Coronavirus (Sports-Related and General)

[allentown]

I think what you proposed could have worked, if more Americans were better behave. A lot of the problem lies with our bad boy President, who won't wear a mask and urges others to defiantly refuse to wear one or to socially distance. Stores that are open have had employees assaulted and even shot by defiant individualists who refuse to mask up or observe proper distancing. A governor or county opens a beach or park or hiking trail,, but requires social distancing to protect all, and immediately we see photos of crowds not social distancing in those spots.

Our president's actions utterly astound me. I understand that he thinks a fast opening leads to a faster economic recovery leads to his re-election, but by actively discouraging his supporters to defy social distancing rules, he retards the re-opening process and runs a serious risk of a rebound spread of coronavirus just in time for election day and his defeat. It is in his best interest to persuade his supporters to wear masks and stay six feet apart as stores and recreational areas re-open. It is in his interest to model proper behavior. He doesn't seem able to bring himself to do that.

[zambonir]

Yes, politically speaking the president's actions would not seem to end well for him...unless things are so bad in October that there's an extremely low-turnout election, with many courts not allowing mail. Or maybe he's just dumb (to be fair, simply being himself has gotten him this far, with a lot of cooperation both in and out of government).

And even a fully successful reopening isn't going to fix the economy. If anything it is probably better to be in suspended animation. There is going to be a point where some jobs and businesses are simply never going to come back, and who knows what kind of financial/real estate crises loom.

[Lawman]

how come Trump/Clinton and Trump/Biden is the best the parties cam come up with? There has to be younger, more able, candidates on both sides of the aisle.

[allentown]

On the R side, I think the answer is that all of the other candidates let Trump bully them, while a big percentage of the R base sought an alpha-male bully to fight for them. Trump isn't an alpha male, but he played one on TV and in his PR campaigns. On the D side, inexplicably the youngest voters have shunned the younger candidates. In 2016, the DNC and D elected leaders seemed to deliberately clear a free path for Clinton. She was opposed in the primary only because Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, so the party had no leverage over him. My theory (possibly of the conspiracy theory variety) is that this support from Obama and his followers was part of the bargain she made to encourage her supporters to fall in line behind Obama. For whatever reason, over the course of 8 years in office, Obama never seized control of the DNC and party apparatus from the Clinton hold-overs.

We've read a lot of criticism about how a very (historically) diverse Democratic Party primary field in 2020 -- male, female, young, old, black, white, Asian, Hispanic -- quickly whittled down to two very old white males. Election analysis said that black voters rejected the black candidates and voted Biden. Hispanic voters didn't line up behind a Hispanic candidate. Democratic women ended up supporting one of the two old males. Youth went for the very old Bernie, the rest of the electorate settling on Biden. A lot of talk of choosing a safe choice, the most recognizable names, guys who had campaigned nationally in the past, as policy took second place to simply beating Trump.

I thought a young, vital candidate would be an appealing and stark contrast to Trump, come election day. Now Trump gets to run as the young guy.

I can't see much other reason. There were numerous attractive young candidates, mostly moderate, but Senator Warren is very progressive and much younger than Bernie. Both Warren and Bernie fell away, because a big majority of the D electorate is not in the mood for revolution and knows that an even smaller part of the total general electorate is willing to line up behind radical change. A push for more moderate, slower change and a perceived better chance to defeat President Trump carried the day.

The other thing on the D side: for the first time in my memory, Clinton was chosen in 2016 because it was 'her turn'. There seemed some similar sentiment for Bernie this year. This has never been the Dem approach, I associate it more with the Rs, who did a 180-degree turn from this approach in 2016.

I'll certainly vote D, but no denying there is a horrifying amount of ossification in my party.

[California_Dreamin]

Interesting timing...out of nowhere? Both Cuomo and Newsome today indicated they want sports back in their states as early as June. This from governors who insisted they might not have sports again in their state till 2021. In fact, Newsome backtracked today on much of his draconian rules for re-opening, finally allowing counties to safely and smartly open up as they deem appropriate.

