Testing, case contact, isolation/quarantine and social distancing. That’s what we need to open up again. Without it. we can’t open.

David Frum/Atlantic:

Trump’s Two Horrifying Plans for Dealing With the Coronavirus

If he can’t confine the suffering to his opponents, he is prepared to incite a culture war to distract his supporters.

It did not have to be this way. If the Trump administration had not bungled testing, if it were not to this day jerking and lurching in obedience to the president’s latest ego demand, we could by now begin to see the way to a safer reopening in the next few weeks.

Let’s be clear where the fault lies. 

WaPo:

Americans at World Health Organization transmitted real-time information about coronavirus to Trump administration

More than a dozen U.S. researchers, physicians and public health experts, many of them from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, were working full time at the Geneva headquarters of the World Health Organization as the novel coronavirus emerged late last year and transmitted real-time information about its discovery and spread in China to the Trump administration, according to U.S. and international officials.

A number of CDC staffers are regularly detailed to work at WHO in Geneva as part of a rotation that has operated for years. Senior Trump-appointed health officials also consulted regularly at the highest levels with the WHO as the crisis unfolded, the officials said.

The presence of so many U.S. officials undercuts President Trump’s charge that the WHO’s failure to communicate the extent of the threat, born of a desire to protect China, is largely responsible for the rapid spread of the virus in the United States.

Ashley Parker/WaPo:

‘How do we overcome fear?’: Americans need confidence before life can return to normal.

In a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center, three-quarters of U.S. adults said the worst is yet to come with the coronavirus and two-thirds were worried that restrictions would be lifted too soon. And findings released Friday by the University of Michigan’s influential monthly consumer survey found that 61 percent were most concerned by the threat to their health from the virus, over isolation and financial impact.

The dilemma is exacerbated by a president with credibility problems, as well as a nationwide testing shortage and the improbability of a vaccine anytime soon.

Dissent:

Elections in a Pandemic: The Crisis Response Should Be Permanent Policy

The best way to keep people safe during this election season is also the best way to maximize participation: give people the widest possible range of opportunities to register and to vote.

The most-discussed reform is allowing people to vote by a mail ballot. Seven states—Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, North Dakota, and California—send ballots to all, or most, voters already. Other states are moving in this direction. However, sixteen states still require voters to have an excuse for not voting in person. A pandemic is a pretty good excuse, but this crisis should move every state toward having a full set of mail voting options for every voter, for every election. There will be challenges in dramatically expanding voting by mail, but new technologies and the experience of states who are already doing it provide the path forward.

But expanded mail voting is not enough. Early voting should be made part of every election, permanently. Early voting allows voters to manage their participation and significantly reduces crowds and lines on Election Day. Forty states and Washington, D.C., now offer the option of early voting. But there are widely diverging practices, both in the length of the early voting period (from five to forty-five days) and in options for returning the ballot. In Virginia, Governor Northam just signed a bill creating a forty-five-day early voting period. Every state should move to at least twenty days of early voting for all elections, with multiple convenient locations where people can cast their ballots in person.

David Lilienfeld:

As an epidemiologist, I'm amazed that the only thing that's discussed about Covid-19 and the lockdown is mortality. It's not just mortality, though. 

A 25% pulmonary function deficit that takes 15-20 years to heal, some sort of coagulopathy present in ⅓ of patients (long term implications not clear), neurological deficits (do you really think that only smell and taste are affected?). 

Joint inflammations (now being investigated), and liver damage--all of these aren't exactly appealing. Everyone talks about death--I think we physicians blew that one. 

We know that kids are infected. It seems relatively benign. Do they have any alterations in their neurobehavioral development? Growth? 

The comparison is oft made to the flu. The flu is not neurotoxic, and it isn't hepatoxic either. And while there are some pulmonary consequences, they're pretty rare. 

Talking about mortality with Covid-19 is like talking about the failure of Fannie Mae or AIG in 2008. Significant, but hardly the whole story. 

As for the lead pic, read this:

NY Times:

A Key G.O.P. Strategy: Blame China. But Trump Goes Off Message.

Republicans increasingly believe that elevating China’s culpability for spreading the coronavirus may be the best way to improve their difficult election chances. The president is muddying the message.

Yet those polling numbers also come as 65 percent of Americans say they believe that Mr. Trump was too late responding to the outbreak, according to a Pew Research Center survey this past week.

More ominous for the president are some private Republican surveys that show him losing ground in key states like Michigan, where one recent poll has him losing by double digits, according to a Republican strategist who has seen it.

So as Mr. Biden unites the Democratic Party, Mr. Trump’s poll numbers are flagging and G.O.P. senators up for re-election find themselves significantly outraised by their Democratic rivals. That has led to a growing urgency in Republican ranks that the president should shelve his hopes for a lucrative rapprochement with China.

By the way, the subheader is acknowledgment trump is in political trouble.

Colin McEnroe/Stamford Advocate:

Hang tight, we’re a long way from the finish line

All of this research and lots more, I might add, was available last weekend when Republican legislative leaders staged a mild uprising against Gov. Ned Lamont after Lamont extended his shutdown orders until May 20. The Republican response to Lamont was breathtakingly devoid of information, data, benchmarks or insights. It was, in several senses of the word, a spitball.

May 20 is an incredibly optimistic date for reopening anything. Note to Connecticut Republicans: Who do you think Lamont talks to? Who do you think dominates his network of friends and acquaintances? Business people. Do you think that, if there were a business-driven argument for an earlier reopening, Lamont would be deaf to it because he spends so much time with pot-smoking beatnik public health experts?

The problem with a free society with an open flow of information is that stupid people have the same rights as everybody else, and it takes way longer to beat down their ideas than Oliver Wendell Holmes, may he rest in peace, ever imagined.

We know Trump was golfing while the country smouldered, and now it’s on fire. What’s really staggering is thinking that 200K deaths or less is a win. And don’t miss this summary from Jake Sherman:

Don’t believe the nonsense from the enablers about Trump being hamstrung by impeachment. The timeline does not match up. Trump was golfing instead of governing.

In any case, yesterday was not the day Trump pivoted and became president. But it was the day Drs. Fauci and Birx got Trump to focus for an hour (before he veered back to festivus). 

Political reporters (not the opinion journalists) cannot bring themselves to say lying/not lying, true/not true. They are not built for covering Trump and have not adjusted in 3 years.

Here’s the briefing headline, courtesy of WaPo:

Trump projects up to 240,000 coronavirus deaths in U.S., even with mitigation efforts

Of course, it’s not Trump’s projection. It’s modeling from WA state (website here, where you can look at your own state and see where the modeled peak is):

Here’s a review  of the model from NBC:

What we know about the coronavirus model the White House unveiled

In a task force briefing, the White House offered the first look at the statistical models being used to anticipate how the virus could spread across the U.S.

What I find valuable is looking at your own state and seeing when projected peak is for hospital beds and deaths. Connecticut, eg, is in 14 days per the model, similar to WA. New York is 8 days to peak (MI, NJ and LA are similar), FL is 31.

If you have time, act. That is why states like MS and FL governors are so shameful.

Of course, the numbers are staggering.

Jill Lawrence/USA Today:

Trump's chaotic coronavirus presidency: Historically divisive and, for some, fatal Trump is stoking division even amid the coronavirus pandemic. Has he misjudged his country? We'll know for sure in November, but history suggests yes.

Experts are ignored, long gone or forced to kowtow to Trump. Science is on the back burner. The message from the top is consistently mixed and confused. Trump says the coronavirus will disappear like a miracle, then two weeks later declares it a national emergency. He downplays the need for more ventilators Thursday night and rudely demands them Friday morning. He says he may quarantine New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut, then says hours later it won't be necessary. He says he wants America open and churches packed by Easter, then says never mind, that was just an aspiration.

Trump supporters voted for a chaos presidency. That’s what we have. And it's going to kill some of us. It already has.

The incompetence can’t be hidden.

Politico:

Poll: Trump's coronavirus bounce fizzles

Fewer voters are pleased with the way the Trump administration has handled the Covid-19 outbreak.

More voters say the Trump administration isn’t doing enough to combat the coronavirus outbreak, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

The survey, conducted immediately before President Donald Trump announced a 30-day extension of his physical and social distancing guidelines “to slow the spread” of Covid-19, shows 47 percent of voters feel the administration isn’t doing enough in response to the outbreak, greater than the 40 percent who feel the administration is doing the right amount.

