have no idea what they are thinking. I don't know what kind of bubble Trump, Pence, his staff, and his campaign team are living in at this point. I don't think I've ever seen an incumbent Administration as out of touch with the national mood as this one. Shit, at least Carter's malaise speech made it clear he understood the problem, even if no one wanted to hear what he was saying. Trump seems to believe COVID-19 is some pesky side-show.
If things get too dark, or Trump begins to lie about hospital numbers (most likely to happen), expect doctors and nurses to start blowing whistles if not actual hospitals in hard hit places.
His 30% base will still think it’s BS, but the rest of America will know who to listen too.
I still think they are letting it get out of control on purpose so come November they can start shutting polling places down for “safety reasons” if not attempt to delay the election outright.
If Florida and Texas don't lock down, the cost will be incalcuable.
I'd really like to zero in on this part. It just makes no sense to me.
It's obviously clear that the pandemic is here to stay in the US for far longer than initially anticipated. And so you'd think an even marginally competent government would be going for a second bailout/stimulus. And doing so would likely prop up the economic numbers, at least in the short term. And, obviously, it's just so profoundly callous to not be doing something here.
And yet. I just don't understand who these politicians think will suffer the blame for these failures. Feels like we're all getting a taste of the Herbert Hoover presidency, which did next to nothing to help the people and basically denied the existence of a crisis in its own time.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that Trump will aggressively start pushing for a stimulus plan to come out close to the election, in hopes that it will help buoy his numbers.
It's crass and probably wouldnt work, but feels very "Trumpian" to me.
In other news: the Governor of Georgia signed an executive order which made all "mask mandates" in Georgia illegal. So no city can compel its citizens to wear a mask. Atlanta is ignoring the rule for now, but the Governor is suing the city in order to force them to stop the mask ordinance.
So... that's awful.
Atlanta is full of a high percentage of African-Americans. Georgia is in play. You do the math. As I've pointed out before, within 48 hours of data showing what demographic groups were being hit hardest (African-Americans, Latinos, and the elderly), the push to reopen everything began in full force. At this point I'm convinced they see it as a way to kill off Democratic voters and send out a couple 100,000 less Social Security checks each month. It also, for the 1000th time, proves the conservative "belief" in local governance is a crock of shit.
Frankly, no government would act this way unless they were flat-out certain they'd never have to face the will of the voters in Novmeber. Which makes me even more certain they have something incredibly nefarious planned 108 days from now. Kemp, especially, has already done a dry run in 2018. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw 15 hour lines in Atlanta in November, by design.
The first signs of polling data on school re-opening are out, and (shocker) just like nearly every other issue right now, damn near 2/3 of the country doesn't agree with Trump or trust him on this issue. Frankly, at this point it wouldn't even matter if he was right. The majority of people are just going to instinctively recoil at everything he is suggesting.
I'm cool with that. I can't really fault the way they handled the economic side of the coronavirus response. After it was all said and done people on federal unemployment got 10k+ in the span of a few months.
It won't work though, every sign points to him being destined to fail. At this point, it is very well deserved.
I'm cool with more stimulus where it's needed, for sure. Less cool about openly trying to buy elections. In fairness, this has always been the case (on both sides of the spectrum) - with Republicans promising to cut your taxes and Democrats promising to improve welfare systems.
I guess the major difference is that neither side has ever tried to do that thing in the middle of a major emergency in order to buoy their chances at being reelected.
Perhaps this is what they're thinking. The problem with such a plan is that it would not be effective. Or, at least, it would be less effective than getting people money in the late summer/early fall. I don't have the data on hand, but there's been a strong correlation between the party in power's performance in November elections and economic numbers from the second and third quarters of the year. And the publication of these indicators all tend to lag their actual existence, same thing with numbers like jobs/unemployment reports.
So, I think it's incredibly foolish for Republicans to think a last minute stimulus is going to be more effective than a mid-year stimulus, if that is indeed their plan. Even worse would be a promised post-election one.
Trump isn't governed by any ideology and in this case he's not really the one holding things up. The House Democrats did pass a second stimulus of $3 trillion back in May. McConnell's Senate has failed to take it up. My personal hypothesis isn't that they're crafting some cynical election plan. It's that they're ideologues. They legitimately do not think bailing out regular citizens to a generous degree is good policy.
No path exists for Trump without Florida. In fact, I didn't even seriously consider that the Democrats could even contest it, much less win it. Yet Biden is up by 6%. Trump can't fix his Ron DeSantis problem in the Sunshine State. Because DeSantis didn't just celebrate a touchdown at the 50 yard line about a month ago, he did an elaborate end zone dance while standing next to the Vice President outside the White House. And now he looks like the biggest dipshit in American politics. And he's a Trump acolyte to the bone.
Trump was able to mask his general incompetence and corruption to a large number of voters when all we had was a limited look at his private career. But his public career has been undeniable. And I think a fair number of conservative voters are completely disillusioned now.
Now my concern, what will he use next? It would have to be big, like really, really big. I don’t think it will work now, the virus is not just going to go away on it’s own, but I am waiting for it. Every time he gets cornered he does something big to distract away from his missteps. I hope it won’t happen but it will.
San Antonio is in the thick of things. My girlfriend is transporting COVID patients every day at work. We're approaching the point where the nationwide death count will be 50 times the size of 9/11. I remember when it was only 10 times.
There aren't a lot of things that have killed this many Americans. I wish our government was trying to keep us safe.