Coronavirus is the End of Trump

[bacchi]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

Would it be centrist to present an article about WWII, and follow it with an article denying the Holocaust?  Or to provide an article showing pictures of the Earth from space, followed with an article from flat Earthers denying that the world is round?

Sometimes opposing views are so full of shit they don't deserve the recognition that providing them a platform gives.  In these cases it's not centrist at all to give both 'sides' of the story.

Beat me to it.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/

Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks.

[Dancin'Dog]

I find Democracy Now reports on subjects and from POVs that I don't see from other sources.  Most would likely consider it left leaning, but they criticise Democrats too.  I've been watching it for about 20 years. 

[MDM]

Would it be centrist to present an article about WWII, and follow it with an article denying the Holocaust?  Or to provide an article showing pictures of the Earth from space, followed with an article from flat Earthers denying that the world is round?

Sometimes opposing views are so full of shit they don't deserve the recognition that providing them a platform gives.  In these cases it's not centrist at all to give both 'sides' of the story.

Nice strawmen but not relevant here.

Many political opinions are not falsifiable because we can't run tests.  E.g., would things be better or worse now if Clinton had won instead of Trump?  Partisans on both sides will vent their opinions but there is no way to know.

[MDM]

Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks.

Gosh, I guess that rules out Fox, CNN, NYT, etc., who have all failed fact checks at one time or another.

[bacchi]

Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks.

Gosh, I guess that rules out Fox, CNN, NYT, etc., who have all failed fact checks at one time or another.

Well, yeah, if you read them exclusively. Fox is right wing news, CNN is left wing news, and NYT is left-leaning.

In general, the majority of stories from Real Clear Politics comes from a right leaning perspective.

RCP is better than reading CNN or Fox exclusively but don't fool yourself that it's not biased. There are more "fair and balanced" sites out there. CSM is a good choice.

[wenchsenior]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

:HEADDESK:

[skp]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

Would it be centrist to present an article about WWII, and follow it with an article denying the Holocaust?  Or to provide an article showing pictures of the Earth from space, followed with an article from flat Earthers denying that the world is round?

Sometimes opposing views are so full of shit they don't deserve the recognition that providing them a platform gives.  In these cases it's not centrist at all to give both 'sides' of the story.

And sometimes this is just the strategy.  The news source picks the other sides opposing views solely because they are so full of shit but the omits the views that are full of shit from their side.
That's the problem I have with fact checking sites.  They don't fact check everything.

[MDM]

:HEADDESK:

I'll take that as agreement. ;)

[OtherJen]

Sure, but as a Trump supporter, he has been taught that all of the reliable sources of information and fact checking resources are fake news. The cult won’t allow him to do this.

Yup, and now that he sees that Fox is fake he thinks that they all are.

If he doesn't want to watch any American news source, what about BBC?  I'd say CBC but a lot of Canadian news has content about American Federal government acts that are driving us crazy, so not a good source for someone coming off Fox news.

These are good ideas! In fact, I said BBC and his daughter said CBC. Hopefully he can get there.

Al Jazeera is a great global news channel also.

I agree, it is a very solid news channel.

Sadly, your average Fox News viewer is convinced that my hometown is under sharia because some bigoted idiot who's never set foot in Michigan, let alone Dearborn (the largest Muslim population in the USA), put forth that rumor. My own aunt who lives two hours north seems to believe it, and her son owns a business in Dearborn. Fox News brainwashing is akin to cult-level madness. Probably something that doesn't sound "foreign and scary" would be more successful for early deprogramming.

[MDM]

RCP is better than reading CNN or Fox exclusively but don't fool yourself that it's not biased. There are more "fair and balanced" sites out there. CSM is a good choice.

I assume you mean Christian Science Monitor and not some other CSM. :)  I don't know enough about them to comment, but it would be good if they are as factual as advertised.  First impression looking at their site is positive - thanks!

Don't know all the details about mediabiasfactcheck either, but the first impression wasn't so positive.  E.g., from their review of RCP, "In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as this: Gov. Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown's Warning to Fellow Democrats. Although this is an opinion piece, it completely lacks sourcing of any kind." 

Reading the article in question, there are many quotes - none apparently out of context - so the "lacks sourcing" bit is confusing.

[Kris]

Sure, but as a Trump supporter, he has been taught that all of the reliable sources of information and fact checking resources are fake news. The cult won’t allow him to do this.

Yup, and now that he sees that Fox is fake he thinks that they all are.

If he doesn't want to watch any American news source, what about BBC?  I'd say CBC but a lot of Canadian news has content about American Federal government acts that are driving us crazy, so not a good source for someone coming off Fox news.

These are good ideas! In fact, I said BBC and his daughter said CBC. Hopefully he can get there.

Al Jazeera is a great global news channel also.

I agree, it is a very solid news channel.

