Debatable

by | Sep 15, 2020 | 2020 elections, Editor's Blog | 4 comments

Debates in modern American politics are all about the headlines, not the substance. A candidate can outperform his or her opponent and still end up losing because of one ill-conceived statement. Six years ago, Kay Hagan soundly defeated Thom Tillis in a debate just weeks before the 2014 midterm election. Then, just minutes after the debate ended, she told the press that she had missed a committee vote to attend a fundraiser. That statement obscured her debate victory and dominated headlines the next day and into the stretch of the campaign.

Last night, Thom Tillis faced Democrat Cal Cunningham. While the debate seemed to be rather boring, Cunningham made a gaffe. He said that he would “be hesitant” to take a COVID-19 vaccine if it were developed before the election. Cunningham mentioned that the vaccine has become politicized. It was the wrong answer even if it was true.

He immediately got hit as an anit-vaxxer. Republicans will say that he wants the virus to continue to hurt Trump and he’s casting doubt on our government and institutions at a time when Democrats are arguing that we need to restore faith them. His phrasing was unfortunate.

In reality, Cunningham is right. There’s no way to produce a safe vaccine in the next 50 days. If one is produced, the approval process will have cut corners. No vaccine could be completed in the time necessary to test for both effectiveness and safety. AstraZeneca halted trials after someone developed serious neurological problems from their vaccine in development. A vaccine approved without proper testing could cause as many problems as the virus, especially on people who may otherwise be asymptomatic.

Cunningham needed a more nuanced answer. He should have said that he would certainly take a vaccine if it had gone through all of the proper trials for both safety and effectiveness. He could have qualified it by saying that he has concerns that the GOP is letting politics infiltrate the Center for Disease Control and FDA that could be corrupting the process. He could have even dinged Tillis for failing to intervene to prevent politics from corrupting the process. But he didn’t.

Cunningham is lucky this debate is in mid-September instead of late-October. He’ll get a few bad headlines and stories, but it will probably go away. He’s got two more debates that can overshadow what happened last night. Unfortunately, one line dominated an hour long debate, but modern debates are more about avoiding gaffes than winning arguments.   

4 Comments

  1. George Entenman

    As I’m listening to Cunningham, I want him to say something like the following:

    Donald Trump knowingly lied to the American Public about COVID-19, saying that it wasn’t a problem and would soon go away.

    So when Donald Trump says he has a vaccine that will work and make COVID-19 go away, are we supposed to believe him this time?

    Here’s my pledge, Tom (Tillis): When Donald Trump goes before the joint houses of Congress and is injected with a vaccine that Democratic scientists and Republican scientists, if there are any, have brought directly from the factory, on that day, I will take the vaccine. Will you?

  2. j bengel

    I’m with Cal on this one. Not a chance in hell that Trump’s lackeys in the FDA are more worried about an effective vaccine than they are about the political fortunes of The Orange Menace. Everything in this administration is evaluated in terms of how and how much it affects Mr. Tangerine Man’s campaign. From just about the start of this ordeal, he’s fudged the numbers to make himself appear competent. He didn’t want to count the cases still at sea because “why should we have to include those numbers?” He thought “the numbers looked better the way they are”. When told that a reliable vaccine could be had in 18-24 months, he said it would be six, because six sounded better. When cases started to spike after he pushed the reopening throttle to the firewall, he told HHS they should cut back on testing because it was making the case numbers look too high (it wasn’t, but that was the narrative he figured would help him most). We’re still waiting for this miraculous vanishing of the virus “as if by magic” that was supposed to happen over the summer because “the virus doesn’t like hot weather”. Hmm… might have had something to do with the masses of humanity gathered together at the water parks, beaches, lakes, and race tracks while the weather warmed up, but it sure seems like the heat didn’t slow it down any.

    So now he expects us to believe that he hasn’t put a boot in the FDA’s collective hind parts to get something to market by November — sage and effective or not?

    Yeah, I got this bridge I bet you’d love to own a piece of.

  3. Drayton Aldridge

    Cunningham’s hesitation to take a vaccine distributed before the election is in line with the concerns of voters across the political spectrum.

    The Economist/Yougov weekly tracking poll included a question on this in its most recent survey. Only 25% of those surveyed said they would trust a vaccine distributed right before the election, and only 7% would trust it completely. Majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans said they would distrust such a vaccine.

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/t0hi1tcqs5/econTabReport.pdf
    Page 182

    • Russ Becker, J.D., Ph.D.

      Several months ago, Dr. Fauci estimated that an effective and safe vaccine might be out by mid-2021. I agree. To be reliable, Phase 3 trials usually require about 30,000 subjects. The last report which I heard was that 23,000 people had been signed up. From what I have read, no one yet knows how long the antibodies from either a future vaccine or those from recovering from the virus are effective.

      From reports I’ve seen and the ignorant behavior I’ve observed within our state, covid 19 will probably be with us throughout 2021 and possibly into 2022.

      Unless there is newer reliable evidence, most past experts have said for true “herd immunity” to occur, one must reach 95%, either by vaccine or infection to decrease possible victims within a given “herd.” The latest model put forth by the Trump administration and the suspect Dr. Atlas (a neuroradiologist with no epidemiological training) is that they would like us to believe that herd immunity would be achieved at 60-70% immunity–far too low to be effective. That model also assumes a price of a 1% mortality rate which would result in 2,000,000 deaths. I have heard reports ranging from 1% to 5% lethality. If each percent leads to 2,000,000 deaths, it would take only a 3% mortality rate to equal the 6,000,000 deaths which the Nazis achieved purposely. That is what I understand is behind the chant from the MAGAs that “let everybody get it.”

      I’ve had my flu and pneumococcal vaccines, but no thank you to a vaccine which was pushed for political reasons. I’ll continue to social distance and wear my mask until I know some vaccine is safe and reliable.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!