washingtonmonthly--2020-02-29--Trump’s Coronavirus Comments Endanger Millions of Americans

Donald Trump has done much to imperil American democracy , destroy the norms and laws that hold the country together , and hobble our ability to tackle the major crises of our era from wealth inequality to climate change .
He has actively hurt many people , from the immigrant children he forced into abusive conditions to the Kurds and Puerto Ricans he abandoned and left to suffer and die .
He has also toyed irresponsibly and recklessly on several foreign policy fronts from North Korea to Iran .
But never before has Trump actively endangered the lives of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction to the coronavirus outbreak .
Ever the narcissist , Trump is incapable of thinking about anyone but himself .
For him , a potential pandemic unprecedented since World War I isn ’ t important for its cost to human life , but rather for its cost to his re-election prospects .
Ever the businessman with an eye on the bottom line , Trump isn ’ t worried about the damage to his re-election prospects due to administrative incompetence , but rather from a potential economic downturn as a result of people taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we are confronted with the flabbergasting reality that the President of the United States is telling the world that the coronavirus is a “ hoax ” , in the hopes that everyone will just keep congregating , spending , buying and traveling like normal to protect his political short-term interests–even as the Dow Jones market index has fallen by 12 percent now that investors have finally wised up to the level of the average informed newspaper reader .
And in so doing , Trump is tying the virus in with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ deep state ” and all those very bad mean people constantly out to get him : President Donald Trump said Friday that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a “ hoax ” to damage him and his administration .
“ The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus , ” he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston , South Carolina .
“ One of my people came up to me and said ‘ Mr .
President they tried to beat you on Russia , Russia , Russia .
That didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t do it .
They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation , ” he continued .
“ This is their new hoax , ” he said , referring to the coronavirus .
It ’ s not just Donald Trump .
Fox News is downplaying the threat to their audience , and Rush Limbaugh says it ’ s just like the common cold ( not true , of course : the coronavirus death rate far exceed that of the flu . )
Not to be outdone , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope the virus kills millions of Americans to “ end Donald Trump ’ s streak of winning.
” It ’ s hard to know exactly what is going on at Fox News headquarters or at the White House ( but I repeat myself . )
Perhaps the president himself doesn ’ t know it because he is legitimately that far disconnected from reality , but certainly those around him must know how big a threat this virus really is to millions of Americans .
At a crass political level , they must also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters is most at risk if it becomes an uncontrollable pandemic .
Someone at some point must have had a conversation with Donald Trump , Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that if they tell their gullible audiences not to worry about coronavirus , not only will it haunt their reputations forever but many of their most dedicated listeners may die on account of it .
Is the risk really worth it just to mitigate a hit to the market indices ?
Are they simply praying that nothing comes of the virus and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do they believe their political situation is so desperate , and so based on economic performance , that they ’ re willing to put all their chips down on a pandemic not occurring ?
It ’ s hard to say , but obviously their actions and their rhetoric are incredibly dangerous .
The coronavirus is deadly and spreading rapidly .
It is easily transmissible , hard to detect and particularly devastating to the elderly and those with health complications .
Many will die if the public does not take it seriously .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only what Trump , Fox News and Limbaugh say , and no one else .
Never before has a president put so many people in danger so intentionally , for such a bad reason .
It sets an appalling new low for a presidency that seems to hit a new nadir every week .

Donald Trump has done much to imperil American democracy, destroy the norms and laws that hold the country together, and hobble our ability to tackle the major crises of our era from wealth inequality to climate change. He has actively hurt many people, from the immigrant children he forced into abusive conditions to the Kurds and Puerto Ricans he abandoned and left to suffer and die. He has also toyed irresponsibly and recklessly on several foreign policy fronts from North Korea to Iran.
But never before has Trump actively endangered the lives of millions of Americans like he did today in reaction to the coronavirus outbreak. Ever the narcissist, Trump is incapable of thinking about anyone but himself. For him, a potential pandemic unprecedented since World War I isn’t important for its cost to human life, but rather for its cost to his re-election prospects. Ever the businessman with an eye on the bottom line, Trump isn’t worried about the damage to his re-election prospects due to administrative incompetence, but rather from a potential economic downturn as a result of people taking reasonable precautions to protect themselves and others.
So we are confronted with the flabbergasting reality that the President of the United States is telling the world that the coronavirus is a “hoax”, in the hopes that everyone will just keep congregating, spending, buying and traveling like normal to protect his political short-term interests–even as the Dow Jones market index has fallen by 12 percent now that investors have finally wised up to the level of the average informed newspaper reader. And in so doing, Trump is tying the virus in with his broader persecution complex about Democrats, the “deep state” and all those very bad mean people constantly out to get him:
President Donald Trump said Friday that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a “hoax” to damage him and his administration. “The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,” he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. “One of my people came up to me and said ‘Mr. President they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well.’ They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation,” he continued. “This is their new hoax,” he said, referring to the coronavirus.
It’s not just Donald Trump. Fox News is downplaying the threat to their audience, and Rush Limbaugh says it’s just like the common cold (not true, of course: the coronavirus death rate far exceed that of the flu.) Not to be outdone, the president’s son said that Democrats hope the virus kills millions of Americans to “end Donald Trump’s streak of winning.”
It’s hard to know exactly what is going on at Fox News headquarters or at the White House (but I repeat myself.) Perhaps the president himself doesn’t know it because he is legitimately that far disconnected from reality, but certainly those around him must know how big a threat this virus really is to millions of Americans. At a crass political level, they must also know that their own elderly base of voters is most at risk if it becomes an uncontrollable pandemic. Someone at some point must have had a conversation with Donald Trump, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that if they tell their gullible audiences not to worry about coronavirus, not only will it haunt their reputations forever but many of their most dedicated listeners may die on account of it. Is the risk really worth it just to mitigate a hit to the market indices? Are they simply praying that nothing comes of the virus and they can just get away with it? Do they believe their political situation is so desperate, and so based on economic performance, that they’re willing to put all their chips down on a pandemic not occurring?
It’s hard to say, but obviously their actions and their rhetoric are incredibly dangerous. The coronavirus is deadly and spreading rapidly. It is easily transmissible, hard to detect and particularly devastating to the elderly and those with health complications. Many will die if the public does not take it seriously. And a large percentage of the public trusts only what Trump, Fox News and Limbaugh say, and no one else.
Never before has a president put so many people in danger so intentionally, for such a bad reason. It sets an appalling new low for a presidency that seems to hit a new nadir every week.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-29--More on Bernie Sanders’s Life Expectancy

In response to my post about Bernie Sanders ’ s heart condition , a reader who is a professor of medicine at a major academic medical center , emailed me the following : I think Senator Sanders ’ risk of mortality is underappreciated because the importance of his heart attack is underappreciated .
In a man of this age with a heart attack , good evidence suggests he has a median survival of 5 years .
Here is the data , and the figure of it .
It would be reasonable to argue that care is better now than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , the patients in this study were doing all the things that are currently recommended in the 2014 AHA/ACC guidelines for care after a heart attack .
The patients in the registry well treated : 80 percent on statins , 94 percent on aspirin , 70 percent on ACE/ARBs , 70 percent on clopidogrel .
Thus , these outcomes are salient to outcomes now .
In my opinion , this just does not bode well .
As a cardiologist , to make a better assessment , I would like to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blocked and required the stenting ?
• Did he have ST segment elevations or depressions on his ECG ?
• How many vessels have significant blockage ( > 50 % ) • Is his heart pumping function normal or reduced ?
• Does he have diabetes ?
• How is his kidney function ?
• Does he have other vascular disease ( stroke , known carotid artery stenosis , peripheral artery disease ) as well ?
• What medications is he on now ?
• Are his blood pressure and cholesterol controlled ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more insight .

