The Virus of 2019 / 2020

When we look back on our lives, we're going to think about our life before this virus, and, if we're lucky, our lives after this virus.

In any case, what happens to us---and to the world---depends on what the political leadership says.  No matter who was president in the US, he or she would have been staggered by this global epidemic---or pandemic, as they call it.  It was just that Trump has a bigger problem getting his head around the scientific facts.  So he leaves it up to the Governors of the states to establish policy.

The problem is that many people, including the wealthiest Americans, think that it is important to invest every available penny in the stock market.  These folks are not happy to set aside any resources for a rainy day.  When the hero of these people becomes president, it is natural that he / she is going to take away any money that seems to be idling; e.g. a team for dealing with emergencies, a team for dealing with epidemics, and so on, and use it all for tax breaks for the wealthiest instead.

The mathematics of any sort of infectious disease indicates that, at the simplest level, the number of infected individuals will follow a curve such as

There actually are an infinite family of curves of this sort; they all rise at first---that's the number of infections increasing---hit a peak, and then fall off.  Obviously, which curve we actually get depends on a number of factors, as explained in this video by Numberphile, a team that puts up math videos on YouTube.  (There are lots of families of curves, such as families of circles, families of parabolas, and so on.  Each curve has a set of parameters, numbers that specify its size and shape.  Gradually changing each parameter yields a fan of related curves.)

In this case, two of the parameters are: (1) what percentage of people will get infected by the virus when they encounter an infectious person for, say, 1 minute, at, say, 2 feet distance?  This is something we don't know, and it influences how steep the rise is.  (2) How soon, on the average, do infected people get better?  That influences how quick the fall-off of the curve is.  (In our illustration, only that second parameter has been varied, from 1 to 1.5.)

That first parameter also reduces the height of the curve, the maximum point.  The maximum point represents the time at which the most people are infected at one time.  We want to make that as small as possible, and in the video, you see how this would happen.  The smaller the height of that highest point, the more likely we are to be able to fit all the sick people in hospitals, and hospital camps, and so on.

This is a model.  These are mathematical formulas put together making lots of simplifying assumptions.  In actual fact, the true values of these assumptions might be a range, which means that the graph will consist of several of these graphs added together.  This would still yield a model whose properties are largely similar to the properties of the simple model.  Whatever will lower the maximum height of the simple model will also lower the height of the more complex model.  In addition, the model shown in the video does not take into account the flow of a steady stream of infected people coming into the model.  (That can be offset by considering the infection rate is higher than it was set at.)

You know by now about the terrible Flu that swept the nation in 1918.  In that epidemic, there was a clear side-by-side comparison of two cities where one city enforced immediate social distancing, and the other city permitted a large planned celebration to take place.  As you can imagine, the deaths in the city that allowed the celebration was many thousands more, per capita.

Moreover, early social distancing, and sustained social distancing was enormously effective.

The assistant governor of Texas was criticized for saying that he, for one, though he was 69, would be willing to die, if relaxing the social distancing enabled the economy to bounce back rapidly.  What kind of amateur politician is this guy?  Sacrificing seniors for the sake of the economy would normally be considered to be the suggestion of a maniac.  But these are desperate times, and perhaps it is for the good of the nation to offer up a few thousand Texan senior citizens, as long as we in Pennsylvania aren't expected to do the same.  We older folks have much to offer the younger generation, and our contributions might be desperately needed once the epidemic retreats.

Bear in mind that, as that Assistant Governor says, it is quite possible that, in the end, many of the senior citizens might die.  If there is no social distancing, unfortunately, they might all get sick at the same time, and suffer without breathing apparatus for many days, before they finally succumb.  Meanwhile, younger, healthier Texans, who have bravely headed out to keep the Texas Economy functioning, might not get valuable equipment to keep comfortable while they're in hospital, after getting infected.

We are, most of us, confident that the economy will bounce back, though we don't know just how much suffering this epidemic will inflict on us.  It is possible that the death toll could be vast.  It will be vast, if people continue to disregard the urging of cautious state governors to stay home.

In a recent TV appeal, our own Governor, Tom Wolf, shut down bars and liquor stores.  But someone passed up a question through a reporter: was there a possibility of removing the edict to close down liquor stores?  (Pennsylvanians consider liquor, and beer, an essential good.  This is not because they are descended from some tribe in the far North, whose genes absolutely require alcohol; it is because the vast majority of Pennsylvanians find it impossible to amuse themselves, or keep themselves occupied, without simultaneously consuming beer.)  The Governor took the question seriously, and said he would have to look into it further.