Two weeks ago, 43 percent said the administration wasn’t doing enough in the days following the initial measures deployed to reduce the impacts of the virus, while 39 percent said it was doing the right amount.

While the new poll was conducted before the extension of the household isolation recommendations, it comes as other polls suggest the positive marks Trump earned for his early response to the crisis are turning more negative…

Trump’s ratings pale in comparison to those for the governors of the various states. A combined 62 percent say their state’s governor has done an “excellent” or “good” job handling the crisis.

No surprise there. if you read me regularly, or the political scientists, you knew that was coming.

“Now that’s a bump” ~ Crocodile Dundee.

Tom Nichols/USA Today:

Why I watch Trump's daily coronavirus briefings (and no, it's not because I'm a masochist)

When the coronavirus crisis is over, many people will claim they didn't know what Trump was saying or doing. I will remember, and I will speak up.

There are two answers, and neither of them involve being a masochist. First, as a professional matter, I’m a political scientist, and Trump is the president. When the president speaks, I tune in and listen, as I have with every chief executive. Even if I don’t learn much about policy — because Trump really doesn’t have “policies” so much as he has random thoughts and reactions — I still need to know what my fellow citizens are watching and what they’re being told.

The other is that Trump’s rambling press conferences, South Lawn fandangos and bellowing rallies are now a real-time laboratory in democratic decline, and I think it’s important to be a consistent witness to it all. Although I often live-tweet his public events as a kind of venting (it’s better than yelling at the television, really, and my wife has gotten to the point where she can’t watch Trump, so I’m usually on my own anyway), I actually am trying to figure out the impact on my own society.

Interestingly, the public isn’t buying it. At this point, I wonder if even the usual culprits in the press do.

NY Times:

Restrictions Are Slowing Coronavirus Infections, New Data Suggest

A database of daily fever readings shows that the numbers declined as people disappeared indoors.

But the new data offer evidence, in real time, that tight social-distancing restrictions may be working, potentially reducing hospital overcrowding and lowering death rates, experts said.

The company, Kinsa Health, which produces internet-connected thermometers, first created a national map of fever levels on March 22 and was able to spot the trend within a day. Since then, data from the health departments of New York State and Washington State have buttressed the finding, making it clear that social distancing is saving lives.

You can find that Kinsa database right here.

Watch this, it’s from a NYC sports radio personality and Trump supporter:

Mother Jones:

Trump’s Coronavirus Denials Sound like the First Act of Every Disaster Movie

I’m not looking forward to Act Two.

And of course, the president. Trump’s performance here has been a real tour de force. He seems to have modeled himself on those villainous politicians in every disaster movie. He’s ignored experts, shifted the blame, repeatedly downplayed the threat, stoked racism, and spread misinformation.

Watch our video above to see how eerily similar Trump’s approach has been to climate-denying officials in The Day After Tomorrow, the captain of the Titanic, and the spineless apparatchiks in charge of the response to Chernobyl.

Thankfully we’ve begun to see a shift in some of the most visible skeptics. But remember: That’s only the start of Act Two. We still have a long way to go.

The political analysts treating this as just another disaster story, let’s get back to what happens in November, are the least likely to understand what is actually happening:

Trump’s press conference yesterday was his most somber yet. 100-200K deaths expected. It was at least 2-4 weeks late. We didn’t discover these numbers yesterday. We do need to have a national stay at home policy. National. MI TX FL OK all have to stop fighting the needed plan. And/but while he can’t make equipment appear out of nowhere, he can (but didn’t ) address this:

Atlantic:

The Social-Distancing Culture War Has Begun

Across the country, social distancing is morphing from a public-health to political act. The consequences could be disastrous.

For a brief moment earlier this month, it seemed as if social distancing might be the one new part of American life that wasn’t polarized along party lines. Schools were closed in red states and blue; people across the political spectrum retreated into their home. Though President Donald Trump had played down the pandemic at first, he was starting to take the threat more seriously—and his media allies followed suit. Reminders to wash your hands and avoid crowds became commonplace on both Fox News and MSNBC. Those who chose to ignore this guidance—the spring-breakers clogging beaches, the revelers on Bourbon Street—appeared to do so for apolitical reasons. For the most part, it seemed, everyone was on the same page.

The consensus didn’t last long. Trump, having apparently grown impatient with all the quarantines and lockdowns, began last week to call for a quick return to business as usual. “we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself,” he tweeted, in characteristic caps lock. Speaking to Fox News, he added that he would “love” to see businesses and churches reopened by Easter. Though Trump would later walk them back, the comments set off a familiar sequence—a Democratic backlash, a pile-on in the press, and a rush in MAGA-world to defend the president. As the coronavirus now emerges as another front in the culture war, social distancing has come to be viewed in some quarters as a political act—a way to signal which side you’re on.

It’s enormously consequential that even now, Donald Trump can’t stop lying about the pandemic. Between Mike Pence’s daily sucking up to Trump and the flat out fabrications, it’s hard to trust anything that comes out of the White House. That’s why we’re listening to Tony Fauci and the governors, instead.

As for last night’s election, Joe Biden won and Bernie Sanders has no path to victory. Like so many others before him, it’s time for him to get out of the race. That will allow the states to fix their primaries without the pressure of a presidential run. It will allow Biden to focus on Trump.

Bernie’s supporters won’t be ready to agree until the candidate gives the word. Bernie and his delegates will have their say at the convention. But it’s over; the tank is empty. Land the plane before it crashes. We need to focus on coronavirus and on November, when Bernie voters need to join us. Be kind in the interim. This PSA was brought to you by me.

And before we finish with politics, be aware that Trump has decided to play this as “Trump is the war president, rally around me!” That, along with the xenophobia, is why he keeps calling it the ”Chinese virus”.

It’s a deliberate tactic to rally his base.

Back to the pandemic: this thread is sobering and scary, but keep in mind suppression is where we are moving. School will be closed for the rest of the year, count on it. This is not a drill:

“The nightmarish death tolls from the rest of the study disappear.” Go back and read the thread, the whole thread. And ask yourselves if the WH messaging has prepared us for this.

This MIT Press piece also has a sobering estimate:

Flattening the Coronavirus Curve Is Not Enough

Addressing the growing pandemic requires a new mindset and it requires it quickly.

This is a post about the hard part of the economics of Covid-19. You may think that everything up to now hasn’t been exactly a picnic, but from a hard-nosed perspective, big challenges await. There are two: (1) we need to minimize the short-term (this year’s) cost of the pandemic and (2) we need to minimize the medium-term (after this year’s) cost of the pandemic. Not surprisingly, the two are in conflict with one another. In this post, I will explain that the mentality of everyone is to move to a war footing — especially from governments. We have seen a glimpse of this from China in dealing with (1). But we need to worry about (2) as well.

It’s an important read.

In any case, the above thread is good coverage of the UK report that sobered Trump up for a few hours (he doesn’t drink, but he does go off on fabulist flights of fancy that he needs to periodically abandon).

Amy Fried/Bangor Daily News:

Get coronavirus under control first, but don’t forget about accountability

The 9/11 Commission Report found that anti-terrorism experts who bridged the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations had been very worried about “spectacular” attacks. In late May, 2001 Richard Clarke wrote to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, “When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them.” That report also included recommendations to further America’s security.

Now we are dealing with a global pandemic with a bungled response.

President Donald Trump has spent a good deal of time downplaying the threat. The disease was first detected in the U.S. in January, but less than a month ago, Trump said “the 15 [cases], within a couple of days, is going to be down to close to zero.” He called complaints about how the crisis was being handled “a new hoax,” and accused Democrats of politicizing the situation.  

Joe Biden/USA Today (Jan 2020):

Trump is worst possible leader to deal with coronavirus outbreak

President has blithely tweeted that 'it will all work out well.' Yet the steps he has taken have only weakened our capacity to respond.

Trump’s demonstrated failures of judgment and his repeated rejection of science make him the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health challenge.

Axios:

Exclusive poll: Public trusts health agencies more than Trump

I’m citing the above pieces to emphasize the need to listen to the governors of NY, NJ, CT, WA, CA. Adjust to local realities, but do it before it’s too late.

From the Appeal, a look at local actions:

This interactive tool tracks developments of the coronavirus response in local and state governments, with a focus on what is being done — and not done — to protect vulnerable populations. The Appeal: Political Report is devoted to shedding a spotlight on state and local politics.

