vox--2020-03-16--The porn we see — and sex we have — is influenced by the adult industry’s biggest spenders

The early internet era was a Wild West of adult content experimentation .
Cheap and discreet distribution tools made it easy for new players to get into porn , throw outlandish ideas at the wall , and make bank either off novelty or by tapping into previously obscure fetishes .
Early streaming and chat tech opened the floodgates for everyday people to share their sexual peccadilloes with the world via amateur porn , and even rudimentary webcam shows .
A few insiders still operate within that innovate-and-profit paradigm : “ If you want people to buy your porn , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cam performer Kimber Haven .
“ Give them something they have never seen and can ’ t get for free ” elsewhere .
But the rise of “ tube ” sites and easily accessible free porn over the past decade pulled the rug out from under the porn world , allegedly contributing to a drop in industry profits from ( by some rough evaluations ) about $ 12 billion annually in the aughts to about $ 5 billion by the mid-teens .
Some insiders estimate that as few as one in 10,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Simultaneously , the rise of freemium cam sites has made it easy for most viewers to watch or interact with models without ever paying a dime .
The number of people trying to cam for cash has also grown much faster than paying audiences .
As their profit pies shrink , most adult content creators feel pressure to move away from pure experimentation , passion projects , or even attempts to appeal to the broadest audiences .
Some insiders estimate that as few as one in 10,000 porn viewers actually pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on figuring out — and catering to — who exactly still pays for adult content and “ which demographics are the most profitable , ” as indie performer and producer Meana Wolf puts it .
Which means that big and regular spenders ’ habits and desires increasingly influence what we see in porn , and as a result , what many of us think it ’ s normal to want or do .
Ironically the most visible , and arguably most successful , leader of this push in the traditional porn space is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owns Pornhub and a number of other leading free porn tube sites — as well as a number of major porn production houses , like Brazzers and Digital Playground .
They ( and other multi-site networks , like Gamma Entertainment and WGCZ Holdings ) collect troves of data on what their users watch and how they engage with it , then feed this data back to the content producers working within their networks .
MindGeek did not respond to a request for comment from Vox , but researchers Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how they use their data to drive content creation for a 2018 paper .
They found that the company often hands down scripts from on high that specify every detail of a scene , down to the color and style of clothing performers should wear .
Sprigman told me that MindGeek did not want to reveal exactly whom they tailor their content toward , or to what ends .
( “ The concern that they voiced to us , ” he said , “ was that they don ’ t want to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ etc .
in the current panic about tech platforms ” and their data usage . )
Still , given that MindGeek has said in the past more than half of its revenue comes from people paying for accounts on its sites , Sprigman and others believe it ’ s likely they ’ re trying to create and promote content that will draw in viewers who are most likely to convert into paying subscribers .
Few networks , much less indie sites or performers producing their own content , have data as rich or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So many producers look to MindGeek to get a sense of how to attract paying porn viewers .
“ Their reach has the power to create trends ” across the industry , said Bree Mills , Gamma ’ s head of production .
“ Family role-play content ” — i.e .
simulated incest scenarios — “ has dominated Pornhub ’ s popular results over the last five years , which has had a tremendous influence on the number of related scenes being produced to satisfy perceived demand.
” Pure Taboo , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ton of fauxcest scenes .
Even when producers don ’ t look to titans like MindGeek for guidance on profitable trends , they often focus on what they know about their current or ideal paid users to try to consolidate their hold over them .
“ My target customer is in his late 20s to mid-30s — old enough to probably have some spending money and young enough to still possibly be single , ” noted performer and clip maker Jessica Starling .
She makes sure her personal image and content reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this demographic is into , although that can be a moving target .
Performer-producer Lance Hart argues it ’ s so difficult to truly discern who buys porn , much less who doesn ’ t but might , that it ’ s hard to trust that even a firm like MindGeek has solid info on the subject , much less that it makes the right plays to draw in likely big spenders .
“ Ultimately , it ’ s still an art , ” says Mills , “ not a science.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts still effectively elevate some fetishes that may not actually be widely popular in a bid for profitability .
Custom videos , created to patrons ’ specifications by small studios or adult performers who also produce their own content , are at times described like antidotes to data-driven porn .
So are live cam shows , during which viewers can interact with models .
Both offer people a chance to see exactly what they want , even if they ’ re not part of a big , juicy potential porn payer demographic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct connection with an idealized figure , which is why so many personalized clips and cam shows focus on intimacy and emotional support over the sexual hydraulics that define porn , and some are entirely non-nude . )
Clip makers run the risk of making tiny fetishes seem larger than they are .
Small groups with deep pockets may order tons of content suited to their unique tastes .
When they allow producers to sell those clips to others as well in the hopes of making a few extra bucks , as often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distortionary glut of hyper-niche fetish content .
In one notable case , a single German man with a penchant for watching a man dressed in a swamp monster-style Halloween costume creep and grind on naked women ordered so many clips catering to his fetish that it created the impression this was actually a small but vibrant kink that many people held .
Cam platforms like LiveJasmin and Streamate focus on connecting viewers with models whose personas fit their interests .
They then move customers into one-on-one private chat rooms where they pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer extra tips ) , which may lead to a truly bespoke experience .
But folks seem increasingly drawn to freemium platforms , like Chaturbate and MyFreeCams , that let hundreds or even thousands of viewers sit in on a performer ’ s show for free , all interacting with each other and the model , occasionally sending tips and requesting specific acts .
“ Spanking is way more widely performed on cam than in real life .
...
It ’ s a way to get a strong reaction out of the girl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convert as many viewers as possible into ( ideally regular ) tippers has led to the development of an impromptu field of cam consumer psychology , with consultants peddling and performers sharing advice .
As a result , says Aella , a former top performer on MyFreeCams turned entrepreneur , you ’ ll see the same tricks — countdowns and games — in most rooms , as well as a few overrepresented sex acts , which models have learned garner tips especially well .
“ Spanking is way more widely performed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she told me , explaining it ’ s usually in the form of models offering to spank themselves in exchange for a set tip fee .
“ It ’ s relatively non-sexual … It is dramatic and loud and a way to get a strong reaction out of the girl you ’ re tipping.
” The scramble for tips also means that , as Aella puts it , “ we meet the demand of tippers more than non-tippers.
” Many regular tippers send cash to models they like sans strings , just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many want specific bang for their bucks .
Models occasionally describe doing things they ’ re not comfortable with on cam to earn these transactional tips — subverting their desires and boundaries to a paying viewer ’ s — when facing a major crunch to hit a goal .
Whales , a term some cammers use to describe big spenders , might drop $ 1,000 in tips per show , and occasionally even more .
LittleRedBunny , an award-winning cammer who ’ s been active since 2009 , tells Vox that a whale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because those big tips can make or break a performer ’ s night , month , or year , performers on some platforms reportedly try to poach whales from each other .
At times some will allegedly allow these patrons to functionally control their rooms , booting out fans whose voices or desires they don ’ t like .
Others even let whales invade their off-cam lives .
Whales , a term some cammers use to describe big spenders , might drop $ 1,000 in tips per show If they can figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who their most reliable and sizeable tippers are , then many successful models will try to create environments or personas that appeal specifically to them .
“ One top-earning girl once told me that she knew the demographic of men aged 45 to 60 were her highest tippers , ” Aella recalled .
“ So she played ’ 80s rock to trigger their nostalgia.
” Others hyper-exaggerate or reinvent their personas to jibe with what sells , like one occasional pot smoker who cam researcher Paul Bleakley encountered .
She transformed herself into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tie-dye and backed by Bob Marley music , to please her prime tippers .
That ’ s a risky move when one considers , as LittleRedBunny noted , that any major branding change risks jettisoning entire blocs of one ’ s overall fan base .
The traditional narrative of camming holds that there ’ s a model out there who ’ s right for every viewer , and an audience for the niche or persona every model ’ s most comfortable adopting .
As LittleRedBunny explains it , this means that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spender on one platform or with one model , but not on another , rendering demographics nearly meaningless outside of one ’ s own chat room or fan base .
But in 2019 , Stripchat made a huge effort to survey its user base and learned that there do appear to be demographic differences between different types of spenders across its platform .
People who identified as very religious , for example , appeared two to three times more likely to spend at least $ 1,000 a month on the site compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to pay for privates , while older audiences were more likely to tip — and those over 65 often tipped more than those ages 35 to 64 .
Many performers ( who don ’ t dive in blindly ) try to build their personas around what they at least believe they know about high paying demographics .
There ’ s a ton of pseudoscientific babble on camming blogs about the assumed profile of the average whale and how to craft identities or acts that manipulate his alpha male mentality .
( Stripchat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only make up 7 percent of their user base but 17 percent of their big spenders , challenging this and many other male-centered assumptions in the camming world . )
New models also often sit in on big and successful performers ’ rooms and try to emulate what they do to bring in big tippers .
