Free Republic

This virus got loose in the worst country in the world. I think if it had happened in Africa...Africa would have handled things a lot better.

See the link Dr. Bruce Aylward. This doctor is well-regarded, and is not beholden to the WHO, and is giving his account of what he saw. He would certainly disagree with your assessment of China's response. Maybe he is lying. Maybe he has been misled. But in that two hour video he certainly seems to be neither. And, unlike all of the armchair quarterbacks, he was actually there.

This virus got loose in the worst country in the world. I think if it had happened in Africa...Africa would have handled things a lot better.

See the link Dr. Bruce Aylward. This doctor is well-regarded, and is not beholden to the WHO, and is giving his account of what he saw. He would certainly disagree with your assessment of China's response. Maybe he is lying. Maybe he has been misled. But in that two hour video he certainly seems to be neither. And, unlike all of the armchair quarterbacks, he was actually there.

I don’t expect Wuhan here.

It is impossible to know what to expect here. One thing that jumped out at me listening to accounts of Dr. Bruce Aylward was that there seems to be two incompatible pictures. The picture he draws (and he certainly seems honest) is of a Chinese governmental response that was far more professional, humanitarian, and effective than anybody seems to believe (honestly, far more effective than what we can realistically expect here). This does not mesh with other pictures which paint a decidedly different picture.

Which one is real? Who knows? But if he is correct and honest, and hasn't been misled, we cannot expect a better level of care than what was given over there, as shocking as it is to contemplate. Listen to his descriptions of the ways everyone seemed to be onboard to help out for the common good. And then compare it to last nights' debate (LOL)

One thing to remember is this: China had the advantage of responding when the global supply chain was still intact. We may very well not have that advantage. So don't be too sure what the worst case scenario is.

Oh, FWIW, one myth that he shatters is the notion that there is a huge pool of mild cases. From what they found, there is no such pool. This is not the tip of an iceberg. The number of cases is relatively small, and the mortality is quite high. The death rate does seem to be roughly in-line with what the official cases would imply (worse, if rumors are true that the worst cases were never tested, and merely put down as "pneumonia").

If he tries, and the DNC allows it, he and the DNC are equally self-deluded. If a billionaire (especially one as universally disliked as himself), were to buy the nomination, not only would he get trounced in the general election, not only would would lose the house, but they would be facing years of hemorrhaging voters. Basically, he would have bought the Titanic 5 minutes after it struck the iceberg.

I would love nothing more than for him to do so. The Democrat party (which, for decades, has not been an ideologically united party, but rather a loose coalition of individual fiefdoms that despise and distrust each other tremendously), would split apart. No amount of hatred for Trump could keep it together.

As I said — I would love for the DNC to be so utterly tone deaf and delusional to try such a thing.

I think Bernie is a true threat.

Bernie Sanders would get virtually no Republican votes, would lose the independent vote handily, and would have terrible turnout problems within the Democrat party. Meanwhile, Republican turnout is going to be shattering records.

Bernie Sanders is a mortal threat to the viability of the Democrat party. He poses no threat to the country. He would lose to Trump, and he would lose badly.

Not so fast (I am assuming you are referring to Bloomberg and not Steyer).

Would Bloomberg take on this role? Why would he? Has he ever displayed a willingness to sacrifice of himself for the sake of others? Has he ever displayed integrity? No. He is a deeply selfish man. He is running for the nomination because he is so deluded that he actually thinks he can win. But is he *so* deluded that he would think he could steal/buy the nomination and somehow get even within 10 points of Trump? I don’t think anyone could be that deluded. He would *have* to know that he was merely a sacrificial lamb at that point (bearing in mind, especially, how battered he is being just in the last week or two).

But even if he did accept, what is in it for the DNC? Have a billionaire buy the nomination, and the DNC can kiss goodbye forever 20-30% of their current base (hello, Green party). What is more, the party will sacrifice forever their claim to “the Republicans are for the rich, the Democrats for the working class.” Goodbye African-American turnout (if not actual votes). Goodbye the remaining blue collar Democrats (still a sizable group). Goodbye young social justice warriors.