Sadly, your average Fox News viewer is convinced that my hometown is under sharia because some bigoted idiot who's never set foot in Michigan, let alone Dearborn (the largest Muslim population in the USA), put forth that rumor. My own aunt who lives two hours north seems to believe it, and her son owns a business in Dearborn. Fox News brainwashing is akin to cult-level madness. Probably something that doesn't sound "foreign and scary" would be more successful for early deprogramming.

Yeah, I once mentioned to a Trump-supporting former friend (long story) that Al-Jazeera was one of the many news sources I used. She reacted as though I told her I had just joined ISIS.

[rob in cal]

One question is that once the dust settles on the pandemic and if it turns out that the US ends up doing no worse in terms of per capita deaths than say Spain, the UK, France and Italy, it might be difficult to make the case that Trump did any worse than Conti, Johnson, Macron and Sanchez in terms of national leadership. Now, if it turns out that things turn out significantly worse, that's another matter.

[bacchi]

Don't know all the details about mediabiasfactcheck either, but the first impression wasn't so positive.  E.g., from their review of RCP, "In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as this: Gov. Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown's Warning to Fellow Democrats. Although this is an opinion piece, it completely lacks sourcing of any kind." 

Reading the article in question, there are many quotes - none apparently out of context - so the "lacks sourcing" bit is confusing.

Uh oh. It's not good if the bias checkers are biased.

The op-ed author uses Brown's warning as the lynch pin of everything that follows but using Jerry Brown's words to support the conservative positions taken in this op-ed is the definition of "taken out of context."

How would we know? Maybe if we had a citation of the original interview we could listen to it.

http://wlrh.org/NPR-News/jerry-browns-exit-interview-dont-say-he-didnt-warn-you

That ^^ is an edited version. This is the transcript: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675647260/transcript-nprs-full-interview-with-california-gov-jerry-brown

So there's plenty of opportunity for Republicans if they just pause, look at the world as it really is, and try to come up with something in the tradition of Lincoln and Eisenhower and other great Republicans.

(bold added)

[rob in cal]

  Concerning the thought of Eisenhower as a good Republican, on the immigration side of things, an issue that is often brought up of why Trump is so extreme, right wing, nasty etc. I believe Eisenhower was quite content with and never sought to significantly change US immigration policy in the 1950's which was restrictive in overall numbers and pro European in terms of who was allowed in.  OTOH, in other respects, such as income inequality, union membership, income tax rates, a non-globalized and healthy manufacturing base, in those measurements people on the left would find much to admire in the US economy of those Eisenhower years.

[MDM]

Don't know all the details about mediabiasfactcheck either, but the first impression wasn't so positive.  E.g., from their review of RCP, "In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as this: Gov. Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown's Warning to Fellow Democrats. Although this is an opinion piece, it completely lacks sourcing of any kind." 

Reading the article in question, there are many quotes - none apparently out of context - so the "lacks sourcing" bit is confusing.

Uh oh. It's not good if the bias checkers are biased.

The op-ed author uses Brown's warning as the lynch pin of everything that follows but using Jerry Brown's words to support the conservative positions taken in this op-ed is the definition of "taken out of context."

How would we know? Maybe if we had a citation of the original interview we could listen to it.

http://wlrh.org/NPR-News/jerry-browns-exit-interview-dont-say-he-didnt-warn-you

So there's plenty of opportunity for Republicans if they just pause, look at the world as it really is, and try to come up with something in the tradition of Lincoln and Eisenhower and other great Republicans.

(bold added)

There are indeed opportunities for all, with the CARES act being just the latest example.  Either party could have offered a bill without items extraneous to helping those most in need, but neither did.

Back to mediabiasfactcheck and its review of the RCP article.  The charge was "it completely lacks sourcing of any kind" and that seems an unsupportable charge. 

Yes, I agree with you that Brown is no conservative.  The question is whether Brown's "The weakness of the Republican Party has let the Democratic Party, I think, go get further out than I think the majority of people want" is valid.  Not so much the "weakness of the Republican Party" as whether "the Democratic Party [has gone] further out than...the majority of people want."

The examples given in the RCP opinion piece are of positions where the writer thinks Democrats may have gone too far out.  Is the writer correct?  Maybe, maybe not.  We can speculate on what the majority of people want, but we won't know until the pertinent votes are counted. 

[Davnasty]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

Odd that such a centrist brand would own something like this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/realclear-media-has-a-secret-facebook-page-filled-with-far-right-memes?ref=scroll

[MDM]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

Odd that such a centrist brand would own something like this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/realclear-media-has-a-secret-facebook-page-filled-with-far-right-memes?ref=scroll

Ah, the ol' "guilt by association," eh?  I don't think anyone has suggested the article's topic site as a good example of anything positive.  Let's return to the site under discussion.

As even that article notes, "RealClearPolitics has taken major pains to be seen as nonpartisan and non-ideological in its reporting. The site’s news reporting focuses on horserace-style coverage of elections, evenly weighing opinions from both parties, while the RealClear pages curate a mix of stories and opinion articles from sites across the political spectrum."