In response to my post about Bernie Sanders’s heart condition, a reader who is a professor of medicine at a major academic medical center, emailed me the following:
I am a cardiologist.
I think Senator Sanders’ risk of mortality is underappreciated because the importance of his heart attack is underappreciated. In a man of this age with a heart attack, good evidence suggests he has a median survival of 5 years. Here is the data, and the figure of it.
It would be reasonable to argue that care is better now than it was in 2005. That is true. However, the patients in this study were doing all the things that are currently recommended in the 2014 AHA/ACC guidelines for care after a heart attack. The patients in the registry well treated: 80 percent on statins, 94 percent on aspirin, 70 percent on ACE/ARBs, 70 percent on clopidogrel. Thus, these outcomes are salient to outcomes now. In my opinion, this just does not bode well.
As a cardiologist, to make a better assessment, I would like to know the following:
Which vessel was blocked and required the stenting?
Did he have ST segment elevations or depressions on his ECG?
How many vessels have significant blockage (>50%)
Is his heart pumping function normal or reduced?
Does he have diabetes?
How is his kidney function?
Does he have other vascular disease (stroke, known carotid artery stenosis, peripheral artery disease) as well?
What medications is he on now?
Are his blood pressure and cholesterol controlled?
With that information, we can provide more insight.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-02--How Momentum From South Carolina Changed the Delegate Primary

Back in December , Ella Nilsen made a helpful distinction between the Democratic primaries in the first four states and all of the rest .
Because so few delegates are at stake , she suggested that the early states were the “ momentum primaries.
” The reason that is important is because momentum is all about either winning or exceeding expectations .
The debacle in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire didn ’ t produce much momentum because both states basically came down to ties between Sanders and Buttigieg .
With a clear victory in Nevada , Sanders gained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overshadowed by Biden ’ s overwhelming victory in South Carolina , which is one of the reasons why I suggested quite a while ago that the latter would be the most important of the early states .
With his 28-point win in South Carolina , combined with the fact that both Steyer and Buttigieg have dropped out of the race , Biden goes into the Super Tuesday contests with all of the momentum .
While that falls far short of guaranteeing that he will be the nominee , the contours of this primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Sanders and the anti-Sanders candidate .
Biden has put himself in the driver ’ s seat to be the anti-Sanders choice .
As Nilsen suggested , we now head into the delegate primary and , at this point , the future of the race is being reshuffled .
Nate Cohn isn ’ t the only one hearing things like this : When Cohn refers to his “ friends out West , ” he is probably talking about the big enchilada on Super Tuesday : California .
Polls had previously indicated that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He probably still does .
But this is where it is important to keep in mind that we have now shifted from the momentum primary to the delegate primary .
Because Democrats allocate delegates on a proportional basis , winning or losing a primary takes a back seat to how many delegates a candidate wins .
Prior to his win in South Carolina , Biden was polling under the 15 percent threshold to garner any delegates in California .
That is now extremely unlikely .
As Politico reports , California Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seem to have held back in returning their ballots in order to watch what happens in the momentum primary and get a better sense of who emerged as the anti-Sanders candidate .
Paul Mitchell , an elections expert who has tracked the number of returned vote-by-mail California ballots through Friday , told POLITICO he ’ s seen a significant drop-off among Democratic voters from the past two California presidential primaries to date .
And the decline in returned ballots so far is occurring among the most dedicated voters : Those who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People in Super Tuesday states and California , in particular , are not returning their ballots yet , ” said Danielle Cendejas , a Democratic strategist in California whose firm did campaign mail for both of Barack Obama ’ s presidential campaigns .
“ They ’ re waiting for a signal , and I think this is a signal .
If you were debating between which of the Democrats who aren ’ t Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren to throw your hat behind , you ’ re probably going Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sanders will probably still win California , but he is much less likely to gain an insurmountable lead in the number of delegates .
Other states where Sanders and Biden will likely split the number of delegates include Texas , North Carolina , and Virginia .
Prior to the South Carolina primary , the state in which Sanders had the biggest lead was Colorado , where Biden has been running a distant fourth behind Warren and Bloomberg .
That could be the state least affected by the South Carolina primary .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s home state votes on Super Tuesday .
Regardless of who wins in Massachusetts , she will likely garner a significant number of delegates , reducing the chances that either Biden or Sanders will get a big majority .
The same might have been said of Klobuchar in Minnesota .
But she dropped out of the race on Monday and plans to endorse Biden .
Finally , there are the Super Tuesday states with much smaller delegate hauls that almost no one is paying any attention to .
They include Alabama , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Utah , and Vermont .
The only thing for certain in those states is that Sanders is likely to win an overwhelming victory in his home state of Vermont , whereas Biden will probably repeat his South Carolina numbers in Alabama .
In the weeks after Super Tuesday , there are still some large states with a lot of delegates who will hold their contests , including Michigan , Florida , Illinois , Georgia , and Ohio .
To the extent that the primary has become a two-person race by then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) will probably have dropped out , reshuffling the race once again .
On Tuesday night , we can expect that most of the media will still be focusing on who wins the primary in each state .
But keep in mind that the momentum primary is now over as we pivot to the delegate primary .
While that one is far from decided , it is now destined to become a two-way race between Biden and Sanders .
This article has been updated since Amy Klobuchar dropped out of the race .

Back in December, Ella Nilsen made a helpful distinction between the Democratic primaries in the first four states and all of the rest. Because so few delegates are at stake, she suggested that the early states were the “momentum primaries.”
The reason that is important is because momentum is all about either winning or exceeding expectations. The debacle in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire didn’t produce much momentum because both states basically came down to ties between Sanders and Buttigieg. With a clear victory in Nevada, Sanders gained the momentum. But that was soon overshadowed by Biden’s overwhelming victory in South Carolina, which is one of the reasons why I suggested quite a while ago that the latter would be the most important of the early states.
With his 28-point win in South Carolina, combined with the fact that both Steyer and Buttigieg have dropped out of the race, Biden goes into the Super Tuesday contests with all of the momentum. While that falls far short of guaranteeing that he will be the nominee, the contours of this primary have basically come down to a contest between Sanders and the anti-Sanders candidate. Biden has put himself in the driver’s seat to be the anti-Sanders choice.
As Nilsen suggested, we now head into the delegate primary and, at this point, the future of the race is being reshuffled. Nate Cohn isn’t the only one hearing things like this:
When Cohn refers to his “friends out West,” he is probably talking about the big enchilada on Super Tuesday: California. Polls had previously indicated that Sanders had a huge lead in that state. He probably still does. But this is where it is important to keep in mind that we have now shifted from the momentum primary to the delegate primary. Because Democrats allocate delegates on a proportional basis, winning or losing a primary takes a back seat to how many delegates a candidate wins.
Prior to his win in South Carolina, Biden was polling under the 15 percent threshold to garner any delegates in California. That is now extremely unlikely. As Politico reports, California Democrats, who tend to vote early by mail, seem to have held back in returning their ballots in order to watch what happens in the momentum primary and get a better sense of who emerged as the anti-Sanders candidate.
Paul Mitchell, an elections expert who has tracked the number of returned vote-by-mail California ballots through Friday, told POLITICO he’s seen a significant drop-off among Democratic voters from the past two California presidential primaries to date . And the decline in returned ballots so far is occurring among the most dedicated voters: Those who have participated in the past five elections. “People in Super Tuesday states and California, in particular, are not returning their ballots yet,” said Danielle Cendejas, a Democratic strategist in California whose firm did campaign mail for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. “They’re waiting for a signal, and I think this is a signal. If you were debating between which of the Democrats who aren’t Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren to throw your hat behind, you’re probably going Joe Biden’s way.”
The upshot is that Sanders will probably still win California, but he is much less likely to gain an insurmountable lead in the number of delegates.
Other states where Sanders and Biden will likely split the number of delegates include Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia. Prior to the South Carolina primary, the state in which Sanders had the biggest lead was Colorado, where Biden has been running a distant fourth behind Warren and Bloomberg. That could be the state least affected by the South Carolina primary.
Perhaps most interesting is the fact that Warren’s home state votes on Super Tuesday. Regardless of who wins in Massachusetts, she will likely garner a significant number of delegates, reducing the chances that either Biden or Sanders will get a big majority. The same might have been said of Klobuchar in Minnesota. But she dropped out of the race on Monday and plans to endorse Biden.
Finally, there are the Super Tuesday states with much smaller delegate hauls that almost no one is paying any attention to. They include Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont. The only thing for certain in those states is that Sanders is likely to win an overwhelming victory in his home state of Vermont, whereas Biden will probably repeat his South Carolina numbers in Alabama.
In the weeks after Super Tuesday, there are still some large states with a lot of delegates who will hold their contests, including Michigan, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, and Ohio. To the extent that the primary has become a two-person race by then, candidates like Warren and Bloomberg (?) will probably have dropped out, reshuffling the race once again.
On Tuesday night, we can expect that most of the media will still be focusing on who wins the primary in each state. But keep in mind that the momentum primary is now over as we pivot to the delegate primary. While that one is far from decided, it is now destined to become a two-way race between Biden and Sanders.
This article has been updated since Amy Klobuchar dropped out of the race.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-02--Voter Suppression is a Key Part of the GOP’s Electoral Strategy

