BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 857 Pages +
  • « First
  • 794
  • 795
  • 796
  • 797
  • 798
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#15901 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,558
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-July-16, 08:24

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-July-16, 08:09, said:







In other words - Only Dear Leader can tell you what to do. To be a true patriot, you must be willing to let your children die for Dear Leader.


It's not usually the children that die, they kill their older relatives
0

#15902 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-16, 08:46

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

The chances for Democrats to have unified party government with a real working majority in the Senate seem to be getting better by the day. As Jessica Taylor writes, in the five races that the Cook Political Report rates as toss-ups — Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana and North Carolina — Democrats out-raised Republicans by more than $18 million last quarter.

Of course, there’s still nothing like a guarantee that former Vice President Joe Biden will defeat President Donald Trump, but he does have a strong polling lead at this point so the possibility is worth thinking about.

Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats, and the one most likely to switch parties in November is Alabama, where fluky Democratic Senator Doug Jones will be going up against Tommy Tuberville, the former college football coach who won Tuesday’s Republican primary. If Republicans win back that seat, then Democrats would need to win four of those five toss-up races to reach 50 and allow a theoretical Democratic vice president to let them organize the Senate.

That alone would be a big deal. It’s not clear how obstructionist Republicans would be if Biden is president and they cling to a small majority. But it’s certainly possible that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would take up where he left off in 2016 — confirming very few if any judges, and filling very few if any executive-branch positions. Biden might not even be able to put together a cabinet unless Democrats take 50 seats. And even 51 seats — what they’d get by sweeping the toss-ups — would make it difficult to get much done.

However, the longer this election cycle goes on, the better the prospects for Democrats have looked. Right now, they not only have raised more money, but actually have an apparent polling lead in all five of those toss-up races, according to the RealClearPolitics averages, although several states (especially Montana) have had limited surveys so far.

The Cook Report lists five more contests, including Alabama, as leaning Republican. If Trump really is down by nine points or so nationally, then it’s possible Democrats could pick off one or two of them. And if Trump loses badly, the only lean-Democrat seat, Michigan, would be pretty safe; in fact, incumbent Democrat Gary Peters appears to have a solid lead there for now.

The real blowout possibilities start to kick in if Trump slips a little more. Then it starts to look possible for Democrats to win four of the five lean-Republican seats, or even one or two of the four likely Republican contests. In that case, the possibility of an aggressive legislative agenda starts to look much more likely.

I’ll emphasize again: Just as it’s possible that the presidential race remains where it is or gets somewhat better for Democrats, it’s also possible for Trump to rally and win — or, even if he comes up short, for Republicans to do well enough to win most of these seats. But the fact remains that Republicans are extremely vulnerable in this cycle; they are, after all, defending 23 seats, including several in closely contested or marginally Democratic states, while Democrats are defending only 12. So the map is tilted toward Democratic gains. And if it’s also tilted by a poor showing from the national Republican ticket, then things could get pretty ugly for Trump’s party.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15903 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,114
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-July-16, 09:37

View PostCyberyeti, on 2020-July-16, 08:24, said:

It's not usually the children that die, they kill their older relatives


Older relatives aren't sent to school by Dear Leader.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#15904 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,464
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-July-16, 09:46

Oh my, this is real. I thought it was a photoshopped joke. It surely cannot be right for the POTUS to sell access to the WH for advertising? Or if it is, how about a large Heinz bottle sitting on the Resolute Desk spewing ketchup around the Oval Office in celebration every time the President signs a new EO? What could be more American...? :blink: :unsure: :lol:
(-: Zel :-)

half-wit -- Chas_P the racist
0

#15905 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,558
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-July-16, 10:42

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-July-16, 09:37, said:

Older relatives aren't sent to school by Dear Leader.


No, but the kids catch it (without severe or any symptoms) and pass it on within the home
0

#15906 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,854
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-July-16, 12:42

View PostZelandakh, on 2020-July-16, 09:46, said:

Oh my, this is real. I thought it was a photoshopped joke. It surely cannot be right for the POTUS to sell access to the WH for advertising? Or if it is, how about a large Heinz bottle sitting on the Resolute Desk spewing ketchup around the Oval Office in celebration every time the President signs a new EO? What could be more American...? :blink: :unsure: :lol:

I have to admit that is is relatively rare that the Grifter in Chief would actively advertise for another company's product. Individual-1 can't make a monetary profit by promoting other people's products although it could be considered a quid pro quo, just like Ukraine manufacturing dirt on Biden.

