Trump Cannot Win, but Biden Can Lose. It depends on whose meltdown is more spectacular.

    President Trump has unintentionally succeeded in energizing the left to such an extent that he cannot overcome their lead by rallying his troops on the right.  What the President taught us in 2016 is that the old adage is completely wrong:  "run right in the primaries, run to center in the general election."  He proved to get out the vote, the candidate should do things that appeal to crazy people who would normally not vote. Run right and stay right.  But if the left is fully mobilized, there is too large of a numerical majority for the right to overcome it.  

    Well, the left is energized now. All the taunting and put-downs during three and a half years of the Trump Presidency have finally boiled over. We have not seen anything like this since the Viet Nam era. The catalyst, of course is Black Lives Matter.  The left seems very motivated to go out and vote, and they have a large majority around he country.  If this holds till November, former Vice President Biden will surely win.  
      In order for the President to win, the left is going to have to collapse, yet that could actually happen.  
      The political right is going to point out that the former Vice President acts as if he has dementia at times.  In fact, the left-leaning Washington Post says the same thing, so it is a viable campaign issue, like it or not.  I'm no doctor, but anyone can see that the former Vice President at least acts like he is demented at times.  Even Biden attempts to laugh it off, calling himself a gaffe machine. In any case, mental fitness is a real issue, and probably the only issue large enough to cause a meltdown larger than the meltdown already being experienced by the President.  
     Truthfully, I think that the Democratic Party apparatus is demented, if dementia is defined broadly as a persistent disorder characterized by dysfunctional impaired reasoning. Put it this way, they were ill in 2016 and there is very little sign of recovery.  In fact, they  have provided the American people with a candidate that avoids their greatest fears, but in so doing, seems made to order to lose to the President.   Covid, and Trump's foolishness, is the main factor that can save the Biden campaign.
     Biden won the nomination because the Democrats are paranoid, and completely intimidated by the President. I mean this in absolutely the worst, uncomplimentary way.  Their fear of Trump has paralyzed their reasoning ability and they were not able to make rational decisions in the candidate selection process.  
     They could have selected a young energetic candidate like Amy Klobuchar, who is anti-war and a moderate.  But they were afraid that a woman can not beat Donald Trump. On this point we have been scolded  by any number of party loyalists.   That is simply fear speaking.  
     They also could have chosen Peter Butigieg, the most dynamic leader and Afghanistan War veteran, but they were pathologically fearful that President Trump would call him vile names and he would lose.  They were afraid that an openly gay candidate cannot beat President Trump.   
     They could have even chosen Bernie Sanders, the people's choice in 2016 over Hillary Clinton if not the party's choice.  Sanders is the conscience of the Democratic Party, if not its top accountant. Like the President, he believes in the power of the printing press to replace fiscal responsibility; however, Sanders has human values and Donald Trump does not.  But no, they were afraid that Trumponomics would rip Sanders to shreds.  I believe the opposite, Sanders' free stuff is only a fraction of the terrible cost of President Trump's free stuff. Sanders should have eaten Trump's lunch on the massive tax cut to finance the upper class, which was just bad economics.  
     They could even have selected my favored candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who is the closest thing that we have to a fiscally restrained liberal. But--oh that's right--a woman cannot beat Donald Trump. Ditto for Elizabeth Warren, the most organized and structured planner and best executive.  Since Hillary Clinton could not beat the President, the party has decided to give up on all other female Presidential candidates, is that it?    
     So what are we left with?  Good old Joe, a 78 year old white guy who acts like he does not know where he is at times.  In 1988 I was disgusted by then-Senator Biden's bragging about his academic record, especially when it turned out that he was lying about his accomplishments.  Good grief. 