Ask yourself a simple question .
McLennan County , Texas , grew by an estimated 15,000 people between 2012 and 2018 , “ with more than two-thirds of that growth coming from Black and Latinx residents.
” It ’ s the home of Waco and Baylor University .
Considering that population boom , why do you think the state closed 44 percent of the county ’ s polling places in that same time period ?
The answer is obvious .
Fewer polling places means longer travel times for voters and longer lines once they get there .
This means fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go the polls and that more of them will grow impatient with the wait and leave without casting a ballot .
It ’ s targeted voter suppression .
Overall , this is a very conservative part of the country , but with a large student population and growing number of blacks and Latinx voters , the Republican Party does not want high turnout in McLennan County .
The Guardian has investigated poll closures in Texas , and they ’ ve found a clear pattern : Some counties closed enough polling locations to violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ south of Houston , closed almost 60 % of its polling locations between 2012 and 2018 , causing it to fall below the statutory minimum , along with another county .
In a statement , Brazoria county clerk Joyce Hudman said the closures were inadvertent , and that this would not happen again in 2020 .
A Guardian analysis based on that report confirms what many activists have suspected : the places where the black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely not an accident .
I ’ d like to believe that even most Republicans don ’ t think this is a defensible practice , but I think that ’ s probably untrue .
The country is so polarized that Republicans tend to justify anything they think will help them win .
The initial defense is to argue that these things aren ’ t happening , but if the reality of this kind of targeted voter suppression is granted , the available defenses are extremely limited and obviously racist .
What can you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to articulate a defense are forced to explain things either in terms of raw undemocratic power ( “ if it helps us win , I ’ m for it ” ) or by blaming the victims ( “ if they can ’ t even wait in line , then they ’ re not very committed to voting.
” ) A third option is to raise questions about the genetic fitness of minorities ( “ why should uneducated and uninformed people vote in the first place ?
” ) .
The idea that every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the right to vote is totally lost .
Similar arguments are used to justify other targeted voter suppression efforts like photo ID requirements , felon lists , and voter roll purges .
And , remember , these tactics only come into play because more traditional methods are failing .
The most familiar is gerrymandering , where districts are drawn to be uncompetitive .
Politicians effectively choose their voters rather than having the voters choose them .
When you add this to all the other advantages of incumbency , it ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a primary from their right than a general election challenge from their left .
Democratic incumbents also benefit from gerrymandering , but as a whole the party is supportive of redistricting reform .
They do not engage is systemic efforts to selectively discourage Republican voters from participating in our elections .
It ’ s simply not true that the party would behave like Republicans if the shoe were on the other foot , and the proof is that there isn ’ t any effort to figure out ways to selectively target the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit the Democrats .
A healthy party would respond to changing public opinion by evolving to meet the needs and desires of their constituents , but conservatives do not want to adjust so they spend more time figuring out how to keep people from voting than in learning how to better represent them .
I think if more people understood this , it would carry a heavier cost and hasten the point in time when the GOP has to give up on the conservative revolution and moderate their views .

Ask yourself a simple question. McLennan County, Texas, grew by an estimated 15,000 people between 2012 and 2018, “with more than two-thirds of that growth coming from Black and Latinx residents.” It’s the home of Waco and Baylor University.
Considering that population boom, why do you think the state closed 44 percent of the county’s polling places in that same time period?
The answer is obvious. Fewer polling places means longer travel times for voters and longer lines once they get there. This means fewer people in McLennan County will decide to go the polls and that more of them will grow impatient with the wait and leave without casting a ballot. It’s targeted voter suppression.
Overall, this is a very conservative part of the country, but with a large student population and growing number of blacks and Latinx voters, the Republican Party does not want high turnout in McLennan County.
The Guardian has investigated poll closures in Texas, and they’ve found a clear pattern:
Some counties closed enough polling locations to violate Texas state law. Brazoria county, south of Houston, closed almost 60% of its polling locations between 2012 and 2018, causing it to fall below the statutory minimum, along with another county. In a statement, Brazoria county clerk Joyce Hudman said the closures were inadvertent, and that this would not happen again in 2020. A Guardian analysis based on that report confirms what many activists have suspected: the places where the black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures.
This is absolutely not an accident. I’d like to believe that even most Republicans don’t think this is a defensible practice, but I think that’s probably untrue. The country is so polarized that Republicans tend to justify anything they think will help them win. The initial defense is to argue that these things aren’t happening, but if the reality of this kind of targeted voter suppression is granted, the available defenses are extremely limited and obviously racist. What can you really say?
Those who are willing to articulate a defense are forced to explain things either in terms of raw undemocratic power (“if it helps us win, I’m for it”) or by blaming the victims (“if they can’t even wait in line, then they’re not very committed to voting.”) A third option is to raise questions about the genetic fitness of minorities (“why should uneducated and uninformed people vote in the first place?”).
The idea that every citizen is inherently equal and that they have the right to vote is totally lost. Similar arguments are used to justify other targeted voter suppression efforts like photo ID requirements, felon lists, and voter roll purges.
And, remember, these tactics only come into play because more traditional methods are failing. The most familiar is gerrymandering, where districts are drawn to be uncompetitive. Politicians effectively choose their voters rather than having the voters choose them. When you add this to all the other advantages of incumbency, it’s no wonder that most Republicans are more worried about a primary from their right than a general election challenge from their left.
Democratic incumbents also benefit from gerrymandering, but as a whole the party is supportive of redistricting reform. They do not engage is systemic efforts to selectively discourage Republican voters from participating in our elections. It’s simply not true that the party would behave like Republicans if the shoe were on the other foot, and the proof is that there isn’t any effort to figure out ways to selectively target the Republican vote in places where that would benefit the Democrats.
A healthy party would respond to changing public opinion by evolving to meet the needs and desires of their constituents, but conservatives do not want to adjust so they spend more time figuring out how to keep people from voting than in learning how to better represent them.
I think if more people understood this, it would carry a heavier cost and hasten the point in time when the GOP has to give up on the conservative revolution and moderate their views.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-02--The Threat of the Coronavirus to the U.S. Economy

In 2005 , the National Science Foundation , World Bank and other American and global organizations convened to discuss the threat of avian flu .
The scare turned out to be short-lived and isolated , involving about 300 cases and 175 deaths worldwide .
The economic effects were largely confined to chicken producers in China and Vietnam .
The potential economic and human threat from the coronavirus pandemic looks very different .
Economists have studied the impacts that natural disasters , terrorist attacks—and epidemics—have on the economy .
The evidence shows that the costs ultimately depend on whether the shock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the damages it inflicts are localized , nationwide , or even worldwide .
That ’ s why terrible hurricanes , heat waves , and 9/11 have not had broad economy-wide effects .
Luckily , that was also the case with the Avian flu and the Ebola scare .
But a coronavirus pandemic could be a shock that affects much of the country and economy .
It won ’ t go away quickly , no matter how much the president would like it to .
We do not know yet just how communicable this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can not predict how quickly it will spread here or how many Americans will be infected .
We also don ’ t know how lethal it is ; most of the data thus far have come from China , which has not collected or reported those data in a systematic and transparent way .
If the coronavirus has a two percent mortality rate , as currently assumed by some epidemiologists , it ’ s very serious .
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) says that strains of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017-2018 and 35.5 million Americans in 2018-2019 .
If this coronavirus strain is as communicable as regular flu—meaning 40.25 million will get it—a two percent mortality rate would imply that 805,000 Americans could die from the virus .
By these measures , a global coronavirus pandemic could infect 861 million people worldwide with an expected 17.2 million deaths .
If that came to fruition—and let ’ s certainly hope it doesn ’ t—the economic fallout would be enormous .
Over the past week , the pandemic has begun to slow the economies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a consequence , world oil prices have fallen 15 percent.Those countries are major U.S. export markets , and if their purchases of our goods and services fall appreciably , American unemployment will begin to rise .
The United States is also a very important export market for those countries .
In fact , half of our imports from China—and an appreciable share from Korea and Japan—are inputs used by U.S. manufacturers to produce their goods .
If the pandemic slows the production and exports of those inputs , as is now expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more U.S. unemployment will ensue .
If the pandemic spreads widely across Europe , all of these troubling effects will increase sharply .
When everyone had the avian flu one their mind , in 2005 , a group of U.S. and international organizations conducted war games , dubbed “ Atlantic Storm , ” based on a scenario in which bioterrorists unleashed smallpox in New York , Los Angeles , and four major European cities .
As the exercise unfolded , it became apparent that much of the expected economic damage would come not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anticipated responses by local , state , and national officials to close state borders , ground transportation systems , and bar people from congregating .
Without the capacity to test or vaccinate for the infection , mayors , governors , even the president may feel forced to shut down the transport of goods and people by aircraft , trains , buses , and subways .
Those actions , in and of themselves , would result in systemic economic costs , regardless of whether the coronavirus actually spread pervasively .
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic damage will be manageable .
But if they persist , largely because there are no effective treatments and the virus will spread in waves , the shock to the economy could be protracted and pervasive .
Everything could slow at once—consumption , investment , employment and incomes—and economic costs would be enormous .
The coronavirus threat is already driving some people to avoid places where other people gather—an immediate blow to restaurants , hotels , airlines , theaters and sports teams .
Past evidence suggests that most people would keep on working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or town .
If it spreads across much of the country , however , it could freeze much of the labor force and shut down a huge portion of the American economy .
When the Bush administration was broadly criticized in 2005 for its lack of preparation for a possible avian flu pandemic , it responded by beefing up resources , including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) , which the Obama administration expanded further .
The Trump administration reversed those policies by cutting or slowing funding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases ” —and dismantling the government ’ s pandemic task force .
Those short-sighted decisions were rationalized by saying they would save the taxpayers money .
If the worst-case scenario comes to pass , as it may , they could , quite literally , cost many lives and trillions of dollars .

