[andrei]

 y66, on 2019-July-29, 20:54, said:

“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the f**k it’s gonna take you.” -- William “The Bunk” Moreland, The Wire

LOL
Lester Freamon is not very happy.

[Winstonm]

Here is the conundrum: from Axios

Quote

The big picture: Republicans have a significant head start in the race to keep control of the Senate, per this group's analysis.

Because of their stronghold in rural areas, and based on previous presidential election results, the GOP has a 40-seat, "built-in base in the Senate."
Compare that to just 26 Senate seats that Democrats are best positioned to win.
That's prompting some Democrats — like former North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who's a founding member of One Country Project — to sound the alarm ahead of 2020.

Quote

"[U]nless we do a better job engaging rural Americans, Republicans will have a massive head start in every race for a Senate majority and a lock on enough seats to stand in the way of a Democratic president’s agenda," Heitkamp said. "If nothing changes, Democrats will never have more than a hope and a prayer of eking out a slim Senate majority — at best."

Assuming Heitkamp is right, how does the Democratic party of today incorporate the rural racists, homophobes, and xenophobes, basically people who consider themselves good god-fearing people but whose latent inclinations bring them to cheer for Trump?

[y66]

From ‘Really dangerous’: Trump and our national division by Robert Zullo at The Virginia Mercury:

Quote

… Today, we in Virginia are to be graced with the presence of the birther-in-chief himself during an event intended to commemorate 400 years of representative government in the New World. Virginia’s Legislative Black Caucus and other Democrats are boycotting the appearance, a move that has elicited much tut-tutting of editorial boards and other columnists. To be sure, there’s probably a little more at work than outrage, with Democrats attempting to capture the General Assembly this fall and seemingly banking on anti-Trump sentiment to push voters to the polls in what are generally low-turnout elections.

I will not join the scolds, though I understand the impulse to lament the fact that we are at a juncture where merely tolerating an appearance by the president of the United States has become a fault line.

In fact, there’s a dark hilarity to a man so manifestly unfit for his job — elevated to the position in part by voters in thrall to demagoguery — trying to pull off a statesman turn by riffing on the ruff-collar deliberations of the first burgesses, the ancestors of today’s Virginia General Assembly, and attempting to unfurl the grand sweep of American democracy.

Trump only has himself to blame for the debasement of the presidency. Obama, after all, was subjected to massive disrespect from Republican lawmakers but never mused about keeping out people from “shithole” countries; never suggested minority congresswomen go back to where they came from; never called a prominent black congressman a “racist;” or a host of other indignities. (Remember when some conservatives groused about Obama demeaning the presidency by wearing a tan suit?)

If we are lucky today, Trump will take a break from picking fights with majority-black cities and merely deliver the type of error-strewn — but mostly inoffensive — nonsense he offered on the Fourth of July. But for someone who clearly sees division as a tactic heading into 2020, it’s anyone’s guess.

“My personal view is that the country’s about a lot more than the president,” Stephen Farnsworth, a University of Mary Washington political science professor told me. “Jamestown is about the core history of Virginia. And the disagreement among Democrats about whether or not to participate demonstrates the potential problems of the proposed boycott. … You don’t see widespread boycotts of the State of the Union. Who knows, that might be next?”

Indeed, it’s not hard to imagine a time in the future when the opposing party regards the president as illegitimate as a matter of course and lawmakers from the president’s own party put on blinders to all manner of serious problems, such as Russian meddling in our elections, which Mueller warned last week is happening “as we sit here.”

The guy can bring on the hate.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2019-July-27, 01:45, said:

How is selling out the country not worth a couple of million dollars in corporate contributions (thank you Citizens United)? We're in serious trouble in this country if you can buy US Senators for just a few thousand dollars

No, apparently you can't. The voting machine manufacturers are in favor of the bill, since it means lots of voting machines will have to be replaced and they'll get that business. But they only donated a few thousand dollars, not enough to get McConnell to change his stance.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2019-July-29, 15:15, said:

My general view of people is that, for the most part, they are not crooks or scumbags. This applies to doctors, it applies to truck drivers. But that doesn't mean that they are all wise or all good either. So the structure is important. I seriously doubt that putting all docs on salary is the way to go at this, but my argument would be stronger if I had a good idea of just what we should do.