(I have always said that College teaches one how to keep oneself amused in one's leisure time.  It is a skill sorely needed all the time, but especially during epidemics.)

An emerging voice of reason is the Governor of the State of New York.  A democrat, he is more of a centrist than Senator Bernie Sanders and his followers.  It appears that many folks tune in to his addresses every evening, and his announcements are considered highly reliable.

But it looks very much as though, according to an analysis by the New York Times, that those who believe in Big Government are most comfortable with radical actions to deal with the crisis, while conservatives, who have always hated Big Government, feel unable to handle the situation.  This is precisely the kind of problem that Big Government is equipped to handle, and naturally the Minimalists are at a loss as to how to proceed.  Now Trump is forced to instruct people to do social distancing, but he feels that is against the principles of the conservatives, that people should be allowed to do anything they want.

Meanwhile, some people are buying up firearms, to protect themselves against thieving marauders, who neglected to stock up with food.  But it is an easy bet that these very same buyers of firearms are the most likely to go stealing food from timid pacifists.  One sincerely hopes they invest in firearms that can be eaten, at a pinch.

Anyway, everyone that my wife and I know, are keeping calm, staying at home, and only occasionally making sorties out to the supermarkets.  All their workplaces are arranging for only a single worker at a time to work in any office, since they are mostly in the service industry.  But there are numerous friends and acquaintances who still go to work in crowded offices or workplaces, for fear of losing their living wages.  A word or two from the President to say that the government would see that nobody loses their income would be nice.  Still, there might be many who would not believe such a statement!

Arch

The Debate of 2020/Mar/19---Bernie gets confused on Questions

The Democrat Candidate Debate of March 2020 was an unusual one.  There was no audience, no press, and it was held in the CNN studios (in Washington, DC, I believe).  Because of the COVID-19 epidemic, the candidates did not shake hands (they bumped elbows instead); and their podiums were spaced well apart from each other.

Bernie
Right from the outset, Bernie made a mistake in how he answered the first question.  To be fair, the moderator (a familiar face, but I forget her name) asked the question in such a way as to conflate the Trump Administration's response to the pandemic, with Bernie's Health Care Reform Plan, namely Medicare For All (abbreviated to MFA).

Whether or not MFA was in place---and of course, it wasn't---the answer would be the same; something like: "If there were a Pandemic Response Team, ready and able to deal with the problem, with sufficient funding for emergency equipment, and able to provide leadership across the country, I would allow them to do their job.  In addition, Congress and the Federal government would have to work on providing financial relief for those critically affected by the so-called Social Distancing that we have got to do.
"On the other hand, if I had do respond to the pandemic without a response team, I would have to improvise, just like the President is trying to do.  The difference is that he, personally, wants to micro-manage the response, pretending a scientific background he does not have.
"The important thing is not to have to improvise!  The basic elements of the response should already be in place!"

The main thing to bear in mind is that anticipating a possible pandemic is entirely different from setting up a Health System that is friendly towards those who are not wealthy.  Unfortunately, Bernie, (even if he realized the difference between the two questions) being better prepared to speak on the Health Reform issue, headed in that direction.

Joe Biden
Joe Biden shot back with the fact that in Italy, they already have "MFA", and it didn't work!  Why it did not work is probably a complex problem, tied to delayed leadership response.  You could have the best Health Service in the world, but if there is no competent political leadership to manage the social aspects of the pandemic, the virus would still defeat the Health System.

The Debate, and the Primary
As many newspapers and information sources point out, we have to completely change gears from now on.
*Voting will be very peculiar; it will probably have to be by mail, or online, or something problematic like that.  Or the election will have to be postponed, giving Trump an extra year.
*Conventions will be very peculiar.  Unless Bernie voluntarily drops out, I cannot imagine how the Democratic Convention could take place, given the (very reasonable) rules against gathering in large groups.  The DNC is doubtless engaged in overheated discussions about how to proceed.  But their recent performance does not give me a lot of confidence in their ability to make a reasonable decision.
*Bernie and Biden are both hamstrung, as far as campaigning is concerned.  TV, almost the only game in town, could deplete their coffers very soon, and Bernie, for one, will have to live with his messaging at the disastrous debate, without any alternatives that I can see!

