OT: COVID-19 thread #3

[Dresden]

white house will not cooperate w/ contract tracing of rose garden "super spreader" event:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/10/05/why-wont-the-white-house-let-the-cdc-contact-trace-its-rose-garden-event/

That's just pathetic, and it causing some blowback among White House staff, the secret service, etc. Once people realize their loyalty to the president is putting themselves and their families at risk, I hope we'll see more and more people refusing to go along with Trump's insane disregard for safety. I read that OSHA may be called in to investigate whether employees at the White House are being forced to work in unsafe conditions. I'm sure if that happens, Trump will fire the head of OSHA and replace him with another political hack.

[dougthonus]

IMO, that would be the best thing that could happen- a tremendous amount of people turn out to vote, paving the way for a blue wave. It would send a message that no amount of gerrymandering or electoral college BS or voter suppression tactics can disguise the fact that the US is a blue nation, and becoming more so every day.

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

[Dresden]

IMO, that would be the best thing that could happen- a tremendous amount of people turn out to vote, paving the way for a blue wave. It would send a message that no amount of gerrymandering or electoral college BS or voter suppression tactics can disguise the fact that the US is a blue nation, and becoming more so every day.

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

Democrats have now tallied more votes for their candidate in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, soon to be 7 of 8. So that's an almost 3 decade run of democratic plurality.

And sure, since we have a two party system, the parties will constantly be shifting their positions to try to capture more votes. It's a system that is somewhat self balancing.

[The Explorer]

IMO, that would be the best thing that could happen- a tremendous amount of people turn out to vote, paving the way for a blue wave. It would send a message that no amount of gerrymandering or electoral college BS or voter suppression tactics can disguise the fact that the US is a blue nation, and becoming more so every day.

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

Democrats have now tallied more votes for their candidate in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, soon to be 7 of 8. So that's an almost 3 decade run of democratic plurality.

And sure, since we have a two party system, the parties will constantly be shifting their positions to try to capture more votes. It's a system that is somewhat self balancing.

It may be self balancing, but its also self-destructing in a way since if something works for the good of the people, it cannot stick since it will overcome by populism and money. There is no mechanism in the system to stop the onslaught of corruption at each level. So ultimately, corruption wins out.

[coldfish]

IMO, that would be the best thing that could happen- a tremendous amount of people turn out to vote, paving the way for a blue wave. It would send a message that no amount of gerrymandering or electoral college BS or voter suppression tactics can disguise the fact that the US is a blue nation, and becoming more so every day.

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

Democrats have now tallied more votes for their candidate in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, soon to be 7 of 8. So that's an almost 3 decade run of democratic plurality.

And sure, since we have a two party system, the parties will constantly be shifting their positions to try to capture more votes. It's a system that is somewhat self balancing.

The parties really aren't ideologies. They are for profit entities that pull together various ideologies and groups. The current incarnation of the Republican party in particular is just a bunch of groups of single issue voters that can be held together because their single issues don't conflict.

If Republicans start losing elections badly (not just the popular vote but the actual position), they will sit down with their math models and come up with a new platform intended to garner enough of the vote to win. As you note, its a self correcting system.

The real question in the long term is what positions are going to be dropped to get there. Based on how things are going, I suspect a bunch of the social issues Doug brought up above are going to be forgotten. Gay rights isn't going to be a debate, for example.

In the short term, Trump is going to get smashed and Republicans are going to have to figure out how he got the nomination in the first place. He really damaged their brand in a way that normally doesn't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if republicans donald-proof themselves in some way going forward.

[Dresden]

After all the problems with COVID that Notre Dame has had, it's president has now tested positive after attending the event in the Rose Garden last week to announce the nomination of Trump's new SC justice, where he didn't wear a mask and was shaking hands with people. Some students are livid and some are demanding he step down.

[Dieselbound&Down]

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

Democrats have now tallied more votes for their candidate in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, soon to be 7 of 8. So that's an almost 3 decade run of democratic plurality.

And sure, since we have a two party system, the parties will constantly be shifting their positions to try to capture more votes. It's a system that is somewhat self balancing.

The parties really aren't ideologies. They are for profit entities that pull together various ideologies and groups. The current incarnation of the Republican party in particular is just a bunch of groups of single issue voters that can be held together because their single issues don't conflict.

If Republicans start losing elections badly (not just the popular vote but the actual position), they will sit down with their math models and come up with a new platform intended to garner enough of the vote to win. As you note, its a self correcting system.