Promoting or protecting his own pocketbook is something like when the Grifter in Chief decided that the G7 should be held at his own Doral Resort after the initial vetting had been done for other locations. Miraculously, the toadys in charge of selecting the G7 site decided the Doral Resort in the middle of Florida's incredibly hot and muggy summer would be the perfect location.

Or when the FBI was planning to move headquarters located close to one of the Manchurian President's hotels and probably be turned into a luxury hotel by a new buyer. This would have severely impacted the profits of the Grifter's own hotel. Through the luckiest of coincidences, Individual-1's bagmen at the GSA decided that the FBI shouldn't move to the suburbs as planned for decades, but would remain in the middle of Washington DC in inadequate office space.

Or having the US air force do stopovers at an obsolete airport in Scotland so occupants of the plane would have to spend travel money at one of the Grifter in Chief's golf resorts.
0

#15907 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-16, 18:14

Even if the Polls Are Really Off, Trump Is Still in Trouble by Nate Cohn at NYT:

Quote

Joe Biden’s lead is sufficient to cover a sizable error. And several of the biggest problems with polling in the last election have either been addressed or become less relevant.

Quote

Perhaps the biggest risk is one that has loomed over the polling industry for a decade: declining response rates to telephone surveys. Up until now, there has been little evidence that low response rates have endangered the accuracy of high-quality survey research. It turns out that the people who respond to telephone surveys appear to vote similarly to people from their same demographic group who do not respond.

But they are different in some ways. They are likelier to be volunteers. They are likelier to express trust in their neighbors and society. Such differences could become more significant, or grow into closer alignment with political views. In the worst-case scenario, declining trust in experts, the news media and polling could lead to systematic nonresponse bias, where even adjusting for education or demographics would be far from enough to ensure a representative sample.

There are reasons to doubt that this will happen. Only a few months ago, polls showed Mr. Trump highly competitive, and there is a fairly simple explanation for the turn against him: his handling of coronavirus. The trend against the president holds regardless of how the survey was conducted. Panel surveys, in which respondents are repeatedly contacted, also show former Trump supporters abandoning the president. And most surveys show the right number of respondents who say they voted for Mr. Trump in 2016. They’re just saying they won’t vote for him again. It would take an awfully targeted form of bias for polls to get the right number of 2016 Trump voters yet vastly overrepresent those who are leaving him.

Even so, you can imagine how it could, possibly, happen — such problems can’t be discounted. The problems even harder to discount are those that can’t be imagined.

Sure, it could happen. F#ck us once.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15908 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,114
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-July-16, 19:43

View Posty66, on 2020-July-16, 18:14, said:

Even if the Polls Are Really Off, Trump Is Still in Trouble by Nate Cohn at NYT:



Sure, it could happen. F#ck us once.


Quote

The problems even harder to discount are those that can't be imagined.


Damn! Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns rear their ugly heads. I had hoped those died in Iraq.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#15909 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-17, 06:27

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

Difficult negotiations on another economic-stimulus bill got a bit worse on Thursday. And with very little margin for error going in, this is bad news indeed.

Remember the state of play. House Democrats passed a large bill — with more than $3 trillion in relief measures — two months ago. President Donald Trump and the White House haven’t always been on the same page, but in general seem to support doing something big to prevent a further meltdown. Senate Republicans have been following a policy of “wait and see,” while reporting indicates that they’re just now trying to come to an internal agreement about what to propose.

Meanwhile, multiple deadlines are approaching. Expanded unemployment insurance expires in little more than a week. The possibility of a severe eviction crisis is increasing. And lawmakers will only briefly be back in session before a month-long August recess, so if they don’t do something quickly there’s a chance that they won’t act until after Labor Day. Or later.

Into all of this the White House on Thursday tossed another complication: Trump may veto the package if a payroll-tax holiday isn’t included. The problem? Trump has pushed this idea before, and no one — Democrat or Republican — seems to support it.