Running mates
Both (male) candidates have either pledged to (in the case of Biden), or promised to work at (in Bernie's case) getting a female running-mate.  There was an excellent program on Democracy Now, in which two guests---one supporting Bernie, and one supporting Biden---discussed their responses to the female running-mate issue.  Dr. Taylor of Princeton, the Bernie supporter, supported her candidate eloquently.  Dr. Dyson of Georgetown, only gave the electability argument for his support of Biden.  He cautioned everyone not to underestimate the sophistication of the African-American portion of the Democrat electorate.  But unfortunately, it is impossible to overestimate the fear and the loathing of this component of the electorate to the prospect of another four years of Trump, and their sincere doubts about the capacity of the White population to choose wisely.

More interestingly, Biden can choose almost any female running-mate, and present a more intelligent, more able team to defeat Trump than he has at present!  As I have said earlier, Biden has no original ideas at all.  All he has is a superficial take on Obama's policies, with none of the flexibility that Obama's intelligence supplied his administration.

Bernie, in contrast, has very definite things he wants to do.  The running-mate Bernie chooses---and Dr. Taylor made this point---has to be at least as progressive as Bernie.  The only one who fills the bill is Elizabeth Warren, and she is more of a leader than Bernie, and would probably hate to be VP.
Moderates are anxious that Bernie is not sufficiently flexible to work with congress and the senate on compromise legislation.  In fact, I believe he is.  But, politically, he is afraid that his progressive supporters will feel betrayed if he shows a willingness to compromise now.  But . . . where are these progressive supporters?  Where have they gone?  Do they think Biden is a better bet?  Or are they too few in numbers to push Bernie into winning the nomination?  This COVID-19 business, if it had no good results at all, could at least have given Bernie a good leg to stand on.  Instead, it appears that Bernie's campaign has been outmaneuvered.

Economic Relief for Distressed Population
Have we all been outmaneuvered?  Has Trump been able to, despite his complete fumbling with the Pandemic, set up a winning game for the election?  The stock market is going daily lower, the population is uncertain whether to be panicked or not, hourly paid workers are losing their wages even as we speak, and Congress hands economic relief to big corporations, and forgets all about the most vulnerable in our midst.  Gas companies, for instance, say that they need billions of dollars in order to ride out this bear market.  People working in restaurants and grocery-stores, for instance, need a steady trickle of a few hundreds a week.  You could give relief to the poor for a decade, with what it takes to give the Gas companies what they say they need for a year.  Obama bailed out the car manufacturers, but not the workers.  Soon, as we have seen, the car companies moved out of the country.  Big Business is never grateful.

Trump and the GOP, no doubt, are wondering which demographic is most likely to reward them at the polls for economic relief.  But what the moment calls for is for relief without expectation of any return for the money.

Arch, with apologies for the fragmented nature of this post!

Coronavirus, Elections (2020/Mar/12)

Corona-virus
(Just to let you know: apparently SARS and MERS were also due to earlier Corona-Viruses.  The present one is Covid-19.)

• Hand-washing.  This is a good thing.  The virus attacks the lungs; to get to the lungs, it has to find its way there through, most commonly (A) inhaling, e.g. in a crowded situation, (B) through the eyes or the nose, if the virus was carried there due to touching the face with virus-laden hands.  Note that the virus is a microscopic thing, though they're shown as enormous explosive mine like things in pictures!
• Touching the face.  This is a difficult thing not to do.  But experts have ideas about how to make avoiding face-touching a little easier; wear a mask, or wear gloves, or keep tissues handy.  The masks suggested here are simple things; they need not look smart, they could be any old thing that simply reminds you not to touch your face.
• Water.  All this washing will surely have repercussions later in the year.  There will be water shortages.  So by all means wash your hands, but try not to waste water.  If you have been one who uses gallons of water to wash anything, this is the time to learn how to use as little water as possible!
• I'm trying to clean kitchen counters and tables as frequently as possible; e.g. 5-6 times a day.  Instead of using detergent and a wet sponge, I use kitchen wipes, which come out of a container (like Babywipes), and use much less water.
• We're going to stop bathing our pets, and washing cars.  We haven't watered our lawn in many years.

