[BostonCard]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

You are correct that we cannot directly observe the counterfactual of COVID-19 under a president Clinton or President Rubio.  However, I think one can still evaluate the administrations response.  You can look at things through the lens of two dimensions: process and results.  For example, the process can be chaotic or ordered, while the results can be mild or severe.  While they are correlated, an ordered process does not guarantee mild results.  For example, in Sweden, you have an ordered process (whatever you think of the policy, it was was well-considered, and it has been applied consistently and well-communicated), but they rank amongst the highest in terms of per capita COVID-19 deaths.  A fair number of countries have had ordered processes and mild results: Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Korea.  On the other hand, a number of countries have had chaotic responses and high death rates (I'm thinking especially of the UK, and, of course, the US).  Had the administration had either an ordered approach or a low death rate, it might have been able to claim it was just unlucky; on the other hand, if it had a chaotic response but low death rate, it might be able to say that its approach was unconventional but had proven effective.  This administration can point to neither process nor results to support its case that it couldn't have been better.

BC

[BostonCard]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

You are correct that we cannot directly observe the counterfactual of COVID-19 under a president Clinton or President Rubio.  However, I think one can still evaluate the administrations response.  You can look at things through the lens of two dimensions: process and results.  For example, the process can be chaotic or ordered, while the results can be mild or severe.  While they are correlated, an ordered process does not guarantee mild results.  For example, in Sweden, you have an ordered process (whatever you think of the policy, it was was well-considered, and it has been applied consistently and well-communicated), but they rank amongst the highest in terms of per capita COVID-19 deaths.  A fair number of countries have had ordered processes and mild results: Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Korea.  On the other hand, a number of countries have had chaotic responses and high death rates (I'm thinking especially of the UK, and, of course, the US).  Had the administration had either an ordered approach or a low death rate, it might have been able to claim it was just unlucky; on the other hand, if it had a chaotic response but low death rate, it might be able to say that its approach was unconventional but had proven effective.  This administration can point to neither process nor results to support its case that it couldn't have been better.

BC