The allure of high-income submissive men willing to drop big whale money in particular has led to an explosion in the number of cam performers trying to adopt financial dominatrix , or findom , personas in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unobtainable airs and bossing their rooms around .
Granted , they are all vying for a small but lucrative pot of men , and few of them actually have much experience as dominatrices , so this bid rarely ever works out for them in the end .
The scattershot run on them sure does make the fetish seem more prevalent than it really is , though .
Ultimately , all of these manifestations of the mad dash for profitability in the cam world inject a degree of homogeneity into an adult realm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They make it hard for people whose personas or interests don ’ t align with the interests of profitable demographics to succeed , and lead to the overrepresentation of certain sexual acts and tropes .
Or as Aella put it , “ a lot of the core behaviors within top [ cammers ] are nearly identical.
” None of the data- or demographic-driven trends in the adult space are immutable .
Tastes change with time for many individuals and for entire cultures alike .
And of course , demographics are always evolving .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ millennials have started to buy more porn than other demographics , on at least some platforms , leading folks like Mills to start thinking about how to cater to that generation ’ s tastes more than ever before .
But even if a trendy distortion only colors the adult world for a few years , that can have a real effect on society .
No one is certain about the effects that adult entertainment does or could have on us .
Still , anecdotal reports suggest that many people , for lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intimacy — develop ideas on what it ’ s normal to like or to do — by watching porn or cam shows .
The elevated visibility of certain acts in adult content ( notably blow jobs in early legal porn and heterosexual anal sex over the past two decades ) also seems to track at times to a rise in their prevalence in real life , even among older people who have already developed sexual scripts .
( Though no one knows whether this is because adult content normalizes and encourages people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or habituates them to an act until they come to desire it . )
So there ’ s a chance that the tastes of the most profitable adult content consumers ( or at least their perceived tastes ) could increasingly drive the norms of many people ’ s actual sexual experiences .
“ I ’ ve heard men say that seeing so much spanking in the cam world has made them more interested in it , ” Aella noted .
Thus , a common camming trick becomes an actual sexual trope .
Sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

The early internet era was a Wild West of adult content experimentation. Cheap and discreet distribution tools made it easy for new players to get into porn, throw outlandish ideas at the wall, and make bank either off novelty or by tapping into previously obscure fetishes. Early streaming and chat tech opened the floodgates for everyday people to share their sexual peccadilloes with the world via amateur porn, and even rudimentary webcam shows.
A few insiders still operate within that innovate-and-profit paradigm: “If you want people to buy your porn, it’s simple,” argues porn and cam performer Kimber Haven. “Give them something they have never seen and can’t get for free” elsewhere.
But the rise of “tube” sites and easily accessible free porn over the past decade pulled the rug out from under the porn world, allegedly contributing to a drop in industry profits from (by some rough evaluations) about $12 billion annually in the aughts to about $5 billion by the mid-teens. Some insiders estimate that as few as one in 10,000 porn viewers actually pay for content now.
Simultaneously, the rise of freemium cam sites has made it easy for most viewers to watch or interact with models without ever paying a dime. The number of people trying to cam for cash has also grown much faster than paying audiences. As their profit pies shrink, most adult content creators feel pressure to move away from pure experimentation, passion projects, or even attempts to appeal to the broadest audiences.
Some insiders estimate that as few as one in 10,000 porn viewers actually pay for content now
Instead, they increasingly focus on figuring out — and catering to — who exactly still pays for adult content and “which demographics are the most profitable,” as indie performer and producer Meana Wolf puts it. Which means that big and regular spenders’ habits and desires increasingly influence what we see in porn, and as a result, what many of us think it’s normal to want or do.
Ironically the most visible, and arguably most successful, leader of this push in the traditional porn space is MindGeek, the notoriously opaque company that owns Pornhub and a number of other leading free porn tube sites — as well as a number of major porn production houses, like Brazzers and Digital Playground. They (and other multi-site networks, like Gamma Entertainment and WGCZ Holdings) collect troves of data on what their users watch and how they engage with it, then feed this data back to the content producers working within their networks. MindGeek did not respond to a request for comment from Vox, but researchers Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala spoke to MindGeek’s team about how they use their data to drive content creation for a 2018 paper. They found that the company often hands down scripts from on high that specify every detail of a scene, down to the color and style of clothing performers should wear.
Sprigman told me that MindGeek did not want to reveal exactly whom they tailor their content toward, or to what ends. (“The concern that they voiced to us,” he said, “was that they don’t want to be lumped in with Google, Facebook, etc. in the current panic about tech platforms” and their data usage.) Still, given that MindGeek has said in the past more than half of its revenue comes from people paying for accounts on its sites, Sprigman and others believe it’s likely they’re trying to create and promote content that will draw in viewers who are most likely to convert into paying subscribers.
Few networks, much less indie sites or performers producing their own content, have data as rich or analytic teams as robust as MindGeek. So many producers look to MindGeek to get a sense of how to attract paying porn viewers.
“Their reach has the power to create trends” across the industry, said Bree Mills, Gamma’s head of production. “Family role-play content” — i.e. simulated incest scenarios — “has dominated Pornhub’s popular results over the last five years, which has had a tremendous influence on the number of related scenes being produced to satisfy perceived demand.” Pure Taboo, one of the series Mills has helmed, features a ton of fauxcest scenes.
Even when producers don’t look to titans like MindGeek for guidance on profitable trends, they often focus on what they know about their current or ideal paid users to try to consolidate their hold over them. “My target customer is in his late 20s to mid-30s — old enough to probably have some spending money and young enough to still possibly be single,” noted performer and clip maker Jessica Starling. She makes sure her personal image and content reflects the sorts of things she has gleaned that this demographic is into, although that can be a moving target.
Performer-producer Lance Hart argues it’s so difficult to truly discern who buys porn, much less who doesn’t but might, that it’s hard to trust that even a firm like MindGeek has solid info on the subject, much less that it makes the right plays to draw in likely big spenders. “Ultimately, it’s still an art,” says Mills, “not a science.”
But regardless of their sophistication, tailoring efforts still effectively elevate some fetishes that may not actually be widely popular in a bid for profitability.
Custom videos, created to patrons’ specifications by small studios or adult performers who also produce their own content, are at times described like antidotes to data-driven porn. So are live cam shows, during which viewers can interact with models. Both offer people a chance to see exactly what they want, even if they’re not part of a big, juicy potential porn payer demographic. (They also offer the appeal of direct connection with an idealized figure, which is why so many personalized clips and cam shows focus on intimacy and emotional support over the sexual hydraulics that define porn, and some are entirely non-nude.)
Clip makers run the risk of making tiny fetishes seem larger than they are. Small groups with deep pockets may order tons of content suited to their unique tastes. When they allow producers to sell those clips to others as well in the hopes of making a few extra bucks, as often happens, they can functionally create a distortionary glut of hyper-niche fetish content. In one notable case, a single German man with a penchant for watching a man dressed in a swamp monster-style Halloween costume creep and grind on naked women ordered so many clips catering to his fetish that it created the impression this was actually a small but vibrant kink that many people held.
Cam platforms like LiveJasmin and Streamate focus on connecting viewers with models whose personas fit their interests. They then move customers into one-on-one private chat rooms where they pay for connection by the minute (and occasionally offer extra tips), which may lead to a truly bespoke experience. But folks seem increasingly drawn to freemium platforms, like Chaturbate and MyFreeCams, that let hundreds or even thousands of viewers sit in on a performer’s show for free, all interacting with each other and the model, occasionally sending tips and requesting specific acts.
“Spanking is way more widely performed on cam than in real life. ... It’s a way to get a strong reaction out of the girl you’re tipping.”
The quest to convert as many viewers as possible into (ideally regular) tippers has led to the development of an impromptu field of cam consumer psychology, with consultants peddling and performers sharing advice. As a result, says Aella, a former top performer on MyFreeCams turned entrepreneur, you’ll see the same tricks — countdowns and games — in most rooms, as well as a few overrepresented sex acts, which models have learned garner tips especially well.
“Spanking is way more widely performed on cam than in real life,” she told me, explaining it’s usually in the form of models offering to spank themselves in exchange for a set tip fee. “It’s relatively non-sexual … It is dramatic and loud and a way to get a strong reaction out of the girl you’re tipping.”
The scramble for tips also means that, as Aella puts it, “we meet the demand of tippers more than non-tippers.” Many regular tippers send cash to models they like sans strings, just to show their support, but just as many want specific bang for their bucks. Models occasionally describe doing things they’re not comfortable with on cam to earn these transactional tips — subverting their desires and boundaries to a paying viewer’s — when facing a major crunch to hit a goal.
Whales, a term some cammers use to describe big spenders, might drop $1,000 in tips per show, and occasionally even more. LittleRedBunny, an award-winning cammer who’s been active since 2009, tells Vox that a viewer once gave her a $21,000 tip. Because those big tips can make or break a performer’s night, month, or year, performers on some platforms reportedly try to poach whales from each other. At times some will allegedly allow these patrons to functionally control their rooms, booting out fans whose voices or desires they don’t like. Others even let whales invade their off-cam lives.
