(THREAD) I see many stories on the Coronavirus, many on the election, a few on the politics of the Coronavirus, and virtually nothing on how the Coronavirus could interrupt election season. Isn't that a conversation analysts should at least *begin*? I try to do so in this thread. 
1/ Please note that I'm only discussing *scenario-planning*. I'm not saying what will or won't come to pass—we can't know—only that not starting a discussion until we're (potentially) in the midst of an unprecedented situation makes no sense. We should discuss possibilities now.
2/ The first thing to note is that live primaries constitute enormous gatherings of people that would likely be considered inadvisable in the *potential* future of a larger Coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. The primaries extend into June. What if the last few need to be cancelled?
3/ The Democrats must start thinking now about what they'd do if their final primaries had to be cancelled at a time when no candidate had enough delegates to win—especially if a larger U.S. outbreak had made having a DNC (convention) in late July impossible. How would that work?
4/ For instance, is it possible for the last primaries to be moved up to March or April? Is it possible for the Democratic National Convention to be conducted electronically? Either of those possibilities would need to be discussed and maybe set up right now, not weeks from now.
5/ Are there future primaries that can be turned into mail-in primaries? What's the latest that that decision can be made? And political analysts would surely have to ask—if such primaries became the norm in late April, May, and early June—who would that benefit? Which candidate?
6/ But let's put aside any question of cancelled primaries for a moment—particularly as voting lines and times and locations can be staggered to minimize human contact (and poll workers can wear medical gloves). But what about the much harder question of live political *rallies*?
7/ Switzerland just banned *all gatherings of over 1,000 people*, and Switzerland *doesn't have a major Coronavirus outbreak yet*. How far is the U.S. from deciding that it'd be advisable for there to be a similar ban here? And who'd be most hurt if all political rallies stopped?
8/ Understand that a ban on large gatherings—if it happened—could last indefinitely. Can you imagine a general election with no live rallies—only odd live-streamed ones—by either (say) Sanders or Trump? How would that affect turnout later on? But let's start with the *primaries*.
9/ If Super Tuesday is a Sanders landslide, it makes the question of primary rallies moot—as the large groupings of primaries throughout March would suggest Sanders could wrap things up by March 31st. But what if voters are decidedly more split about who they want as the nominee?
10/ I want to be clear that I'm *not* weighing in on the legality of certain decisions a presidential administration might make regarding large gatherings—let's just assume that the CDC could issue certain guidelines that *most* people would want to follow for their *own* safety.
11/ But let's imagine the CDC issues no such guidelines, and folks just voluntarily stop attending large political rallies, or voluntarily stop showing up to the polls in person for primaries (attempting, instead, to vote absentee or early where possible). Who would that benefit?
12/ In a general election, a lack of live events almost certainly benefits the incumbent—as he gets more "earned" media just by virtue of being the president and doing things a president does, whereas the challenger is more likely to be covered during major live political events.
13/ So one piece of advice would be for states with early voting or generous absentee balloting rules to encourage such voting now—or create it as possible—to at a minimum decrease congestion in live voting later on. And campaigns should start discussing tech for digital rallies.
14/ But consider something else: how significant is the benefit to Trump...
...that the House will likely forestall any further investigation of him until 2021? Because most would agree that America would be angered by Congressional probes in the midst of a Coronavirus outbreak.
...that the House will likely forestall any further investigation of him until 2021? Because most would agree that America would be angered by Congressional probes in the midst of a Coronavirus outbreak.
15/ So Trump can and will complain—and *is* complaining—that the Coronavirus, which he's sure is all about *him*, is unfair to him, but any cancellation of large events benefits him (see above) as does the likely cancellation of any further Congressional proceedings against him.
16/ And of course there's the big enchilada—the possibility the inadvisability of huge gatherings of people will make it impossible to hold Election Day in November 2020. Even if the virus recedes slightly in summer, historically we'd expect it to return with a vengeance in fall.
17/ It'd be easy to see this as a clear win for Trump—he can extend his reign until such time, maybe late 2021, it's safe to conduct live national voting (or until such time a national digital vote can be held *and* considered secure)—but what if something very different happens?