It’s just astonishing, although at this point not surprising, how poorly Trump is playing this. If he places such a high priority on a payroll-tax holiday, he should’ve been pushing hard for it — not mentioning it in passing a few times, but making a sustained case in public. He also should’ve been poking around Capitol Hill looking for potential allies and trade-offs. Are there Trump-loving senators who would be willing to fight for such a measure within the party? What would Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ask for in return? Or: What are the possibilities for creating a cross-party coalition, with Trump supporting a House Democratic priority (robust unemployment insurance? Money for state and local governments?) in exchange for payroll-tax relief. I don’t think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would go for it, but maybe she would!

Of course, there’s also the possibility that Trump doesn’t actually care about this but some in his administration do. In that case, a strong president would’ve shut down the whole debate, or had his chief of staff do so. It would actually make sense if Trump was relatively indifferent to the substance of the next relief package and simply insisted that Congress get it done quickly. But that doesn’t at all cohere with pushing this unpopular measure as the White House’s big ask.

I think it’s more likely than not that Congress gets something done before the August recess, and that Trump ultimately goes along with it. But there’s still a chance that the whole thing blows up, and takes the economy down with it.

SOP = astonishing?
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15910 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,114
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-July-17, 07:40

View Posty66, on 2020-July-17, 06:27, said:

SOP = astonishing?




Quote

It’s just astonishing, although at this point not surprising, how poorly Trump is playing this. If he places such a high priority on a payroll-tax holiday, he should’ve been pushing hard for it — not mentioning it in passing a few times, but making a sustained case in public


I can't believe reporters and opinion writers continually sweep by this idea of a payroll tax reductions without comment - any challenge to the payroll tax is an attack on Social Security and the social safety net. This needs to be pointed out - no, shouted out - every time Trump brings this stupid idea out and shakes it around. He doesn't care about you.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#15911 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-17, 08:37

From David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics by Eric Levitz at The Intelligencer:

Quote

David Shor got famous by getting fired. In late May, amid widespread protests over George Floyd’s murder, the 28-year-old data scientist tweeted out a study that found nonviolent demonstrations were more effective than “riots” at pushing public opinion and voter behavior leftward in 1968. Many Twitter users — and (reportedly) some of Shor’s colleagues and clients at the data firm Civis Analytics — found this post insensitive. A day later, Shor publicly apologized for his tweet. Two weeks after that, he’d lost his job as Civis’s head of political data science — and become a byword for the excesses of so-called cancel culture. (Shor has not discussed his firing publicly due to a nondisclosure agreement, and the details of his termination remain undisclosed).

But before Shor’s improbable transformation into a cause célèbre, he was among the most influential data gurus in Democratic politics — a whiz kid who, at age 20, served as the 2012 Obama campaign’s in-house Nate Silver, authoring the forecasting model that the White House used to determine where the race really stood.

And before that, he was a college Marxist.

This idiosyncratic combination of ideological background, employment experience, and expertise has lent Shor a unique perspective on American politics. He is a self-avowed socialist who insists that big-dollar donors pull the Democratic Party left. He is an adherent of Leninist vanguardism and the median voter theorem. And in the three years I’ve known him, I don’t think I’ve found a single question about U.S. politics that he could not answer with reference to at least three peer-reviewed studies.

Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine. Intelligencer recently spoke with him about how the Democratic Party really operates, why the coming decade could be a great one for the American right, how protests shape public opinion, what the left gets wrong about electoral politics, and whether Donald Trump will be reelected, among other things.

What is it like to have your name become shorthand for a culture war controversy?

I cannot comment on any of the stuff around all of that.

All right. That line of questioning is canceled.

Sorry!

I feel silenced, but it’s okay. Let’s start here then: What are the biggest revisions you’ve made to your conception of how electoral politics works since you first took a job on the Obama campaign?

I think going into politics, I overestimated the importance of the personal ideology of people who worked in campaigns for making decisions — which was part of a broader phenomenon of overestimating the extent to which people were making decisions. In 2012, I would see Daily Kos Elections publish stories like, “The White House is doing a Climate Week. This must be because they have polling showing that climate is a vulnerability for Republicans.” And once you know the people who are in that office, you realize that actually no; they were just at an awkward office meeting and were like, “Oh man, what are we going to do this week? Well, we could do climate.” There’s very little long-term, strategic planning happening anywhere in the party because no one has an incentive to do it. So, campaigns’ actions, while not random, are more random than I realized.

I’ve also fallen toward a consultant theory of change — or like, a process theory of change. So a lot of people on the left would say that the Hillary Clinton campaign largely ignored economic issues, and doubled down on social issues, because of the neoliberal ideology of the people who worked for her, and the fact that campaigning on progressive economic policy would threaten the material interests of her donors.

