Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Insider News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Whenever the Republicans come up with a smart proto fascist that knows how to do populist rhetoric and is not so stupid as Trump - the feckless, neoliberal "feel-your-pain" / " access to healthcare", pro TPP, pro war Democrats will lose. Again. Presidency, Senate, Congress.
Do not let the almost 6 million more votes for Biden (popular vote) fool you - it was way too close for comfort considering the EC is the law of the land.
Biden would have lost if the pandemic response of Trump would have been slightly better. Trump is such an idiot and because of his pathological narcissism stands in his own way (and the grifters around him are such sort sighted ideologues, too) that he lost a race that he could have won with solid margins in the EC.
With NO pandemic or it hitting later or a better response of Trump - neoliberal / neocon Biden, a 80s style Republican with a D to his name would have lost against the orange idiot, the wanna be authoritarian that cannot quite pull if off. But he showed the possibilities. No doubt Democrats would be busy now to blame Sanders, the progressive base (but not the many non-voters !), Russia, Burkina-Faso, the tooth fairy, ... for their loss.
The Democrats are also sore losers - they just do not poo poo the election process in general and claim widespread manipulation of the ballots. Blaming Russia which is dangerous from a foreign policy and long term perspective, is a slightly better domestic sore-loser-response, I guess.
Or with no pandemic, or it hitting a few months later - Trump would have won. On the other hand - the pandemic massively help Biden and his lame campaign to stay ahead as the "frontrunner". The strain of having to work for his win in South Carolina already showed. He won states in the primary where his campaign did not have any ground game, and spent no money. He won only on decades of name recognition, and from March on he could hide in his basement.
In other words: low information older loyal Democratic voters determined the frontrunner based on the impression corporate media has created over decades, they voted on Obama nostalgia, and Biden was spared embarrassing gaffes (he did not have to exert himself anymore) or having to campaign at all from March on. So w/o pandemic Sanders still might have had a fighting chance (for him Florida and AZ would have been in play in the general, he would have won Wisconson, PA, Michigan - and would have had a chance to win Ohio. So likely higher, more decisive numbers earlier on, but maybe with fewer states / electors.
The Industrial Election process and the grifters that get the campaign budgets (lots for ads) also do not want that money is spent on staff and on turn-out-the-vote strategies. so the Biden campaign did not invest in that and would rather give the contracts to their buddies, the grassroots and progressives like Rashida Tlaib or Ilham Omar did massive voter registration and engagement efforts. And in Georgia the efforts of Starcy Abams and also progressive grassroots. (In GA the suburbs helped Biden win, so Sanders may not have won GA. But the progessive groups there strategically went into the areas and also knocked on doors and registered hundreds of thousands of people).
They did that in Georgia, in Minnesota, and I think also in PA (the grassroots) despite the pandemic. Not sure if the party spent at least some money on local efforts in WI and PA after the 2016 scare.
2
-
Some EC math and why it was WAY TOO CLOSE for comfort (and does not look good for the future - midterms 2022 and 2024: Yes Biden has now almost 6 million votes more, but those come from the large blue states and higher turnout for Dems in red states (that Trump still won with a comfortable margin). I had a look at some important red states, Trump won them by a solid margin. Exception THIS time GA and AZ, if a standard Republican like Jeb Bush, or even Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio runs I very much doubt Dems could win these states. Trump won Texas and Florida with a solid margin. And OHIO. Which Obama won TWICE. HRC and Biden both now lost in Florida and in Ohio (Biden with a wider margin), neoliberalism and identit politics (because that does not cost the donors anything) doesn't sell there.
Biden on the other hand barely won Georgia and Arizona. Biden would have lost to a Jeb Bush, McCain, Mitt Romney.
As for the EC - Biden needed to win at least 2 out of the 4 swing states (PA, AZ, WI, GA). And he won the 4 states with a total margin of ONLY 125,000 votes (Nov. 27th, 2020 data, so I think all recounts are done).
I do not count Michigan, Trump won it by 0.23 % in 2016, but this time Biden won it by 1.8 % and the Libertarian candidate did fairly well there, too. MI wasn't a nailbiter this time.