Explore these developments geographically with this interactive map, or else chronologically below the map.

New York

New York is suspending evictions indefinitely in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak (March 16) New York has suspended all new trials (March 16). Brooklyn's DA says he will not prosecute people for misdemeanors and felonies classified as nonviolent (March 17). Pressure builds on New York governor to address coronavirus impact on prisoners (March 11). New York's DOC is only giving people one free phone call a week to replace in-person visitations.

This flu pandemic guide (A Citizen’s Guide, .pdf) put together in 2007-9 by non-government expert sources is still relevant. Download it and thumb through it for ideas. It’s very complete and might help you hunker down and get a feel for what we are in for.

STATNews:

The new coronavirus can likely remain airborne for some time. That doesn’t mean we’re doomed

The weight of the evidence suggests that the new coronavirus can exist as an aerosol — a physics term meaning a liquid or solid (the virus) suspended in a gas (like air) — only under very limited conditions, and that this transmission route is not driving the pandemic. But “limited” conditions does not mean “no” conditions, underlining the need for health care workers to have high levels of personal protection, especially when doing procedures such as intubation that have the greatest chance of creating coronavirus aerosols. “I think the answer will be, aerosolization occurs rarely but not never,” said microbiologist and physician Stanley Perlman of the University of Iowa. “You have to distinguish between what’s possible and what’s actually happening.”

Best guesstimates are that unless you are doing a procedure on a patient, the airborne part takes a back seat to fomite spread (i.e. touching surfaces). 

Good piece, good concept, but public health experts still agree masks are only for those who are ill, particularly during shortages.

By the way, folks, whatever you’re hearing locally, be prepared for schools being closed for the rest of the academic year. Kansas took that step last night.

But if you think •we• screwed up, look at the U.K.

BuzzFeed:

The UK Only Realised "In The Last Few Days" That Its Coronavirus Strategy Would "Likely Result In Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths"

Scientists advising the government say an aggressive new approach adopted to attempt to "suppress" the virus may have to be in place for 18 months.

The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government.

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a regular feature at Daily Kos.

It is vital that the networks send science/health reporters and not just political reporters to WH briefings. Don't have enough of them? Hire them. Fire the political shills you have on retainer if you need the money. It's a win-win for America.

Alex Ward/Vox:

The biggest challenge to America’s coronavirus response? Trump.

President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has so far been a disaster….

Yet Trump insists the problem is under control and that he’s doing a fantastic job.

Ask yourself this simple question: Is the WH preparing you for this? My contention is that it is not. In fact, it’s clear from these stories that Trump has totally screwed this up.

BREAKING: By a 20-point margin, Americans say Trump�s handling of the Coronavirus makes them less likely to vote for him.https://t.co/TCyz7frXKx

— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) March 5, 2020

TIME:

‘Doomed from the Start.’ Experts Say the Trump Administration’s Coronavirus Response Was Never Going to Work

“We have contained this. I won’t say airtight but pretty close to airtight,” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in a television interview on Feb. 25, echoing Trump’s tweeted declaration that the virus was “very much under control” in the United States.

But it wasn’t, and the administration’s rosy messaging was fundamentally at odds with a growing cacophony of alarm bells inside and outside the U.S. government. Since January, epidemiologists, former U.S. public health officials and experts have been warning, publicly and privately, that the administration’s insistence that containment was—and should remain—the primary way to confront an emerging infectious disease was a grave mistake.

In congressional testimony, in medical webcasts and in private discussions with health officials, they warned that the unique features of this flu-like virus made it impossible to control, and that the administration must use any time that containment measures might buy to prepare the country for an inevitable outbreak. The administration was using all its resources to blockade the doors, they warned, but the enemy was likely already in the house.

US grocery chain, Trader Joes is the first company to temporarily change its sick leave policy in light of the Coronavirus. To encourage workers to stay home when ill, all employees regardless of tenure & full-time or part-time status will be paid for their time off. #Health #HR

— Mark C. Crowley (@MarkCCrowley) March 6, 2020

WaPo:

The Trump administration’s greatest obstacle to sending a clear message on coronavirus may be Trump himself

As leading public health experts from across the government have tried to provide clear and consistent information about the deadly coronavirus, they have found their messages undercut, drowned out and muddled by President Trump’s push to downplay the outbreak with a mix of optimism, bombast and pseudoscience.

Speaking almost daily to the public about an outbreak that has spread across states and rocked the markets, Trump has promoted his opinions and at times contradicted the public health experts tasked with keeping Americans safe.

The president has repeatedly misstated the number of Americans who have tested positive for the virus and claimed it would “miraculously” disappear in the spring. He has given a false timeline for the development of a vaccine, publicly questioned whether vaccinations for the flu could be used to treat the novel coronavirus and dismissed the World Health Organization’s coronavirus death rate estimate, substituting a much lower figure and citing a “hunch.”

it might be a good idea to have Pence back off and let Birx, Fauci and CDC do the talking it might be life saving https://t.co/LGdUT7fusQ

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) March 6, 2020

Maggie Koerth/FiveThirtyEight:

Politicians Are The Last People Americans Want Fighting Coronavirus

It all starts with trust — something politicians just don’t have. On the list of people and groups Americans trust, politicians are right down at the bottom, lower even than journalists. Even among the most trusting Americans, only 46 percent have any confidence our elected officials will make decisions in our best interest. Americans’ trust in government itself is at its lowest point since we started systematically measuring it. Only one-fifth of us trust the federal government to do the right thing.

And trust — in politicians and the government they represent — turns out to be a pretty important part of effectively responding to an epidemic. For example, in a 2006 survey that came out after the SARS epidemic, Blendon and his colleagues found that Americans were less likely to trust their government to tell them accurate information about an outbreak than citizens of Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan — and that those lower trust scores were correlated with less support for wearing face masks, getting a vaccine or agreeing to have their temperature taken before they enter a public building.

Nurses Said They Can't Protect Themselves And Hospitals Are Unprepared For Coronavirus, Survey Reports https://t.co/IKnDfcqSe8 via @skbaer

— Virginia Hughes (@virginiahughes) March 5, 2020

Greg Sargent/WaPo:

Trump’s latest coronavirus lies have a galling subtext

Why is it falling to House Democrats to do this?

As experts tell CNN’s John Harwood, Trump is shirking on a basic presidential responsibility to inform the American people. And this could have serious consequences.

Now, none of this necessarily casts doubt on the hard work that administration professionals are doing to manage the crisis. Indeed, if anything, by misleading the public, Trump is surely making this task harder for his own health officials. He’s putting out misinformation that requires correction by them.

Democrats are trying to pick up the slack. But on top of all this, by telling his supporters — millions of Americans — that everything Democrats say is about damaging him, Trump is also telling them not to believe any such correctives.

This was completely and totally predictable. In fact, I predicted it. Bloomberg:

U.S. to Miss Rollout Goal This Week on Virus Tests, Senators Say

The Trump administration won’t be able to meet its promised timeline of having a million coronavirus tests available by the end of the week, senators said after a briefing Thursday from health officials.

“There won’t be a million people to get a test by the end of the week,” Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida said. “It’s way smaller than that. And still, at this point, it’s still through public health departments.”…

The Trump administration has come under criticism for the test-kit shortage, which local public health officials have said hampers their ability to survey the U.S. population for the virus.

“Our single greatest challenge is the lack of fast federal action to increase testing capacity -- without that, we cannot beat this epidemic back,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement Thursday as he announced two additional cases diagnosed in the city.

�The truth is a better antidote to fear.� https://t.co/vdRjoCfmnv

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 5, 2020

Joanne Kenan/Politico:

Trump’s coronavirus musings put scientists on edge

The president’s habit of favoring his own judgments over those of the experts is vastly complicating efforts to fight the outbreak.

“Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this,” Trump said, going on to peg the real figure as “way under 1 percent.”

Public health experts have noted the WHO’s estimate may change as more is learned about the spread of the virus; thousands of non-fatal cases likely have gone undetected. But while the death rate may dip below 3.4 percent, everything that’s known so far suggests it won’t plummet to a level that’s not alarming. And it’s already hitting some populations, like the elderly, disproportionately hard.

I sense a theme here.

