Mediaboss Marketing

Nurses clean their hands after a patient was screened for COVID-19 on Tuesday in Seattle.

Karen Ducey/Getty Images

In every outbreak, some people are more susceptible than others. The current coronavirus pandemic preys on the elderly, for instance, and on people with underlying ailments. But in the United States, poll after poll shows the virus has found a population thats particularly likely, through nonchalance and neglect, to help it spread. That population is Republicans.

Republicans dont deserve collective blame. But in an epidemic, its important to confront the most efficient routes of transmission. In this case, the attitudes and behaviors likely to spread the virus are more prevalent in the GOP, and they need to be addressed by politicians and media organizations with conservative audiences.

Public opinion is shifting as the crisis mounts, so questions asked a week ago would get different answers today. But one pattern has persisted: In every poll, Republicans have expressed far less concern about the virus than Democrats have. Last week, 55 percent of Republicans, compared with 25 percent of Democrats, said they didnt worry much about it. Forty-eight percent of Republicans, versus 18 percent of Democrats, expressed little or no concern about a coronavirus epidemic here in the United States. Sixty-three percent of Republicans, as opposed to 31 percent of Democrats, said they were similarly unconcerned that you or someone you know will be infected.

In a Marist/NPR poll taken on Friday and Saturday, 42 percent of Republicans, compared with 16 percent of Democrats, said they werent very concerned about the virus spreading to your community. When respondents were asked whether the coronavirus is a real threat or blown out of proportion, three-quarters of Democrats said it was a real threat. Most Republicans said it was blown out of proportion. A Gallup poll completed on Friday found that from the first half of February to the first half of March, the percentage of Democrats who worried about the virus increased by 47 points. The percentage of Republicans who worried about it increased by 12 points.

Republicans, much more than Democrats, have been willing to entertain the idea that the virus is a hoax. Last week, in an Economist/YouGov survey, 16 percent of Republicans, compared with 10 percent of Democrats, said it was definitely or probably a hoax. Those numbers and the gap between them are fairly small. But when you factor in all the additional people who said it could be a hoax, the gap gets a lot bigger. Seventy-three percent of Democrats said the virus definitely wasnt a hoax. Only 54 percent of Republicans agreed.

Republicans, much more than Democrats, have been willing to entertain the idea that the virus is ahoax.

Given their relative skepticism and disinterest, Republicans have been far less likely than Democrats to take steps to prevent transmission of the virus. In a Civiqs/Daily Kos poll taken last week, only 23 percent of Republicans, compared with 46 percent of Democrats, said they were taking precautions or had changed some of my day-to-day habits to deal with the virus. In a Yahoo News/YouGov survey, only 55 percent of Republicans, versus 67 percent of Democrats, said they were washing their hands more often. Only 29 percent of Republicans, compared with 44 percent of Democrats, said they were avoiding crowded public places.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, taken from Wednesday to Friday, found that 61 percent of Democrats had stopped or were planning to stop attending large public gatherings like movies, concerts or sporting events. Only 30 percent of Republicans said the same. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll, taken from Wednesday to Sunday, found a similar partisan split. So did the NPR/Marist survey. In the Marist poll, 60 percent of Democrats, but only 36 percent of Republicans, said they had decided to eat at home more often. In the NBC survey, only 12 percent of Republicans, compared with 36 percent of Democrats, said they had stopped or were planning to stop eating at restaurants.

Republicans have also expressed less willingness to be vaccinated. In three surveys taken this month, Morning Consult asked, If a vaccine that protects from the coronavirus became available, would you get vaccinated, or not? On average, when compared with Democrats, Republicans were 10 percentage points less likely to accept the vaccine and five points more likely to refuse it.

Why have Republicans been so unmoved? One possibility is that theyre more likely to live in rural areas, where people are spread out. But survey after survey shows no correlation between population density and concerns about the virus. Another guess is that Republicans are less likely to live in places where outbreaks have been reported. Polls support that theory. But they also show that it cant account for the partisan gap.