Another thing I noticed: Jo Jorgensen won in the 4 crucial states more votes than Biden achieved as margin.
Only ONE state out of the four swing states (PA, AZ, GA, WI) would not have been enough.
Thining of the future: With a R candidate that is not so in your face idiotic and terrible as Trump - AZ and GA would not be swing states. Yes people voted against Trump this time and that handed do-and-offer-nothing neoliberal Biden the "victory" - but in the future the Dems cannot rely on GA and AZ being in play for them.
Any combination of 2 out of the 4 would have been enough, the states with the lowest number of electors WI =10 electors and AZ = 11 would
have put Biden just over the finish line. to the magic number of 270.
PA has the most electors of the 4 nailbiter states - but PA alone would not have been enough for Biden to win the EC. Only 269 electors for Biden. so the Republican states (as per the constitution) would decide who becomes president.
The polling was not good for the Repubs, so they hoped for such a scenario where Biden would win the popular vote but just miss the 270. With 269 electors there would be an opening to use formal process to hand the presidency to Trump. That is another reason why they preemptively declared any mail voting as "fraudulent" (even if the important states, the purple states are usually run by Republicans). They prepared the propaganda narrative so they could hand the presidency to Trump if there was any underhanded formal way pretext to do so.
Trump outperformed the polling (the poll shy Trump supporter is a thing), but a very narrow race was the best they could realistically hope for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AngelLestat2 Have you noticed the opiode crisis - that is a private company being efficient about medical drugs (efficient about maximizing their profits criminally doing great harm to society). Have you heard about the CURE for hepetitis C strands (different ones, each virus variation needs its own). 6 - 8 weeks taking the pills and you are cured.
The first cost 90,000 USD, the medications that followed (for other strands and they came swiftly, so there must have been one scientific development and many companies worked with it) cost less, 70,000 USD, etc.
Prices coming down.
so the company that came out first (and all the other ones) really landed a hit. BUT: they realized that now infection rates are going down, and concluded that it is BETTER to have tretaments than cures.
They said that at an investor meeting.
That is what you would expect, a company that has a treatment drug would not WORK when theyx would find something promising about healing the same condition, that is their cash cow. If anything they will PATENT it or keep it secret (for use maybe in the future so keeping others from working with it if they stumble upon the same).
From the point of view of patients, doctors and government (a healthy population at the lowest possible costs) you would of course rather have a cure than just treating the symptoms.
The scientists and doctors of a public non-profit would have honestly advised to doctors that the opiodes have addictive properties (they still could be a godsend in cases of terminal illness, and at the minimum the patients and doctors must KNOW what they are dealing with).
It wasn't the scientists employed by PURDUE that lied about opiodes. For that the company had the bean counters, the marketing professionals, they worked with Mc Kinsey, and you bet they had the lawyers.
A public agency must not make a profit and that toxic incentive does not come into play (toxic in the real of healthcare).
Insteand the private for-profit company aggressively MARKETED them for more trivial use (like head or back ache or menstrual problems or post surgery pain). When there ARE pain killers already available that are TESTED (by being used on patients for decades). so adverse effects and contra indications have been found out in real life.
You can take for granted that MANY helpful medicines are NOT developed because not enough patients have the disease or it is not deemed profitable. (the umptieth blood pressure medication will be developed and they will massage the studies to "prove" that the new medication is "better" than the existing ones where patents have expired. Studies about the benefits of new drugs of non-interested actors = paid for by some government agency, on non-profit show less positive outcomes than studies financed by the people wanting to sell them.
And drug research (and all basic research) defies the rules of capitalism: you can do everything right and still not succeed by no fault of your own. The drug looked promising but in testing you find unacceptable side effects. It just does not work.
When developing a car or garments or a new snack, you can "do things right". From creating the product to how you market it to how you build your retail relationships and outlets that will stock your goods. But you should not try to SELL MORE of drugs (or vaccinations).
The corona vaccine is the exception to the rule (it will be a bestseller obviously). But developing and IMPROVING vaccines (and that could be better effect, immunity lasts longer and more reliably, and fewer side effects - there are more damages done by inauculation than officially admitted. Likely to not undermine vaccination morale and to avoid paying liablilties and a media frenzy).
1
-
1