A  good q, answered:

.@DrMikeRyan adds that it�s clear animals don�t play big role in spreading #covid19, but that there often areisolated cases of animals being infected with new pathogens. "This is not an unusual or unprecedented finding. It happens regularly with emerging diseases"

— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) March 5, 2020

Speaking of pets:

Bailey only did what every reporter at these events thinks about doing. WE ARE ALL BAILEY. #solidarity � https://t.co/7epFYBqjQo

— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) March 5, 2020

From AP, horrible job on an important topic:

A disconnect between Trump and health officials on virus

Whom to believe on the coronavirus threat — the president saying one thing or the public health officials standing beside him and saying something a little different?

President Donald Trump’s breezy talk Tuesday of a virus that’s “got the world aflutter” contrasts with the gravity and caution conveyed by federal scientists as Americans look to the government not just for reassurance, but for realism.

Public-health leaders are walking a fine line in laying out the facts without angering a president who speaks in rosier tones than they do about a contagion that’s infected more than 100 people from coast to coast.

This is not a ‘both sides’ topic.  Whom to believe??????

A shift like this in such a short period of time makes sense when the electorate wants to move on from the primary and focus on beating Trump. Nonetheless, truly unprecedented in our politics. pic.twitter.com/6fxUCzSQBE

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) March 5, 2020

Jeremy Faust/Slate:

COVID-19 Isn’t As Deadly As We Think

Don’t hoard masks and food. Figure out how to help seniors and the immunosuppressed stay healthy.

Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest. Even some lower estimates, such as the 1 percent death rate recently mentioned by the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely substantially overstate the case….

But the most straightforward and compelling evidence that the true case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is well under 1 percent comes not from statistical trends and methodological massage, but from data from the Diamond Princess cruise outbreak and subsequent quarantine off the coast of Japan.

A quarantined boat is an ideal—if unfortunate—natural laboratory to study a virus. Many variables normally impossible to control are controlled. We know that all but one patient boarded the boat without the virus. We know that the other passengers were healthy enough to travel. We know their whereabouts and exposures. While the numbers coming out of China are scary, we don’t know how many of those patients were already ill for other reasons. How many were already hospitalized for another life-threatening illness and then caught the virus? How many were completely healthy, caught the virus, and developed a critical illness? In the real world, we just don’t know.

Again, all these numbers and stats are the early exit polls of coronavirus. They’re interesting, important and probably wrong.

Completely understand how hard it must be to pull the plug on something like this. But this seems really ill-advised. https://t.co/8INgIPZti7

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 5, 2020

Tough decisions ahead.

On politics:

Warren in call with her campaign staff: Campaigns "are a reflection of the people who work on them. ... I am so proud of how you all fought this fight alongside me: you fought it with empathy and kindness and generosity � and of course, with enormous passion and grit."

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) March 5, 2020

Molly Jong-Fast/Daily Beast:

With Warren, The Dream of a Female President Dies Again

Hopes were high last year, with so many well-qualified female candidates. Now we’re down to one, and she’s on her way out. What happened?

There were so many astonishingly brilliant female candidates. There were four accomplished senators, or three in Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand. The fourth, Kamala Harris, was new to the Senate but had been a prosecutor and had already shown great promise. Surely one of them, or all of them, had what it took.

By last July, I was pretty sure that Elizabeth Warren and her “plan for that” would snag the nomination. But as the fall dragged on, Warren started to lose momentum. By November, she was down by 6 points, instead of up by 6 as she had been in September. The selfie lines were no longer cutting it. It seemed as if the Democratic base no longer wanted “systemic change in this country” or if they wanted it, they wanted it from Bernie Sanders and not from Warren.

And then they started dropping out. First was Gillibrand in August and even though I didn’t think I liked her, I realized after the following Gillibrand-less debate that she actually added a lot to the conversation, especially about childcare. In December, Harris dropped out, and I was kind of heartbroken, but we still had two women in the race.

By January, the “woman can’t win” story dropped. It wasn’t entirely clear who leaked the story of Sanders telling Warren that a woman couldn’t win the presidency, but many of Sanders’ supporters blamed Warren. Then came the snake emojis, which some Sanders supporters used to express their displeasure at what they considered to be a double cross from Bernie’s closest progressive allies. Things got real heated real fast between the two.

Warren's support was even more ideologically concentrated at the very liberal end than Bernie's, but it is demographically closer to those groups that have recently moved toward Biden: more suburban, white, & educated & more women. Both have some opening to draw her supporters.

— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) March 5, 2020

Respect to every Elizabeth Warren voter and advocate. She didn’t just represent women, she hired them. The best person doesn’t always win.

The most progressive thing a committed progressive can do is win. Ideology without power, plans without the ability to implement is just wishful thinking. To produce change we must win.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) March 5, 2020

In Israel:

unlock achievement: 3rd and final form of boss defeated https://t.co/w7kvxCHy90

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) March 5, 2020

Of course, with Bibi there is a 4th form.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson in February 1868 failed to remove him from office; the Senate acquitted him in May. But his unfitness for office was so clearly exposed that he failed to win re-election. In fact, he couldn�t even get the Democratic Party to nominate him. https://t.co/jjlBFRG89q

— David Priess (@DavidPriess) March 5, 2020

Tim Miller/Bulwark:

Truth, Lies, and the Nonsense Trump-Biden-Ukraine False Equivalency

One of these guys was pressuring Ukraine to help him out in an election. The other was pressuring Ukraine to end corruption. They are not the same.

But despite the frustrating reality, the only way to combat or change this cycle is to disrupt it. So consider this is a humble attempt to do just that and provide some clarity to those of you who are too busy to bathe in the minutiae of the Ukranian prosecutor’s office and might be susceptible to throwing up your hands and placing a pox on both their houses.

(1) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did take consulting work for a Ukrainian oil company, Burisma, that was under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for the work under the prior Russian-allied regime. This is where the true part of the Trump disinformation comes to an end.

(2) The problem was that Shokin actively stood in the way of international investigations that the U.S. and other democratic reformers were pursuing.

(3) Vice President Biden, U.S. diplomats, and our E.U. allies all called on the prosecutor to be fired so the corrupt oligarchs could be investigated MORE AGGRESSIVELY. This includes the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine calling out by name Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who ran the company Hunter Biden worked for, as someone this prosecutor was letting off the hook.

(4) Donald Trump was allegedly pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate a domestic political foe on a bogus conspiracy for personal gain. Joe Biden was pressuring the Ukrainian government to root out corruption in their own country and bring about democratic reforms.

(5) For the kids in the back:

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE ON YOUR BEHALF IN DOMESTIC ELECTIONS = VERY BAD.

PRESSURING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE CROOKS = GOOD.

Money? Feh.

Two things that explain why '20's Dem electorate became more pragmatic & less "revolutionary:" 1) In rural WWC areas, '16 Sanders voters who defected to Trump are...still w/ Trump, not Sanders 2) In upscale burbs, many '16 Kasich/Rubio voters are now...Dem/Biden primary voters

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) March 5, 2020

Isn’t there an “eats your face on live TV” party? Oh yeah… it’s leopards.

.@maggiekb1: "There�s probably not enough money in the world to make people vote for you if one of your competitors eats your face on live TV." https://t.co/odC9O9FxRY

— Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) March 5, 2020

Read all of this:

Growing up, my family only talked revolutionary politics. I didn't go to school until age 12 so I didn't know about political parties. (I swear this is true) I thought "Democrats" was a religion. My grandma would pop u in the mouth if you said anything bad about a Dem. Here's why

— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) March 6, 2020

A lot of them don't even care about Biden's relationship with Obama, as some people claim. He has another 40-year relationship that is more important: That D" beside his name. To them, that's the "establishment" they trust. They all they got

— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) March 6, 2020

And a final unity message:

Trump does not have enough support to get reelected. His only path is disunity among the voters who oppose him. The election is a toss up even if they don't get on the same page. But if they do get on the same page, it may not even be close: https://t.co/6eLUqIjVNO

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) March 5, 2020

Much more on Elizabeth Warren tomorrow (Saturday), featuring mostly women’s voices.

The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a daily feature at Daily Kos.

Let’s put angst aside for a day, and look at the case for Bernie Sanders. [This isn’t to tell you who to vote for, it’s for perspective. Bernie has not won the nomination yet, vote your choice.] It starts with Bernie getting the most votes. It also includes how often the pundits are wrong, and it goes from there. It will be twitter heavy, because written pundits aren’t doing enough of it. Let’s have at it, starting with a conservative: 

During the 2016 election campaign, when Dems prayed for Trump to win the nom, @EsotericCD said something to the effect of: ANY major party nominee is one unpredictable event away from being president. Do not tempt fate. I see too many conservatives doing the same with Bernie.