But that’s not what happened. The actual mechanical reason was that the Clinton campaign hired pollsters to test a bunch of different messages, and for boring mechanical reasons, working-class people with low levels of social trust were much less likely to answer those phone polls than college-educated professionals. And as a result, all of this cosmopolitan, socially liberal messaging did really well in their phone polls, even though it ultimately cost her a lot of votes. But the problem was mechanical, and less about the vulgar Marxist interests of all of the actors involved.

A tasteful Marxist (or whatever the opposite of a “vulgar” one is) might counter that class biases were implicated in that mechanical error — that cosmopolitan, upper-middle-class pollsters and operatives’ eagerness to see their worldview affirmed led them to ignore the possibility that their surveys suffered from a systematic sampling error.

That’s exactly right. Campaigns do want to win. But the people who work in campaigns tend to be highly ideologically motivated and thus, super-prone to convincing themselves to do things that are strategically dumb. Nothing that I tell people — or that my team [at Civis] told people — is actually that smart. You know, we’d do all this math, and some of it’s pretty cool, but at a high level, what we’re saying is: “You should put your money in cheap media markets in close states close to the election, and you should talk about popular issues, and not talk about unpopular issues.” And we’d use machine learning to operationalize that at scale.

The right strategies for politics aren’t actually unclear. But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people.

What is the definition of racist in this context?

Ah, right. People yell at me on Twitter about this. So working-class white people have an enormous amount of political power and they’re trending towards the Republican Party. It would be really ideologically convenient if the reason they’re doing that was because Democrats embraced neoliberalism. But it’s pretty clear that that isn’t true.

I think that winning back these voters is important. So if I was running for office, I would definitely say that the reason these voters turned against us is because Democrats failed to embrace economic populism. I think that’s sound political messaging. But in terms of what actually drove it, the numbers are pretty clear. It’s like theoretically possible to imagine a voter who voted for Democrats their whole life and then voted for Trump out of frustration with Obamacare or trade or whatever. And I’m sure that tons of those voters exist, but they’re not representative.

When you take the results of the 2012 and 2016 elections, and model changes in Democratic vote share, you see the biggest individual-level predictor for vote switching was education; college-educated people swung toward Democrats and non-college-educated people swung toward Republicans. But, if you ask a battery of “racial resentment” questions — stuff like, “Do you think that there are a lot of white people who are having trouble finding a job because nonwhite people are getting them instead?” or, “Do you think that white people don’t have enough influence in how this country is run?” — and then control for the propensity to answer those questions in a racially resentful way, education ceases to be the relevant variable: Non-college-educated white people with low levels of racial resentment trended towards us in 2016, and college-educated white people with high levels of racial resentments turned against us.

You can say, “Oh, you know, the way that political scientists measure racial resentment is a class marker because college-educated people know that they’re not supposed to say politically incorrect things.” But when you look at Trump’s support in the Republican primary, it correlated pretty highly with, uh … racially charged … Google search words. So you had this politician who campaigned on an anti-immigrant and anti–political correctness platform. And then he won the votes of a large group of swing voters, and vote switching was highly correlated with various individual level measures of racial resentment — and, on a geographic level, was correlated with racist search terms. At some point, you have to be like, oh, actually, these people were motivated by racism. It’s just an important fact of the world.

I think people take the wrong conclusions from it. The fight I saw on Twitter after the 2016 election was one group of people saying the Obama-to-Trump voters are racist and irredeemable, and that’s why we need to focus on the suburbs. And then you had leftists saying, “Actually these working-class white people were betrayed by decades of neoliberalism and we just need to embrace socialism and win them back, we can’t trust people in the suburbs.” And I think the real synthesis of these views is that Obama-to-Trump voters are motivated by racism. But they’re really electorally important, and so we have to figure out some way to get them to vote for us.

How should Democrats do that?

So there’s a big constellation of issues. The single biggest way that highly educated people who follow politics closely are different from everyone else is that we have much more ideological coherence in our views.

If you decided to create a survey scorecard, where on every single issue — choice, guns, unions, health care, etc. — you gave people one point for choosing the more liberal of two policy options, and then had 1,000 Americans fill it out, you would find that Democratic elected officials are to the left of 90 to 95 percent of people.