No. The answer is not easy. The only thing worse for the Democrats than a Sanders nomination would be a Bloomberg nomination.

But who can the DNC install? Who would be willing to play the Mondale role, and take one for the team (a DNC installed candidate would have nowhere near the turnout necessary to defeat the turnout machine in the White House)? Would Hillary take on that role? Biden? Mondale was a man of integrity (at least from what I remember). But none of the current crop of high-visibility Democrats have even an ounce of integrity.

And who would the DNC *want* to be the face of the party. A homosexual despised by African Americans? A doddering old fool? A bitter 2 time loser? An angry, strident fake Indian? A nasty little woman from Minnesota? Maybe a billionaire (or two)?

The bottom line is that the DNC really doesn’t have a candidate who would be both willing to take one for the team, and who represents a much better face of the party than the current leader, who is really just an angry, viscous old man yelling at clouds.

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner, and simply don’t have any good options left.

No one talks about Jihadi Suiciders bringing the coronavirus to the west. Certainly everyone is thinking about it?

No one talks about it (or thinks about it) because it is a ridiculous idea. You are talking about a disease that, by every account, is extremely contagious. It is going to get everywhere, without any islamic assistance. A "Jihadi Suicider" wouldn't even be noticed among the thousands and hundreds of thousands of asymptomatic carriers that are either already out there, or soon will be.

Anything beyond 10% is a plus.

It's the turnout percentage that matters. Far better for Trump to get 10% of a small turnout than 20% of an Obama-level turnout.

It’s basic math. Right now, being conservative, Democrats and Republicans are essentially even in number. Voter enthusiasm for Trump within Republican voters, and a sizeable chunk of independents, are greater than we have ever seen (greater even than Democrat support for Obama). Turnout among Republicans will be extremely high, as it will for Trump-supporting independents.

What this means is that his Democratic opponent has two, very difficult, hurdles to overcome. One is to somehow lower pro-Trump turnout, especially in the new swing states in the upper midwest. But that hurdle is actually the easier one. The bigger problem is that a Democrat would have to, somehow, get Democratic turnout to rival Trump’s Republican turnout.

Sanders, quite simply, cannot do that. 20% of the party support him loudly and enthusiastically (and will have near 100% turnout - or as near as possible). Another 30-40% are at best lukewarm. He will win their vote, but their turnout cannot be expected to be anything higher than modest. And the remainder are adamantly opposed to Sanders. They will still vote for Sanders 9:1 (actually, it will be lower), but turnout there will be atrocious.

People don’t generally vote against their own self-interest. Obama was subtle enough, and people wanted to believe, so that people were convinced that a vote for Obama wouldn’t hurt them personally. This is not true for Sanders. He lacks any subtlety, and his entire platform is built around punitive taxation, wealth confiscation, and business strangulation.

Turnout for Sanders will be atrocious. For Trump it will be record breaking. Translation: landslide, with significant downticket implications.

The people saying Bernie can never beat Trump are the same ones who were saying Trump can never beat Hillary 4 yrs ago.

No. They aren't.

Why do I suspect Party Officials with a sniffle come before bricklayers with a deep cough?

Because you would be right? Actually, from what I heard (privately, but also confirmed in certain videos coming out of the area) was that there was a tremendous amount of pressure put on the decision of who to test. They could only test a few people a day, and so the doctors were told to follow certain rules. These rules were complicated by the fact that they were way past capacity, and could only treat *relatively* milder cases (and were to told to only treat those they could test, and only test those they could treat).

Regardless of the truth of that, you are right to treat any of the numbers coming out of China as having little real value.

You definitely could be right. The video that was truly frightening was the “Wuhan at night” video, but some people were saying that it was actually an orchestrated protest. If it was, it was very well done.