It does further note "But the willingness to share and aggregate all political views has also made the site more receptive to Trump-friendly writing than some other outlets. Of the seven featured “opinion writers” listed in a tab on the site, three—including occasional Trump adviser Steve Cortes—are openly supportive of the president’s agenda."

Is it so terrible to share and aggregate "all political views" (and by "all" let's assume we're excluding the maniacal tails on both ends of the population distribution)?

[iris lily]

Just popped into this thread to see if the enlightened ones are admitting that this country has a whole lot more problems in front of us right now then Donald J Trump.

I can see that’s not the case. In an odd way, I find it comforting that Donald is still taking up  so much of your brain bandwidth.

Carry on.

[Davnasty]

One can go to news aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

It's not only about presenting opposing views. It's also about what stories/op-eds they publish and where they're from. Some of their sources are questionable.

RCP isn't centrist.

If presenting opposing views and letting the reader decide which seems more correct isn't centrist, what is?

Odd that such a centrist brand would own something like this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/realclear-media-has-a-secret-facebook-page-filled-with-far-right-memes?ref=scroll

Ah, the ol' "guilt by association," eh? 

They were not associated with Conservative Country, they owned it. It was effectively part of the "RealClear" brand, they just chose not to put their name on it.

The fact that they owned this site isn't proof that RealClear can't be unbiased, but I do think the views of the founders is relevant. It's a very small organization.

[MDM]

They were not associated with Conservative Country, they owned it. It was effectively part of the "RealClear" brand, they just chose not to put their name on it.

The fact that they owned this site isn't proof that RealClear can't be unbiased, but I do think the views of the founders is relevant. It's a very small organization.

Regardless of the size of the organization and what other activities it pursues, the topic here is whether RCP provides a place where one can find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

This goes back to an earlier comment, "He knows not to trust Fox, but he doesn't know who to trust."  One could replace Fox with CNN without changing the meaning.

Thoughts on the rest of the post?

As even that article notes, "RealClearPolitics has taken major pains to be seen as nonpartisan and non-ideological in its reporting. The site’s news reporting focuses on horserace-style coverage of elections, evenly weighing opinions from both parties, while the RealClear pages curate a mix of stories and opinion articles from sites across the political spectrum."

It does further note "But the willingness to share and aggregate all political views has also made the site more receptive to Trump-friendly writing than some other outlets. Of the seven featured “opinion writers” listed in a tab on the site, three—including occasional Trump adviser Steve Cortes—are openly supportive of the president’s agenda."

Is it so terrible to share and aggregate "all political views" (and by "all" let's assume we're excluding the maniacal tails on both ends of the population distribution)?

[Davnasty]

They were not associated with Conservative Country, they owned it. It was effectively part of the "RealClear" brand, they just chose not to put their name on it.

The fact that they owned this site isn't proof that RealClear can't be unbiased, but I do think the views of the founders is relevant. It's a very small organization.

Regardless of the size of the organization and what other activities it pursues, the topic here is whether RCP provides a place where one can find juxtaposed opposing views (e.g., "President Trump: Commander of Confusion" and "Dems, Media Try to Pin Blame on Trump. It Won't Work" from yesterday) from various sources, then read each and decide which seems more correct.

This goes back to an earlier comment, "He knows not to trust Fox, but he doesn't know who to trust."  One could replace Fox with CNN without changing the meaning.

Thoughts on the rest of the post?

As even that article notes, "RealClearPolitics has taken major pains to be seen as nonpartisan and non-ideological in its reporting. The site’s news reporting focuses on horserace-style coverage of elections, evenly weighing opinions from both parties, while the RealClear pages curate a mix of stories and opinion articles from sites across the political spectrum."

It does further note "But the willingness to share and aggregate all political views has also made the site more receptive to Trump-friendly writing than some other outlets. Of the seven featured “opinion writers” listed in a tab on the site, three—including occasional Trump adviser Steve Cortes—are openly supportive of the president’s agenda."

Is it so terrible to share and aggregate "all political views" (and by "all" let's assume we're excluding the maniacal tails on both ends of the population distribution)?

I'm not especially familiar with RCP. I just wanted to point out their participation in extremist media. Again, it's not proof of anything but it does make me less likely to trust them.

Taking pains to be seen as non-partisan is not the same as being non-partisan. Fox News call themselves "fair and balanced" after all.

[bacchi]

Just popped into this thread to see if the enlightened ones are admitting that this country has a whole lot more problems in front of us right now then Donald J Trump.

People can think about and discuss more than one subject in any given day.

[ender]

Just popped into this thread to see if the enlightened ones are admitting that this country has a whole lot more problems in front of us right now then Donald J Trump.

I can see that’s not the case. In an odd way, I find it comforting that Donald is still taking up  so much of your brain bandwidth.