And the reason is that while voters may have more left-wing views than Joe Biden on a few issues, they don’t have the same consistency across their views. There are like tons of pro-life people who want higher taxes, etc. There’s a paper by the political scientist David Broockman that made this point really famous — that “moderate” voters don’t have moderate views, just ideologically inconsistent ones. Some people responded to media coverage of that paper by saying, “Oh, people are just answering these surveys randomly, issues don’t matter.” But that’s not actually what the paper showed. In a separate section, they tested the relevance of issues by presenting voters with hypothetical candidate matchups — here’s a politician running on this position, and another politician running on the opposite — and they found that issue congruence was actually very important for predicting who people voted for.

So this suggests there’s a big mass of voters who agree with us on some issues, and disagree with us on others. And whenever we talk about a given issue, that increases the extent to which voters will cast their ballots on the basis of that issue.

Mitt Romney and Donald Trump agreed on basically every issue, as did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet, a bunch of people changed their votes. And the reason that happened was because the salience of various issues changed. Both sides talked a lot more about immigration, and because of that, correlation between preferences on immigration and which candidate people voted for went up. In 2012, both sides talked about health care. In 2016, they didn’t. And so the correlation between views on health care and which candidate people voted for went down.

So this means that every time you open your mouth, you have this complex optimization problem where what you say gains you some voters and loses you other voters. But this is actually cool because campaigns have a lot of control over what issues they talk about.

Non-college-educated whites, on average, have very conservative views on immigration, and generally conservative racial attitudes. But they have center-left views on economics; they support universal health care and minimum-wage increases. So I think Democrats need to talk about the issues they are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15912 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-17, 17:15

Ginsburg Says Her Cancer Has Returned, but She’s ‘Fully Able’ to Remain on Court by Adam Liptak and Denise Grady at NYT:

Quote

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that she had had a recurrence of cancer, but had been undergoing chemotherapy that had shown “positive results” and would remain on the court.

“I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam,” she said in a statement issued by the Supreme Court. “I remain fully able to do that.”

Justice Ginsburg, who is 87, said she had begun a course of chemotherapy on May 19, after “a periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver.”

“Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful,” she said. “The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information.”

She said a scan this month showed the liver lesions had been significantly reduced. “I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment,” she said.

Justice Ginsburg has had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer. When cancer spreads to the liver from another organ, it is considered advanced. Usually, it cannot be cured, but treatment may shrink the tumors and help control the disease.

Justice Ginsburg did not say where the tumors in her liver are thought to have originated, but she did say her chemotherapy was called gemcitabine. That drug is generally used for pancreatic cancer, which is more difficult to treat than colon cancer.

Doctors not involved in her care said there were various ways to treat cancer that has spread to the liver.

“We’re pretty good at controlling it with chemotherapy and targeted therapy,” said Dr. Christopher George, a medical oncologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

Justice Ginsburg’s statement mentioned only chemotherapy, not targeted therapy. But targeted therapy — treatments that attack tumors with certain mutations — can help only 10 percent to 20 percent of patients with pancreatic cancer, Dr. George said.

Dr. Nancy Kemeny, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said that sometimes, after chemotherapy shrinks liver tumors, tightly focused radiation can reduce them even further.

Given Justice Ginsburg’s various brushes with cancer, Dr. Kemeny said, “She actually has done remarkably well.”

Justice Ginsburg is the senior member of the court’s four-member liberal wing. Were she to leave the court, President Trump would have the opportunity to nominate a third justice, joining Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. A successful nomination would almost certainly move the court further to the right.

Justice Ginsburg has had surgery for lung cancer and radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer in recent years. She has also had surgery for early-stage pancreatic cancer in 2009 and treatment for colon cancer in 1999.

More recently, in May, Justice Ginsburg underwent a gallbladder procedure and she participated in oral arguments from her room at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. On Tuesday, she was treated for a possible infection at the same hospital after experiencing chills and a fever, and she underwent an endoscopic procedure to clean out a bile duct stent that was placed last August.

She was released from the hospital on Wednesday and was “home and doing well,” a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

“My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated” to the recurrence of cancer, Justice Ginsburg said in her statement.

“I will continue biweekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine,” she said. “Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other court work.”

Dr. Wasif M. Saif, deputy physician-in-chief and medical director of the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in Lake Success, N.Y., said it was crucial for people receiving chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer to also be treated for loss of appetite and digestive problems, to help keep up their strength and avoid weight loss.