In 2005, the National Science Foundation, World Bank and other American and global organizations convened to discuss the threat of avian flu. The scare turned out to be short-lived and isolated, involving about 300 cases and 175 deaths worldwide. The economic effects were largely confined to chicken producers in China and Vietnam.
The potential economic and human threat from the coronavirus pandemic looks very different. Economists have studied the impacts that natural disasters, terrorist attacks—and epidemics—have on the economy. The evidence shows that the costs ultimately depend on whether the shock persists or dissipates quickly, and whether the damages it inflicts are localized, nationwide, or even worldwide. That’s why terrible hurricanes, heat waves, and 9/11 have not had broad economy-wide effects. Luckily, that was also the case with the Avian flu and the Ebola scare.
But a coronavirus pandemic could be a shock that affects much of the country and economy. It won’t go away quickly, no matter how much the president would like it to.
We do not know yet just how communicable this strain of the coronavirus is, so we cannot predict how quickly it will spread here or how many Americans will be infected. We also don’t know how lethal it is; most of the data thus far have come from China, which has not collected or reported those data in a systematic and transparent way.
If the coronavirus has a two percent mortality rate, as currently assumed by some epidemiologists, it’s very serious. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that strains of the regular flu affected 45 million Americans in 2017-2018 and 35.5 million Americans in 2018-2019. If this coronavirus strain is as communicable as regular flu—meaning 40.25 million will get it—a two percent mortality rate would imply that 805,000 Americans could die from the virus. By these measures, a global coronavirus pandemic could infect 861 million people worldwide with an expected 17.2 million deaths.
If that came to fruition—and let’s certainly hope it doesn’t—the economic fallout would be enormous. Over the past week, the pandemic has begun to slow the economies of China, South Korea and Japan. As a consequence, world oil prices have fallen 15 percent.Those countries are major U.S. export markets, and if their purchases of our goods and services fall appreciably, American unemployment will begin to rise.
The United States is also a very important export market for those countries. In fact, half of our imports from China—and an appreciable share from Korea and Japan—are inputs used by U.S. manufacturers to produce their goods. If the pandemic slows the production and exports of those inputs, as is now expected, American manufacturing will slow further and more U.S. unemployment will ensue. If the pandemic spreads widely across Europe, all of these troubling effects will increase sharply.
When everyone had the avian flu one their mind, in 2005, a group of U.S. and international organizations conducted war games, dubbed “Atlantic Storm,” based on a scenario in which bioterrorists unleashed smallpox in New York, Los Angeles, and four major European cities. As the exercise unfolded, it became apparent that much of the expected economic damage would come not from the disease itself, but from the anticipated responses by local, state, and national officials to close state borders, ground transportation systems, and bar people from congregating.
Without the capacity to test or vaccinate for the infection, mayors, governors, even the president may feel forced to shut down the transport of goods and people by aircraft, trains, buses, and subways. Those actions, in and of themselves, would result in systemic economic costs, regardless of whether the coronavirus actually spread pervasively. Of course, if those shutdowns are short-lived, the economic damage will be manageable. But if they persist, largely because there are no effective treatments and the virus will spread in waves, the shock to the economy could be protracted and pervasive. Everything could slow at once—consumption, investment, employment and incomes—and economic costs would be enormous.
The coronavirus threat is already driving some people to avoid places where other people gather—an immediate blow to restaurants, hotels, airlines, theaters and sports teams. Past evidence suggests that most people would keep on working until the virus severely affects their city or town. If it spreads across much of the country, however, it could freeze much of the labor force and shut down a huge portion of the American economy.
When the Bush administration was broadly criticized in 2005 for its lack of preparation for a possible avian flu pandemic, it responded by beefing up resources, including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which the Obama administration expanded further.
The Trump administration reversed those policies by cutting or slowing funding for the CDC and NIH—including cuts for “emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases”—and dismantling the government’s pandemic task force. Those short-sighted decisions were rationalized by saying they would save the taxpayers money. If the worst-case scenario comes to pass, as it may, they could, quite literally, cost many lives and trillions of dollars.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-03--How ‘Religious Liberty’ Is Threatening Women’s Lives

Not only does the United States have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world , the statistics are getting worse , not better .
As Senator Kamala Harris has pointed out , the numbers are even worse for African American women , who are three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications compared to their white counterparts .
While the roots of a problem like this are complex , one of the contributors comes in the form of what Christian nationalists refer to as “ religious liberty.
” The first thing to know about the connection is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States is now in a Catholic-run medical facility , with that number exceeding 40 percent in some states .
All of those facilities operate under something called Ethical and Religious Directives ( ERDs ) , which are based on Catholic teachings .
Those ERDs prohibit staff at Catholic hospitals from performing abortions—even when a woman is having complications due to a miscarriage .
Here is an example Katherine Stewart included in her book titled , The Power Worshippers .
In an ACLU study ( for which I served as an investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patients and Physicians Speak Out About Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Women ’ s Health and Lives , ” an Illinois doctor named David Eisenberg recalled that the sickest patient he ever cared for during his residency was a young woman experiencing a miscarriage .
The patient had initially sought care at another hospital , which happened to be Catholic .
Although her waters had broken , the hospital denied the necessary steps to hasten the safe completion of the miscarriage .
Ten days later , the young woman transferred hospitals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By that point , Eisenberg says , she had a fever of 106 degrees and was “ dying of sepsis.
” She survived , Eisenberg says , but suffered a cognitive impairment , as well as an acute kidney injury so severe that she required dialysis .
The woman spent nearly two weeks in the hospital , after which she was transferred to a long-term care facility .
As Stewart points out , we don ’ t have any way of knowing how often something like that happens or how dire the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents and women are obviously hesitant to come forward .
Stewart bravely tells her own story of how this very thing threatened her own life during a pregnancy .
In the last days of December 2003 , I was thirteen weeks pregnant and filled with joy at the prospect of having a second child .
Then , one afternoon , I began to bleed heavily and soon became faint .
Leaving my toddler at home with my husband , I was loaded on to a stretcher and taken by ambulance to the nearest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required by law to do .
We were living in downtown Manhattan at the time , and so the ambulance took me to St. Vincent ’ s Hospital , a Catholic facility in the West Village that has since been shuttered .
By the time I arrived , my blood pressure was dangerously low .
I felt I was passing in and out of consciousness .
I know now that what I needed then was dilation and curettage , a D & C , the procedure that removes tissue from the uterus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleeding , but hours passed and I was left to hemorrhage alone .
At some point , I started shaking ; I was going into shock .
I learned later that I lost nearly 40 percent of my blood .
Only then did the hospital provide me with the abortion that saved my life… I later inquired with the medical provider in order to review their records of the episode .
I was able to confirm the amount of time that elapsed and the total loss of blood I had suffered , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in treatment .
But given what I have since learned about the Ethical and Religious Directives under which St. Vincent ’ s would have been acting , I believe the hospital was willing to gamble with my life for the sake of preserving an imaginary child .
In the January/February 2016 issue of the Washington Monthly , Kathleen J. Frydl told a similar story about what happened to a woman named Tamesha Means .
Frydl did so as part of an article that traced the origins of what we call the “ conscience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in the public domain , even under these restrictive ERDs .
As Stewart points out , however , the Trump administration is attempting to nationalize the concept behind ERDs .
In January 2018 , the Trump administration established the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Health and Human Services…The actual mission of the office is not to protect patients but providers .
Its goal is not to ensure that patients get care but that providers may deprive them of it when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on May 2 , 2019 , after declaring a National Day of Prayer , President Trump proudly broadened the unit ’ s mandate to cover essentially all health services and staff that receive federal funds .
Announcing a new rule , known as Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care , the Trump administration signaled that all health care industry personnel , from physicians and nursing staff to receptionists , ambulance drivers , ultrasound technicians , and schedulers would be permitted to refuse to serve or treat patients if doing so offends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convictions.
” Such a “ liberty , ” like the liberty of a medical institution to allow a woman to become septic to the point of cognitive injury , is really just a form of religious privilege .
It is time to disabuse ourselves of the idea that “ religious liberty ” is merely a conflict about whether or not bakers are required to make cakes for gay weddings .
When it comes to healthcare—especially for women—lives are at stake .