Whales, a term some cammers use to describe big spenders, might drop $1,000 in tips per show
If they can figure out, by polling their rooms, who their most reliable and sizeable tippers are, then many successful models will try to create environments or personas that appeal specifically to them. “One top-earning girl once told me that she knew the demographic of men aged 45 to 60 were her highest tippers,” Aella recalled. “So she played ’80s rock to trigger their nostalgia.” Others hyper-exaggerate or reinvent their personas to jibe with what sells, like one occasional pot smoker who cam researcher Paul Bleakley encountered. She transformed herself into a “performative” stoner, covered in tie-dye and backed by Bob Marley music, to please her prime tippers. That’s a risky move when one considers, as LittleRedBunny noted, that any major branding change risks jettisoning entire blocs of one’s overall fan base.
The traditional narrative of camming holds that there’s a model out there who’s right for every viewer, and an audience for the niche or persona every model’s most comfortable adopting. As LittleRedBunny explains it, this means that one person might be a big, regular spender on one platform or with one model, but not on another, rendering demographics nearly meaningless outside of one’s own chat room or fan base.
But in 2019, Stripchat made a huge effort to survey its user base and learned that there do appear to be demographic differences between different types of spenders across its platform. People who identified as very religious, for example, appeared two to three times more likely to spend at least $1,000 a month on the site compared to their peers. Younger audiences were more likely to pay for privates, while older audiences were more likely to tip — and those over 65 often tipped more than those ages 35 to 64.
Many performers (who don’t dive in blindly) try to build their personas around what they at least believe they know about high paying demographics. There’s a ton of pseudoscientific babble on camming blogs about the assumed profile of the average whale and how to craft identities or acts that manipulate his alpha male mentality. (Stripchat’s survey actually suggested that women only make up 7 percent of their user base but 17 percent of their big spenders, challenging this and many other male-centered assumptions in the camming world.) New models also often sit in on big and successful performers’ rooms and try to emulate what they do to bring in big tippers.
The allure of high-income submissive men willing to drop big whale money in particular has led to an explosion in the number of cam performers trying to adopt financial dominatrix, or findom, personas in recent years, adopting glam, haughty, and unobtainable airs and bossing their rooms around. Granted, they are all vying for a small but lucrative pot of men, and few of them actually have much experience as dominatrices, so this bid rarely ever works out for them in the end. The scattershot run on them sure does make the fetish seem more prevalent than it really is, though.
Ultimately, all of these manifestations of the mad dash for profitability in the cam world inject a degree of homogeneity into an adult realm ostensibly built on diversity and malleability. They make it hard for people whose personas or interests don’t align with the interests of profitable demographics to succeed, and lead to the overrepresentation of certain sexual acts and tropes. Or as Aella put it, “a lot of the core behaviors within top [cammers] are nearly identical.”
None of the data- or demographic-driven trends in the adult space are immutable. Tastes change with time for many individuals and for entire cultures alike. And of course, demographics are always evolving. Over the last couple of years, millennials have started to buy more porn than other demographics, on at least some platforms, leading folks like Mills to start thinking about how to cater to that generation’s tastes more than ever before.
But even if a trendy distortion only colors the adult world for a few years, that can have a real effect on society. No one is certain about the effects that adult entertainment does or could have on us. Still, anecdotal reports suggest that many people, for lack of other reference points, learn about sex and intimacy — develop ideas on what it’s normal to like or to do — by watching porn or cam shows. The elevated visibility of certain acts in adult content (notably blow jobs in early legal porn and heterosexual anal sex over the past two decades) also seems to track at times to a rise in their prevalence in real life, even among older people who have already developed sexual scripts. (Though no one knows whether this is because adult content normalizes and encourages people to explore desires they already had, or habituates them to an act until they come to desire it.) So there’s a chance that the tastes of the most profitable adult content consumers (or at least their perceived tastes) could increasingly drive the norms of many people’s actual sexual experiences.
“I’ve heard men say that seeing so much spanking in the cam world has made them more interested in it,” Aella noted. Thus, a common camming trick becomes an actual sexual trope.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-03-16--7 potentially deadly errors the US is making in its coronavirus response

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly , every step of the response needs to prioritize actions most likely to achieve three overarching goals : prevent infections , prevent death in infected people , and reduce societal harms .
But the United States ’ response is being undermined by seven potentially deadly errors .
There is understandable frustration and outrage that testing has been slow and often inaccessible in the US .
But lack of testing has led some to miss the point of what tests can — and can not — do .
A surge in people being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can become infected by someone else waiting to be tested .
Getting tested today is no guarantee you won ’ t get infected tomorrow — and may give you a false sense of security .
Furthermore , emerging data suggests that testing of throat swabs may miss as many as two-thirds of infections .
From my point of view as an infectious disease control physician , it ’ s dismaying to see both the promises of and demands for widespread testing that , if met , will do little good and possibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some contexts testing is absolutely , crucially important : • In areas with few or no cases , to inform containment and isolation strategies and facilitate contact tracing .
Seattle would likely have had a much smaller outbreak if testing there had been widely available sooner .
• In areas with community transmission , to inform treatment and protection of vulnerable groups , especially when there are outbreaks in hospitals , nursing homes , homeless shelters , and prisons .
• In health care facilities treating severely ill patients , to identify those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control , know when it is safe to discharge patients , and identify participants in clinical trials .
For these reasons , every patient in the United States with severe pneumonia should be tested for SARS-Cov-2 infection .
• For epidemiologic investigations , to determine how widespread infection is , facilitate surveillance and inform situational analysis , projections , and investigations , including into how the virus is spreading and how infectious asymptomatic people are .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s initiative of testing for the virus in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care providers is essential to help understand where the virus is spreading , to whom , and what the trend will be in the coming weeks and months .
In areas where the virus is spreading , there is little benefit , and some potential harm , to testing individuals with mild or no symptoms .
In the process of getting tested , these people will take up the time , protective equipment , and lab materials of health facilities .
If they ’ re not infected when they travel to and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process .
This is less of a concern for parking-lot , drive-through testing in the private sector , but whether people with symptoms are positive or not , they must isolate themselves , especially from medically vulnerable people : the test could be falsely negative , or could become positive the next day .
Furthermore , in a community-wide outbreak , there ’ s no way public health workers will be able to identify and track contacts of all people who test positive .
The larger problem is not the limited value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the distraction from what ’ s most important .
Just as the CDC was distracted from its core activities by cruise ships and dealing with repatriating travelers to the United States , the urge to test is distracting much of the US response from the actions that can save the most lives .
Which brings me to the single most concerning error : 2 ) We ’ re not getting and disseminating answers to key epidemiologic questions .
This is the most important thing we ’ re not doing right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to know in order to make better decisions about what to do .
We need to know who is most likely to die from Covid-19 .
We know that older people and those with underlying health conditions are at greater risk .
But we don ’ t know at what age risk actually increases .
We don ’ t know which medical conditions may be riskier than others .
Over 60 ?
Over 80 ?
Which underlying conditions ?
Controlled diabetes ?
Hypertension ?
On certain medications ?
If we know this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who to tell to become “ semi-hermits , ” and who to test even if they are only mildly ill. And we don ’ t know the answers to other key questions that determine policy decisions .
Can children , who don ’ t seem to get severely ill with Covid-19 , spread the disease ?
How is Covid-19 spreading in hospitals and other care facilities , and how does this affect health care worker safety and infection control procedures ?
Although the virus can persist on surfaces , is it common for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contaminated surfaces , and how does this change the need for environmental cleaning — or reduce it ?
Answers to these questions are essential to guiding rational , effective action .
If the studies are being done , they need to be accelerated and published .
If not , they need to start , today .
3 ) We ’ re not preparing adequately for a surge in cases that could overwhelm our health care system If there are too many cases at one time to allow effective care , patients who could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread to patients and health care workers , as occurred in Wuhan , China and in northern Italy .
There ’ s a need for more protective equipment for health care workers , and we ’ ll need to explore use of newer technologies including reusable respirators .
Even though we have increased the number of ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile severalfold , in a worst-case scenario , we wouldn ’ t have the hundreds of thousands we ’ d need .
Every hospital needs to come up with a plan now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity .
We should be starting to distribute supplies from the stockpile to get the kinks out of the system .
And we should be planning for the awful possibility that we may need to construct MASH-type intensive care units .
This is why we are now urging social distancing measures that seem extreme : by reducing disease spread , we can “ flatten the curve ” so that the cases we will inevitably see are spread out over time and don ’ t overwhelm the health care system .
4 ) We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health benefits of specific social distancing interventions It makes perfect sense to wash hands , cover coughs , stay home if ill , and stop shaking hands — and it ’ s all free .