I find the sports announcements particularly newsworthy given both the sheer size of the states and the early insistence that sports would not be back for a loooooooooong time, especially from Newsome.

[zambonir]

It's kind of Obama's fault on the Dem side. His revolution didn't really create a new generation of leaders, or nurture anything at the state level, and he embraced the Clinton legacy in every way. And the only viable alternatives who emerged are themselves no youngsters (Warren, Sanders). On the R side someone younger certainly could have filled the Trump role (populist/Tea Party alternative to old mainstream Senators) but there were so many of them running, and none of them took Trump seriously, and now he runs the party. I don't know if it would change anything electorally but really there should be four parties at this point, maybe even six.

(Wrote this before Atown's more detailed thoughts, didn't post at the time for some reason!)

[zambonir]

In April Newsom said he didn't anticipate there being football in full stadiums in 2020. I doubt that's gonna change.

I'm sure there is a lot of political pressure being applied. I still think it is all a longshot. Seems a lot more likely they'll restart and have to cancel than restart and have it go so well that they start admitting fans.

[Lawman]

In April Newsom said he didn't anticipate there being football in full stadiums in 2020.

Cuomo and Newsom both said sports but without fans in the stadium.

[andyb]

I think all the states want a piece of the "sports and no fans" option. Probably as much for PR as anything else. FL and AZ and TX were very aggressive in wanting to do it, though now that the cases have leveled off somewhat nationally there is no reason that all of these games need to take place in Southern and Southwestern states. It is politics, of course (i.e. those are all red states), but there is also a logic for leagues to distribute the risk around the country. Start out wanting to play in home stadiums and adapt if you have to.

Putting all the teams in a handful of cities is actually a recipe to shut the whole thing down in a localized breakout.

[Philsmania]

It's kind of Obama's fault on the Dem side. His revolution didn't really create a new generation of leaders, or nurture anything at the state level, and he embraced the Clinton legacy in every way. And the only viable alternatives who emerged are themselves no youngsters (Warren, Sanders).

Obama did nothing to build the Democratic party. The party was gutted of office holders during his eight years. Yes, that does seem to be a part of our national political spin cycle. Since WW2, we've had repeated occasions in which we've seen one of the two parties win the presidency and both houses of Congress (1948, 1952, 1960, 1976, 1980 for all practical purposes with the Republican-conservative Democrat axis in the House, 1992, 2000 and 2008). In all but one of those cases, the President handed the Oval Office off to a member of the other party and, in all but one case, left office with the opposing party in control of at least one house of Congress (the exceptions were the Kennedy-Johnson administrations leaving office with a fully Democratic Congress in 1969 and Reagan handing the office off to a member of his own party in 1989). So, there typically is a steep presidential penalty for the party that wins the office. However, the depth and breadth of Democratic losses under Obama was unprecedented. The party probably lost a whole generation of office holders and is only slowly rebuilding its bench. It seems as if the Republicans find a way to come roaring back only two years after their catastrophic defeats (see 1994 and 2010). But, Democrats seen to take six to ten years.

[zambonir]

Right, I am saying, contrary to CD's post, Newsom's position now is not different from his previous positon.

[zambonir]

'Sports can't become the next nursing homes' as California restart approaches

[California_Dreamin]

zambonir...wrong. When the lockdown first occurred Newsom was quite specific that sports in California might not open up till 2021. Teams like the Warriors, Rams [who are opening up a new stadium] and the Chargers were quite concerned and the Warriors were even talking about how much money they would lose if Chase Center were closed till 2021.

Trust me, his announcement yesterday was a 180% turn and was discussed at length since yesterday. Now, given that it is Gavin Newsom and consistency to him means he hasn't changed his mind in 4 hours, let's see how he wiggles around this today.

[andyb]

Not sure it was a complete about face on Newsom's part. He did state that he did not anticipate sporting events until 2021, but he also mentioned "gatherings" when he said that. He was referring to games with fans.