Carry on.

https://xkcd.com/386/

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Just popped into this thread to see if the enlightened ones are admitting that this country has a whole lot more problems in front of us right now then Donald J Trump.

I can see that’s not the case. In an odd way, I find it comforting that Donald is still taking up  so much of your brain bandwidth.

Carry on.

Trump is supposed to save my oil and gas industry from Russia and Saudi Arabia.  Until he pulls that off, I get to think about how f'ed I am and complain about how his 'genius business acumen' might have been a hoax.  Oh, and the fact that he has Jared Kushner and Mike Pence as his pandemic response linchpins.  I'm f'ed and I'm gonna die, but yeah, other than that, just carrying on with life as usual...  Oh yeah, and when he signed the 2T CARES bill, Trump issued a signing statement that it is himself, and not Congress, that gets the oversight role of how the 500B for businesses is spent.  So he's also going to rob me and my children while I'm f'ed and dying.

[ctuser1]

Many political opinions are not falsifiable because we can't run tests.  E.g., would things be better or worse now if Clinton had won instead of Trump?

Zoom out a bit in time-granularity, and political positions become almost certainly falsifiable.

Private market healthcare and a laissez-faire economics where labor has been systematically devalued in favor of capital-owners is 40+ years in the making, since Reagan. It is absolutely possible to test what the real outcomes are for those actions and take a position if you consider the outcomes good or bad.

It may also be possible to zoom inside and falsify other stuff. e.g. $2Tln deficit driven handout in 2017 with 80% going to the top1% didn't exactly make the Obama trend-line budge, AND it depleted the arsenal at the disposal of the federal government.

It is probably also falsifiable that running up deficits come boom or bust, like a certain political party seems to be doing whenever they have the power since Reagan is not a good economic policy, that hypocrisy is not a sound governing policy etc. etc. etc.

[MDM]

Many political opinions are not falsifiable because we can't run tests.  E.g., would things be better or worse now if Clinton had won instead of Trump?

Zoom out a bit in time-granularity, and political positions become almost certainly falsifiable.

If you will admit the adjective "some" to "political positions" then we are saying the same thing.

[ctuser1]

Many political opinions are not falsifiable because we can't run tests.  E.g., would things be better or worse now if Clinton had won instead of Trump?

Zoom out a bit in time-granularity, and political positions become almost certainly falsifiable.

If you will admit the adjective "some" to "political positions" then we are saying the same thing.

"Testable political positions" = falsifiable at some time granularity, may not be immediate, or even in the same decade. If there is any effect on society, it is testable. If no measurable effect - it is not important.

If by "some" you mean important ones, the ones that actually have any effect on society - then we are saying the same thing.

Why would we worry about political positions that have no measurable impact on society anyway??

It is sometimes difficult to disambiguate social outcomes using statistical methods. It may be difficult to get the six-sigma confidence levels (99.7%) due to this - but hypothesis testing results with lesser degree of confidence (e.g. 2-sigma, i.e. 68%) are almost always obtainable for any measurable social phenomena. 

[MDM]

"Testable political positions" = falsifiable at some time granularity, may not be immediate, or even in the same decade. If there is any effect on society, it is testable. If no measurable effect - it is not important.

If by "some" you mean important ones, the ones that actually have any effect on society - then we are saying the same thing.

Why would we worry about political positions that have no measurable impact on society anyway??

It is sometimes difficult to disambiguate social outcomes using statistical methods. It may be difficult to get the six-sigma confidence levels (99.7%) due to this - but hypothesis testing results with lesser degree of confidence (e.g. 2-sigma, i.e. 68%) are almost always obtainable for any measurable social phenomena.

a) We would be better off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
b) We would be worse off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
Test away.

Note that this should be easier than similar options in 2016, with "in 2020" replacing "now," and "is" replacing "had been".

Of course those on the right will have great reasons why they believe "b" is true while those on the left will have great reasons why they believe "a" is true.

[ctuser1]

"Testable political positions" = falsifiable at some time granularity, may not be immediate, or even in the same decade. If there is any effect on society, it is testable. If no measurable effect - it is not important.

If by "some" you mean important ones, the ones that actually have any effect on society - then we are saying the same thing.

Why would we worry about political positions that have no measurable impact on society anyway??

It is sometimes difficult to disambiguate social outcomes using statistical methods. It may be difficult to get the six-sigma confidence levels (99.7%) due to this - but hypothesis testing results with lesser degree of confidence (e.g. 2-sigma, i.e. 68%) are almost always obtainable for any measurable social phenomena.

a) We would be better off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
b) We would be worse off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
Test away.

Note that this should be easier than similar options in 2016, with "in 2020" replacing "now," and "is" replacing "had been".

Of course those on the right will have great reasons why they believe "b" is true while those on the left will have great reasons why they believe "a" is true.