And we will have to telework , cancel meetings and sporting events , and consider ways to decrease potential contact on subways and buses .
But closing all schools may not make sense right now .
Unless there is documented widespread community transmission — something we ’ re not yet seeing in most of the country — there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An interim intervention is to allow schools to remain open but require them to enable online options for teachers and students who are medically vulnerable .
We must consider the huge societal costs of closing schools against what may be little or no health benefit — particularly if kids continue to go out and are increasingly cared for by grandparents and others who are vulnerable .
What if parents are needed at health care facilities , or utility plants , or to provide other essential services ?
Where will those who depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In influenza , closing schools for months may reduce spread by up to 40 percent .
But we don ’ t know that there will be any decrease in spread of Covid-19 from closing schools .
Many young people are terrified , while many older people seem to be taking a business-as-usual approach .
This is not the end of the world , it ’ s not the zombie apocalypse , we ’ re not all going to die .
Most people who get Covid-19 have mild , moderate , or no symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , this is the most disruptive health threat since the influenza pandemic of 1918 .
And , sadly , many people are still going to get sick and some will die .
We need to focus our attention on preventing our most vulnerable people from infection and providing safe , excellent care to those who become severely ill. 6 ) Public health professionals at CDC and elsewhere need to speak with the public every single day There have recently been attacks on CDC and inaccuracies about what it has done .
CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health laboratory tests .
But it remains a wonderful organization with 20,000 staff dedicated to protecting and improving health .
It has some of the best health experts anywhere in the world , and is the single best source for information on the pandemic .
The public will be best served if we hear directly from CDC ’ s top experts every day .
This is especially important because we are learning more about the virus every day , and need definitive information .
Whatever your view of the current administration , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ban on travel from China undoubtedly reduced the number of Americans who became infected with Covid-19 .
The new ban on travel from the EU could have some benefit — but only if we understand that this delays disease spread and does not prevent it , and is justified only if we use the time it buys to follow the first six steps above .
Presidential attacks on CDC and misrepresentations of past actions can undermine the ability of society to respond effectively — public health should be non-partisan space .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Obama oversaw effective responses to H1N1 influenza and Ebola , and created the Global Health Security Initiative to begin building the systems to address exactly this type of health event .
Partisanship has no place when lives are at stake .
Covid-19 might even help all of us realize that we are all connected , and although we need to increase social distance , we also need to increase solidarity to help each other get through what has quickly become a national and global crisis .
Dr. Tom Frieden is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention and former commissioner of the New York City Health Department .
He is currently president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives , a global nonprofit initiative funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies , the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and part of the global nonprofit Vital Strategies .
Resolve to Save Lives works with countries to prevent 100 million deaths and to make the world safer from epidemics .
Frieden is also Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations .
@ @ @

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly, every step of the response needs to prioritize actions most likely to achieve three overarching goals: prevent infections, prevent infected people from dying, and reduce societal harms.
But the United States’ response is being undermined by seven potentially deadly errors.
1) Testing is not a panacea
There is understandable frustration and outrage that testing has been slow and often inaccessible in the US. But lack of testing has led some to miss the point of what tests can — and cannot — do.
A surge in people being tested could actually spread disease, because people can become infected by someone else waiting to be tested. Getting tested today is no guarantee you won’t get infected tomorrow — and may give you a false sense of security. Furthermore, emerging data suggests that testing of throat swabs may miss as many as two-thirds of infections.
From my point of view as an infectious disease control physician, it’s dismaying to see both the promises of and demands for widespread testing that, if met, will do little good and possibly some harm. That said, in some contexts testing is absolutely, crucially important:
In areas with few or no cases, to inform containment and isolation strategies and facilitate contact tracing. Seattle would likely have had a much smaller outbreak if testing there had been widely available sooner.
In areas with community transmission, to inform treatment and protection of vulnerable groups, especially when there are outbreaks in hospitals, nursing homes, homeless shelters, and prisons.
In health care facilities treating severely ill patients, to identify those with Covid-19 in order to improve infection control, know when it is safe to discharge patients, and identify participants in clinical trials. For these reasons, every patient in the United States with severe pneumonia should be tested for SARS-Cov-2 infection.
For epidemiological investigations, to determine how widespread infection is, facilitate surveillance, and inform situational analysis, projections, and investigations, including into how the virus is spreading and how infectious asymptomatic people are. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s initiative of testing for the virus in all patients with influenza-like illness at outpatient health care providers is essential to help understand where the virus is spreading, to whom, and what the trend will be in the coming weeks and months.
In areas where the virus is spreading, there is little benefit, and some potential harm, to testing individuals with mild or no symptoms. In the process of getting tested, these people will take up the time, protective equipment, and lab materials of health facilities. If they’re not infected when they travel to and get care, they may get infected in the process.
This is less of a concern for parking-lot, drive-through testing in the private sector, but whether people with symptoms are positive or not, they must isolate themselves, especially from medically vulnerable people: The test could be falsely negative, or could become positive the next day. Furthermore, in a community-wide outbreak, there’s no way public health workers will be able to identify and track contacts of all people who test positive.
The larger problem is not the limited value of testing of mildly ill patients. It’s the distraction from what’s most important. Just as the CDC was distracted from its core activities by cruise ships and dealing with repatriating travelers to the United States, the urge to test is distracting much of the US response from the actions that can save the most lives. Which brings me to the single most concerning error:
2) We’re not getting and disseminating answers to key epidemiological questions
This is the most important thing we’re not doing right now. There is so much we need to know in order to make better decisions about what to do. We need to know who is most likely to die from Covid-19. We know that older people and those with underlying health conditions are at greater risk. But we don’t know at what age risk actually increases. We don’t know which medical conditions may be riskier than others. Over 60? Over 80? Which underlying conditions? Controlled diabetes? Hypertension? On certain medications?
If we know this, we can give better advice: whom to tell to become “semi-hermits,” and whom to test even if they are only mildly ill. And we don’t know the answers to other key questions that determine policy decisions. Can children, who don’t seem to get severely ill with Covid-19, spread the disease? How is Covid-19 spreading in hospitals and other care facilities, and how does this affect health care worker safety and infection control procedures?
Although the virus can persist on surfaces, is it common for people to get infected from contact with contaminated surfaces, and how does this change the need for environmental cleaning — or reduce it? Answers to these questions are essential to guiding rational, effective action. If the studies are being done, they need to be accelerated and published. If not, they need to start, today.
3) We’re not preparing adequately for a surge in cases that could overwhelm our health care system
If there are too many cases at one time to allow effective care, patients who could be saved will die and infection will spread to patients and health care workers, as occurred in Wuhan, China, and in northern Italy. There’s a need for more protective equipment for health care workers, and we’ll need to explore use of newer technologies including reusable respirators.
Even though we have increased the number of ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile severalfold, in a worst-case scenario, we wouldn’t have the hundreds of thousands we’d need. Every hospital needs to come up with a plan now to double or triple its intensive care capacity.
New modeling and experience suggests that the increase could be as much as a 10-fold increase or more. Drastic measures are needed. China built a 1,000 bedded hospitals in 8 days; we must do as much as we can to care for as many patients as we can as safely possible.
We should be starting to distribute supplies from the stockpile to get the kinks out of the system. And we should be planning for the awful possibility that we may need to construct MASH-type intensive care units. This is why we are now urging social distancing measures that seem extreme: By reducing disease spread, we can “flatten the curve” so that the cases we will inevitably see are spread out over time and don’t overwhelm the health care system.
4) We’re not assessing the costs and health benefits of specific social distancing interventions
It makes perfect sense to wash hands, cover coughs, stay home if ill, and stop shaking hands — and it’s all free. And we will have to telework, cancel meetings and sporting events, and consider ways to decrease potential contact on subways and buses.
But closing all schools may not make sense right now. Unless there is documented widespread community transmission — something we’re not yet seeing in most of the country — there is no need to close schools. An interim intervention is to allow schools to remain open but require them to enable online options for teachers and students who are medically vulnerable. We must consider the huge societal costs of closing schools against what may be little or no health benefit — particularly if kids continue to go out and are increasingly cared for by grandparents and others who are vulnerable.
What if parents are needed at health care facilities, or utility plants, or to provide other essential services? Where will those who depend on meals provided at school get food? In influenza, closing schools for months may reduce spread by up to 40 percent. But we don’t know that there will be any decrease in spread of Covid-19 from closing schools.
5) We’re not effectively communicating risk
Many young people are terrified, while many older people seem to be taking a business-as-usual approach. This is not the end of the world, it’s not the zombie apocalypse, we’re not all going to die.
Most people who get Covid-19 have mild, moderate, or no symptoms, and approximately 99 percent recover. Yes, this is the most disruptive health threat since the influenza pandemic of 1918. And, sadly, many people are still going to get sick and some will die. We need to focus our attention on preventing our most vulnerable people from infection and providing safe, excellent care to those who become severely ill.