In his plan that he released April 28th he explicitly had sporting events without fans as part of his stage 3 opening. Stage 4 would have events with fans. He probably was less specific than he could have been early on, but he was not releasing a policy at that point.

This is California's reopening plan for stores, offices, schools, sports,...

[California_Dreamin]

andyb..that was in April. Newsom closed down the state in mid March and when he was asked about re-opening and sports he mentioned that was waaaay back on his to do list and stadiums and sports arenas might not open till 2021. The Golden State Warriors in particular were quite concerned about this because their new Chase Center was going to be home to not just Warrior games but concerts, conventions and almost daily events. They were already adding up the millions they would lose if 2020 was cancelled completely.

His closures have damaged California to the point where the state may not recover economically for a decade. People are leaving the state, LA and SF are now almost unrecognizable and protests are getting larger and more vocal. Several counties have opened up on their own and many people believe that the only reason he is backtracking is so he can look like he is still leading the parade, when in actuality the parade left without him 10 days ago.

The church led the way when they decided they were going to lead the charge by having services on Sunday's and on May 31 over 500 of them are opening up regardless of what Newsom says.

My prediction...Newsom, sometime late this week or early next week, will announce churches can re-open as long as they honor social distancing, which they were doing anyhow. He will do this so it will look like he has given them permission. In reality, churches have reached the point where they couldn't care less what he says. They are opening.

[andyb]

But he was likely talking about events with fans, even in March.

[rpmcmurphy]

If Trump had been as proactive as Newsom was early on, much death and suffering would have been averted.

How California kept ahead of the curve

Now, states are struggling with a reopening strategy largely because of the vacuum of leadership from Washington. And, whatever too little and too late advice has come from the federal government has largely been ignored and undermined by Trump himself.

Not enough people will be responsible, in the churches or anywhere else because a lot of right wingers, encouraged and promoted by conservative media, have cast this as a “liberty” and “freedom” issue. That is just dumb and irresponsible. This short-sightedness will lead to a prolonged plateau of the death curve and sets us up for a further wave or waves of death until there is a vaccine.

All in all, the economy will over time sustain much greater damage than if the nation as a whole had followed California’s example and shut things down early, as Newsom wisely did. California was the first state to have a shelter in place order. By now, the virus would have been truly suppressed and we would be looking at a fraction of the tragic death toll that we currently have.

Any leader will be questioned and Newsom is not perfect, but at least in early March he was a leader, in contrast to Trump.

[zambonir]

When the lockdown first occurred Newsom was quite specific that sports in California might not open up till 2021.

Cool, I'd like to read that.

I'm not saying you didn't see an exaggerated or vague headline that said that, but Newsom never uttered anything that sweeping and specific, and it has certainly never been a policy. Everything has always been conditional, and still is.

And in the end the fact that there aren't going to be any events at the Chase Center has nothing to do with Newsom. Big tours in the entire country are already cancelled for the rest of the year. And the NBA is unlikely to play games with fans (or even use all the home arenas) even if politicians begged them too (which they basically have in Texas).

[California_Dreamin]

This is simply not true. California only shut down 2 days before New York did, yet their numbers are very different. Most people here in California believe the virus was here way before this virus was being discussed, probably in December. Countless reports of Californians who now report they felt sick in December but attributed it to the flu, went on with their Christmas plans and recovered. Ample evidence of this is prevalent, none greater than the test done by a Stanford doctor in Santa Clara County several weeks ago.

The tests showed that 50-80% MORE people had developed the anti-bodies for coronavirus than were even reported as having been ill. This led to the studies that showed that 80% are probably asymptomatic and never even know they have the virus.

It is one of the great lies that most Californians know...that Newsom shutting down the state saved lives. It is a lie, but what isn't a lie is the reality that his draconian decisions have left countless dangerous people back on the streets and millions of small business owners eventually going back to jobs they will no longer have.

With cures like that, who needs the disease?

[California_Dreamin]

Please note...my response is to rpmcmurphy and not you, zambonir. A lie always moves faster than does the truth and it is simply a falsehood that Newsom's actions saved lives. It will likely cost many more.