Let's assume Clinton had to deal with congress/senate that was almost certainly republican.

Would her administration have signed a tax bill increasing deficits by 2Tln, right before all that money could be so much more useful for the current recession/depression?

How about following policies that lead to 2 million more uninsured? (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/nearly-2-million-more-uninsured-under-trump)

Is it in some way right/left wing partisan point of view to expect a sound economic policy (more deficit/liquidity during bust times and less during boom times) or to expect better health outcomes (which more uninsured directly runs counter to) for the population?

Of course those on the right will have great reasons why they believe "b" is true while those on the left will have great reasons why they believe "a" is true.

Measurable reasons? I'm all ears.
Else, pfft - who cares?

[cerat0n1a]

One question is that once the dust settles on the pandemic and if it turns out that the US ends up doing no worse in terms of per capita deaths than say Spain, the UK, France and Italy, it might be difficult to make the case that Trump did any worse than Conti, Johnson, Macron and Sanchez in terms of national leadership. Now, if it turns out that things turn out significantly worse, that's another matter.

It'll be hard to make that comparison (in either direction) unless the numbers turn out to be wildly different. There's always going to be enough special factors to explain away any differences. All of those countries have universal health systems run and funded by government. All of those countries have lower rates of obesity, hypertension etc. than the US. Italy & Germany have the 2nd and 3rd oldest populations in the world, Spain & France aren't too far behind. Italy & Spain have large numbers of people in multi-generational households. The UK has a much higher level of immigration than the US and massively higher levels of international travel. England is four times more densely populated than the US.  We're already seeing a big difference between Italy & Germany in terms of death rates.

[Wrenchturner]

I like Tim Dillon's take on this(be warned, this podcast is not PG or PC at all, but this section is pretty tame):
https://youtu.be/NFtR_N92PvU?t=5066

To summarize, if the coronavirus ends up being brutal and generally hard on the country, the electorate probably won't fall for the Trump song-and-dance again.  They were comfortable with an entertainer before; will that remain the case if the country actually gets tested by this virus?

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I like Tim Dillon's take on this(be warned, this podcast is not PG or PC at all, but this section is pretty tame):
https://youtu.be/NFtR_N92PvU?t=5066

To summarize, if the coronavirus ends up being brutal and generally hard on the country, the electorate probably won't fall for the Trump song-and-dance again.  They were comfortable with an entertainer before; will that remain the case if the country actually gets tested by this virus?

If?!

[EscapeVelocity2020]

One question is that once the dust settles on the pandemic and if it turns out that the US ends up doing no worse in terms of per capita deaths than say Spain, the UK, France and Italy, it might be difficult to make the case that Trump did any worse than Conti, Johnson, Macron and Sanchez in terms of national leadership. Now, if it turns out that things turn out significantly worse, that's another matter.

It'll be hard to make that comparison (in either direction) unless the numbers turn out to be wildly different. There's always going to be enough special factors to explain away any differences. All of those countries have universal health systems run and funded by government. All of those countries have lower rates of obesity, hypertension etc. than the US. Italy & Germany have the 2nd and 3rd oldest populations in the world, Spain & France aren't too far behind. Italy & Spain have large numbers of people in multi-generational households. The UK has a much higher level of immigration than the US and massively higher levels of international travel. England is four times more densely populated than the US.  We're already seeing a big difference between Italy & Germany in terms of death rates.

But seriously, if there weren't a President that was so narcissistic to take this pandemic as a personal political affront, almost any person running the country would have done better.  Trump wanted this to be 'just the flu' and continued to hold rallys up until the moment the scientists finally convinced him this would kill his supporters.  The United States are going to be uniquely battered by this.  Italy and Spain will look terrible now but be on the mend while our situation drags out...

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

One question is that once the dust settles on the pandemic and if it turns out that the US ends up doing no worse in terms of per capita deaths than say Spain, the UK, France and Italy, it might be difficult to make the case that Trump did any worse than Conti, Johnson, Macron and Sanchez in terms of national leadership. Now, if it turns out that things turn out significantly worse, that's another matter.

It'll be hard to make that comparison (in either direction) unless the numbers turn out to be wildly different. There's always going to be enough special factors to explain away any differences. All of those countries have universal health systems run and funded by government. All of those countries have lower rates of obesity, hypertension etc. than the US. Italy & Germany have the 2nd and 3rd oldest populations in the world, Spain & France aren't too far behind. Italy & Spain have large numbers of people in multi-generational households. The UK has a much higher level of immigration than the US and massively higher levels of international travel. England is four times more densely populated than the US.  We're already seeing a big difference between Italy & Germany in terms of death rates.

But seriously, if there weren't a President that was so narcissistic to take this pandemic as a personal political affront, almost any person running the country would have done better.  Trump wanted this to be 'just the flu' and continued to hold rallys up until the moment the scientists finally convinced him this would kill his supporters.  The United States are going to be uniquely battered by this.  Italy and Spain will look terrible now but be on the mend while our situation drags out...