Not only does the United States have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, the statistics are getting worse, not better.
As Senator Kamala Harris has pointed out, the numbers are even worse for African American women, who are three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications compared to their white counterparts.
While the roots of a problem like this are complex, one of the contributors comes in the form of what Christian nationalists refer to as “religious liberty.”
The first thing to know about the connection is that one in six hospital beds in the United States is now in a Catholic-run medical facility, with that number exceeding 40 percent in some states. All of those facilities operate under something called Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs), which are based on Catholic teachings.
The ERDs impose limitations on the types of services and procedures they are able to deliver. Based closely on Vatican teachings and codified by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, these directives are thus the work of clergymen, not doctors. Employees of Catholic-affiliated hospitals and health care facilities must typically follow the guidelines as a condition of their employment.
Those ERDs prohibit staff at Catholic hospitals from performing abortions—even when a woman is having complications due to a miscarriage. Here is an example Katherine Stewart included in her book titled, The Power Worshippers.
In an ACLU study (for which I served as an investigator), “Health Care Denied: Patients and Physicians Speak Out About Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Women’s Health and Lives,” an Illinois doctor named David Eisenberg recalled that the sickest patient he ever cared for during his residency was a young woman experiencing a miscarriage. The patient had initially sought care at another hospital, which happened to be Catholic. Although her waters had broken, the hospital denied the necessary steps to hasten the safe completion of the miscarriage. Ten days later, the young woman transferred hospitals and came under Dr. Eisenberg’s care. By that point, Eisenberg says, she had a fever of 106 degrees and was “dying of sepsis.” She survived, Eisenberg says, but suffered a cognitive impairment, as well as an acute kidney injury so severe that she required dialysis. The woman spent nearly two weeks in the hospital, after which she was transferred to a long-term care facility.
As Stewart points out, we don’t have any way of knowing how often something like that happens or how dire the results are because no one tracks these incidents and women are obviously hesitant to come forward. Stewart bravely tells her own story of how this very thing threatened her own life during a pregnancy.
In the last days of December 2003, I was thirteen weeks pregnant and filled with joy at the prospect of having a second child. Then, one afternoon, I began to bleed heavily and soon became faint. Leaving my toddler at home with my husband, I was loaded on to a stretcher and taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital, as ambulance drivers are often required by law to do. We were living in downtown Manhattan at the time, and so the ambulance took me to St. Vincent’s Hospital, a Catholic facility in the West Village that has since been shuttered. By the time I arrived, my blood pressure was dangerously low. I felt I was passing in and out of consciousness. I know now that what I needed then was dilation and curettage, a D&C, the procedure that removes tissue from the uterus. I needed it immediately to staunch the bleeding, but hours passed and I was left to hemorrhage alone. At some point, I started shaking; I was going into shock. I learned later that I lost nearly 40 percent of my blood. Only then did the hospital provide me with the abortion that saved my life… I later inquired with the medical provider in order to review their records of the episode. I was able to confirm the amount of time that elapsed and the total loss of blood I had suffered, but I found no explanation for the delay in treatment. But given what I have since learned about the Ethical and Religious Directives under which St. Vincent’s would have been acting, I believe the hospital was willing to gamble with my life for the sake of preserving an imaginary child.
In the January/February 2016 issue of the Washington Monthly, Kathleen J. Frydl told a similar story about what happened to a woman named Tamesha Means. Frydl did so as part of an article that traced the origins of what we call the “conscience clause” that allowed Catholic hospitals to work in the public domain, even under these restrictive ERDs.
As Stewart points out, however, the Trump administration is attempting to nationalize the concept behind ERDs.
In January 2018, the Trump administration established the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Health and Human Services…The actual mission of the office is not to protect patients but providers. Its goal is not to ensure that patients get care but that providers may deprive them of it when it suits those providers’ religious beliefs… Then, on May 2, 2019, after declaring a National Day of Prayer, President Trump proudly broadened the unit’s mandate to cover essentially all health services and staff that receive federal funds. Announcing a new rule, known as Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care, the Trump administration signaled that all health care industry personnel, from physicians and nursing staff to receptionists, ambulance drivers, ultrasound technicians, and schedulers would be permitted to refuse to serve or treat patients if doing so offends their personal “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Such a “liberty,” like the liberty of a medical institution to allow a woman to become septic to the point of cognitive injury, is really just a form of religious privilege.
It is time to disabuse ourselves of the idea that “religious liberty” is merely a conflict about whether or not bakers are required to make cakes for gay weddings. When it comes to healthcare—especially for women—lives are at stake.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-03--Chinese News Organizations In the U.S. Are Really Spy Agencies

A decade ago , I first saw signs that Chinese news organizations were operating as global spy dens and diplomatic outposts .
Last week , America decided not only to call them out for what they do , but to punish them further for this activity within the United States .
It ’ s also time to counter China and help American journalism survive .
My 2018 book “ Spin Wars & Spy Games : Global Media and Intelligence Gathering ” detailed how China ’ s global news organizations are used to advance its national interests .
China—and also Russia—uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editors and journalists to work as both witting and unwitting spies .
My research over the years shows that these news bureaus ’ primary responsibility is to report to their countries ’ political leadership in Beijing .
Chinese state-run news organizations task their correspondents with actively taking advantage of America ’ s open society .
That means exploiting First Amendment journalism rights and the relative naivete of unsuspecting subjects and institutions .
China ’ s reporter-agents collect and analyze critical information about the United States and other countries .
Bureaus then package and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the process , they also repurpose it as a quasi-journalistic propagandistic product for a mass foreign audience in their newspapers and broadcasts .
To audiences , it looks and feels like real news , but it ’ s really just a byproduct of intelligence gathering .
For this reason , the State Department recently led the charge against five Chinese news organizations : Xinhua , CGTN , China Radio , China Daily and The People ’ s Daily .
As a result , the United States has further downgraded their status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell under the Foreign Agents Registration Act ( FARA ) , requiring them to report to the U.S. Justice Department .
The DOJ did not explain why , but the reason is that these seemingly benign institutions really are just extensions of the state , delivering a slanted , Beijing-approved , often heavy-handed propaganda message .
They were also operating surreptitiously as intelligence gathering shops .
China ’ s state-run bodies must serve the state .
They live or die by the authority and funding they receive from the country ’ s leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party .
Whether Xinhua or CGTN , these Chinese information-gathering institutions do the Party ’ s bidding and coordinate the priorities of its United Front Work Department propaganda .
China is willing to spend billions of dollars to promote its United Front work and support the growing network of Xinhua and CGTN bureaus around the world .
However , the advertising-based business model for American and other Western news organizations has collapsed , diminishing not only the frequency of publication—goodbye Saturday editions—but also dramatically reducing the number of journalists , researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source .
This is bad news for everyone .
It is bad news for democracy .
Not only is the Chinese government outspending the West ’ s traditional news organizations , it is hiring some of its former reporters and editors .
These freshly unemployed or underemployed Western professionals bring with them their Rolodexes , networks and access .
In the process , they become unwitting foreign agents .
Further , readers and audiences feel comfortable with the deceptive news product delivered by these familiar and credible journalists .
We accept familiar faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The goal of China ’ s relatively new entry into the global news and information marketplace is a troubling development around the world .
Western open societies welcome and protect traditional news organizations as important components of society .
They have traditionally been bulwarks of democracy and an integral part of a system of checks and balances .
China has taken advantage of America ’ s openness , not merely with unfair foreign trade in its commodity and consumer markets , but now in the marketplace of ideas .
It is right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this behavior and activity .
But it ’ s also time for American society and government to invest in traditional American news institutions to help them not only to survive but to thrive in this newly competitive global information environment .
Both the government and the public need to recognize and support American news organizations for the sake of maintaining democracy ’ s infrastructure .
Washington ’ s targeting Chinese news outlets has led to retaliation against American journalists in China .
Three Wall Street Journal foreign correspondents were expelled last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , but for years China has been using other means to limit the presence of undesired foreign correspondents in the country .
The easiest , preferred method was to deny Western journalists visas .
Expect more Chinese retaliation against Western journalists .
Some will be accused of spying .
The real retaliation , however , will be the further demise of the credibility , strength and economic viability of traditional American journalism .