6) Public health professionals at the CDC and elsewhere need to speak with the public every single day
There have recently been attacks on CDC and inaccuracies about what it has done. CDC did have an initial problem with public health laboratory tests.
But it remains a wonderful organization with 20,000 staff dedicated to protecting and improving health. It has some of the best health experts anywhere in the world, and is the single best source for information on the pandemic. The public will be best served if we hear directly from CDC’s top experts every day. This is especially important because we are learning more about the virus every day and need definitive information.
7) Partisanship
Whatever your view of the current administration, some of its actions have saved lives. The ban on travel from China undoubtedly reduced the number of Americans who became infected with Covid-19. The new ban on travel from the EU could have some benefit — but only if we understand that this delays disease spread and does not prevent it, and is justified only if we use the time it buys to follow the first six steps above.
Presidential attacks on the CDC and misrepresentations of past actions can undermine the ability of society to respond effectively — public health should be a nonpartisan space. President George W. Bush advanced pandemic influenza planning. President Obama oversaw effective responses to H1N1 influenza and Ebola, and created the Global Health Security Initiative to begin building the systems to address exactly this type of health event.
Partisanship has no place when lives are at stake. Covid-19 might even help all of us realize that we are all connected, and although we need to increase social distance, we also need to increase solidarity to help each other get through what has quickly become a national and global crisis.
Dr. Tom Frieden is the former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and former commissioner of the New York City Health Department. He is president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, a global nonprofit initiative funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and part of the global nonprofit Vital Strategies. Resolve to Save Lives works with countries to prevent 100 million deaths and to make the world safer from epidemics. Frieden is also senior fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations. Find him on Twitter @DrTomFrieden.


vox--2020-03-15--What April Democratic debate might look like — if it happens

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders met in Washington , DC , on Sunday for the 11th debate of the Democratic presidential primary .
It was the first one-on-one debate of the cycle — and it might also be the last .
The Democratic National Committee framework for the 2020 debates does call for 12 debates , with the last one in April .
But even setting aside that everything from the NBA to Broadway has been canceled in March due to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic , it ’ s unclear whether that 12th debate will actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not unreasonable to assume the race will be all but locked up by April .
There ’ s one more major day of voting to come in March — Arizona , Florida , Illinois , and Ohio all vote Tuesday , March 17 — and it ’ s expected to go extremely well for Biden .
If it does , it could be nearly impossible for Sanders to overcome his delegate lead .
For another , we have no details on the 12th debate yet — nothing on the host , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything else .
And the DNC emphasized when they published the debate framework in December 2018 that it was flexible : If a debate does go ahead , however , you can expect it to look similar to Sunday ’ s : Only two candidates , no live audience , and the podiums at least six feet apart in the interest of “ social distancing ” as the coronavirus outbreak continues to wrack the US and the world .
Unless either candidate exits the race soon , though , we ’ ll just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNC says about an April debate .

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders met in Washington, DC, on Sunday for the 11th debate of the Democratic presidential primary. It was the first one-on-one debate of the cycle — and it might also be the last.
The Democratic National Committee framework for the 2020 debates does call for 12 debates, with the last one in April. But even setting aside that everything from the NBA to Broadway has been canceled in March due to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, it’s unclear whether that 12th debate will actually take place.
For one, it’s not unreasonable to assume the race will be all but locked up by April. There’s one more major day of voting to come in March — Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Tuesday, March 17 — and it’s expected to go extremely well for Biden. If it does, it could be nearly impossible for Sanders to overcome his delegate lead.
For another, we have no details on the 12th debate yet — nothing on the host, the location, the time, or anything else. And the DNC emphasized when they published the debate framework in December 2018 that it was flexible:
Given the fluid nature of the presidential nominating process, the DNC will continuously assess the state of the race and make adjustments to this process as appropriate, and always transparently.
If a debate does go ahead, however, you can expect it to look similar to Sunday’s: Only two candidates, no live audience, and the podiums at least six feet apart in the interest of “social distancing” as the coronavirus outbreak continues to wrack the US and the world.
Unless either candidate exits the race soon, though, we’ll just have to wait and see what the DNC says about an April debate.


vox--2020-03-15--Democrats’ choice is clearer than ever: Fight Trump or fight for revolution

You rarely get as perfect an encapsulation of two presidential campaign messages as we did Sunday morning when two dueling opinion columns by former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN ’ s website .
Biden ’ s headline said , “ The virus lays bare the shortcomings of the Trump administration , ” while Sanders ’ s said , “ Coronavirus highlights the flaws in our health care and economic systems.
” At Sunday ’ s debate , this same disagreement echoed again and again .
Biden believes America is experiencing a crisis — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidency — that requires a new and different leader .
Sanders believes that the basic long-standing structure of America ’ s politics and economic system is a crisis .
Biden argued that Democrats need to unite and beat Trump in order “ to restore this country ’ s soul.
” Sanders said we need to talk more about “ the power structure in America ” , namely , “ the billionaires who contribute money to political campaigns ” thus allowing them to “ control the legislative agenda.
” A Biden presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ugly forces that Trump rode to the White House any more than a Sanders administration would singlehandedly break the power of wealthy interests in Congress .
But it is the theme they returned to again and again , offering voters the clearest contrast so far between the last two major Democratic candidates .
And when it came to coronavirus — the biggest question of the night and the most pressing issue of the moment — the two men showed who they are .
Sanders ’ s politics is fixed toward a North Star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Star is asking what we can do tomorrow .
For Sanders the point of coronavirus is that the American health care system is terrible .
He argued that “ the pandemic exposes the tremendous weakness and dysfunctionality of our health care system ” and then he flagged some particularly dysfunctional aspects of it .
How is it , Sanders wanted to know , that America has fewer doctors per capita than European countries even when our health care spending is drastically higher ?
“ How come people can ’ t afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This was a different frame of the same basic argument Sanders has advanced across two presidential campaigns now .
Biden didn ’ t really argue the point , but instead noted Italy has what ’ s mostly a single-payer system , and that didn ’ t stop them from being crushed by Covid-19 .
The public health crisis , in his view , is a freestanding crisis that requires crisis management .
He references the Obama administration ’ s successful handling of an Ebola outbreak in 2014 several times ; an argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than systemic failure .
“ People are looking for results , not a revolution , ” Biden said in the most memorable line of the debate .
Biden is very much a politician ’ s politician ( even Bernie Sanders likes him ) and his restorationist , pro-system attitude reflects more than simple nostalgia .
The former vice president , after all , acknowledges that there are real problems with the status quo .
His complaint with Medicare-for-all is the practical politician ’ s complaint — it ’ s a nonstarter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind , I 'm pretty sure he ’ d agree .
It ’ s not a coincidence that Sanders has never produced a detailed financing plan or theory of how his vision for single-payer should work .
His team thinks organizing comes prior to wonkery , and the point is to lay down a principle : “ Do we take on the health care industry and tell them their profits are not more important than health care for all ?
Do we take on the fossil fuel industry ?
” Biden says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an expansion with a public option that could really pass if Democrats win in 2020 , thus helping people with their health care problems .
He never actually says his proposal represents some kind of moral ideal .
Indeed , it ’ s not at all clear what Biden thinks an ideal health care system would look like .
It ’ s simply not the kind of question that interests him .
Biden is doing politics .
Bernie has been a politician a long time ( and quietly knows how to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persona of a prophet .
The debate ’ s early focus on coronavirus disadvantaged him by making him look like a bit of a shallow ideologue .
But as the evening moved on into more conventional territory , his approach wore better — articulating a clear and appealing vision , while Biden often had to defend some awkward votes in the past .
The appealing side of Biden ’ s approach came midway through an exchange on climate change , which was at risk of getting bogged down in purely aspirational goals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ on the Recovery Act , I was able to make sure we invested $ 90 billion in making sure we brought down the price of solar and wind so it is lower than the price of coal .
That ’ s why not another new coal plant will be built.
” This is an overstatement , but it reflects something real .
Nobody ’ s climate plan was “ hope the economy collapses in a way that requires a giant fiscal stimulus bill and then dedicate a slice of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of renewable energy.
” But the economy did collapse .
It did require a giant fiscal stimulus bill .
And the Obama administration , with Biden as a key player , opportunistically acted to advance important climate goals .
That ’ s politics for you .
That ’ s how you get things done .
A discussion of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden championed over the objections of most Democrats showed the seamier side of this approach to politics .
“ It was going to pass , ” Biden said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that people under $ 50,000 would not be affected and women and children would go to the front of the line on alimony and support payments .
That ’ s what I did.
” These are all factual statements .
Biden really did improve the bill in those ways .
He also sided with Republicans to kill several other amendments offered by Democrats that could have further improved it .
And , fundamentally , Biden did champion a bill that was a priority of the credit card industry and his state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not a mortal sin for a senator to have a soft spot for a home state industry .