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) February 23, 2020

There are the polls, which say we are winning:

the same new UW/YouGov WI poll has very close Nov match-ups, with Trump trailing slightly vs Dems. Very diff from Quinn. poll. (UW sample in WI was +5 Dem, Q sample was +6 Rep). https://t.co/rOsl4jdNd9 pic.twitter.com/1waLffk3in

— Craig Gilbert (@WisVoter) February 23, 2020

for those writing off the Dems, not so fast pic.twitter.com/kjtquYOemw

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) February 23, 2020

Those are MSN polls here and here. 

Here’s why the pundits are so often wrong:

and we try to make logical arguments and cogent analysis to an utterly irrational electorate. ...

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) February 23, 2020

🧐🤔. If that’s not humbling to a prognosticator, l I don’t know what is. Or, if not humbling enough, you could look at your own record (I figured Clinton to win a close race and was right about the popular vote but didn’t figure on Jim — to hell with you forever, bub — Comey.)

@dandrezner @morningmoneyben I have a pretty strong view that Sanders won�t win. It�s true I had a strong view that Trump wouldn�t win. It�s foolish to think that because an upset happened in 2016 all future contests will be won by the underdog.

— Tony Fratto (@TonyFratto) February 23, 2020

However, I hope it illustrates that you should be *highly* skeptical of people in the media making blanket statements about Sanders' electability, based on "who they know." E.G., "my friends all say X" or whatever (2/n)

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) February 23, 2020

My motto for this election is nobody knows nothing™.

Making the S.C. primary�s results a big test of how powerful the Clyburn machine currently is. https://t.co/9GMdD5OXjA

— Holly Otterbein (@hollyotterbein) February 23, 2020

Kristina Karisch/ Washington Monthly:

Could Overseas Voters Be the Democrats’ Secret Weapon in 2020?

In a close election, they can tip the scales in swing states.

Democrats Abroad is the party’s official arm abroad. Every four years, it holds a “global primary” and sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Significantly, the group is virtually the only voter turnout drive focused on targeting liberal Americans living outside the United States. Its goal in 2020: to get a million overseas voters to cast a ballot.

That’s not an idea that comes from nowhere. Overseas voters have helped decide an election before. In 2000, both George W. Bush’s and Al Gore’s campaigns hinged their victories on a small number of absentee ballots in Florida that were mailed from outside the U.S.

As the New York Times reported in 2001, when Bush’s unofficial lead was around 300 votes at the start of the 18-day recount, the two camps relied heavily on overseas absentee ballots. Bush’s campaign tried to validate the highest number of ballots possible in counties he had already won while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties Gore was leading in.

It seems to have worked. The Times found that when faced with intense pressure from the GOP, Florida officials “accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state laws.” The analysis of 2,490 votes found that Florida accepted 680 questionable votes—either from ballots without postmarks or postmarked after Election Day; ballots mailed from U.S. cities and states; or even ballots from voters who voted twice. Bush ultimately won the Florida contest by 537 votes.

By “most votes,” I mean we now have Nevada to include, and it expands the data:

Hispanic voters under 45 years old in Nevada caucuses: Sanders 69% (?!) Biden 8% Buttigieg 7% Warren 7% Steyer 5% Gabbard 1% Klobuchar 1%

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) February 23, 2020

ABC News:

With help from Latino voters, Bernie Sanders hits the Nevada jackpot

Sanders also ran competitively in the state among unaccustomed support groups.

Latinos joined the Sanders brigade in Nevada, the most diverse state to participate so far, giving him 51% of their votes, a vast tally in a seven-candidate race. Sanders fell off sharply among blacks, to 27% -- yet that was good enough for second place to former Vice President Joe Biden’s 39% among blacks, Biden’s single best group. The Vermont senator won 29% of whites, easily first in this group. 

Sanders won half of independent caucusgoers in the Silver State on Saturday, a core support group in his 2016 race against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet he won Nevada Democrats as well, with 31% support. While seven in 10 mainline Democrats voted for someone else, no other individual candidate won more than 20% of their votes, well under Sanders’ tally among party regulars.

NEW: Bernie Sanders win Nevada should reshape the narrative about his supporters, and is a wake up call to rivals who have ignored warning signs If the Bernie Bros are real, so are the working class Latino moms who put him over the top W/ @jennymedinahttps://t.co/O1au7S21MF

— SteadmanâÂ�¢ (@AsteadWesley) February 23, 2020

NY Times:

How Bernie Sanders Dominated in Nevada

A multiracial coalition brought the senator’s long-promised political revolution to vivid life, for perhaps the first time in the 2020 race.

They showed up to Desert Pines High School in Tío Bernie T-shirts to caucus on Saturday morning, motivated by the idea of free college tuition, “Medicare for all” and the man making those promises: a 78-year-old white senator from Vermont. To dozens of mostly working-class Latinos, Bernie Sanders seemed like one of their own, a child of immigrants who understands what it means to be seen as a perpetual outsider.

For at least one day, in one state, the long-promised political revolution of Mr. Sanders came to vivid life, a multiracial coalition of immigrants, college students, Latina mothers, younger black voters, white liberals and even some moderates who embraced his idea of radical change and lifted him to victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday.

By harnessing such a broad cross-section of voters, Mr. Sanders offered a preview of the path that he hopes to take to the Democratic presidential nomination: uniting an array of voting blocs in racially diverse states in the West and the South and in economically strapped parts of the Midwest and the Southwest, all behind the message of social and economic justice that he has preached for years.

The center-left establishment will come on board:

Republicans have all kinds of incredibly unpopular positions - tax cuts for the rich, cutting off insurance - but they all agree that conservatism is awesome and everyone should embrace it. Imagine if Democrats acted the same way about liberalism. /2

— Paul Waldman (@paulwaldman1) February 24, 2020

To be honest, a Sanders administration would probably leave center-left policy wonks like me out in the cold, at least initially. But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line 5/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 23, 2020

But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line.  Good one. If you are considering Mike Bloomberg at all, how could you in the end not vote for Bernie in the general? Unity is a two way street, and the moderates are there for the asking:

Assuming he pulls it off, I have only one ask of Bernie supporters: I know you'll show up to vote for HIM. All I ask is that you ALSO show up and vote for EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE UP & DOWN THE TICKET whether you consider them to be "progressive enough" or not.

— Charles Gaba (@charles_gaba) February 23, 2020

Remember who we are running against:

Philip Rucker/WaPo:

‘Something has to be done’: Trump’s quest to rewrite history of the Russia probe

Seven months after Mueller’s marathon testimony brought finality to the Russia investigation, Trump is actively seeking to rewrite the narrative that had been meticulously documented by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, both for immediate political gain and for history.

Turbocharged by his acquittal in the Senate’s impeachment trial and confident that he has acquired the fealty of nearly every Republican in Congress, Trump is claiming vindication and exoneration not only over his conduct with Ukraine — for which the House voted to impeach him — but also from the other investigations that have dogged his presidency.

There are people who don’t care. Don’t be that person:

Guys, I�m just going to say this now. 1) I am not representative of many voters but 2) if it�s a Trump v Bernie contest and CT is within 5 points (unlikely but whatever) I will vote for Trump. They�re both awful. They both love the British NHS which is automatically disqualifying

— Liz Mair (@LizMair) February 23, 2020

Stupid. Seriously.

— John Weaver (@jwgop) February 23, 2020

(Liz is a Republican political consultant and counts as a pundit. Some of these folks are more Rexits than Never Trumpers.)

And one word of caution from Liz:

Not being a consultant for any Dem campaigns, I can�t say definitively. But some thoughts: 1) Trump clearly prefers to run against him or Warren. Note that there has been VERY LITTLE oppo dumping on Warren. What little of it there has been has come from, ahem, other places... https://t.co/wt5qJoLVGf

— Liz Mair (@LizMair) February 23, 2020

See whole thread so you can prepare for the inevitable.

When I feel myself getting my back up about voting for one candidate or another, I remember the kids at the border. I owe it to them to vote for whoever will free them, and not withhold my vote to spite some twitter a-hole.