A decade ago, I first saw signs that Chinese news organizations were operating as global spy dens and diplomatic outposts. Last week, America decided not only to call them out for what they do, but to punish them further for this activity within the United States.
It’s about time.
It’s also time to counter China and help American journalism survive.
My 2018 book “Spin Wars & Spy Games: Global Media and Intelligence Gathering” detailed how China’s global news organizations are used to advance its national interests. China—and also Russia—uses its foreign news bureaus as fronts for editors and journalists to work as both witting and unwitting spies. My research over the years shows that these news bureaus’ primary responsibility is to report to their countries’ political leadership in Beijing.
Chinese state-run news organizations task their correspondents with actively taking advantage of America’s open society. That means exploiting First Amendment journalism rights and the relative naivete of unsuspecting subjects and institutions.
China’s reporter-agents collect and analyze critical information about the United States and other countries. Bureaus then package and deliver it to their masters back home. In the process, they also repurpose it as a quasi-journalistic propagandistic product for a mass foreign audience in their newspapers and broadcasts. To audiences, it looks and feels like real news, but it’s really just a byproduct of intelligence gathering.
For this reason, the State Department recently led the charge against five Chinese news organizations: Xinhua, CGTN, China Radio, China Daily and The People’s Daily. As a result, the United States has further downgraded their status. Last year, CGTN and Xinhua fell under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), requiring them to report to the U.S. Justice Department. The DOJ did not explain why, but the reason is that these seemingly benign institutions really are just extensions of the state, delivering a slanted, Beijing-approved, often heavy-handed propaganda message. They were also operating surreptitiously as intelligence gathering shops.
China’s state-run bodies must serve the state. They live or die by the authority and funding they receive from the country’s leadership and, in this case, the Chinese Communist Party. Whether Xinhua or CGTN, these Chinese information-gathering institutions do the Party’s bidding and coordinate the priorities of its United Front Work Department propaganda. China is willing to spend billions of dollars to promote its United Front work and support the growing network of Xinhua and CGTN bureaus around the world.
However, the advertising-based business model for American and other Western news organizations has collapsed, diminishing not only the frequency of publication—goodbye Saturday editions—but also dramatically reducing the number of journalists, researchers and editors at nearly every single news source. This is bad news for everyone. It is bad news for democracy.
Not only is the Chinese government outspending the West’s traditional news organizations, it is hiring some of its former reporters and editors. These freshly unemployed or underemployed Western professionals bring with them their Rolodexes, networks and access. In the process, they become unwitting foreign agents. Further, readers and audiences feel comfortable with the deceptive news product delivered by these familiar and credible journalists. We accept familiar faces appearing on China’s television networks.
The goal of China’s relatively new entry into the global news and information marketplace is a troubling development around the world. Western open societies welcome and protect traditional news organizations as important components of society. They have traditionally been bulwarks of democracy and an integral part of a system of checks and balances.
China has taken advantage of America’s openness, not merely with unfair foreign trade in its commodity and consumer markets, but now in the marketplace of ideas. It is right that the government has called out China for this behavior and activity.
But it’s also time for American society and government to invest in traditional American news institutions to help them not only to survive but to thrive in this newly competitive global information environment. Both the government and the public need to recognize and support American news organizations for the sake of maintaining democracy’s infrastructure.
Washington’s targeting Chinese news outlets has led to retaliation against American journalists in China. Three Wall Street Journal foreign correspondents were expelled last week. That’s rough, of course, but for years China has been using other means to limit the presence of undesired foreign correspondents in the country. The easiest, preferred method was to deny Western journalists visas.
Expect more Chinese retaliation against Western journalists. Some will be accused of spying. The real retaliation, however, will be the further demise of the credibility, strength and economic viability of traditional American journalism.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-03--With Pandemics, Trump’s Isolationism Is a Recipe for Disaster

A lot of the focus on how Trump has mishandled his administration ’ s response to the coronavirus has focused on what he has and hasn ’ t done to contain its spread domestically .
But back in 2018 , Ron Klain—who was President Obama ’ s Ebola czar—suggested that the biggest gap is global .
Klain added that Trump ’ s isolationist mindset has led to the United States pulling back from its leadership role in global health crises , which , he said , “ is … going to be a serious threat to our security.
” Klain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ xenophobic , if not racist , ” leading to the blaming of immigrants and foreigners for problems that need public-health interventions… But the biggest gap , he said , is the global gap : “ We can ’ t be safe here in America when there ’ s a risk of pandemics around the world , ” Klain said .
“ The world ’ s just too small .
Diseases spread too quickly … There is no wall we can build that is high enough to keep viruses and the disease threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to engage in the world.
” Engagement in the world is exactly what the Obama administration did in response to the Ebola crisis .
During a press briefing in October 2014 , Obama said that “ We have to work together at every level — federal , state and local .
And we have to keep leading the global response , because the best way to stop this disease , the best way to keep Americans safe , is to stop it at its source — in West Africa.
” U.S. personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in West Africa , working collaboratively to bring the number of cases down by 80 percent from peak levels before returning home .
As a follow-up , the Obama administration set up epidemic prevention programs in 49 countries .
All of that is what led Tom Friedman to write that Obama ’ s response to the Ebola crisis may be “ his most significant foreign policy achievement , for which he got little credit precisely because it worked.
” Meanwhile , the man who would become his successor did a lot of tweeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the self-admitted germaphobe tweeted about Ebola nearly a hundred times over the next three months .
He was among the first to call for a travel ban between the three West African countries and the United States , a call later adopted by Republicans running in the fall midterms .
He advocated against sending thousands of American troops , a decision public health officials in Liberia later said helped stem the tide of the outbreak .
And when a Liberian man fell ill days after arriving in Dallas to meet the son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump warned : “ IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE !
” He later falsely accused the man , Thomas Eric Duncan , of having signed false papers .
He advocated that Duncan be prosecuted , just days before Duncan died .
Four years later , due to lack of funding from congressional Republicans and Trump , 39 of the 49 programs established to prevent epidemics were shut down , including the ones in China , Pakistan , Haiti , Rwanda , and Congo .
President Obama ’ s commitment to a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how things work in the 21st century .
Here ’ s what he said about that during a speech in Cairo in 2009 .
Of course , recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task .
Words alone can not meet the needs of our people .
These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead ; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared , and our failure to meet them will hurt us all .
For we have learned from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakens in one country , prosperity is hurt everywhere .
When a new flu infects one human being , all are at risk .
When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon , the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations .
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains , people are endangered across an ocean .
When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered , that is a stain on our collective conscience .
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as human beings .
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace .
For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and , yes , religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests .
Yet in this new age , such attitudes are self-defeating .
Given our interdependence , any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail .
So whatever we think of the past , we must not be prisoners to it .
Our problems must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress must be shared .
We now have a president who consistently touts “ America first ” and thinks that we can be protected from the spread of the coronavirus by simply building walls and closing our borders .
His nationalism fuels the kind of isolationism that is common among populist movements on both the left and right .
But given our global interdependence , it is nothing but a recipe for disaster .

A lot of the focus on how Trump has mishandled his administration’s response to the coronavirus has focused on what he has and hasn’t done to contain its spread domestically. But back in 2018, Ron Klain—who was President Obama’s Ebola czar—suggested that the biggest gap is global.
Klain added that Trump’s isolationist mindset has led to the United States pulling back from its leadership role in global health crises, which, he said, “is … going to be a serious threat to our security.” Klain called Trump’s policies and views “xenophobic, if not racist,” leading to the blaming of immigrants and foreigners for problems that need public-health interventions… But the biggest gap, he said, is the global gap: “We can’t be safe here in America when there’s a risk of pandemics around the world,” Klain said. “The world’s just too small. Diseases spread too quickly … There is no wall we can build that is high enough to keep viruses and the disease threat out of the United States. We have to engage in the world.”
Engagement in the world is exactly what the Obama administration did in response to the Ebola crisis. During a press briefing in October 2014, Obama said that “We have to work together at every level — federal, state and local. And we have to keep leading the global response, because the best way to stop this disease, the best way to keep Americans safe, is to stop it at its source — in West Africa.” U.S. personnel were deployed to fight the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, working collaboratively to bring the number of cases down by 80 percent from peak levels before returning home.
As a follow-up, the Obama administration set up epidemic prevention programs in 49 countries.
The CDC programs, part of a global health security initiative, train front-line workers in outbreak detection and work to strengthen laboratory and emergency response systems in countries where disease risks are greatest. The goal is to stop future outbreaks at their source.
All of that is what led Tom Friedman to write that Obama’s response to the Ebola crisis may be “his most significant foreign policy achievement, for which he got little credit precisely because it worked.”
Meanwhile, the man who would become his successor did a lot of tweeting.
Trump kept tweeting. In all, the self-admitted germaphobe tweeted about Ebola nearly a hundred times over the next three months. He was among the first to call for a travel ban between the three West African countries and the United States, a call later adopted by Republicans running in the fall midterms. He advocated against sending thousands of American troops, a decision public health officials in Liberia later said helped stem the tide of the outbreak. And when a Liberian man fell ill days after arriving in Dallas to meet the son he had not seen in a decade, Trump warned: “IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE!” He later falsely accused the man, Thomas Eric Duncan, of having signed false papers. He advocated that Duncan be prosecuted, just days before Duncan died.
Four years later, due to lack of funding from congressional Republicans and Trump, 39 of the 49 programs established to prevent epidemics were shut down, including the ones in China, Pakistan, Haiti, Rwanda, and Congo.
President Obama’s commitment to a global response was part of his awareness about how things work in the 21st century. Here’s what he said about that during a speech in Cairo in 2009.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.
We now have a president who consistently touts “America first” and thinks that we can be protected from the spread of the coronavirus by simply building walls and closing our borders. His nationalism fuels the kind of isolationism that is common among populist movements on both the left and right. But given our global interdependence, it is nothing but a recipe for disaster.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-03--Zombie Nomination of John Ratcliffe for DNI Back on Track