• Colleges and Universities closing; meetings canceled.  This makes sense, though students are, understandably, unhappy about it.  Someone said that "Colleges are meant to be a haven for students; throwing them out is very unfair and hard on the students."
  Now, wait a minute.  Haven makes sense in times of violence.  We do not allow people with guns or machetes to walk around campus.  But a contagious disease is completely different; no college wants to entertain the possibility of even 1% of the students dying due to an epidemic.  It is quite possible that some students find college a more pleasant place to be in, with all their friends, than home.  Students must now understand that college, and school, are wonderful places for viruses to flourish, and find new hosts; and few colleges, or none, really, are equipped to handle a medical emergency.
• Class lessons via the Internet.  For the serious student, who eagerly anticipates each lesson, this is a wonderful opportunity.  Any missed item of information in a broadcast lesson is easy to rewind to, and replay.  There will often be a typed-up summary of each lesson, which obviates the need for taking notes, and condensing them.  For the lazy student, who depends on classmates, this is an opportunity to try learning the material another way!
• We have lots of relatives who regularly travel to meetings.  Some meetings are essential.  But are they worth the risk of contagion?  Some few of us are probably considered expendable by our employers, and those can go to these meetings, and meet their end with impunity!  But the rest of us should stay home, and get reports of the meetings via whatever mechanism is provided.  Bear in mind that before the meeting begins, we're thinking of the risk of catching the virus from someone.  After the meeting, we become potential carriers, and people will have to avoid us like the plague, if even one of the attendees is identified as infected.  So far, the statistics have shown that almost any meeting results in at least one attendee testing positive.  Being in quarantine, or even self-isolation, is not fun for anyone, unless the person concerned is a congressman, for example, and anxious to give the impression of working industriously for the good of his or her electorate.

The next debate will be between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, without an audience (to avoid risk of infection).  This could be a wonderful opportunity to see the candidates argue the cases for either resuming life as it had been with Obama, on the one hand, or making at least some of the changes advocated by Bernie and other Democrats who have been labeled as "radical".  As I have written before, all these changes cannot and will not be made at once.  They must have the backing of Congress, which is a notoriously stubborn animal, and that of the Senate, which is arguably a bigger bunch of stick-in-the-muds than Congress.  Finally, a lot of Bernie's plan involves cooperation of the State Houses, which will probably not cooperate.  (Or maybe they will; who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of State Houses?)  So, backing Joe Biden out of fear and anxiety makes absolutely no sense.  Joe—and my apologies for saying this—does not have a single original idea in his head, and an administration headed by him will have to be led, de facto, by his advisors.  The same is true for an administration led by Bernie, to some degree.  In either case, we will have someone in the White House who will not veto progressive legislation (though in Biden's case, I have my doubts).

Anyway, remember that half this nation is people who 'know not their left hands from their right,' in the words of the book of Jonah, and there are 'also much cattle,' as the author of that book adds.*  There have been such amazing progressive gains in the last ten years, that we have been tricked into believing that either we have brought everyone along with us, which is clearly not true, or that those who are not comfortable with these changes are unwilling to fight back.  Also remember that there are many people who do not fight fair, and who distort the truth, or who fabricate alternate truths.

Archimedes

* Jonah, Chapter 4
[10] But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.
[11] And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

Corona Virus, Elections, and Other Misery

These days I get my news from the New York Times, because they had a couple of good articles about a year ago, and they forced me to subscribe!  Actually---though they certainly are biased towards the liberal side, as Trump complains---most of their news is believable.

Today, I read an article in the Times that answers a lot of the questions I had concerning the Corona Virus (COVID-19, as it has come to be known since earlier this year).  I'll give you a few little tidbits that I found there, and a few of my own thoughts below.

Symptoms:  A dry cough, fever, shortness of breath (or trouble breathing), and fatigue.

How long can the virus survive on a clean surface?  This seemed to be an important piece of information.  It turns out that it could survive for up to 9 hours.  Bear in mind that a bacterium can't survive that long.  So this virus is a bigger threat than a bacterial infection.

If a person is suspected of being infected, how long can he/she continue to not show any symptoms?  Now, this is not clearly answered; they have given a presumptive answer; that is, what they guess based on experience with other viruses: two weeks.  So, if you think you were infected by someone who coughed on you on the bus, wait two weeks, and if you don't have a dry cough and fever, you're probably not infected.  Or if you were, you've shrugged it off; good for you.  (I could be wrong here, but this is what I understood.)

OK; now for some guesswork answers, or commonsense answers to commonsense questions.

How long does the infection last?  Depends on how healthy you are, and how weak your lungs, etc, are.  If you have asthma, or had it as a kid, you could struggle to beat the infection.  If you're older than 65, you'll probably have a tough time.