The real question in the long term is what positions are going to be dropped to get there. Based on how things are going, I suspect a bunch of the social issues Doug brought up above are going to be forgotten. Gay rights isn't going to be a debate, for example.

In the short term, Trump is going to get smashed and Republicans are going to have to figure out how he got the nomination in the first place. He really damaged their brand in a way that normally doesn't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if republicans donald-proof themselves in some way going forward.

The ideological battle over those social issues is going to be even more abstract and, I think, waged through the judicial system and pushing other rights. Candidates will simply be more coded. It won't be a strong statement that they are against gay marriage, it will be a statement that they are against activist judges, that they will support appointing judges who will rule appropriately, support religious freedom and champion legislation that pushes against any "gains" made in that area.

In the end, only judicial rulings will have much lasting effect and I do think the rest will slowly fade away. But, until that happens, social conservatives will vote for candidates taking these positions and not the outspoken candidates and platforms that were acceptable in the past.

[Ice Man]

The ideological battle over those social issues is going to be even more abstract and, I think, waged through the judicial system and pushing other rights. Candidates will simply be more coded. It won't be a strong statement that they are against gay marriage, it will be a statement that they are against activist judges, that they will support appointing judges who will rule appropriately, support religious freedom and champion legislation that pushes against any "gains" made in that area.

In the end, only judicial rulings will have much lasting effect and I do think the rest will slowly fade away. But, until that happens, social conservatives will vote for candidates taking these positions and not the outspoken candidates and platforms that were acceptable in the past.

Correct. It's no longer permissible for mainstream candidates to advocate anti-gay statutes, just as they can't advocate segregation. But that doesn't mean that many candidates and many voters wouldn't happy with such things. And, as you write, they will pursue such goals -- at least as far as they can take them, obviously pure segregation is not returning -- through the judicial branch.

[TheStig]

IMO, that would be the best thing that could happen- a tremendous amount of people turn out to vote, paving the way for a blue wave. It would send a message that no amount of gerrymandering or electoral college BS or voter suppression tactics can disguise the fact that the US is a blue nation, and becoming more so every day.

We cycle between waves of republicans/democrats constantly, I don't think we're becoming one nation vs another, we're just swinging the pendulum one direction (potentially) for some period of time.

Also, outside of a few social issues on both sides that I'm completely on the liberal side with (just basic equality/equity/human rights stuff which is embarrassing that not everyone is on the same side on), I'm not sure there's much to like one vs the other.

I definitely think the country is trending as a whole toward more liberal values but a lot of that is the younger end of the spectrum who doesn't see a lot of hope in either late 70's candidate. This is the problem when the countries largest block is non voters. You can complain about Trump and Biden but when you don't get out to vote, that's who you get.

[johnnyvann840]

NFL talking about "pausing" season because of outbreak among players.

[dougthonus]

I definitely think the country is trending as a whole toward more liberal values but a lot of that is the younger end of the spectrum who doesn't see a lot of hope in either late 70's candidate. This is the problem when the countries largest block is non voters. You can complain about Trump and Biden but when you don't get out to vote, that's who you get.

The problem with that theory is that if you go out and vote, that's still what you get. Our system is set up to give the perception of choice but there aren't actually good choices, and no ones vote matters enough to make a difference. You can vote in the less bad candidate, but the amount of effort to mobilize for an outsider candidate to win is way beyond what is reasonable except in very small elections.

[TheStig]

I definitely think the country is trending as a whole toward more liberal values but a lot of that is the younger end of the spectrum who doesn't see a lot of hope in either late 70's candidate. This is the problem when the countries largest block is non voters. You can complain about Trump and Biden but when you don't get out to vote, that's who you get.

The problem with that theory is that if you go out and vote, that's still what you get. Our system is set up to give the perception of choice but there aren't actually good choices, and no ones vote matters enough to make a difference. You can vote in the less bad candidate, but the amount of effort to mobilize for an outsider candidate to win is way beyond what is reasonable except in very small elections.

I agree 100% but people don't typically vote in primaries when their are better choices. It's easy to complain now about the choices but if you're not active in the beginning you end up with dumb and dumber like we have now.

[PlayerUp]

If Republicans start losing elections badly (not just the popular vote but the actual position), they will sit down with their math models and come up with a new platform intended to garner enough of the vote to win. As you note, its a self correcting system.

Insert Nikki Haley.