— Aurora Erratic ðÂ�Â�Â�âÂ�Â�ï¸Â� (@Potterchik) February 23, 2020

New CBS/YouGov poll in South Carolina just out: Biden 28% Sanders 23% Steyer 18% Warren 12% Buttigieg 10% Klobuchar 4% Gabbard 1%

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) February 23, 2020

Like no one is sitting here quaking in fear that M4A will pass or that people will get free college. Some might not think those proposals are reasonable, but it's not like typical liberal Dems fear them. We just don't want to lose and we want to do as much good as we can.

— Mangy Jay (@magi_jay) February 23, 2020

That is all.

[ADDED:]

These are 3 important data points in the Nevada Caucasus that show voters were energized: - turnout was nearly 16,000 higher than in 2016 - 35% of Nevadans who caucused were non-white according to entrance polls - A majority of Nevadans were 1st time caucus-goers Per @nvdems

— Ayman Mohyeldin (@AymanM) February 24, 2020

And in non-Bernie news:

Houston Chronicle:

Is the vaccine to thwart the new coronavirus stored in a Houston freezer?

The vaccine, developed by researchers at Baylor College of Medicine and University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston researchers, effectively protected mice against SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, the virus from the same family that spread in the early 2000s. The vaccine never progressed to human testing because manufacturing of it wasn’t completed until 2016, long after SARS had burned out.

“It generated zero interest from pharmaceutical companies,” said Peter Hotez, a Baylor vaccine researcher and infectious disease specialist. “Because the virus was no longer circulating, their response was essentially, ‘thanks, but no thanks.’ ”

Japan has 146 confirmed cases, 7 listed as serious. They�ve only tested around 1,500 people.

— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) February 24, 2020

Korean stock are getting slammed this Monday. Worse thing is volumes are extremely heavy. Volumes on the Kospi index are extrapolated to top 1 billion shares by the close for only the sixth time in the last 17 years pic.twitter.com/9pVjZS3Poe

— David Ingles (@DavidInglesTV) February 24, 2020

The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a daily feature at Daily Kos.

So this was a debate for the books. 

Nats-Astros World Series Game 7: 23 million viewers Last night's Dem debate: 19.7 million viewers

— Mike Memoli (@mikememoli) February 20, 2020

And what did we learn? Maybe that debates, entertaining as they may be, matter less than we would like to believe.

CNN:

Monster ratings for Las Vegas debate break record for Democratic Party

Nearly 20 million viewers tuned into Wednesday night's Democratic primary debate hosted by NBC in Las Vegas, making it the most-watched Democratic primary debate of all time, according to preliminary numbers.

The early figures from Nielsen Media Research, a firm that measures the size of television audiences, indicated that approximately 19.7 million people watched the debate on NBC and MSNBC combined. Until Wednesday night, the most-watched Democratic primary debate ever had been one that occurred in June 2019, when approximately 18.1 million combined viewers watched the second night of a two-part debate series on NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo.

Everyone � especially Bernie Sanders � owes Elizabeth Warren for her Bloomberg TKO | https://t.co/G0j2H2Zk9K https://t.co/a0juguxHQh

— Timothy McBride (@mcbridetd) February 20, 2020

Sure, Mike Bloomberg got clobbered. But he’s a got a ton of money to spend, enough to alter the debate results with selectively edited commercials making him look better. That’s what  money can buy.

The @nypost & @NYDailyNews covers for today. Focusing on the absolute evisceration of Bloomberg by our next President, Elizabeth Warren. #WinWithWarren #PresidentWarren pic.twitter.com/E744B3cTHJ

— Eliza Orlins (@elizaorlins) February 20, 2020

Hey, want to make sense of the current Democratic primary mess? Seth Masket has you in mind, in a brilliant analysis:

Fine, Dems are in Disarray. Here's Why.

But why? What makes this cycle so unusual? This is a lot of what my book is about, so I wanted to explain this a bit here. I claim that the processes for deciding the two things a party needs to figure out before making a nomination -- what it wants and who is most likely to get it for them -- have been messed up. The culprit is negative partisanship generally, and Donald Trump more specifically. Allow me to explain.

As laid out in the "Theory of Parties" article a few years ago, the ideal party nominee is a combination of two main factors. First, that person should be broadly acceptable to major factions in the party and able to deliver on things that people in the party care about. Second, that person should be electable. A party doesn't want to nominate just anyone who can win an election, because they actually want some things out of that person when they're in office. But they don't want to ignore electability completely, since there's no point in picking a person who's good on the issues but can't win.

So we get that the “broadly acceptable” part is important. But if you have a factional candidate that says “my person or never this other” (and not just Bernie people, Biden people) you got a problem. But the elephant in the room compounding that problem is 2016. If you can’t agree on why Hillary lost, you’ll never agree on the solution to correct the problem. And we don’t agree on that. And here we are.

A bit of conventional wisdom:

Important to note: With Bernie, you probably can also write off Pennsylvania because of fracking and Florida because of Castro fanboy-ing. The electoral math just doesn't work once you start writing off most of the battleground states. https://t.co/qFHsg4ESiC

— BETO WOULD HAVE WON ðÂ�Â�¶ (@Alex__Katz) February 20, 2020

But that CW might be wrong. Kirsten Powers/USA Today:

Face facts, Bernie Sanders is electable

It’s well past time to bury the 'Bernie is unelectable' trope. He has a better shot than moderate Bloomberg.

It’s true that at one point calling yourself a “Democratic socialist” would be a bridge too far for many voters, including Democrats. But that was before people began to realize how unmoored the American capitalist system is from any sense of ethics or morality. The level of economic inequality and suffering from lack of affordable health care, crushing debt, and a discriminatory and racist for-profit incarceration system in one of the world’s wealthiest countries is astonishing. People are exhausted from working non-stop trying to just survive financially in a system that dangles the carrot of financial stability or wealth always slightly out of reach except for a favored few. Nothing about this is normal and that is fundamentally Bernie Sanders’ so-called “radical” argument.

Realism is jarring but yesterday’s polls (see Kornacki tweet, above) were pretty bad for Democrats. And yet, they too, may not mean what they seem. 

That’s because the phone polls and the online panel polls are diverging. The online polls like Ipsos (43) , Morning Consult( 42), Civiqs (43) SUSA (44) and MSN ( 41) don’t show the bump Trump is getting in Gallup (49), ABC/WaPo (46) and NBC/WSJ (47). And job approval ≠ vote for. This is all stuff to continue to monitor for trends but I continue to see November as competitive and winnable.

2020 as referendum, not choice? NBC:

Large majority of nonvoters plan to cast ballots in November, new report finds

Both pro- and anti-Trump attitudes were motivating factors to vote in 2020, with 19 percent supporting the president and 22 percent against. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said they weren't registered to vote because of a basic lack of interest in politics, and 13 percent said they felt their votes didn't matter. Even so, 71 percent of habitual nonvoters plan to cast ballots in November, according to the study. Both pro- and anti-Trump attitudes were motivating factors to vote, with 19 percent supporting the president and 22 percent against. Thirty-one percent said civic responsibility was a factor for voting this year. These nonvoters also tend not to participate in the political process because they are less likely to actively seek out news and don't feel they have enough information about candidates and issues to make a decision on Election Day, the study found. Survey respondents also cited feeling "depressed, discouraged or distracted" when consuming news and "intentionally" avoiding the news.

So the sequence here appears to be. 1. DNI gets intel that Russia is interfering again in the election 2. Acting DNI briefs lawmakers about the threat. 3. Trump finds out 4. Trump berates acting DNI 5. Trump replaces acting DNI with political stooge/ally

— Sam Stein (@samstein) February 20, 2020

I’m sure Susan Collins is troubled.

Paul Waldman/WaPo:

Why Trump is letting a corrupt Democrat out of prison

But there’s a strategy at work too, one that relates directly to this fall’s election.

Given everything we’ve seen from the president, it’s almost certain that Trump sincerely believed Blagojevich’s sentence was unfair. So he tried to shake down a children’s hospital, using state funding as a way to extort campaign contributions. What’s the big deal? That’s just shrewd deal-making. Would we really want to live in a world where public officials can’t wet their beaks?