What treatment can we give, if we catch it?  Well, just like Flu (ordinary flu), you treat the symptoms.  Give antipyretics (fever-reducing treatments, e.g. Tylenol or Aspirin), cough suppressants (these make you cough fewer times, but bring up more phlegm when you do), and help with breathing, if you have problems (doctors must prescribe this, but inhalers, etc.)  My personal advice is to drink lots of fluids.  I find it difficult to drink plain water, but mildly flavored water is easier to drink.  This might be a tall order, but if you could bring yourself to take a warm shower, it usually helps clear your sinuses, and get your mucus flowing.  This is only if you don't have fever.

In preparation for possible infection, keep your house a little cleaner than usual, especially the kitchen.  Keep the counters wiped off.  If people are coughing, wipe off the counters several times a day.  (This is more a treatment for bacterial infections, really.)

If you get flu-like symptoms, just stay home.  Try and get your neighbors or friends to do your grocery shopping for you.  They should leave the supplies on your front porch, and any change.  If anyone tries to steal the food, threaten them with infection!

Now here's a guess.  I don't think it is the virus itself that kills people; I think that when a person is weakened by the virus, they're susceptible to bacterial infection.  (You probably know that there is bacteria that lives on your face and your nose, but they only begin to multiply rapidly if you get a cold, or something that weakens you.  If you didn't know, well, now you know!)  Once you get a bacterial infection (don't try to guess; this is the point at which you need to turn to professional help, e.g. call the hospital or your doctor), you would normally be prescribed an antibiotic.

Do not take prophylactic antibiotics.  (They've done this with beef cattle, and there have been terrible consequences, e.g. super-infections, etc.)

In conclusion, we are probably going to handle this virus a little better than China and Italy, and so on, but only if the epidemic professionals are allowed to do their thing.  If anyone tries to downplay the problem, and hold back the flow of needed information for fear that the stock market will react badly, well, all bets are off.

Elections
I'm beginning to realize that I was really hoping that we would finally elect a woman president.  Any one of Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kamala Harris, would have made a great president, as would have Tulsi Gabbard, who's young enough to run again sometime.  But it wasn't our preferences that ended with all the women dropping out of the race; it was the fears of our fellow-democrats that women could not (1) handle the job of being president, and (2) cope with the shenanigans of Trump and Fox News.  The same goes for electing a gay president, which should not be a consideration in this day and age, but . . . OK, I'm not going to talk too much about that, just to keep my equilibrium.  What they feared was fear itself, as someone said; so we're left with the same old guys to choose between.

Arguably Angela Merkel was a more level-headed, well-respected head of state than almost anyone in Britain, for instance.  The fact of the matter is that we have in the USA more poorly-educated, ignorant people than in those countries, though they certainly are catching up fast.  This century, and possibly those that follow, will be remembered as the time that idiots came out of the woodwork, to insist on destroying our democracies.  (Of course, to be fair, they believe that gay marriage is destroying democracy, which is one reason that Pete Buttigieg might have lost the election.)

Arch

The Role Money Plays

You could call me a goody-two-shoes-wannabe-but failed: read on to find out why.

I was brought up to believe that materialism was bad.  This was because my folks were Christians, and they knew that you couldn't take it to heaven with you.  You had to leave it behind.

Anyway, you could not worship both God and Mammon (whoever the latter was), so to this day I try (and my wife tries, though she's just as much of an atheist as I am!) to abide by this principle.  Our house is full of junk, but not valuable junk, but just comfortable junk.  The older I get, I think, I should give some time to getting this junk out to whoever can use it, before I get too feeble to do the work of getting it ready.

For instance, I belonged to this Discussion Group (sort of like a bulletin board) where we used to discuss classical music.  Some decades ago, one of the members of that list declared he was giving away all his LPs, and moving over to digital music.  I volunteered to adopt many of his LPs, and I have them in boxes!  Of course this will not happen, but if I hauled several boxes up to the Pearly Gates someday, they would never pass customs.  ("We have all digital music here!  This is unnecessary.")

Now, I have been supporting Mark Kelly---not very much, but anyway---who is running for senator of Arizona.  Of course I want him in the senate; I would support, at this point, anyone running for senate who is as much for gun regulation as is Mark Kelly.  (Mark Kelly is the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at in Tucson some years ago, and remains injured by the attack.)