18/ What if we face a situation in which it would be *advisable* to postpone Election Day but Trump *refuses* to do so...because he believes a low-turnout election *benefits* him? What would the process look like to contest *either* a postponement *or* an unwise non-rescheduling?
19/ There are many sub-issues beneath these larger questions. If Election Day were postponed, would Democrats find a window to restart investigations? Is a longer general election period—maybe many, many months—helpful to one party more than another due to money or other reasons?
20/ Then there are—the optimist in me says—opportunities for America to use a terrible situation to exhibit great, nation-defining resilience. Could Democrats decide that a longer run-up to Election Day than ever before means their nominee should announce...his/her whole Cabinet?
21/ As a cultural theorist, I know that circumstances don't just shape events (history) or the actions of large groups (sociology) or the wiring of individuals (neuropsychology) or how individuals relate to their community (psychosocial dynamics). It can also change philosophies.
22/ Understand this: whatever Trump's pampered son may say, *no one in America*—besides, I'm sure, a sociopath or two—wants the Coronavirus to become an epidemic in the US and cost *anyone* (else) their life. Saying that the Coronavirus might change us isn't *rooting* for it to.
23/ For instance, the Coronavirus raises into even higher relief the fact that we *all* depend upon—and are affected by—the medical treatment received by our neighbors. In a nation with many millions of uninsured persons, a major virus is far *more* likely to spread far and wide.
24/ By the same token, many Americans have decided that 16,500 lies from a single individual in our government—the one with the largest microphone—is *totally okay*. All right, but is it still okay if he spreads disinformation that costs many, many lives—and worsens an epidemic?
25/ The sad truth—which Trump would understand if he were even slightly more human—is that no one will/should blame him for the Coronavirus, or for economic or other fallout from the virus. He'll be blamed—instead—for any lying, inaction or incompetence that *worsens* the crisis.
26/ The Coronavirus is an opportunity for Trump and the US government to *rise to a challenge*—which would benefit *both* Trump *and* all Americans. But Trump's son taking it to "11" pre-crisis—accusing Democrats of *wanting millions to die*—confirms the GOP won't go that route.
27/ Likewise, the Coronavirus is set to create some big challenges for the Democratic Party, which can start preparing now—ensuring it does so in a way that neither advantages nor disadvantages any candidate—or it can wait to act and risk looking like it put a hand on the scales.
28/ Just so, the Coronavirus gives the Democratic candidates a chance to act like leaders—and to actually *lead*. Elizabeth Warren was the first to come out with a comprehensive Coronavirus plan...and the media ignored it. It should've been a major sign of her leadership ability.
29/ The foregoing confirms that US media being willing to discuss Coronavirus *or* politics but not—in any robust, serious way—how Coronavirus could *shape* our politics going forward, and pose new hurdles that are *more than just rhetorical ones*, is really hurting us right now.
30/ This is no time for fear: all of us should soberly pay attention to the CDC, medical experts, and local and federal health officials while—of course—ignoring anything coming from the president, as it will nine times out of ten be an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible lie.
31/ But it's also a time for thinking creatively—with an eye toward problem-solving—about how possible futures involving a major Coronavirus outbreak in the US could call us to inventive/responsible solutions to novel problems. I've listed some of them here; there are many more.
32/ Media must lead the way on this, because changes to our political processes are registered first in how those changes are *covered* and *discussed*. That media hasn't even kicked off such sober, serious discussions is deeply concerning to many of us watching Coronavirus news.
33/ The time to think hard about our values—and about what values we need from our leaders in a crisis—is...well, *always*... but especially *now*. Because how we solve Coronavirus-related logistical problems (particularly ones affecting politics) must be in line with our values.
34/ For instance, let's say that the presidential election had to be briefly postponed in the *worst* possible future involving the Coronavirus. The parties would need to agree that *no* non-emergency legislation would be sent up between January 20, 2021 and the new Election Day.
35/ In the more immediate future, the Democratic Party must commit itself to not changing the rules of its 2020 nominating process in a way that disadvantages *any* specific candidate or set of candidates—and commit itself to ensuring *every* voter who wants to be heard is heard.