“With supportive care, they do better,” he said.

If Justice Ginsburg were to die or step down from the court there is little question that Senate Republicans would try to confirm a third Trump nominee even in the waning days of his first term. “Oh, we’d fill it,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said last year.

Senate Republicans took a different approach after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, refusing to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland in the last year of President Barack Obama’s second term.

Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed.

Democrats say this is hairsplitting hypocrisy that damages the legitimacy of the court. But their power to stop a third Trump appointment was diminished after changes in Senate rules on filibusters on nominations. All it takes now is a majority vote to confirm judicial nominees.

During the Obama administration, some liberals urged Justice Ginsburg to step down so Mr. Obama could name her successor. She rejected the advice.

“I think it’s going to be another Democratic president,” Justice Ginsburg told The Washington Post in 2013. “The Democrats do fine in presidential elections; their problem is they can’t get out the vote in the midterm elections.”

Mr. Trump, whose election proved her wrong, has been critical of Justice Ginsburg, saying in 2016 that “her mind is shot” and suggesting that she resign. His sharp words came after Justice Ginsburg criticized Mr. Trump in a series of interviews. She later said she had made a mistake in publicly commenting on a candidate and promised to be more “circumspect” in the future.

More recently, he urged Justices Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to recuse themselves in all cases involving him.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15913 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-July-18, 06:00

View Posty66, on 2020-July-17, 08:37, said:

From David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics by Eric Levitz at The Intelligencer:




Yes, just the other day I was discussing the 2016 elections, wondering whether mechanical issues or vulgar Marxists were the root of the problem. Shor has a lot of contempt for a lot of people, other than that I am having trouble making much out of his comments.

His answer to the first question was that he cannot comment. A good place to leave it.
Ken
0

#15914 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-18, 09:17

View Postkenberg, on 2020-July-18, 06:00, said:

Shor has a lot of contempt for a lot of people, other than that I am having trouble making much out of his comments.

So it seems. His use of political consultant jargon can be off-putting but his basic takes on stuff feel quite sensible to me. Two examples:

Quote

Non-college-educated whites, on average, have very conservative views on immigration, and generally conservative racial attitudes. But they have center-left views on economics; they support universal health care and minimum-wage increases. So I think Democrats need to talk about the issues they are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration [or racist deplorables].

[in the context of current polling which shows Biden's lead increasing] ... if you go back and look at polling this far out, and then do a regression where you predict Election Day as a function of polling, generally, when candidates are this far ahead, things tend to revert toward a mean. And unfortunately, in this case, the historical mean we’re regressing to isn’t 50 percent; incumbents have historically averaged 51 percent of the vote. So things are likely to tighten. ... So after we get through the conventions, and partisans activate on both sides, there’s a substantial chance that we’ll find ourselves in a close election. And everybody should treat it that way. ... we should all have the discipline to continue investing in tipping-point states and appealing to the median voter. Because this is an incredibly important year. This is our last chance to win a trifecta for a very long time. And if we don’t win the presidency, things could get very dark.

As for the discussion of "mechanical issues" in the 2016 election, I thought his explanation was interesting and pretty convincing:

Quote

I’ve also fallen toward a consultant theory of change — or like, a process theory of change. So a lot of people on the left would say that the Hillary Clinton campaign largely ignored economic issues, and doubled down on social issues, because of the neoliberal ideology of the people who worked for her, and the fact that campaigning on progressive economic policy would threaten the material interests of her donors.

But that’s not what happened. The actual mechanical reason was that the Clinton campaign hired pollsters to test a bunch of different messages, and for boring mechanical reasons, working-class people with low levels of social trust were much less likely to answer those phone polls than college-educated professionals. And as a result, all of this cosmopolitan, socially liberal messaging did really well in their phone polls, even though it ultimately cost her a lot of votes. But the problem was mechanical, and less about the vulgar Marxist interests of all of the actors involved.