Now, it appears, Mark Kelly's campaign is stalled at just tieing with that of his Republican opponent, and since I had supported them at one time (with an almost insignificant amount, perhaps $15), they automatically write to me for continued support.

I would love to make another contribution, but now another consideration comes up.  Is is reasonable and appropriate that Mark K. should be supported for essentially a position in which he represents the citizens of Arizona, with money from other states, e.g. Pennsylvania?

The big question is: why do these people need money anyway?  The answer is: people tend to vote for those whose advertisements appear on TV.  We are slaves to our TV.  I'm rather a weak-minded person, but, my goodness, I'm a mental giant compared with some of the loonies out there.  I am contemplating supporting Mark Kelly, who might just win Senator of Arizona because my $15 helped some mindless idiot recall his name at the polls, and vote him in, in November.

I have no doubt that, for six years, it will probably be a better world if Mark Kelly (and that gal in Kentucky, and that gal in Maine) were in the Senate of 2021.  But what kind of world is this, that we have to keep on supporting these people in their frantic efforts to come before the public, and indelibly impress them with their image and message, just to make life safer for this very same public for six years?  Arizona isn't my state, but if gun laws are changed, it certainly will make a difference in my state as well.

It used to be that money just enabled one to surround oneself with stuff.  Among other things, this stuff is LPs, which one never listens to anymore.  I also have books, e.g. Nonlinear Electrodynamics, which is two volumes that I have not read, will never read, and will never part with, because they were given to me when I interviewed for a job in 1990, which I did not take.  Hanging on to the book is my way of feeling guilty for taking the book under false pretenses, (not really, because I think I made it clear that I wasn't going to take the job).  There, now you know how confused I am.

Money no longer has a direct connection with materialism.  It is a symbol of the power an individual (or anything, really, e.g. a corporation) has.  I could help Mark Kelly get elected.  Now, Mike Bloomberg has thrown money at almost anybody whose policies include tighter gun control.  He would probably gladly throw money at Mark Kelly, but Kelly would probably balk at the support of billionaires.  Billionaires are in bad odor now, and will continue to be so for a while.  (Trump isn't one, but plays one on TV!  Not entirely kidding.)  So, do not lay up for yourselves riches on earth, because in Heaven, you can't buy representation for your favorite candidates.

American Politics is frustrating, because you don't know how to vote, or whom to vote for, until everybody else (who doesn't know whom to vote for either) votes.

Anyway, yesterday, Joe Biden won a whole lot of something or other in the S. Carolina primary.  Evidently, black voters in S. Carolina are more interested in unseating defeating Trump than going on to the job of changing the economic dynamics of the USA.

The center of Bernie Sanders's thinking is the following.

Democrats and Liberals in the US are notoriously lazy to go to the polls.  They also watch a lot of TV, hoping for bad news, which will justify not going to the polls.

The system in the US is screwed up.  Many services which ought to be provided by the state are not, because wealthy folks want the best for themselves, and can't be bothered to provide basic services for the poor.  Examples: health care, education.  Bernie has been fighting for these rights for a long time, and he figures that if such issues are on the ballot, the poor will go to the polls, and anyone who wants these things for the poor.  That is, probably, my readers and me.  This is the only way to get people to the voting booths, and incidentally defeat Trump.

Most ordinary citizens can't get their heads around this sort of indirect thinking.  They want to approach the problem head on, and want to select a "Moderate", who can get a lot of crossover votes.  But this does not address the problem of voter laziness!  So which is the bigger problem: the laziness of Democrat intellectuals, or the ambitiousness of the platform of the so-called radical candidates?

Talking heads (not just the experts on TV, but people who are trying to explain the thinking that has gone into this election) have taken a lot of time to make various approaches palatable to the voters.  One way they have explained the problem of the present candidacy for the Democrat nomination is: do not vote against Trump; vote for a better society, and better policies.

Another issue, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, is that whoever the nominee is, he or she has to hustle and march up and down the country, supporting all the Democrat candidates for State Houses, for Congress, and for the senate.  It is not that we need, or want, a landslide: landslides are usually not good for either party.  We need just enough of a strong showing to undo some of the dangerous actions of the GOP over the last several years, including gerrymandering, and packing the courts with conservative judges.  (Fortunately, trying to get conservative judges to toe the conservative line is a little like herding cats.  Still, some gains like Roe v. Wade, Marriage Equality, etc, are easily attacked at the level of the courts.)

OK, let's stop on that happy note.  We must leave some bad news to cheer us up the rest of the week...

Arch