But more than that, what Trump is really after is the normalization of corruption. The fact that Blagojevich was a Democrat makes it all the better. Trump would never argue that Republicans are clean and Democrats are dirty; he wants to convince you that everyone is dirty. In fact, it’s a key part of his reelection strategy.

they�re smart. the price doubtless went up after last night https://t.co/a9jhi6QZq2

— Christopher Hooks (@cd_hooks) February 20, 2020

Dave A Hopkins/Honest Graph:

Democratic Debate Review: A Telling Final Question

In fact, the final question of the night revealed the strength of Sanders's position: he was the only candidate to agree that if no single candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates, the candidate with the most delegates should receive the nomination. This is, of course, partially the Sanders campaign's recognition that he is unlikely to be a compromise choice or the preferred nominee of Democratic superdelegates in the event of a contested convention. But it's also a signal to the party made from a position of strength. The Sanders camp is betting that there's a good chance that they will have at least a delegate plurality, and they want to warn Democratic leaders at this early stage that they will denounce any attempt to deny him the nomination under such circumstances as an illegitimate usurpation of the process. The fact that the rest of the Democratic field responded to the question by defending the right of the party to select a different nominee reflects the extent to which contestation rather than an outright delegate majority is, in their minds, a live possibility even with 48 states and 7 territories still to vote in this race. Of course, we can expect any of them to make the same argument that Sanders is currently making if they wind up with a delegate plurality instead. But more than a third of the total national delegate count will be selected within the next two weeks, and it's quite possible that we're not very far away from a situation where a contested convention is the only numerically plausible alternative to a first-ballot Sanders nomination. With such a front-loaded nomination calendar, it gets late early out there.

Our data uncover that Sanders's recent gains have come mainly from consolidating support from white voters, while Biden's collapse is sourced primarily to Bloomberg's increasing fortunes among African Americans and Latinos.

— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 19, 2020

Michael A Cohen/Boston Globe:

A republic — if you can keep it

There is nothing that can stop Trump’s assault on democracy.

This is what makes Trump’s post-impeachment, anti-democratic rampages so particularly terrifying —the only constraints on his actions are the long-standing political norms that he neither understands nor appreciates. This means Trump can engage in all sorts of authoritarian behavior while technically operating within the law.

Before this poll, our averages had SC at Biden 24.5, Sanders 20.5, Steyer 15.7, others single digits, so this is right in line with expectations. https://t.co/2ec9HD4QjK https://t.co/ELbYkiLUcu

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 20, 2020

Counterpoint https://t.co/6KI5daVA2P pic.twitter.com/mj1JCCb7eJ

— Jonathan Robinson ðÂ�¤Â� (@jon_m_rob) February 19, 2020

And don’t miss:

NY Times:

U.S. Watchdog to Investigate Trump’s Farm Bailout Program

The Government Accountability Office will review how the $28 billion farm bailout aimed at cushioning trade-related losses was spent.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, joined with Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, in asking Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary, to investigate JBS, a Brazilian-owned meat-processing company that received $67 million in bailout funds. Lawmakers raised concerns about the payments given the company’s past legal problems: In 2017, two of JBS’s former top executives, brothers Wesley Batista and Joesley Batista, pleaded guilty to corruption charges in Brazil. The brothers remain majority shareholders with control over the company.

Mr. Rubio and Mr. Menendez also asked the Treasury Department to investigate possible ties that JBS has with the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, whom the United States does not recognize as the legitimate president.

The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a daily feature at Daily Kos.

That ABC poll can be found here. With the new NPR/PBS Marist poll, Mike Bloomberg makes the debate and gets a chance to see how he takes a punch. That should help Bernie and hurt Bloomberg, but nobody knows nothing™ this primary season, so  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, VA polling from Monmouth (March 3, Super Tuesday in two weeks) shows Bernie and Bloomberg as the frontrunners tied at 22%, and gives you an idea of what Super Tuesday is starting to feel like.

Pro tip: California is voting already, 600K ballots already cast. That’s more than IA and NH combined.

This is one of the most brilliant analogies for the 2020 DEM Primary I've seen. Yeah, a raft COULD offer more than survival, but let's argue about it AFTER we avoid drowning. ANY BLUE RAFT WILL DO. pic.twitter.com/7rJ53xvoiu

— BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) February 18, 2020

Poynter:

How Bloomberg the candidate impacts Bloomberg the publication

Farther down the page — MUCH farther down the page — there was a story about Mike Bloomberg. He’s running for president, too. He also happens to own Bloomberg News. The headline: “Bloomberg Faces Attacks from Democrats as He Rises in the Polls.”

This remains a sticky situation. How do you cover someone running for president when that someone is your boss? And how do you cover him if he doesn’t want you to?

Since Bloomberg entered the race in November, there has been controversy over how his media outlet will cover him. Specifically, Bloomberg News announced that it would not do any investigative pieces on Bloomberg. And, out of fairness, that courtesy would be extended to the other Democratic presidential hopefuls. However, President Donald Trump remains fair game for Bloomberg News.

This edict put Bloomberg reporters in a tough spot. How can you be considered a reputable news outlet if there are certain stories you aren’t allowed to pursue?

Not that the big boss has any sympathy. Back when he announced his candidacy, Bloomberg told “CBS This Morning”’s Gayle King that “you just have to learn to live with some things. They get a paycheck. But with your paycheck comes some restrictions and responsibilities.”

The whole thing simmered down, mostly because we didn’t know just how seriously to take Bloomberg as a candidate.

That was two months ago.

Media coverage this week:

MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has Plummeted 2 Points Up https://t.co/L0BfYBuCek pic.twitter.com/LXSZvMiNdV

— The Onion (@TheOnion) February 18, 2020

And more media coverage:

New: I talked to the pollster behind the poll that left Elizabeth Warren out of a key question, angering her supporters. He said they were only able to poll 5 candidates, and the fifth spot went to Klobuchar.https://t.co/Elue4tFR0k

— Molly Hensley-Clancy (@mollyhc) February 19, 2020

Bernie is doing very well in the new NBC/WSJ poll as well, with a double digit lead. 

Hypothetical matchups for just the states of AZ, CO, FL, ME, MI, MN, NV, NH, NC, PA, WI (combined): Biden 52%, Trump 44% Sanders 49%, Trump 48% Bloomberg 48%, Trump 46% Klob 48%, Trump 47% Buttigieg 47%, Trump, 47%

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) February 18, 2020

Biden’s general election numbers hold up. Doesn’t mean Biden can get there.

You can count me as firmly in the camp that thinks all this talk about Trump's approval rating hitting record highs and his chance of re-election soaring recently is pretty much just BS pic.twitter.com/5BXvP3gUCg

— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 18, 2020

There are differences between panel polls (no change) and telephone polls (small trump rise); the panel polls were very accurate so sar in primary season. Seems like it depends how you recruit the panels, though. 

What Pew also shows is that environmental issues will play a big part in this election:

As Economic Concerns Recede, Environmental Protection Rises on the Public’s Policy Agenda

Partisan gap on dealing with climate change gets even wider

And finally, socialism has a big ballot problem this fall. NPR:

Sanders Rises, But Socialism Isn't Popular With Most Americans

If socialism is so unpopular with Americans, how can Sanders be on the rise in the Democratic primary? Because Democrats and, more specifically, progressives view socialism favorably. Half of Democrats said so, while more than two-thirds of progressives did.

Just 23% of independents, though, and 7% of Republicans viewed socialism favorably….

Views of socialism grow more unfavorably the older the generation, but even 50% of Gen Z and Millennials had an unfavorable view of it, as opposed to just 38%, who had a favorable one.

Suburban voters, who have been trending with Democrats since Trump's election, are overwhelmingly against it by a 27%-to-61% margin.

Capitalism, on the other hand, was viewed overwhelmingly favorably by a 57%-to-29% margin. But a majority of progressives (52%) had an unfavorable view of capitalism, as did a 45%-to-37% plurality of African Americans...

The views of capitalism versus socialism is one reason why Republicans prefer to face Sanders in the general election. They and veteran Democrats point out that Sanders hasn't yet faced the likely barrage of attacks around his economic belief system — Democratic socialism.

But Sanders, in this poll and others, does beat President Trump in a head-to-head match up, 48% to 45%. That's something his campaign and surrogates are eager to point out

We are the majority in this country when it comes to Trump and the environment. Socialism? No. Progressivism? No, alas.

We can win in November, but our job just got harder.

Vox:

Mike Bloomberg and his billions are what Democrats need to beat Trump

The fifth in a Vox series making the best case for each of the top Democratic contenders.