It's not just Trump. There's also that vile, slimy little freak he calls a son in law. If there were ever a case for lizard people existing, that guy is it.

[MDM]

"Testable political positions" = falsifiable at some time granularity, may not be immediate, or even in the same decade. If there is any effect on society, it is testable. If no measurable effect - it is not important.

If by "some" you mean important ones, the ones that actually have any effect on society - then we are saying the same thing.

Why would we worry about political positions that have no measurable impact on society anyway??

It is sometimes difficult to disambiguate social outcomes using statistical methods. It may be difficult to get the six-sigma confidence levels (99.7%) due to this - but hypothesis testing results with lesser degree of confidence (e.g. 2-sigma, i.e. 68%) are almost always obtainable for any measurable social phenomena.

a) We would be better off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
b) We would be worse off now if Clinton had been elected in 2016.
Test away.

Note that this should be easier than similar options in 2016, with "in 2020" replacing "now," and "is" replacing "had been".

Of course those on the right will have great reasons why they believe "b" is true while those on the left will have great reasons why they believe "a" is true.

Let's assume Clinton had to deal with congress/senate that was almost certainly republican.

Would her administration have signed a tax bill increasing deficits by 2Tln, right before all that money could be so much more useful for the current recession/depression?

How about following policies that lead to 2 million more uninsured? (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/nearly-2-million-more-uninsured-under-trump)

Is it in some way right/left wing partisan point of view to expect a sound economic policy (more deficit/liquidity during bust times and less during boom times) or to expect better health outcomes (which more uninsured directly runs counter to) for the population?

Of course those on the right will have great reasons why they believe "b" is true while those on the left will have great reasons why they believe "a" is true.

Measurable reasons? I'm all ears.
Else, pfft - who cares?

Great questions, and discussed at great length in threads such as What comes after the ACA?

But questions aren't tests, and the absence of tests is what leads to "not falsifiable".

[ctuser1]

Great questions, and discussed at great length in threads such as What comes after the ACA?

But questions aren't tests, and the absence of tests is what leads to "not falsifiable".

Wikipedia has a good article on what statistical hypothesis testing is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

You start with a big question - whether option A or option B is better.

Then you define "better" - that's where your values *can* come into play. Is it better to have more people insured? Is it better to decrease money supply into a boom? Note: You can also use statistical hypothesis testing to determine the desirability of these "axioms" - I personally find that to be better than "values". The economic expansion/contraction and boom/bust cycles I mentioned is in this category.

Then, in light of these axioms, you measure shorter duration political events and determine if they are "better" per your hypothesis tested axioms. So, assuming you consider it a duty of the government to take prudent economic measures of contracting when it is boom, and expanding when there is a bust - you can now measure your definition of "better".

Sometimes you can directly measure from your definitions/axioms. Is it better to have more uninsured? That is directly testable from data.

It is perfectly alright if you think Trump was preferable to Clinton, or the other way around. I know more than one people - some of them personally - who has supported Trump with clear, logically consistent and not-morally-objectionable reasons (e.g. I heard a speech by Peter Thiel where he explained that he wants US to become a "normal" country, explained details of what he means by that, and why that concern overrides all other extracurricular activities of Trump). You don't need to mess around with widely accepted social-science definitions of what is testable - sometimes directly and sometimes by inference and deduction - and what is not, in order to make any such case.

A very large variety of things does become testable once you think hard enough at it - just ask any actuary. Alternatively, whenever you want to find testable angles for nebulous questions - just try to transform it to an actuarial question. Actuaries and wall street kiddo's do it every day. If you are not near wall street - just head over to your local utility that still has coal plants and ask the guy who "values" or "mark"s the price of coal contracts (these are typically decades, sometimes century long contracts with very-difficult-to-value terms).

[js82]

I like Tim Dillon's take on this(be warned, this podcast is not PG or PC at all, but this section is pretty tame):
https://youtu.be/NFtR_N92PvU?t=5066

To summarize, if the coronavirus ends up being brutal and generally hard on the country, the electorate probably won't fall for the Trump song-and-dance again.  They were comfortable with an entertainer before; will that remain the case if the country actually gets tested by this virus?

I'm not convinced of this.  There's already been a deliberate realignment of expectations over the past week or two.  Trump is banking on us being able to keep deaths near or below 100k, so that he can claim victory.  His approval ratings have gone *up* by ~5% since the start of the crisis.

Also, if there are positive results from larger-scale trials of hydroxychloroquine - Trump has been pushing that so hard that any glimpse of positive news on that front will be claimed as a huge victory - and if this happens to be the case, his reelection will be a near-guarantee.

Plus, assuming we'll begin to lift restrictions by some time in the summer fall, the economy will be on the upswing - which will be good for approval ratings - even if things suck on a relative scale they'll be tracking in a positive direction.

