I imagine in terms of medical care access and affordability or welfare stimulus, practically negligible, but in terms of CDC funding, science literacy, public policy, and general preparedness, it would be a whole lot better put together.
So I'd say... 10% fewer deaths? 200K vs. 220K deaths sounds about right.
The death toll would've been the same. This does not start and end with the president. The US having a for-profit healthcare system and massively defunded hospitals all across the country, set the stage for them to handle this poorly.
COVID is really the best example and a rude awakening to this country about how fucked up our system is and that we are not set up to prevent any of this. Clinton wouldn't have handled it any better, nor would've Obama. We would still have neo-libs like Cuomo in NY pushing austerity right in the middle of the pandemic.
Under Clinton, the government would've just sat back with both parties pointing fingers and blaming each other while the death toll numbers rack up.
Pretending Trump's public image and response -- in line with the rest of the GOP leadership -- didn't have any appreciable effect on the number of infections is patently absurd. This is clown world thinking.
This site feels like an accelerationist honeypot at times.
Did you even read my comment before having your little hissy fit here? Americans like you think everything starts and ends with whoever is sitting in the oval office. It does not. This pandemic was largely handled badly on all scales of federal and local state governments. NY is a blue state and they were the biggest epicenter in the world. Clinton wouldn't have handled it any better.
The GOP turned wearing a mask into a culture war thing. How the fuck you think they would've responded under a Clinton presidency?
For one; they would've totally focused on some moron Dem governor like Cuomo who handled it badly. We would've been in year 4 of them talking impeachment of Hillary and not wanting to work with her at all. The GOP made it loud and clear back in October of 2016 that under a Clinton presidency, they would be ready to push for impeachment and investigation over her emails and they made it very clear that they didn't want to work with her. The GOP most likely retakes the house in 2018 midterms if Hillary would've won and the entire landscape of our government would've been different.
Go back to reddit and hang out with the libs on r/politics if you want someone to pat you on the back and tell you what you want to hear. If it was Clinton in office right now, I am 99.9999999% positive, we'd have a much larger far right movement right now and they would be calling for her to be fucking impeached for handling this so badly.
Macron's liberal government has double the infection rate of the USA. It's not as simple as "libs are better than fascists".
I mean, it really is. The "liberals are just as bad as fascists" is reactionary nonsense.
Besides, the question wasn't framed either/or, but shades.
It's shades. Liberals are just as capable as fascists. Fascists are just more direct.
I don't think it's nonsense.
deleted by creator
No one was taking it seriously back in January-February. I am not convinced she would've acted sooner. The entire western world was painting it out as China's problem and not even thinking about the possibility of it ending up in their own countries.
I can mostly picture the GOP standing up to her like they did all through Obama's 8 years and telling her to fuck off with anything she would want to do and they absolutely would be the loudest voices leading the charge about how bad she'd be handling it.