( Sanders takes a strong stand against excessive regulation of Vermont ’ s cheesemakers . )
But it shows a less appealing and high-minded side of Biden ’ s transactional approach to politics .
The forest and the trees The age divide in the Democratic primary , with young voters overwhelmingly backing Sanders while the more numerous old voters back Biden , aligns perfectly with stereotypes of idealistic youth versus jaded oldsters .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world is possible , and we both can and should transcend the particulars of the moment .
“ Who owns the media ?
Who owns the economy ?
” he asked in his closing statement before calling on the voters to “ rethink America and create a country where we care about each other rather than a nation of greed and corruption ?
” Biden , by contrast , talked about the specifics of the coronavirus situation in his closing statement , running through the many difficult choices facing families and communities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership to help people address those facts .
Then , in an apparent ad-lib , he did turn to the subject of economic inequality to which he offered a simple solution : “ get rid of Donald Trump ” , whose policies , he correctly argued , have exacerbated inequality at every turn .
This is what rank-and-file Democratic voters have said from day one is their top priority .
And while Sanders has a case to make about why he ’ d be the stronger contender to take Trump on , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal in a way that Sanders simply doesn ’ t .
Sanders is fighting a cosmic struggle and combating pandemic disease in the overall design of the social model .
Biden is talking about winning the election and executing a better response to the current pandemic crisis .
That ’ s what voters say they want , and with the two of them finally standing side by side , it ’ s clearer than ever that ’ s what they ’ re going to get .

You rarely get as perfect an encapsulation of two presidential campaign messages as we did Sunday morning when two dueling opinion columns by former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN’s website. Biden’s headline said, “The virus lays bare the shortcomings of the Trump administration,” while Sanders’s said, “Coronavirus highlights the flaws in our health care and economic systems.”
At Sunday’s debate, this same disagreement echoed again and again.
Biden believes America is experiencing a crisis — a pandemic, but more broadly Donald Trump’s presidency — that requires a new and different leader. Sanders believes that the basic long-standing structure of America’s politics and economic system is a crisis.
Biden argued that Democrats need to unite and beat Trump in order “to restore this country’s soul.” Sanders said we need to talk more about “the power structure in America”, namely, “the billionaires who contribute money to political campaigns” thus allowing them to “control the legislative agenda.”
A Biden presidency can’t unilaterally sweep aside the ugly forces that Trump rode to the White House any more than a Sanders administration would singlehandedly break the power of wealthy interests in Congress.
But it is the theme they returned to again and again, offering voters the clearest contrast so far between the last two major Democratic candidates. And when it came to coronavirus — the biggest question of the night and the most pressing issue of the moment — the two men showed who they are. Sanders’s politics is fixed toward a North Star of systemic change; Biden’s North Star is asking what we can do tomorrow.
Coronavirus and health reform
The debate began with coronavirus.
For Sanders the point of coronavirus is that the American health care system is terrible. He argued that “the pandemic exposes the tremendous weakness and dysfunctionality of our health care system” and then he flagged some particularly dysfunctional aspects of it.
How is it, Sanders wanted to know, that America has fewer doctors per capita than European countries even when our health care spending is drastically higher? “How come people can’t afford to get the prescription drugs they need?”
This was a different frame of the same basic argument Sanders has advanced across two presidential campaigns now.
Biden didn’t really argue the point, but instead noted Italy has what’s mostly a single-payer system, and that didn’t stop them from being crushed by Covid-19. The public health crisis, in his view, is a freestanding crisis that requires crisis management. He references the Obama administration’s successful handling of an Ebola outbreak in 2014 several times; an argument that America is suffering from bad leadership rather than systemic failure.
“People are looking for results, not a revolution,” Biden said in the most memorable line of the debate.
Politics vs. prophecy
Biden is very much a politician’s politician (even Bernie Sanders likes him) and his restorationist, pro-system attitude reflects more than simple nostalgia.
The former vice president, after all, acknowledges that there are real problems with the status quo. His complaint with Medicare-for-all is the practical politician’s complaint — it’s a nonstarter. If you could read Sanders’s mind, I'm pretty sure he’d agree.
It’s not a coincidence that Sanders has never produced a detailed financing plan or theory of how his vision for single-payer should work. His team thinks organizing comes prior to wonkery, and the point is to lay down a principle: “Do we take on the health care industry and tell them their profits are not more important than health care for all? Do we take on the fossil fuel industry?”
Biden says he has a health care plan focused on an expansion with a public option that could really pass if Democrats win in 2020, thus helping people with their health care problems.
He never actually says his proposal represents some kind of moral ideal. Indeed, it’s not at all clear what Biden thinks an ideal health care system would look like. It’s simply not the kind of question that interests him.
Biden is doing politics. Bernie has been a politician a long time (and quietly knows how to do it pretty well) but fundamentally has the persona of a prophet. The debate’s early focus on coronavirus disadvantaged him by making him look like a bit of a shallow ideologue. But as the evening moved on into more conventional territory, his approach wore better — articulating a clear and appealing vision, while Biden often had to defend some awkward votes in the past.
The inside job
The appealing side of Biden’s approach came midway through an exchange on climate change, which was at risk of getting bogged down in purely aspirational goals.
“By the way,” Biden said, “on the Recovery Act, I was able to make sure we invested $90 billion in making sure we brought down the price of solar and wind so it is lower than the price of coal. That’s why not another new coal plant will be built.”
This is an overstatement, but it reflects something real.
Nobody’s climate plan was “hope the economy collapses in a way that requires a giant fiscal stimulus bill and then dedicate a slice of that bill to bringing down the long-term cost of renewable energy.” But the economy did collapse. It did require a giant fiscal stimulus bill. And the Obama administration, with Biden as a key player, opportunistically acted to advance important climate goals. That’s politics for you. That’s how you get things done.
A discussion of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden championed over the objections of most Democrats showed the seamier side of this approach to politics.
“It was going to pass,” Biden said. “And I offered two amendments to make sure that people under $50,000 would not be affected and women and children would go to the front of the line on alimony and support payments. That’s what I did.”
These are all factual statements. Biden really did improve the bill in those ways. He also sided with Republicans to kill several other amendments offered by Democrats that could have further improved it. And, fundamentally, Biden did champion a bill that was a priority of the credit card industry and his state of Delaware at the time. It’s not a mortal sin for a senator to have a soft spot for a home state industry. (Sanders takes a strong stand against excessive regulation of Vermont’s cheesemakers.) But it shows a less appealing and high-minded side of Biden’s transactional approach to politics.
The forest and the trees
The age divide in the Democratic primary, with young voters overwhelmingly backing Sanders while the more numerous old voters back Biden, aligns perfectly with stereotypes of idealistic youth versus jaded oldsters.
Sanders’s pitch is that a better world is possible, and we both can and should transcend the particulars of the moment.
“Who owns the media? Who owns the economy?” he asked in his closing statement before calling on the voters to “rethink America and create a country where we care about each other rather than a nation of greed and corruption?”
Biden, by contrast, talked about the specifics of the coronavirus situation in his closing statement, running through the many difficult choices facing families and communities and arguing that we need more coherent national leadership to help people address those facts. Then, in an apparent ad-lib, he did turn to the subject of economic inequality to which he offered a simple solution: “get rid of Donald Trump”, whose policies, he correctly argued, have exacerbated inequality at every turn.
This is what rank-and-file Democratic voters have said from day one is their top priority. And while Sanders has a case to make about why he’d be the stronger contender to take Trump on, there's no denying that Biden targets this goal in a way that Sanders simply doesn’t.
Sanders is fighting a cosmic struggle and combating pandemic disease in the overall design of the social model. Biden is talking about winning the election and executing a better response to the current pandemic crisis. That’s what voters say they want, and with the two of them finally standing side by side, it’s clearer than ever that’s what they’re going to get.


vox--2020-03-15--4 winners and 2 losers from the March Democratic debate

The March 15 Democratic debate , the long-anticipated one-on-one showdown between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders , turned out to be something of a weird one .
There was no live audience , the candidates ’ podiums were spaced unusually far apart , and it was held in DC rather than ( as originally planned ) Arizona — a state holding one of the primaries this coming Tuesday .
The reason , of course , is coronavirus .
The pandemic dominated the debate , both taking up the most time of any single issue and making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of like sideshows .
But despite the coronavirus threat hanging over the nation ’ s head , we did end up getting a fairly revealing night .
The one-on-one format allowed for more substantive and direct exchanges between the candidates , giving us a picture of how they might fare against President Donald Trump in the general election .
What follows is our sense of who and what came out of this evening ahead — and who lost ground .
This was by no means a perfect night for the frontrunner .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his past votes on issues including same-sex marriage and bankruptcy ; Biden seemed to have lied in defending his record , most notably on Social Security ( more on that later ) .
And yet Biden should be pretty happy with how the night went .
Part of the reason why derives from the race ’ s fundamentals .