There are gigantic avenues of attack based on things that Trump has botched/contradicted himself with respect to this pandemic, but I'm not convinced that it's going to matter.

[PDXTabs]

His approval ratings have gone *up* by ~5% since the start of the crisis.

That may not last long.

[MDM]

Great questions, and discussed at great length in threads such as What comes after the ACA?

But questions aren't tests, and the absence of tests is what leads to "not falsifiable".

Wikipedia has a good article on what statistical hypothesis testing is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

You start with a big question - whether option A or option B is better.

Then you define "better" - that's where your values *can* come into play. Is it better to have more people insured? Is it better to decrease money supply into a boom? Note: You can also use statistical hypothesis testing to determine the desirability of these "axioms" - I personally find that to be better than "values". The economic expansion/contraction and boom/bust cycles I mentioned is in this category.

Then, in light of these axioms, you measure shorter duration political events and determine if they are "better" per your hypothesis tested axioms. So, assuming you consider it a duty of the government to take prudent economic measures of contracting when it is boom, and expanding when there is a bust - you can now measure your definition of "better".

Sometimes you can directly measure from your definitions/axioms. Is it better to have more uninsured? That is directly testable from data.

It is perfectly alright if you think Trump was preferable to Clinton, or the other way around. I know more than one people - some of them personally - who has supported Trump with clear, logically consistent and not-morally-objectionable reasons (e.g. I heard a speech by Peter Thiel where he explained that he wants US to become a "normal" country, explained details of what he means by that, and why that concern overrides all other extracurricular activities of Trump). You don't need to mess around with widely accepted social-science definitions of what is testable - sometimes directly and sometimes by inference and deduction - and what is not, in order to make any such case.

A very large variety of things does become testable once you think hard enough at it - just ask any actuary. Alternatively, whenever you want to find testable angles for nebulous questions - just try to transform it to an actuarial question. Actuaries and wall street kiddo's do it every day. If you are not near wall street - just head over to your local utility that still has coal plants and ask the guy who "values" or "mark"s the price of coal contracts (these are typically decades, sometimes century long contracts with very-difficult-to-value terms).

Agreed - good points!

Perhaps I'm not making my point clear enough, or it is clear but so simplistic that one skips past it: we can't test whether things would have been better or worse under Clinton because we can't run the experiment of Clinton being president for the past three years.  And the same can be said for any other hypotheses that would require a working time machine to test.

[ctuser1]

Perhaps I'm not making my point clear enough, or it is clear but so simplistic that one skips past it: we can't test whether things would have been better or worse under Clinton because we can't run the experiment of Clinton being president for the past three years.  And the same can be said for any other hypotheses that would require a working time machine to test.

I'd still dispute your point.

Yes, you "can't test whether things would have been better or worse under Clinton because we can't run the experiment of Clinton being president for the past three years".

Consider,
you can't measure an electron's momentum and position accurately simultaneously. But that still doesn't preclude you from building fantastic microprocessors relying on aggregate properties of those electrons.
you can't ever prove anything in physics with the degree of certainty like you can in Mathematics. We're still able to hurl rockets to space pretty accurately.

What you can't measure is not connected with reality, and not relevant for reality. You start with what you *can* measure and that forms the basis of your scientific reality.

This basic, simple truth is what entirety of science rests on.

When you focus on "irrelevant" - a.k.a. non-measureable - issues (e.g. whether we can build a time machine and test something in a very specific way) you are espousing the right-wing dogma of the tribal epistemology (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/22/14762030/donald-trump-tribal-epistemology - can't find a non-left-wing source), either knowingly or unknowingly, that is so prevalent among the Trump supporters today. The same thought process leads to denying other scientific truths and realities in many different topics. If you can dispute the existence of *any* objective processes, truths etc - then it becomes easy to play footsie with truth and establish false equivalences.

The scientific method is to start with the best possible observation/test you have, form conclusion, and then update that conclusion when you have better tests and observations available.

[MDM]

Perhaps I'm not making my point clear enough, or it is clear but so simplistic that one skips past it: we can't test whether things would have been better or worse under Clinton because we can't run the experiment of Clinton being president for the past three years.  And the same can be said for any other hypotheses that would require a working time machine to test.

I'd still dispute your point.

OK, consider it disputed. :)

[Wrenchturner]

I like Tim Dillon's take on this(be warned, this podcast is not PG or PC at all, but this section is pretty tame):
https://youtu.be/NFtR_N92PvU?t=5066

To summarize, if the coronavirus ends up being brutal and generally hard on the country, the electorate probably won't fall for the Trump song-and-dance again.  They were comfortable with an entertainer before; will that remain the case if the country actually gets tested by this virus?

I'm not convinced of this.  There's already been a deliberate realignment of expectations over the past week or two.  Trump is banking on us being able to keep deaths near or below 100k, so that he can claim victory.  His approval ratings have gone *up* by ~5% since the start of the crisis.