You're right. However Donald Trump will soon be a thing of the past and people will have moved on and forgotten about him. Meanwhile all it takes is a completely opposite candidate to Donald Trump in 2024 to reverse this and one that has some liberal views. That's why I expect Nikki Haley ends up being the frontrunner for the republican party in 2024.

The country is definitely moving towards social and racial liberal views but economically it's still very conservative and likely will stay that way for years to come unless the progressives take over. Republicans have lost the edge over the years but are gradually starting to move towards the democratic views and eventually they'll get a candidate who will support many liberal views and sway moderate voters to their favor.

[Ice Man]

You can complain about Trump and Biden but when you don't get out to vote, that's who you get.

The consequences of not voting are very large. Which age group votes the most? The old. Which age group votes the least? The young. Which age group has lowered its poverty % the most over the past 50 years? Those age group of 65+. Which has lowered its poverty rate the least over the past 50 years? The age group of 18-29.

Politicians craft programs to take care of the old (for example, Medicare D) and can't be bothered with the young (for example, college debt relief). Because that's what gets them elected. Hillary beat Trump by +17 in the 18-29 age group. Big deal, they didn't vote. She was -7 among seniors. That hurt, because they voted.

Conversely, why are Biden's polls currently exceeding Hillary's results by a substantial margin? For many reasons, but the main one is that Biden is +20 with seniors. If he is elected, he will remember that. He will remember that his base was African-Americans and seniors. That's no knock on Biden, every politician knows who put him or her in office, and makes sure to take care of them.

The young hurt themselves each and every election by making their votes relatively unimportant. That's on them. Nobody but them.

[Dez]

NFL talking about "pausing" season because of outbreak among players.

The AFL in Australia took a 12 week break in March after the first round, then shortened the season to 17 more games (play everyone once). Relocated teams into hubs in 3 safe states and we're currently in the second week of the finals.

They shortened games because teams were going to have shorter breaks between their next game. We've started getting a percentage of fans back at games as well, hopefully be back at full capacity (with Covid guidelines in place) over the next few weeks.

Sport leagues can function if the proper protocol is put in place.

[dougthonus]

I agree 100% but people don't typically vote in primaries when their are better choices. It's easy to complain now about the choices but if you're not active in the beginning you end up with dumb and dumber like we have now.

That's not true. Regardless of whom I voted for in the primary, I would still have these same two choices.

Your theory is that if everyone who voted all decided collectively to be extremely educated in their vote then things would be better. Sure, but that isn't going to happen, and it's a very large amount of effort individually to do that, and the outcome of doing so is meaningless because the other voters aren't going to do it.

[Ice Man]

Your theory is that if everyone who voted all decided collectively to be extremely educated in their vote then things would be better.

Everybody always says that the Presidential candidates are bad, but aside from Trump I've never really believed that. Who out there would be better Presidents than the people the major parties have nominated? No doubt there are some, as well as those who would be worse, but I for one don't know how to identify people ahead of time who would be better than, say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

[dougthonus]

Your theory is that if everyone who voted all decided collectively to be extremely educated in their vote then things would be better.

Everybody always says that the Presidential candidates are bad, but aside from Trump I've never really believed that. Who out there would be better Presidents than the people the major parties have nominated? No doubt there are some, as well as those who would be worse, but I for one don't know how to identify people ahead of time who would be better than, say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Bad is maybe not the right word. Non-representative of my desires is a better phrase.

[TheStig]

I agree 100% but people don't typically vote in primaries when their are better choices. It's easy to complain now about the choices but if you're not active in the beginning you end up with dumb and dumber like we have now.

That's not true. Regardless of whom I voted for in the primary, I would still have these same two choices.

Your theory is that if everyone who voted all decided collectively to be extremely educated in their vote then things would be better. Sure, but that isn't going to happen, and it's a very large amount of effort individually to do that, and the outcome of doing so is meaningless because the other voters aren't going to do it.

Yes, that is correct. For important positions on your ballot, you should take a few moments and see what they stand for. I don't think that's a lot to ask for the freedom to elect your leaders.

[Ice Man]

Bad is maybe not the right word. Non-representative of my desires is a better phrase.

OK, fair enough. My tastes are conventional. I am fine with almost all candidates who are not unrelentingly belligerent, corrupt, self-absorbed, trivial, insecure, rude, untruthful, and delusional. So I can happily vote in primaries and general elections. If on the other hand I felt that the candidates from the major parties didn't meet my needs, then yes politics would become deeply frustrating, because those major parties aren't going anywhere. That would be dispiriting.