In the Civiqs poll, 9 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Democrats said the coronavirus had been reported in your local area. Thats a 14-point difference, and it helps to explain why Republicans, in the same survey, were more skeptical of a local outbreak. But thanks to the way the poll was constructed, you can filter the 9 percent and the 23 percent out of the sample. This allows you to look just at respondents who said the coronavirus had not been reported in their communities. Among this populationwith no partisan difference in reported local infectionswas there still a partisan gap in attitudes? The answer, decisively, is yes. In locally unaffected communities, 57 percent of Republicans, compared with 23 percent of Democrats, said an outbreak in their area was only a little likely or not likely at all.

If local experience doesnt explain the partisan difference in attitudes, its reasonable to ask whether a partisan difference in media consumptionnamely, watching Fox Newsdoes. The Civiqs poll found that people who frequently watched the network, when compared with people who didnt watch it at all, were more likely, by about 20 percentage points, to say that a local coronavirus outbreak was implausible. They were also more likely, by about 30 points, to express little or no concern about such an outbreak. But in each case, the partisan gap was more than 10 points bigger than the Fox gap. The party you belong to is a better predictor than the network you watch.

Only one factor has outscored partisanship as a predictor of coronavirus attitudes: support for President Donald Trump. In some surveys, when compared with Republicans as a whole, people who strongly approve of Trumps job performance have been slightly more likely to say that theyre unconcerned about the emergence of the virus (by 7 percentage points), about its spread in the United States (by 5 points), and about contracting it themselves (by 4 points). Theyve been more likely to dismiss it as a minor or nonexistent health risk (by 8 points) and to say they wouldnt get vaccinated (by 3 points). Maybe these people have discounted the virus because Trump has discounted it. Or maybe they just share his imperviousness to unwelcome facts.

Either way, Republicansand Trump supporters in particularare a major concern in the next phase of this public health crisis. The fact that more Democrats than Republicans have reported local outbreaks suggests that the virus began its American rampage in left-leaning pockets of the country. Perhaps thats because these hot spots, such as Seattle, were more open to global travel. But from there, the virus is likely to be spread by people who dont take it seriously. Theyre the people who keep eating at restaurants, keep going to malls and movies, and dont wash their hands. All too often, theyre Republicans. They need better guidance from the leaders and news organizations they trust.

For more on the coronavirus, listen to Wednesdays What Next.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Original post:
Theres a New Potential Risk Group for Spreading the Coronavirus - Slate

Worried about the coronavirus and feeling like not enough people were taking it seriously, Fox News host Tucker Carlson set up a meeting with President Trump earlier this month at his Mar-a-Lago resort in order to tell him to his face that the situation was dire.

Carlson discussed the tte--tte with Vanity Fair's Joe Hagan. He spoke with Trump for two hours, and while he would not spill on what Trump said to him, Carlson did tell Hagan he got across the fact that the COVID-19 coronavirus is an existential threat to both the United States and Trump's re-election.

The first COVID-19 case in the United States was reported in January. Trump said it was "totally under control" and "going to be just fine," but Carlson said he saw how spooked the Chinese government was by the outbreak in its country, and he figured "we should pay attention to it." After researching and reporting on the virus, Carlson felt he had "a moral obligation to be useful in whatever small way I could," and determined that meant setting up a meeting to stress to Trump that the imminent coronavirus pandemic could be disastrous.

Carlson and Trump spoke on March 7, with Carlson telling Hagan he told Trump "exactly what I've said on TV, which is that this could be really bad. My view is that we may have missed the point where we can control it." Carlson believes there are "a lot of people around" Trump, particularly "Republican members on Capitol Hill," who were "determined to pretend this wasn't happening." Now, he thinks the White House is taking the matter "seriously" and "knows that we're not prepared."

The coronavirus pandemic has "scared the hell out of everyone, left and right," Carlson said, and he doesn't have "the faintest idea" if Trump will make it out of the crisis unscathed. "I spent months telling our viewers that Joe Biden would never get a nomination," Carlson said. "So I mean, I have literally no idea." Read more at Vanity Fair. Catherine Garcia

Read more:
Republicans fear Trump being quarantined with 'nothing to watch but the news' - The Week

The Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that more Republicans will die from the coronavirus pandemic than Democrats because of the misinformation spread by President Trump and Fox News.

There is a particular cruelty, irony that it is their core viewers, the Republican older viewers, who are the most at risk, Ms. Rubin, a self-described conservative and former Republican, said during a panel discussion Sunday morning on MSNBCs AM Joy.