Also, if there are positive results from larger-scale trials of hydroxychloroquine - Trump has been pushing that so hard that any glimpse of positive news on that front will be claimed as a huge victory - and if this happens to be the case, his reelection will be a near-guarantee.

Plus, assuming we'll begin to lift restrictions by some time in the summer fall, the economy will be on the upswing - which will be good for approval ratings - even if things suck on a relative scale they'll be tracking in a positive direction.

There are gigantic avenues of attack based on things that Trump has botched/contradicted himself with respect to this pandemic, but I'm not convinced that it's going to matter.

Good points.

[talltexan]

That is Trump's insight. Being President allows him to move the goal-posts when he fails. He has such a talent for shifting the discussion on any issue such that he wins because he can define winning. He'll do it here, too. Whether he needs winning be to < 200,000 deaths or < 2,000,000 deaths.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I like Tim Dillon's take on this(be warned, this podcast is not PG or PC at all, but this section is pretty tame):
https://youtu.be/NFtR_N92PvU?t=5066

To summarize, if the coronavirus ends up being brutal and generally hard on the country, the electorate probably won't fall for the Trump song-and-dance again.  They were comfortable with an entertainer before; will that remain the case if the country actually gets tested by this virus?

I'm not convinced of this.  There's already been a deliberate realignment of expectations over the past week or two.  Trump is banking on us being able to keep deaths near or below 100k, so that he can claim victory.  His approval ratings have gone *up* by ~5% since the start of the crisis.

Also, if there are positive results from larger-scale trials of hydroxychloroquine - Trump has been pushing that so hard that any glimpse of positive news on that front will be claimed as a huge victory - and if this happens to be the case, his reelection will be a near-guarantee.

Plus, assuming we'll begin to lift restrictions by some time in the summer fall, the economy will be on the upswing - which will be good for approval ratings - even if things suck on a relative scale they'll be tracking in a positive direction.

There are gigantic avenues of attack based on things that Trump has botched/contradicted himself with respect to this pandemic, but I'm not convinced that it's going to matter.

Agree.  Anybody who couldn't see that the 100-200k prediction was a deliberate over-estimate so Trump/CDC/FDA could declare "victory" after their unprecedented incompetence needs to think a little bit harder next time.

[talltexan]

I'm worried that 200,000 is not an overestimate, but a fair one. I'm worried that--on top of this death toll--the economic disruption (which will reduce the number of deaths compared to a world in which we did not try it--will cost millions of people substantially.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I'm worried that 200,000 is not an overestimate, but a fair one. I'm worried that--on top of this death toll--the economic disruption (which will reduce the number of deaths compared to a world in which we did not try it--will cost millions of people substantially.

I'd be quite surprised if we break 50,000.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

That is Trump's insight. Being President allows him to move the goal-posts when he fails. He has such a talent for shifting the discussion on any issue such that he wins because he can define winning. He'll do it here, too. Whether he needs winning be to < 200,000 deaths or < 2,000,000 deaths.

I just wonder if that will actually work on people that lost loved ones, know of someone that was put in the line of fire (nurses without proper PPE like some of our neighbors that were begging for masks if anyone had any), and people that lost their jobs or were economically devastated.  It's hard to hear a President say he did a great job when your life has been turned upside down (and Trump is extra special when he pats himself on the back with his A pluses and 'near perfect, well perfect actually' crap when he rates himself).

[Kris]

I'm worried that 200,000 is not an overestimate, but a fair one. I'm worried that--on top of this death toll--the economic disruption (which will reduce the number of deaths compared to a world in which we did not try it--will cost millions of people substantially.

I'd be quite surprised if we break 50,000.

I certainly could not estimate myself. But just based on what a liar Trump is and his pathological need to make himself look good, the mere fact that he is admitting to 100,000 makes me feel like he's been told it will likely be much worse.

[Lews Therin]

I'm worried that 200,000 is not an overestimate, but a fair one. I'm worried that--on top of this death toll--the economic disruption (which will reduce the number of deaths compared to a world in which we did not try it--will cost millions of people substantially.

I'd be quite surprised if we break 50,000.

50k?!

You have 10k already, and It's barely started. There are still states that aren't quarantining, this isn't going away soon.

That said, even .1% is 327k deaths due to your population.

[HPstache]

I'm worried that 200,000 is not an overestimate, but a fair one. I'm worried that--on top of this death toll--the economic disruption (which will reduce the number of deaths compared to a world in which we did not try it--will cost millions of people substantially.

I'd be quite surprised if we break 50,000.

50k?!

You have 10k already, and It's barely started. There are still states that aren't quarantining, this isn't going away soon.

That said, even .1% is 327k deaths due to your population.

50K is currently the lower bound for total death estimate... so it's not out of the realm of possibility.  Especially since it's been fairly consistently heading toward the lower bound lately:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/