... Campaigns do want to win. But the people who work in campaigns tend to be highly ideologically motivated and thus, super-prone to convincing themselves to do things that are strategically dumb. Nothing that I tell people — or that my team [at Civis] told people — is actually that smart. You know, we’d do all this math, and some of it’s pretty cool, but at a high level, what we’re saying is: “You should put your money in cheap media markets in close states close to the election, and you should talk about popular issues, and not talk about unpopular issues.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15915 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-July-18, 13:57

He sounds like a political consultant, which is not a compliment from my point of view, and perhaps of greater consequence, might have something to do with losing an election. At no point does he concern himself with how to help the candidate, HC in 2016, clearly communicate her beliefs. The mechanical problem he cites is "for boring mechanical reasons, working-class people with low levels of social trust were much less likely to answer those phone polls than college-educated professionals.". This is condescending. Very condescending. And it was very much part of Hillary's problem. Some professionals also have low levels of social trust. Some of us don't even answer phone polls especially when we find the questions simple minded.

His claim seems to be that HC was uninterested in the problems of working class people because the pollsters did not do a good job and so she had no idea she should be interested in such things.That's pretty insulting to Hillary.. If the pollsters had just told her that people trying to raise a family on a $15 an hour job would like a raise then she would have addressed this, but there was this mechanical problem and so, well, how was she to know? Really?


I suppose it is that his style sets me off some. Maybe he has good ideas, I am just having trouble getting to them.

And now, Sunday morning, I have thought more about this. If someone wanted to give a talk on the 2016 election, looking at what needs fixing, David Shor would be a very good place to start. Every time the man opens his mouth he probably costs the Democrats another hundred thousand votes.
Ken
0

#15916 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,373
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-July-19, 09:42

Noah Smith said:

Stormtroopers gonna lose

Lindsey Smith, Saturday evening in Portland, OR said:

A crowd of about 400 has now occupied both SW 3rd and SW Main.

The moms are chanting, “Feds stay clear! Moms are here!” at the federal courthouse.

All three fences are still up.


One of the observations from the David Shor story is that the Lafayette Square fiasco marked a turning point in Trump's polling. Trump appears to be doubling down in Portland. Clearly a genius move.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#15917 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,114
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-July-19, 09:59

Now that Trump and Barr have their Stasi in Portland, how long before other cities are invaded?

Quote

President Donald Trump wouldn't say whether he will accept the results of the general election in November during an interview with "Fox News Sunday," claiming again without evidence that the process is rigged before any votes have been cast.

Host Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was a good loser, to which the president responded that he is not. "But are you gracious?" Wallace pressed.

"You don't know until you see," Trump said. "It depends. I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. I really do."

Asked if he's suggesting he might not accept the results of the election, Trump said, "I have to see."




"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#15918 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,213
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2020-July-19, 14:02

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-July-19, 09:59, said:

Now that Trump and Barr have their Stasi in Portland, how long before other cities are invaded?

Quote

President Donald Trump wouldn't say whether he will accept the results of the general election in November during an interview with "Fox News Sunday," claiming again without evidence that the process is rigged before any votes have been cast.

Host Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was a good loser, to which the president responded that he is not. "But are you gracious?" Wallace pressed.

"You don't know until you see," Trump said. "It depends. I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. I really do."

Asked if he's suggesting he might not accept the results of the election, Trump said, "I have to see."


If he is eventually evicted from the White House (against his will), he might probably steal the Resolute desk as a final act of defiance :)
0

#15919 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,854
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-July-19, 16:07

View Postshyams, on 2020-July-19, 14:02, said:

If he is eventually evicted from the White House (against his will), he might probably steal the Resolute desk as a final act of defiance :)

It would be poetic justice if he refused to leave the White House after Biden is inaugurated and unmarked secret police forcibly detain him and take him to a secret destination.
0

#15920 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,854
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-July-19, 16:32

Trump mocks push to rename Fort Bragg: 'We're going to name it after the Rev. Al Sharpton?'

Quote

In the interview, Trump said he doesn't "care what the military says" with regards to the matter, after Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said they're open to discussion on the topic.

"I'm supposed to make the decision," he continued. "Fort Bragg is a big deal. We won two World Wars. No one even knows General Bragg.

So the Manchurian President doesn't care what the US military leaders have to say. He would care a lot more if it was the Russian military speaking out for a change. And of course he doesn't have a clue who General Bragg was. Stable Genius's don't have to take history classes.

One thing for sure, nobody is going to name a military base after a draft dodger with fake bone spurs.
0

Share this topic:


  • 857 Pages +
  • « First
  • 794
  • 795
  • 796
  • 797
  • 798
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

13 User(s) are reading this topic
1 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Winstonm