Ms. Rubin credited the Democrats with being the first to cancel political rallies in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, whereas Mr. Trump initially bucked the idea before canceling several rallies Wednesday.

So, I hate to put it this way, but there will be less Democrat deaths because there will be less mass gatherings, there will be less opportunities for people to congregate and share this horrible disease, she continued. So it is really a very short-sighted strategy.

Ms. Rubin said the challenge lies in getting Trump supporters back on Planet Earth, because Fox News has been brainwashing them to think the president has been proactive on the issue.

They will contort themselves to kind of get in line and get in sync, she said. And, you know, were always saying but, but, but, pointing to the past. They dont. They simply move with the flow. Every day is a new day. Every day is a new storyline, and theyre gonna stick with it.

I think the problem will be what happens unfortunately if we start to follow that Italian model where we have mass casualties, and our lives are not disrupted for a week or two, but were talking months, she continued. And that is going to be some serious stuff. And I dont know if their brainwashing is so strong as to carry on and make excuses for Trump during that. But this is going to be some serious stuff.

See original here:
Jennifer Rubin: 'There will be less Democrat deaths' from coronavirus than Republican - Washington Times

Republican and Democratic representatives came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the early hours of Saturday morning to provide relief to American workers and families in the face of the growing coronavirus crisis.

If passed by Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, who has expressed support for the bill, the Families First CoronaVirus Response Act would ensure provisions for paid emergency leave for those affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, as well as free testing for those who need it.

But while 363 participating Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of the measure, 40 Republican representatives stood against it, voting "nay" on its passage, while Independent Justin Amash voted "present."

Read more

While representatives from both sides of the aisle have agreed that the coronavirus outbreak demands an urgent response from lawmakers, many Republicans who voted against the package said they did so because they felt they were not afforded sufficient time to review the bill.

In a statement published online, GOP Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona said she was unable to support the bill given the lack of time representatives had been given to review it.

"I could not in good conscience vote for a 100-plus page bill that neither I nor my staff had an opportunity to read or review," she said. "Voting on a multibillion-dollar piece of legislation less than 30 minutes after being introduced is no way to conduct the People's businessespecially after reports that small businesses and hospitals could be negatively impacted."

"The United States Congress should not have to pass a bill to find out what is in it," Lesko said. "We all want to help Americans as we face the spread of coronavirus, but this complete rush job is not the way to do it."

In a separate statement published online and shared with Newsweek, Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama also attributed his refusal to support the bill to being given insufficient time to review it.

"Tonight, I was asked to vote on a 110 page bill that spends billions of dollars and contains numerous mandates on small businesses only 26 minutes after receiving the text," he said. "Although I agree with many of the provisions in this legislation, this is no way to govern.

"We should be sending a message of calm and steady leadership in the face of this crisis, not forcing through bills in the dead of night," the representative said. "While it is critical that we continue to take actions to address the coronavirus, we should do it thoughtfully and responsibly. For that reason, I reluctantly voted no.

"I appreciate the Trump Administration working to greatly improve this bill over what was proposed by Speaker Pelosi," Byrne said. "I hope that the Senate next week will engage in the due diligence that House Democrats were unwilling to do."

The three representatives were not alone in refusing to support the bipartisan bill.

Below is a full list of the 40 representatives, who are all Republican, who voted against the measure:

Read more:
These Are the 40 Republicans Who Voted Against the 'Families First' Coronavirus Response Bill - Newsweek

Dalia Maeroff | Staff Illustrator

I am 20 years old. I wear a lot of denim. I have acrylic pins on my backpack. I love the idea of universal health care and am casting an enthusiastic primary vote for Bernie Sanders. I recently created a Letterboxd account.

All this is to say Im a card-carrying college liberal who never truly questioned the notion that my party would lay claim to the first woman in the White House. However, in the past few weeks, I have become increasingly convinced that the first female president will be a conservative. I do not like this idea, but Im terrified that my own brain may be correct, and I need Democrats to pay attention.