Sanders is behind in the delegate race and down in the polls ; the remaining states are demographically much friendlier to Biden than they are to Sanders .
For the Vermont senator to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he needs something dramatic .
That didn ’ t happen tonight .
But another big reason why is that Biden outperformed expectations .
In past debates , he ’ d seemed hesitant or out of it — leading many pundits , including a lot of Sanders supporters , to publicly speculate about his mental acuity .
Lots of people thought , as a result , that a one-on-one debate , where Biden would have to talk all night , would only highlight that vulnerability .
That ’ s not what happened , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he ’ s been throughout the entire primary .
He projected confidence and competence on the coronavirus pandemic , arguably beating Bernie on points when it came to Medicare-for-all ’ s relevance to the crisis .
He got in some solid hits on Sanders ’ s record , particularly on guns and immigration , and offered up one of the night ’ s most memorable lines about the primary during an exchange on campaign finance : “ I didn ’ t have any money and I still won.
” There were blemishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hits on Biden ’ s lengthy record foreshadow coming general election attacks in the likely event that Biden becomes the nominee .
But there ’ s no denying that the performance all but extinguished Sanders ’ s hope to gain any momentum from this debate — and should quiet at least some of worrying about whether he can withstand the rigors of a campaign and the presidency .
During the first half of the debate , we got an idea of what it would be like if President Biden or President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
For anyone who has been following how President Trump is handling the crisis , it was refreshing .
By and large , Biden and Sanders stuck to the advice of experts : encouraging hygiene and social distancing , building up health care capacity , and boosting pandemic preparedness .
Biden repeatedly pointed to his own plan , which experts have praised for checking a bunch of the points that one would in expect such a proposal .
By comparison , Trump ’ s public comments about the Covid-19 crisis have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday was riddled with errors , quickly forcing Trump ’ s own team and others to issue corrections about his travel restrictions for Europe and how health insurers are expanding access to testing and treatment .
Even as he declared an emergency , and after , Trump repeatedly downplayed the crisis , at one point claiming “ I doubt we ’ ll need anywhere near that ” when announcing that his administration will roll out five million more tests .
Trump ’ s performance has been downright dangerous .
His comments have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that everything ’ s totally under control , he risks pushing the public away from doing what needs to be done .
That ’ s one reason Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , described Trump ’ s messaging as “ deeply disturbing , ” adding that it ’ s “ left the country far less prepared than it needs to be for what is a very substantial challenge ahead.
” Given that context , watching Biden and Sanders simply speak coherently about what they would do about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential than Trump .
Now , Biden and Sanders did make flubs — at times calling the current virus “ Ebola , ” “ SARS , ” and “ N1H1 ” ( which is not a real disease ; H1N1 is ) .
But that kind of misstatement pales in comparison to Trump ’ s performance , which has left the US in a precarious position as the virus continues to spread throughout the country .
In an otherwise rough debate for Bernie Sanders , he got in one clean hit against Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported efforts to limit Social Security benefits , and he spent much of the debate scrambling to defend his record .
It feels hard to believe now , but for much of the Obama administration ’ s tenure , the Democrats in the White House were trying to cut a “ grand bargain ” that would include at least some cuts to Social Security .
Obama and his team were always more focused on controlling costs for Medicare , as part of their central goal of “ bending the cost curve ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they also openly supported modest cuts to Social Security spending , notably including a move to “ chained CPI , ” an alternate , more accurate inflation measure that , because it grows more slowly , would amount to a reduction in benefits for seniors .
As Matt Yglesias recounts here , in the aftermath of Republicans taking the House in the 2010 midterms , the Obama administration sought to reach an accommodation wherein taxes would rise somewhat on top earners , and spending — especially “ entitlement ” spending as opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would decline somewhat .
It was a goal that inspired the creation of the “ Simpson-Bowles ” commission , which proposed a big grand bargain plan in late 2010 , and that animated their debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011 and in the “ fiscal cliff ” talks of late 2012 .
Ultimately , the Grand Bargain did not come to pass .
But the effort has made a big comeback in the 2020 primary , as Sanders has used it to attack Biden , who played a key role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had a long record of supporting similar deficit reduction efforts during his time in the Senate .
Sanders ’ s Social Security hits were by far his most successful moments of the debate .
While that probably won ’ t be enough to halt his campaign ’ s slide , it underlines something significant that ’ s changed since the Grand Bargain era : Social Security has become untouchable .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders alike supported expanding , not contracting , benefits .
Biden has called for benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , higher “ minimum benefit ” for seniors with low incomes during their working lives .
It ’ s a real change to the politics around the issue , and one that bodes well for the program ’ s future .
When the Democratic primary began , diversity seemed like a winner .
Elizabeth Warren , Amy Klobuchar , and other prominent women were running .
People of color like Julián Castro and Cory Booker were contenders , and two women of color , Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard , were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most successful openly gay presidential candidate to date — and a millennial , adding a bit of diversity in age too .
Yet on Sunday , the debate stage was winnowed down to two straight white men in their 70s .
And they ’ re running against another straight white man also in his 70s .
This sends a sad message to the country about the chances of women and people of color in presidential politics .
But the loss of diverse perspectives also made the debate worse in terms of substance : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism , even as the criminal justice system came up at times .
The discussion about women ’ s health care and abortion suffered from the lack of women talking about an issue that personally impacts them .
The same was true for immigration and a lack of representation for brown people .
One bright spot in this area came when Biden promised that his running mate will be a woman , and Sanders indicated he ’ d likely do the same .
But this speaks directly to the problem : The race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates have to signal that their running mates will be a bit more diverse .
It ’ s a very far place from the start of this primary election .
The entire visual structure of this debate seemed designed to remind us that there ’ s a pandemic on .
It began with an elbow bump , not a handshake .
The podiums were about a million feet apart .
There was no audience .
Odd as it seemed , it was a model for viewers on the importance of “ social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become ubiquitous in the time of coronavirus .
We all need to stop attending crowded events , stay as far away from each other as possible when we do interact , and ideally stay at home for as many hours a day as humanly possible .
Only with this kind of extreme self-isolation can we truly prevent this extremely contagious disease from spreading to society ’ s most vulnerable .
In addition to practicing it on stage , the candidates talked about how their campaigns were applying it day to day .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not a rally .
I love doing rallies and we bring thousands of people out to the rallies .
We ’ re not doing that right now , ” Sanders said .
“ In fact , our entire staff is working from home.
” Biden , too , said he wasn ’ t doing rallies and telling his campaign to work from home , adding , “ I wash my hands god knows how many times a day.
” This was all to the good .
In a crisis like this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders talking about this stuff — even if it was admittedly weird to see the candidates go at it across an abnormally wide gulf , a striking reminder of just how strange and dangerous our current times are .
Both Sanders and Biden tried to draw distinctions between their approaches to climate change .
But as tonight ’ s debate made clear , both candidates have adopted the framework of the Green New Deal , which calls for a massive set of government-led investments to cut US greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean energy economy .
While some Democrats questioned the initial resolution when it was introduced last year by Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , the last two remaining Democratic candidates have adopted its branding .
“ We both agree that we have a New Green Deal [ sic ] to deal with the existential threat [ of climate change ] that faces humanity , ” Biden said .
“ We disagree on the detail of how we do it , but we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s website called the Green New Deal “ a crucial framework.
” Sanders , meanwhile , called his climate plan the “ Green New Deal.
” That the two would endorse such an agenda is a huge shift from just a few months ago , when some candidates criticized its cost and scope .
And it ’ s a massive change from the last presidential election cycle , when climate change scarcely came up at all .
Sanders and Biden still stand apart on some of the particulars .
“ We talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these things in general terms , but details make a difference , ” Sanders said .
For instance , Sanders wants $ 16.3 trillion in federal spending in his plan .
Biden wants $ 1.7 trillion .
Sanders has called for a wholesale ban on fracking , while Biden called for a halt to new fracking on public land .
But at this point , whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president will have the most ambitious plan to tackle climate change a major party nominee has ever had .

Editor’s note: This article is from the Democratic primary debate on March 15, 2020. Click here for winners and losers of the September 29 presidential debate.
The March 15 Democratic debate, the long-anticipated one-on-one showdown between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, turned out to be something of a weird one. There was no live audience, the candidates’ podiums were spaced unusually far apart, and it was held in Washington, DC, rather than (as originally planned) Arizona — a state holding one of the primaries this coming Tuesday.
The reason, of course, is the coronavirus. The pandemic dominated the debate, both taking up the most time of any single issue and making discussions of other policy areas seem kind of like sideshows.
But despite the coronavirus threat hanging over the nation’s head, we did end up getting a fairly revealing night. The one-on-one format allowed for more substantive and direct exchanges between the candidates, giving us a picture of how they might fare against President Donald Trump in the general election.
What follows is our sense of who and what came out of this evening ahead — and who lost ground.