The case for Bloomberg goes beyond his mayoral record. He has poured millions of dollars into fighting climate change and illegal guns, and has injected funds into federal and state elections that have made a difference — in 2018, 21 of the 24 Democratic congressional candidates Bloomberg gave money to won. That’s quite a winning streak and shows he knows how to put money in the right places. A similar strategy and spending push could be critically important in 2020 when Democrats try to hold the House and take back the Senate. In December, Bloomberg gave $10 million to House Democrats being attacked by Republicans over impeachment and $5 million to Stacey Abrams’s Fair Fight effort to protect voting rights, demonstrating his commitment to boosting the party.

Bloomberg is worth more than $50 billion, and he’s not interested in anyone else’s money, committing to self-funding his campaign. Bloomberg has all the resources he needs to combat the Trump machine, and he doesn’t have to spend time and energy courting donors and then returning favors to them if and when he’s in the White House.

[NB This article is the fifth in the series. Our case for Bernie Sanders is here; our case for Elizabeth Warren is here; our case for Joe Biden is here; our case for Pete Buttigieg is here. Vox does not endorse individual candidates.]

Posting the above  and the below as a reminder that what we find distasteful about Bloomberg (and Trump) is not necessarily shared by the voting public writ large.

Among gun rights folks, Bloomberg generates a level of vitriol usually only reserved for George Soros among conservatives. https://t.co/MG8CT2Wgob

— Anthony Zurcher (@awzurcher) February 18, 2020

Jamelle Bouie/NY Times:

The Trumpian Liberalism of Michael Bloomberg

He may be running as the anti-Trump, but when it comes to the politics of racial control, there is a resemblance.

Donald Trump is who he is as a politician because of his unapologetically racial vision of the American nation. Trump’s America is white, and he sees his job as protecting that whiteness from black and brown people who might come to the country or claim greater status within it. That’s what it meant to “make America great again.” And he’s delivered, using the power of the office and the force of the state to attack and stigmatize black and brown people, from outspoken celebrities to ordinary immigrants.

If that’s our lens for understanding Trump — if the heart of his movement and ideology is racial control — then it appears we finally have a Democratic equivalent, a figure who works on the same signal albeit at a different frequency. It’s Michael Bloomberg, the other New York billionaire in American politics, who is currently campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.

There are clear objections to thinking of Bloomberg this way. He may have been a Republican, but he’s also a liberal. He has given hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal causes and Democratic politicians. He spent more than $100 million helping Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in 2018. He’s also given tens of millions of dollars to environmental groups and spent millions more lobbying for new gun control laws. He’s given to Democratic super PACs and voting rights groups, individual politicians and the Democratic National Committee itself. And while he is an imperious personality with a disdain for limits — he got the rules changed so he could serve a third term as mayor of New York — he also doesn’t share the president’s criminality, corruption and complete contempt for constitutional government.

But he does share one important quality.

Although he never articulated it in these terms, Bloomberg’s actions as mayor reveal that he was someone who also saw black and brown people as threats to the security and prosperity of his territory, New York. And under his administration, the city became a quasi-authoritarian state for many of its black, brown and Muslim residents.

I understand frustrations of those who prefer candidates with little chance of winning (I do too) I also understand & share the annoyance at IA & NH roles But historically, it is not early but very late in the process. Few (or maybe only 1) have a precedented path to a majority pic.twitter.com/QmfUAkwTLi

— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) February 18, 2020

Jason Sattler/USA Today:

Stop Bloomberg. He's showing billionaires how to buy the presidency and it's dangerous.

While Trump used his star power and shamelessness to execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, Bloomberg is purchasing Democrats' affection.

Forbes now estimates that Bloomberg is worth $64 billion, which means his wealth is likely growing faster than he can spend it. And his campaign is spending it at a record pace, with $1 million a day going to Facebook ads alone, campaign rallies catered with food and wine, and generous salaries flooding out to staffers all over the country.

And it’s working.

He’s rising in the polls and leading in the latest poll in Florida, the state with the fourth most delegates to hand out for the Democratic convention. He will even be onstage for the Democratic debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, thanks to rule changes that seemed designed to allow him to qualify.

The popular consensus is that you could not possibly be competitive for the nomination if you skipped the first four primary contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — that are meant to cull the pack of candidates. That consensus is being crushed under the weight of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why are "billionaires" the right direction? https://t.co/urv1KV18io

— Heidi N. Moore (@moorehn) February 18, 2020

Congrats to the Iowa Dems for goofing up the night of the caucuses, releasing misleading preliminary data 24 hours later, only slowly updating those numbers for a more accurate picture, publishing obviously wrong final numbers and two weeks later publishing real, different ones.

— Philip Bump (@pbump) February 19, 2020

In non-primary news:

Axios:

Economists warn coronavirus risk far worse than realized

What's happening: The number of confirmed cases has already far outpaced expectations and even those reports are being viewed through a lens of suspicion that the Chinese government is underreporting the figures.

Yet, U.S. stock indexes have continued to hit all-time highs, bond spreads remain compressed, and even some Asian bourses have recouped losses that followed the initial coronavirus headlines.

Driving the news: Of the 364 companies that have held Q4 earnings calls, 138 cited the term “coronavirus” during the call, and about 25% of those included some impact from the coronavirus or modified guidance due to the virus, according to FactSet.

You can count me as firmly in the camp that thinks all this talk about Trump's approval rating hitting record highs and his chance of re-election soaring recently is pretty much just BS pic.twitter.com/5BXvP3gUCg

— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 18, 2020

Bloomberg Businessweek:

The Lasting Toll of a Deadly Virus

Hyundai, Levi Strauss, and Apple are already feeling the impact of the coronavirus.

There are a lot of ways things could sour. The virus might spread more than expected, flaring up in countries that are less capable or less willing than China to impose a stringent cordon sanitaire. Businesses built to survive brief disruptions will go bankrupt if the epidemic drags on. And in the long run, even after this epidemic ends, it could leave scars, particularly in China itself. Corporate executives will be less keen to do business with the world’s workshop if it’s also perceived as the world’s incubator of deadly viruses.

Right now no one can be sure which way the story will go, as forecasters are the first to admit. “Rapid containment and escalating contagion are both possibilities, and would result in widely different growth forecasts,” the Bloomberg Economics forecasters, Chang Shu, Jamie Rush, and Tom Orlik, wrote in their Jan. 31 report.

What’s clear is that the viral epidemic is already hurting business. 

Sara Gideon 43% Susan Collins 42% https://t.co/FGeTgn1I5Y

— Bill Scher (@billscher) February 18, 2020

Rebecca Traister/New York:

The Immoderate Susan Collins

After a long career voting across the aisle, why did the Maine senator gamble her legacy on Trump?

In short, Collins has gone from pleasing an unusually high number of people, at least some of the time, to pleasing vanishingly few people almost never…

Despite all this, Collins might well win in 2020. Sure, the money is pouring in for Gideon, and at least in southern Maine, home to liberal and left voters, bumpers are affixed with BYE-BYE, SUSAN stickers. Every time she makes a statement, the internet is awash with people posting donations to Gideon (or one of her Democratic rivals). Google analytics show that impeachment season had a huge spike in searches for “Collins’s opponent.” Control of the Senate rests on a couple of seats viewed as potentially flippable; it is possible that she will be running in the wake of a Supreme Court decision in June Medical Services v. Gee that will result in the closing of vast numbers of abortion clinics, with all eyes on the senators who installed Kavanaugh.

But it’s hard to beat incumbents. “Pundits always want to predict that Maine is much more competitive than it is,” said Gilman.

Toby McGrath said, “This is probably the most difficult race that she’s ever had. But one of the difficulties for Democrats is that there’s going to be the highest turnout we’ve ever had in Maine. With the presidential election, I think we could be at 75 or 80 percent, with a lot of low-information voters showing up to the polls. They’ve known Susan Collins’s name for five elections.”…

Choosing between a party that now demands total fealty and a constituency she’s promised independence, Collins — a woman who has built her image around being a careful, thoughtful decision-maker — appears to have made no decision at all about the best way to keep her power. Instead, she is hoping that she can pretend to do both without anyone noticing.

It might work. But if I were her, I’d be deeply concerned.

This will be today:

Group of federal judges calls emergency meeting over concerns about DOJ's intervention in politically sensitive cases - CNNPolitics https://t.co/qDBnNLSBJw

— gdthomas (@gdthomas) February 18, 2020