I didnt talk myself into this strange, conservative-female-president train of thought by chance. My brain spiral commenced after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suspended her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in light of a major failure to pick up a competitive delegate count on Super Tuesday. In doing so, she left the Democratic party in the hands of two men a painfully moderate Joe Biden and a remarkably progressive Bernie Sanders both of whom are in their late 70s.

In the wake of her departure, Elizabeth Warren also left me pondering a couple of key questions. What will it take for a woman to successfully snag the presidency? Furthermore, what will the first successful female-led presidential campaign actually look like?

Due to progressive voters varied responses to the Sanders and Warren campaigns, as well as their hasty willingness to discredit strong female candidates based solely on past missteps, I fear that they may not find their footing quickly enough to nominate and elect a progressive woman to the highest office. From here forward, if we dont give progressive women adequate room to grow and evolve, we may risk being surpassed by a party whose policies most notably those regarding health care, equal pay and criminal justice disproportionately hurt women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and other vulnerable minority groups. This would undermine the exact allure of implementing a female leader in the first place.

From the outset of this election cycle, Warren defined herself as undeniably the most prepared candidate. Not only was her slate of policy proposals on par with Bernies progressivism, but it was easily more detailed and well-reasoned than any other candidates platform. Despite this, though, a large portion of liberal voters focused on her past foray into conservatism, perceiving her as a centrist and questioning whether her progressive platform was genuine.

Many of these questions were not unwarranted any progressive candidate with a spotty background should be adequately assessed and held accountable. Its odd, though, that Sanders didnt receive nearly as much scrutiny and backlash about his flaws. If progressive voters are so concerned about candidates former positions, why did so few take issue with his 1993 vote against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act? Or his more recent hesitation to abolish the Senate filibuster, which too often hinders the passage of progressive legislation?

Answering this question with any statement about ideological evolution and learning from past mistakes only serves my point. No candidate is perfect, and thats alright.

What Im hinting at here is not a new concept, and I compare Sanders and Warren because of their historically progressive platforms. The mere existence of both campaigns is clearly indicative of a widespread desire for progressive policies. However, Warrens failure to receive a more competitive fraction of voters speaks to the harm that results from discrediting genuine progressivism by deeming it less pure. In doing so, voters turned their heads away from a genuinely smart, adept and forward-thinking candidate.

This is the only place in which I believe we can learn something from the other party.

The Democratic and Republican parties are polar opposites in nearly every way, which complicates many comparisons. However, studies show that conservatives care far more about party loyalty than do their liberal counterparts. Because conservatives tend to care far more about tribe than purity, they seem to be far more poised to unite behind any candidate who serves their desired platform. Should a competitive female candidate emerge in their party, I doubt her past decisions would hold nearly as much weight as Warrens. Not to mention, any woman pushing for bold and progressive policies would likely be perceived as less societally palatable than someone whose conservative ideals essentially render them conduits for a white mans vote.

Now, blind tribalism is neither healthy nor constructive, and it has resulted in some deeply troubling conservative political activity. I am in no way suggesting that Democrats should emulate such behavior. I am, however, suggesting that we treat our candidates as people capable of change rather than static actors to be defined solely by their past decisions. If progressives crave electoral victory, we need to be able to take strong, outspoken candidates at face value and trust that theyve evolved. Especially when their policies suggest genuine improvement.

In the end, I worry that the progressive wings tendency to default to moral purity will ultimately mean that no progressive woman will live up to the standards necessary to satisfy voters and snag the presidency. And, while its fully necessary to assess candidates histories and hold them accountable for past wrongdoing, its counterproductive to ignore genuine ideological evolution. Before Warrens dropout, she and Sanders were running two of the most progressive campaigns in the history of the Democratic party. To suggest in any way that she is currently a centrist or conservative is blatantly false, and maintaining such behavior will only set the party back in terms of nominating and electing a progressive woman to the highest office.

And sure, I admit that this entire thought process is the result of my most cynical speculation. I also understand that what were experiencing now is simply the discourse of a primary election. Plus, its bold to assume that a conservative woman would be given a fighting chance at snagging the other partys nomination. However, if we dont work to improve our general discrediting of progressive women, we risk handing a historical presidency to the other party. And what a shame it would be to watch the first female president use her power in ways that dont serve a forward-thinking agenda.

More here:
Opinion | Dont let Republicans snag the first female presidency - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News