Winner: Joe Biden
This was by no means a perfect night for the frontrunner. Sanders hit Biden hard when it came to his past votes on issues including same-sex marriage and bankruptcy; Biden seemed to have lied in defending his record, most notably on Social Security (more on that later).
Yet Biden should be pretty happy with how the night went.
Part of the reason why derives from the race’s fundamentals. Sanders is behind in the delegate race and down in the polls; the remaining states are demographically much friendlier to Biden than they are to Sanders. For the Vermont senator to have a real shot at turning this around, he needs something dramatic. That didn’t happen tonight.
But another big reason is that Biden outperformed expectations. In past debates, he’d seemed hesitant or out of it — leading many pundits, including a lot of Sanders supporters, to publicly speculate about his mental acuity. Lots of people thought, as a result, that a one-on-one debate, where Biden would have to talk all night, would only highlight that vulnerability.
That’s not what happened, though. Biden was about as sharp as he’s been throughout the entire primary.
It’s absolutely nowhere near the stuff people were claiming / hoping would become apparent in a 2-person debate https://t.co/PNaLzvw6ah — Tom Gara (@tomgara) March 16, 2020
He projected confidence and competence on the coronavirus pandemic, arguably beating Bernie on points when it came to Medicare-for-all’s relevance to the crisis. He got in some solid hits on Sanders’s record, particularly on guns and immigration, and offered up one of the night’s most memorable lines about the primary during an exchange on campaign finance: “I didn’t have any money and I still won.”
There were blemishes on an otherwise good night. Sanders’s hits on Biden’s lengthy record foreshadow coming general election attacks in the likely event that Biden becomes the nominee. But there’s no denying that the performance all but extinguished Sanders’s hope to gain any momentum from this debate — and should quiet at least some of the worry about whether he can withstand the rigors of a campaign and the presidency.
—Zack Beauchamp
Loser: Donald Trump
During the first half of the debate, we got an idea of what it would be like if a President Biden or President Sanders was in charge during the coronavirus pandemic. For anyone who has been following how President Trump is handling the crisis, it was refreshing.
By and large, Biden and Sanders stuck to the advice of experts: encouraging hygiene and social distancing, building up health care capacity, and boosting pandemic preparedness. Biden repeatedly pointed to his plan, which experts have praised for checking a bunch of the points that one would in expect such a proposal.
By comparison, Trump’s public comments about the Covid-19 crisis have been disastrous. His Oval Office address on Wednesday was riddled with errors, quickly forcing Trump’s team and others to issue corrections about his travel restrictions for Europe and how health insurers are expanding access to testing and treatment. Even as he declared an emergency, and after, Trump repeatedly downplayed the crisis, at one point claiming, “I doubt we’ll need anywhere near that,” when announcing that his administration will roll out 5 million more tests.
Trump’s performance has been downright dangerous. His comments have not only been misleading; by trying to suggest that everything’s totally under control, he risks pushing the public away from doing what needs to be done. That’s one reason Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, described Trump’s messaging as “deeply disturbing,” adding that it’s “left the country far less prepared than it needs to be for what is a very substantial challenge ahead.”
Given that context, watching Biden and Sanders simply speak coherently about what they would do about the pandemic made them look far more presidential than Trump.
Now, Biden and Sanders did make flubs — at times calling the current virus “Ebola,” “SARS,” and “N1H1” (which is not a real disease; H1N1 is). But that kind of misstatement pales in comparison to Trump’s performance, which has left the US in a precarious position as the virus continues to spread throughout the country.
—German Lopez
Winner: Social Security
In an otherwise rough debate for Bernie Sanders, he got in one clean hit against Joe Biden — Biden has, indeed, supported efforts to limit Social Security benefits, and he spent much of the debate scrambling to defend his record.
It feels hard to believe now, but for much of the Obama administration’s tenure, the Democrats in the White House were trying to strike a “grand bargain” that would include at least some cuts to Social Security.
Obama and his team were always more focused on controlling costs for Medicare, as part of their central goal of “bending the cost curve” and lowering spending on health care overall. But they also openly supported modest cuts to Social Security spending, notably including a move to “chained CPI,” an alternate, more accurate inflation measure that, because it grows more slowly, would amount to a reduction in benefits for seniors.
As Matt Yglesias recounts, in the aftermath of Republicans taking the House in the 2010 midterms, the Obama administration sought to reach an accommodation wherein taxes would rise somewhat on top earners, and spending — especially “entitlement” spending as opposed to discretionary funding for government agencies — would decline somewhat. It was a goal that inspired the creation of the “Simpson-Bowles” commission, which proposed a big grand bargain plan in late 2010, and that animated their debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011 and in the “fiscal cliff” talks of late 2012.
Ultimately, the grand bargain did not come to pass. But the effort has made a big comeback in the 2020 primary, as Sanders has used it to attack Biden, who played a key role in those negotiations as vice president, and who had a long record of supporting similar deficit reduction efforts during his time in the Senate.
Sanders’s Social Security hits were by far his most successful moments of the debate. While that probably won’t be enough to halt his campaign’s slide, it underlines something significant that’s changed since the grand bargain era: Social Security has become untouchable. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders alike supported expanding, not contracting, benefits. Biden has called for benefit hikes for older Americans, and a new, higher “minimum benefit” for seniors with low incomes during their working lives.
It’s a real change to the politics around the issue, and one that bodes well for the program’s future.
—Dylan Matthews
Loser: Diversity
When the Democratic primary began, diversity seemed like a winner. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar and other prominent women were running. People of color like former HUD Secretary Julián Castro and Sen. Cory Booker were contenders, and two women of color, Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, were in the mix. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg became the most successful openly gay presidential candidate to date — and a millennial, adding a bit of diversity in age, too.
Yet on Sunday, the debate stage was winnowed to two straight white men in their 70s. And they’re running against another straight white man also in his 70s.
This sends a sad message to the country about the chances of women and people of color in presidential politics. But the loss of diverse perspectives also made the debate worse in terms of substance: We heard little to nothing about systemic racism, even as the criminal justice system came up at times. The discussion about women’s health care and abortion suffered from the lack of women talking about an issue that personally impacts them. The same was true for immigration and a lack of representation for brown people.
One bright spot in this area came when Biden promised that his running mate will be a woman, and Sanders indicated he’d likely do the same. But this speaks directly to the problem: The race is so obviously homogeneous now that the candidates have to signal that their running mates will be a bit more diverse. It’s a very far place from the start of this primary election.
—GL
Winner: Social distancing
The entire visual structure of this debate seemed designed to remind us that there’s a pandemic on. It began with an elbow bump, not a handshake. The podiums were about a million feet apart. There was no audience.
Odd as it seemed, it was a model for viewers on the importance of “social distancing” — a concept that’s become ubiquitous in the time of Covid-19. We all need to stop attending crowded events, stay as far away from each other as possible when we do interact, and ideally stay at home for as many hours a day as humanly possible. Only with this kind of extreme self-isolation can we truly prevent this extremely contagious disease from spreading to society’s most vulnerable.
In addition to practicing it onstage, the candidates talked about how their campaigns were applying it day-to-day. “Last night we had a fireside chat, not a rally. I love doing rallies and we bring thousands of people out to the rallies. We’re not doing that right now,” Sanders said. “In fact, our entire staff is working from home.”
Biden, too, said he wasn’t doing rallies and was telling his campaign to work from home, adding, “I wash my hands god knows how many times a day.”
This was all to the good. In a crisis like this, it’s important to have political leaders talking about this stuff — even if it was admittedly weird to see the candidates go at it across an abnormally wide gulf, a striking reminder of just how strange and dangerous our current times are.
—ZB
Winner: The Green New Deal
Both Sanders and Biden tried to draw distinctions between their approaches to climate change. But as tonight’s debate made clear, both candidates have adopted the framework of the Green New Deal, which calls for a massive set of government-led investments to cut US greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring a just transition for workers and communities toward a clean energy economy.
While some Democrats questioned the initial resolution when it was introduced last year by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Biden and Sanders have adopted its branding. “We both agree that we have a New Green Deal to deal with the existential threat [of climate change] that faces humanity,” Biden said. “We disagree on the detail of how we do it, but we don’t disagree on the principle.”
Biden’s website called the Green New Deal “a crucial framework.” Sanders, meanwhile, called his climate plan the “Green New Deal.”
That the two would endorse such an agenda is a huge shift from just a few months ago, when some candidates criticized its cost and scope. And it’s a massive change from the last presidential election cycle, when climate change scarcely came up at all.
Sanders and Biden still stand apart on some of the particulars. “We talk about the Green New Deal and all of these things in general terms, but details make a difference,” Sanders said. For instance, Sanders wants $16.3 trillion in federal spending in his plan. Biden wants $1.7 trillion. Sanders has called for a wholesale ban on fracking, while Biden called for a halt to new fracking on public land.
But at this point, whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president will have the most ambitious plan to tackle climate change a major party nominee has ever had.
—Umair Irfan