Let ’ s go back in time to August 2019 to get a little refresher on why Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas was not confirmed to be the Director of National Intelligence .
President Donald Trump just announced that Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe , his pick to become the next director of national intelligence , won ’ t seek the nomination after all .
It ’ s a stunning reversal .
The president announced his selection on Sunday—just five days ago—when he also noted that America ’ s current top spy , Daniel Coats , was resigning .
But Ratcliffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report after report showing that he exaggerated his qualifications and background .
Ratcliffe also lacked much experience for the job , which is why Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr asked President Trump not to nominate him in the first place .
Senator Burr is now singing a different tune : Sen. Richard Burr , the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , told CNN Monday that he will back the nomination of President Donald Trump ’ s controversial pick to be the country ’ s next intelligence chief .
He consulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his intent to renominate Rep. John Ratcliffe as the next director of national intelligence , according to two people familiar with the dynamic .
“ I ’ m supportive of John Ratcliffe .
That ’ s what the statement said .
Period , ” Burr said , pushing back on suggestions that the statement he released Friday after Trump ’ s announcement was unclear .
Asked what changed from last year when Ratcliffe was first nominated and GOP senators had concerns then , Burr said : “ There was a different pathway in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think anybody has changed their opinion of John Ratcliffe .
What changed is the pathway to get somebody confirmed .
If Democrats want to vote against him and have ( Richard ) Grenell stay on as acting is fine with me.
” In other words , Burr thinks he can get Ratcliffe confirmed because people are even more appalled about the prospect of Richard Grenell remaining in the position of DNI in an acting capacity .
To understand why Burr might be right about that , you can look at how Grenell has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully-confirmed job as ambassador to Germany .
Because the ambassador was unwilling to grant an interview , DER SPIEGEL focused its reporting on conversations with more than 30 sources who have come into contact with Grenell .
These include numerous American and German diplomats , cabinet members , lawmakers , high-ranking officials , lobbyists and think tank experts .
They were all willing to speak openly but did not want to be quoted by name .
Almost all of these sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador , one remarkably similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to Berlin .
A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain , narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively , but can barely handle criticism .
His brash demeanor , some claim , hides a deep insecurity , and they say he thirsts for the approval of others .
After one of his appearances , we were told , he asked almost shyly how he had done .
They also say Grenell knows little about Germany and Europe , that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the subject matter is superficial .
“ Ric only scratches the surface , ” said one person who regularly interacts with him .
If that doesn ’ t sound like a good profile for someone who is responsible for coordinating all of America ’ s intelligence agencies , then you ’ ll see why perhaps John Ratcliffe looks attractive by comparison .

Let’s go back in time to August 2019 to get a little refresher on why Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas was not confirmed to be the Director of National Intelligence.
President Donald Trump just announced that Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, his pick to become the next director of national intelligence, won’t seek the nomination after all. It’s a stunning reversal. The president announced his selection on Sunday—just five days ago—when he also noted that America’s current top spy, Daniel Coats, was resigning. But Ratcliffe has had a tough week, with report after report showing that he exaggerated his qualifications and background.
Ratcliffe also lacked much experience for the job, which is why Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr asked President Trump not to nominate him in the first place.
Senator Burr is now singing a different tune:
Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN Monday that he will back the nomination of President Donald Trump’s controversial pick to be the country’s next intelligence chief. He consulted with the White House before Trump announced his intent to renominate Rep. John Ratcliffe as the next director of national intelligence, according to two people familiar with the dynamic. “I’m supportive of John Ratcliffe. That’s what the statement said. Period,” Burr said, pushing back on suggestions that the statement he released Friday after Trump’s announcement was unclear. Asked what changed from last year when Ratcliffe was first nominated and GOP senators had concerns then, Burr said: “There was a different pathway in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has changed their opinion of John Ratcliffe. What changed is the pathway to get somebody confirmed. If Democrats want to vote against him and have (Richard) Grenell stay on as acting is fine with me.”
In other words, Burr thinks he can get Ratcliffe confirmed because people are even more appalled about the prospect of Richard Grenell remaining in the position of DNI in an acting capacity. To understand why Burr might be right about that, you can look at how Grenell has been received in Europe in his current fully-confirmed job as ambassador to Germany.
Because the ambassador was unwilling to grant an interview, DER SPIEGEL focused its reporting on conversations with more than 30 sources who have come into contact with Grenell. These include numerous American and German diplomats, cabinet members, lawmakers, high-ranking officials, lobbyists and think tank experts. They were all willing to speak openly but did not want to be quoted by name. Almost all of these sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador, one remarkably similar to Donald Trump, the man who sent him to Berlin. A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism. His brash demeanor, some claim, hides a deep insecurity, and they say he thirsts for the approval of others. After one of his appearances, we were told, he asked almost shyly how he had done. They also say Grenell knows little about Germany and Europe, that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write for him, and that his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial. “Ric only scratches the surface,” said one person who regularly interacts with him.
If that doesn’t sound like a good profile for someone who is responsible for coordinating all of America’s intelligence agencies, then you’ll see why perhaps John Ratcliffe looks attractive by comparison.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-04--How Super Tuesday Was All About Coalitions and Earned Media

A remarkable Super Tuesday saw Joe Biden put together a stunning set of victories that would have been almost unthinkable just a week ago .
The former vice president appears to have cleared victories in Texas , Alabama , Arkansas , Massachusetts , Minnesota , North Carolina , Oklahoma , Tennessee and Virginia .
Sanders picked up California , Colorado , Utah , and his home state of Vermont .
As of this writing , Biden ’ s lead in delegates is now 453 to Sanders ’ s 382 .
A few big upshots from the night : Earned media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns invested heavily in the field , paying organizers on the ground for months .
Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spent ungodly sums on paid TV advertising .
Bloomberg in particular spent more than $ 500 million , an astronomical figure for a primary for the grand prize of American Samoa and a pittance of delegates elsewhere .
But all of them lost state after state to a candidate who was dramatically underfunded and had barely put any field boots on the ground .
Biden was the beneficiary of a big media boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the endorsement of James Clyburn—but most of all , of course , from the exits and endorsements of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar .
All the canvassers and phonebankers in the world can ’ t convince voters who are seeing a different reality on TV , the newspapers .
and social media ; all the paid ads in the world can ’ t change what people see right in front of them .
Coalitions matter : The Sanders campaign is famously hostile to every “ establishment ” in the world , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corporate establishment and much else .
Many of its supporters on social media are relentlessly aggressive against everyone not already inside their tent .
The tension and hostility between the Warren and Sanders campaigns has only been increasing over the last couple of months .
Meanwhile , Joe Biden somehow quietly came to terms with Klobuchar and Buttigieg to bring them on board .
It ’ s much easier to build a 50 percent majority when you ’ re making friends than when you ’ re making enemies .
Nor is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All and a Green New Deal absolutely requires taking an antagonistic approach to everyone on all sides .
People under 45 and Latinx voters are ready for a very progressive politics : Although a huge portion of the Democratic base shifted to Biden in the last 72 hours , two big constituencies did not : Latinx and voters under 45 , both of whom stuck strongly with Sanders ( and , to a much lesser extent , Warren ) .
That puts them into conflict with more conservative older voters overall , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As millennials cross the 40 barrier and still have no access to the same quality of life their parents did , the big issues—housing , education , climate change and much more—driving the demand for a more radical politics won ’ t be going away any time soon .
Latinx are growing rapidly and crucial to Democratic gains across the country .
If Biden becomes the nominee , he will need to convince these groups that he really is capable of delivering on the things that matter to them—something he has not done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered a much more compelling message for those voters , centered on universal benefits .
The two wings of the Democratic Party were more interested in fighting each other than picking a unity candidate : One of Elizabeth Warren ’ s biggest rationales for her candidacy was that she could unite the factions of the party : a solid progressive championing anti-Wall Street policy and universal benefits , who nevertheless did not bring the same hostility and baggage toward “ normie ” Democrats who defines so much of Sanders ’ s candidacy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up buying in .
Especially on healthcare , she sustained heavy attacks from the center ( mostly from Buttigieg and Klobuchar ) , and then from the left from the Sanders camp .
Her support on both sides was whittled down as she tried to straddle the divide .
Time will tell if Democrats end up regretting that decision , but enough of the voters in the centrist and progressive camps were determined to defeat the other out right that Warren ended up getting boxed out by the warring factions rather than uniting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination , there will be a lot of acrimony to resolve .
What does Warren do from here ?
Hard to know .
She has a handful of delegates to use as leverage in a contested convention , and she ’ s a warrior who still believes there is a path and a good reason to remain in the race , at least for now .
Turnout is up—but mostly in the suburbs , not among youth or rural areas : One of the big theories of victory for Sanders is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young voters and disaffected working-class groups to overwhelm traditional partisan politics , remake the electorate and make up for any losses among Clinton-Romney suburbanites .
So far , though , there hasn ’ t been a big turnout increase in the early contests—but South Carolina and a few Super Tuesday states have ( so far ) reported big turnout increases .
The problem for the Sanders theory is that those big turnout increases have mostly been in states Biden won .
And the turnout increases appear to have taken place in the suburbs–the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 and the places the Democratic establishment has been focusing on both to beat Trump and consolidate its realignment .
Will the campaigns change their arguments of convenience on supporting the plurality delegate winner ?
At the end of the next-to-last Democratic debate , all the candidates were asked whether they would support the plurality delegate winner to carry the nomination .
Sanders said yes .
All the other candidates , including Biden , said no .
Instead , they argued that they should let the process under the rules .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ stealing the nomination ” at the time .
But now that Sanders is behind in delegates and Biden ahead , will either camp reverse its stance ?
There really is a significant anti-Sanders vote : Sanders has consistently gotten his 25-30 percent of the Democratic vote across state after state , which was often enough to win a plurality against a divided field .
But the big question was just how much of that other 70 percent was voting against Sanders , rather than simply temporarily aligning with other candidates .
Polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular with Democrats overall , and often the second choice of the other candidates .
But after the consolidation of the more moderate vote behind Biden , and Sanders continuing to get his 30 percent but not more , it ’ s clear that there really is a more significant anti-Sanders vote than expected .
Sanders ’ s inability to grow his coalition beyond that is its core challenge at the moment .
And its culture of aggression against partisanship itself , against establishment power of all kinds , and the open disrespect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders supporter base certainly doesn ’ t help .
But Biden ’ s weaknesses remain : The problem for the centrist wing is that the issues that caused even moderate voters to stray away from Biden toward Buttigieg , Klobuchar , and Bloomberg in the first place never disappeared .
Biden ’ s handsiness , his famous proclivity for gaffes , his fumbling for words on the stump beyond that of a simple speech impediment , his history of votes on bankruptcy , trade , war and much else that is now out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base but also independents—all of these still exist .
And , as noted , he will absolutely have to prove to younger and Latinx voters demanding big changes to their lives that he intends to deliver for them .
Biden wilted under scrutiny as the frontrunner months before , and that scrutiny will now return again .
Super Tuesday has given Biden a big advantage and momentum going forward .
But the race is still far from over , with big questions on the horizon for both the Sanders and Biden camps .