People did not vote for Trump because he was a Republican. They voted for him despite the fact that he was a Republican. (A bit of an exaggeration, but this was certainly true for a lot of voters). Trump will never have much in the way of coattails, because the Republican party has done nothing to make up for decades of betrayal. Trump will win easily. But Republicans are on their own.

It’s not really a faith in the American people. It’s a faith that people, by and large, don’t knowingly vote against their self-interest. For most Democrats, almost all independents, and virtually every Republican, a vote for Sanders would be disastrous. And Sanders doesn’t have the subtlety to hide this.

20% of Democrats will eagerly vote for him. Another ~40% will vote reluctantly for him. The rest will stay home, or even vote for Trump. Almost all independents, and all Republicans (essentially) will vote for Trump.

Translation: absolute blowout.

I am 99% sure these are homeless people. Towards the end, one moves.

Plus, white liberals are the *least* charitable people ever placed on this earth. They are all for giving people other people’s money, but they are completely selfish. The idea that they would voluntarily subject themselves to the kinds of punitive taxation and job-killing proposals that Sanders advocated is utterly preposterous (and yes, these are generally intelligent enough people to understand the implications of Sanders’ rhetoric, and they make enough to be absolutely crushed by what he is advocating).

Forget what they say publicly. Put them into a voting booth with no-one looking (and no peers to witness their courageous virtue) and there is no way on God’s green earth that they are pulling the lever for Sanders in the percentages they need to in order to make this election competitive. Not a chance.

Sanders may get 60% turnout out of working Democrats (which is the majority of Democrats). But he is not getting the 90+% he would need.

An election against Sanders would not even be competitive. Sanders would have absolutely no chance whatsoever. To win against Trump, a Democrat would need Obama-like turnout within their party. Sanders would break all-time low records. Trump would dominate independents, and Republicans would vote in unprecedented numbers.

An absolute blowout.

At some point fairly soon, the Democrats will realize that they have no way to beat Trump (barring some kind of black swan), and that, no matter what they do, their hold on the house will be in jeopardy. Your parents may still vote Democrat, but others won’t. Listen to the CSPAN callers after Pelosi tore up Trump’s speech. These voters are *done* with the Democrats. But a Sander’s campaign would be a daily tearing-of-the-speech. Some may stay Democrat. But some won’t. And that is the Democrat’s problem.

The bigger problem though is that the Democratic party is made up of rival fiefdoms. These fiefdoms are vicious and ruthless. Sanders (actually, his supporters), are interlopers. The Democratic power bases cannot tolerate a new, out-of-control, group to upset their delicate balance.

There is no parallel between the Republicans and Democrats here. The dynamics are just completely different. To survive, the Democrats need the Sanders voters to either shut up and do what they are told, or to go away permanently. The former is out of the question, so the Democrats have no choice but to force them out.

For the Democrats, this is no longer about winning the 2020 election. This is about surviving as a major party. They can do so, if they rid themselves of Sanders voters. But they simply cannot, if they don’t.

If the Dems deny Bernie being top-of-the-ticket, what happens to his supporters? As far as I can see, even a bigger blowout.

They have no rational choice. The damage done to the party by a Sanders run would be epic, and would be felt in for years or even decades to come. There are *still* a lot of sane Democrat voters. They are old school Democrats. They don't like a lot of the policies held by the Democrats, but they despise the Republican party more than they dislike Democrat policies. They have been leaving the party in drips and drabs for the last 30 years. A Sanders run would be the final straw.

What is more, the other big powerful groups within the party (the feminist wing -- the most politically savvy and entrenched group; blacks -- already divided generationally and by gender) are never going to tolerate the Sanders wing being anything other than a source of obedient votes.

They have no choice other than to bite the bullet. Deny Sanders the nomination. Say goodbye to 25% of their voters (with the hope that some trickle back). Put up some kind of moderate loser (a graceful, integrity-filled candidate like Mondale would be the perfect dedicated loser). Make up whatever excuse they need to. And start trying to undo *some* of the damage they have done to their party over the last 4 years.