     The right slanders people all the time so it is easy to assume that it is all slander.  But wait a minute.  What if he goes into gaffe mode when his finger is on the button controlling the largest nuclear arsenal in the universe?   
     We are going to have to think this through in a campaign that will largely be carried out in TV studios rather than in front of microphones with big crowds. There is some chance that if Biden does have some impairment, the party can successfully hide it.  
        If the Democratic Party found out that the candidate had some condition that made him unfit to govern, would they do the honest thing and pull him from the candidacy for the good of the country, or would they cover it up for the good of the party?  I don't have any evidence, but I feel the party would hide it as best they could. 
         Joe Biden is going to have to convince the American people that he is absolutely sharp, absolutely not affected by early stage dementia.  Otherwise, the Democrats present us once again with a very difficult decision.   
       President Trump has embarrassed us, or at least those of us with any common sense.  But the alternative is a fellow who acts like he lost one too many boxing matches in his youth. It is an absolute fact that he will be 78 years old in November, and the job is a grueling one.  Does that inspire anyone?  If so, who?   
     Is it wrong to feel that the party system has let us down?  
     

Sweden's Covid-19 Policies Bashed, But What do the Numbers Say?

Bashing Sweden for its allegedly lax rules on coronavirus lockdown does not make much sense to me.

In theory, Sweden intended to lock down the elderly and other vulnerable citizens more or less to a similar degree as in other countries. But, they intended to allow somewhat more relaxed, volutary regulations to healthier younger citizens who are more likely to survive. Thus if the strategy were carried out successfully, the death rate should be lower for Sweden than in other countries but the exposure rate and infection rate should be higher especially with the more mobile young people. Countries with more regulation should have a lower rate of infection.

The numbers are not so simple. According to Worldometers, as of June 11, there have been a total of 48,288 cases in Sweden or 0.0478 cases per capita. That is twentieth highest in the world (but lower than several western countries including San Marino, Andorra, Luxembourg, Spain, USA, Iceland, Belarus, Gibraltar, Belgium and Ireland).

However, in terms of per capita death rate, Sweden is seventh. So if you wish to bash other countries, go for San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, UK, Spain, and Italy. But America is tenth, so there aren't that many countries we can legitimately bash.

Sweden is followed by France, Netherlands and the USA. Hence, judging from the recent press, many Americans evidently feel they are in a position to criticize and ridicule these other countries for having more fatalities per capita, especially Sweden. But wait. It's not that simple.

Note that in terms of death rate per capita, all ten of these countries rank lower for per capita infection rate.Every single one in the Top 10. In other words, each country is experiencing a relatively high death rate compared to the infection rate. That is the opposite of what might be expected for these advanced Western medical care systems.

Let's take a look at other countries with high per capita infection rate. Qatar has the highest per capita infection rate in the world, but only the 70th highest death rate. That means a higher percentage of infected people in Qatar are getting well than in the European countries, and it's not even close.
Consider Singapore has the ninth highest infection rate per capita, but only 128th highest death rate.

So if you want to bash Swedish medicine, fine, but do not forget to heap immense praise on countries such as Qatar and Singapore, who are greatly outperforming the west. I am not aware of a simple explanation why this is true. However, look at the stats for Sweden (Statista.com) and you will see their high death rate is associated with a large number of deaths of people who are over 70 years old.

Perhaps, if you must bash Sweden (and I wish you would not), they could be bashed for not being able to protect elderly persons. But even after adjusting for age groups, the numbers say that the cure rate is much higher in so-called third world countries than in Europe. And within Europe, Sweden's numbers are comparable to or a little better than some of its neighbors. So, are bad regulations in Sweden causing high death rates in these other European countries, higher than in Sweden? How could that be possible? There must be something else besides rules that needs to be considered.

We have to admit that we do not have a cure for Coronavirus. As long as there is a single death from this disease, it is too many and as a society, we must all strive to do better. The ability to protect people from contracting the illness, and the ability to treat the illness are going to improve with time. Different countries are trying different things, and we can all learn from one another if we quit bashing each other and figure out what works well and what does not. It is inappropriate to issue harsh condemnation of policies and medical care in any country, especially one that is not your own, because this disease breaks all the rules. It is NOT simple to understand, and we ALL have much to learn about it. It is not just Sweden that wants to improve its performance.

So, in my opinion Sweden is not insane and not a rogue nation. Sweden does not deserve to be bashed. They should not be accused of medical malpractice. Yes, they can and should evolve better prevention, detection and treatments. So should we all.