A remarkable Super Tuesday saw Joe Biden put together a stunning set of victories that would have been almost unthinkable just a week ago. The former vice president appears to have cleared victories in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia. Sanders picked up California, Colorado, Utah, and his home state of Vermont. As of this writing, Biden’s lead in delegates is now 453 to Sanders’s 382.
A few big upshots from the night:
Earned media is king: The Warren and Sanders campaigns invested heavily in field, paying organizers on the ground for months. Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spent ungodly sums on paid TV advertising. Bloomberg in particular spent more than $500 million, an astronomical figure for a primary for the grand prize of American Samoa and a pittance of delegates elsewhere. But all of them lost state after state to a candidate who was dramatically underfunded and had barely put any field boots on the ground. Biden was the beneficiary of a big media boost from his victory in South Carolina and the endorsement of James Clyburn—but most of all, of course, from the exits and endorsements of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. All the canvassers and phonebankers in the world can’t convince voters who are seeing a different reality on TV, the newspapers. and social media; all the paid ads in the world can’t change what people see right in front of them.
Coalitions matter: The Sanders campaign is famously hostile to every “establishment” in the world, from the Democratic establishment to the Republican establishment to the corporate establishment and much else. Many of its supporters on social media are relentlessly aggressive against everyone not already inside their tent. The tension and hostility between the Warren and Sanders campaigns has only been increasing over the last couple of months. Meanwhile, Joe Biden somehow quietly came to terms with Klobuchar and Buttigieg to bring them on board. It’s much easier to build a 50 percent majority when you’re making friends than when you’re making enemies. Nor is it at all clear that supporting Medicare for All and a Green New Deal absolutely requires taking an antagonistic approach to everyone on all sides.
People under 45 and Latinx voters are ready for a very progressive politics: Although a huge portion of the Democratic base shifted to Biden in the last 72 hours, two big constituencies did not: Latinx and voters under 45, both of whom stuck strongly with Sanders (and, to a much lesser extent, Warren). That puts them into conflict with more conservative older voters overall, and older black voters in the South. As millennials cross the 40 barrier and still have no access to the same quality of life their parents did, the big issues—housing, education, climate change and much more—driving the demand for a more radical politics won’t be going away any time soon. Latinx are growing rapidly and crucial to Democratic gains across the country. If Biden becomes the nominee, he will need to convince these groups that he really is capable of delivering on the things that matter to them—something he has not done effectively so far, as Sanders has delivered a much more compelling message for those voters, centered on a class-oriented politics and universal benefits.
The two wings of the Democratic Party were more interested in fighting each other than picking a unity candidate: One of Elizabeth Warren’s biggest rationales for her candidacy was that she could unite the factions of the party: a solid progressive championing anti-Wall Street policy and universal benefits, who nevertheless did not bring the same hostility and baggage toward “normie” Democrats that defines so much of Sanders’s candidacy. But most voters didn’t end up buying in. Especially on healthcare, she sustained heavy attacks from the center (mostly from Buttigieg and Klobuchar), and then from the left from the Sanders camp. Her support on both sides was whittled down as she tried to straddle the divide. Time will tell if Democrats end up regretting that decision, but enough of the voters in the centrist and progressive camps were determined to defeat the other out right that Warren ended up getting boxed out by the warring factions rather than uniting them. Whether Sanders or Biden wins the nomination, there will be a lot of acrimony to resolve. What does Warren do from here? Hard to know. She has a handful of delegates to use as leverage in a contested convention, and she’s a warrior who still believes there is a path and a good reason to remain in the race, at least for now. (Update: Since this piece was published, Warren has dropped out of the race.)
Turnout is up—but mostly in the suburbs, not among youth or rural areas: One of the big theories of victory for Sanders is that he can increase turnout among non-voters, young voters and disaffected working-class groups to overwhelm traditional partisan politics, remake the electorate and make up for any losses among Clinton-Romney suburbanites. There wasn’t a big turnout increase in most of the early contests—but South Carolina and a few Super Tuesday states have (so far) reported big turnout increases. The problem for the Sanders theory is that those big turnout increases have mostly been in states Biden won. And the turnout increases appear to have taken place in the suburbs–the same places Democrats picked up big wins in 2018 and the places the Democratic establishment has been focusing on both to beat Trump and consolidate its realignment. This has implications for the Sanders theory of the general election and even presidential governance, which relies on the notion that a mass upswell of anti-partisan working-class Americans will rise in solidarity to overwhelm the political system and dislodge our current partisan politics. So far, though, the presidential primary is reflecting an even firmer solidification of the suburban realignment we saw in 2018.
Will the campaigns change their arguments of convenience on supporting the plurality delegate winner? At the end of the next-to-last Democratic debate, all the candidates were asked whether they would support the plurality delegate winner to carry the nomination. Sanders said yes. All the other candidates, including Biden, said no. Instead, they argued that they should let the process under the rules. Much hay was made about democratic principles and “stealing the nomination” at the time. But now that Sanders is behind in delegates and Biden ahead, will either camp reverse its stance? It’s a good warning for message teams not to just say whatever advantages them in the moment, and to plan for future possibilities that may not reflect present expectations.
There really is a significant anti-Sanders vote: Sanders has consistently gotten his 25-30 percent of the Democratic vote across state after state, which was often enough to win a plurality against a divided field. But the big question was just how much of that other 70 percent was voting against Sanders, rather than simply temporarily aligning with other candidates. Polling seemed to suggest that Sanders was quite popular with Democrats overall, and often the second choice of the other candidates. But after the consolidation of the more moderate vote behind Biden, and Sanders continuing to get his 30 percent but not more, it’s clear that there really is a more significant anti-Sanders vote than expected. Sanders’s inability to grow his coalition beyond that is its core challenge at the moment. And its culture of aggression against partisanship itself, against establishment power of all kinds (which often just reflects a body of people who managed to get elected by groups of voters who like them!), and the open disrespect for all the other campaigns among the Sanders supporter base certainly doesn’t help.
But Biden’s weaknesses remain: The problem for the centrist wing is that the issues that caused even moderate voters to stray away from Biden toward Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg in the first place never disappeared. Biden’s handsiness, his famous proclivity for gaffes, his fumbling for words on the stump beyond that of a simple speech impediment, his history of votes on bankruptcy, trade, war and much else that is now out of step with not just the Democratic base but also independents—all of these still exist. And, as noted, he will absolutely have to prove to younger and Latinx voters demanding big changes to their lives that he intends to deliver for them. Biden wilted under scrutiny as the frontrunner months before, and that scrutiny will now return again.
Super Tuesday has given Biden a big advantage and momentum going forward. But the race is still far from over, with big questions on the horizon for both the Sanders and Biden camps.