[fullmetal]

HRC doesn't command the GOP as well as Trump does, and if Trump had shown effective leadership in responding to the virus (heeding public health guidance, putting science and reasonable precautions first, etc.), I gather the rest of the country would have fallen in step.  Certainly under HRC, the blue states would have jumped in line...and the red states would have indeed done what they are doing now, which is fight science and reasonable precautions the entire way.  However, I think HRC's biggest advantage would have been in her approach to early response, which likely would have contained the virus much better and, almost by definition, reduced death count.  I think a lot of what this country has had to do is a result of virtual inaction in allowing the virus to gain an early foothold on US soil.  

But maybe that's not fair, some pro-administration people will claim, as if this administration's response to the virus has been worth of supporting.  Okay, I'll do a brief list that Leftcoast didn't want to outline.  

HRC would have been unlikely to be unprepared for a pandemic (i.e. not had her admin been absent from pandemic playbook preparation meetings).  She is unlikely to have eliminated the bioterror/pandemic response office from the national security realm.  She is unlikely to have defunded the CDC's China position that would have provided reliable forward observation capabilities during the initial outbreak in China.  She is unlikely to have instituted a federal government-wide hiring freeze that resulted in many unfilled CDC positions during the pandemic.  She is unlikely to have attempted to financially benefit from coronavirus therapies or spent large sums of money buying doses of an unproven Russian vaccine.  She is unlikely to have shown lack of interest in dealing with the virus or claimed the virus was a political hoax or obstructed federal medical officials from delivering public health guidance and leadership.  She is unlikely to have fired and appointed medical officials based on political whim or to have intimidated entire agencies into ineffective half-truths by use of her ability to remove officials.  She is unlikely to have withdrawn from the WHO in the middle of a pandemic.  She is unlikely to have withheld medical supplies, testing, and PPE from states whose governors did not agree with her political take on the virus.  She is unlikely to have contravened public health guidance by denigrating masks.  She is unlikely to have gone golfing 28 times since March, indicating how important the pandemic has been to the current president.  She is unlikely to have waffled for so long on using the DPA to quickly ramp domestic production of medical supplies.  Her govt would have been unlikely to have squandered so much money on procuring PPE that never materialized, using middlemen/brokers/former GOP lobbyists looking to make a buck in a market they'd never touched.

There's more.  But the answer is pretty clear.

[fullmetal]

HRC doesn't command the GOP as well as Trump does, and if Trump had shown effective leadership in responding to the virus (heeding public health guidance, putting science and reasonable precautions first, etc.), I gather the rest of the country would have fallen in step.  Certainly under HRC, the blue states would have jumped in line...and the red states would have indeed done what they are doing now, which is fight science and reasonable precautions the entire way.  However, I think HRC's biggest advantage would have been in her approach to early response, which likely would have contained the virus much better and, almost by definition, reduced death count.  I think a lot of what this country has had to do is a result of virtual inaction in allowing the virus to gain an early foothold on US soil.  

But maybe that's not fair, some pro-administration people will claim, as if this administration's response to the virus has been worth of supporting.  Okay, I'll do a brief list that Leftcoast didn't want to outline.  

HRC would have been unlikely to be unprepared for a pandemic (i.e. not had her admin been absent from pandemic playbook preparation meetings).  She is unlikely to have eliminated the bioterror/pandemic response office from the national security realm.  She is unlikely to have defunded the CDC's China position that would have provided reliable forward observation capabilities during the initial outbreak in China.  She is unlikely to have instituted a federal government-wide hiring freeze that resulted in many unfilled CDC positions during the pandemic.  She is unlikely to have attempted to financially benefit from coronavirus therapies or spent large sums of money buying doses of an unproven Russian vaccine.  She is unlikely to have shown lack of interest in dealing with the virus or claimed the virus was a political hoax or obstructed federal medical officials from delivering public health guidance and leadership.  She is unlikely to have fired and appointed medical officials based on political whim or to have intimidated entire agencies into ineffective half-truths by use of her ability to remove officials.  She is unlikely to have withdrawn from the WHO in the middle of a pandemic.  She is unlikely to have withheld medical supplies, testing, and PPE from states whose governors did not agree with her political take on the virus.  She is unlikely to have contravened public health guidance by denigrating masks.  She is unlikely to have gone golfing 28 times since March, indicating how important the pandemic has been to the current president.  She is unlikely to have waffled for so long on using the DPA to quickly ramp domestic production of medical supplies.  Her govt would have been unlikely to have squandered so much money on procuring PPE that never materialized, using middlemen/brokers/former GOP lobbyists looking to make a buck in a market they'd never touched.

There's more.  But the answer is pretty clear.