You don't have to be bad to be influenced by the payment process. If someone is paid on commission, are they "greedy" if they try harder to get you to buy something or steer you towards the more expensive products?

And in many cases the influence is subconscious. Increasing the tax on cigarettes reduces smoking (especially among teenagers), but I doubt many people consciously think "they're getting more expensive, I guess I should quit."

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2019-July-30, 10:25, said:

You don't have to be bad to be influenced by the payment process. If someone is paid on commission, are they "greedy" if they try harder to get you to buy something or steer you towards the more expensive products?

And in many cases the influence is subconscious. Increasing the tax on cigarettes reduces smoking (especially among teenagers), but I doubt many people consciously think "they're getting more expensive, I guess I should quit."

I very much agree. I mentioned the dentist that wanted me to take some sort of opioid for pain. I believe he wanted to be helpful and simply could not understand my reluctance. There are many examples with drugs. It is partly the fault of big pharma, but doctors could try a little more skepticism. Ultimately we have to watch out for ourselves.

[y66]

 andrei, on 2019-July-30, 06:21, said:

LOL
Lester Freamon is not very happy.

I edited my post. Thanks. Apologies to Lester.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2019-July-30, 10:06, said:

No, apparently you can't. The voting machine manufacturers are in favor of the bill, since it means lots of voting machines will have to be replaced and they'll get that business. But they only donated a few thousand dollars, not enough to get McConnell to change his stance.

My post was slightly tongue in cheek. Sure McConnell only reported several thousand in reported contributions from individuals. Hundreds of times more money is churned through in dark money through PACs and other ways of funneling money to politicians on the payroll.

And yes, the vulnerable voting machines need to be replaced, but probably not by the companies that sold the original machines (they may not have machines that are safer from tampering, or there are better/cheaper alternatives). Otherwise those companies would have been in favor of the bill.

[y66]

From Carl Hulse at NYT:

Quote

Senator Mitch McConnell is usually impervious to criticism, even celebrating the nasty nicknames critics bestow on him. But Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is incensed by the name “Moscow Mitch,” and even more miffed that he has been called a “Russian asset” by critics who accuse him of single-handedly blocking stronger election security measures after Russia’s interference in 2016.

Democrats had been making the case for months, but it was supercharged last week by the testimony of Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, who told the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were back at it “as we sit here.”

Mr. McConnell cites several reasons for his opposition — a longstanding resistance to federal control over state elections, newly enacted security improvements that were shown to have worked in the 2018 voting and his suspicion that Democrats are trying to gain partisan advantage with a host of proposals.

Republican colleagues say that Mr. McConnell, a longtime foe of tougher campaign finance restrictions and disclosure requirements, is leery of even entering into legislative negotiation that could touch on fund-raising and campaign spending.

But whatever Mr. McConnell’s reasoning, the criticism has taken hold — even back home in Kentucky, where the majority leader faces re-election next year.

“Democrats want more aggressive legislation to protect America’s elections after Robert Mueller’s stark warning about Russian interference,” began one report aired on a Louisville television station last week. “Mitch McConnell blocked it.”

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense — as only he could.

“Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump,” the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. “And I know nothing.”

That did not relieve the heat on the majority leader, who on Monday had appeared to open the door ever so slightly to doing more on election preparedness.

“I’m sure all of us will be open to discussing further steps Congress, the executive branch, the states and the private sector might take to defend our elections against foreign interference,” he said as he seethed on the Senate floor over what he described as McCarthy-style attacks on his integrity and distortions of both his position on election security and his hawkish history of challenging Russia.

Throughout his political career, Mr. McConnell has made opposition to the Kremlin a hallmark of his foreign policy stands.

For once, Democrats seemed to be getting to a man who has embraced his portrayal as Darth Vader and the Grim Reaper overseeing a Senate graveyard for legislation that he opposes. When an unsubstantiated West Virginia Senate campaign ad in 2018 called him “Cocaine Mitch,” he began answering his Senate telephone with that identifier.

“Moscow Mitch”? Not so much: “I was called unpatriotic, un-American and essentially treasonous,” he fumed on the Senate floor.

Democrats pressed their advantage. And why not? The hashtag #MoscowMitchMcTraitor was trending on Twitter, and Senate Republicans of all stripes were being asked about the blockade.

“So long as the Senate Republicans prevent legislation from reaching the floor, so long as they oppose additional appropriations to the states, so long as they malign election security provisions as, quote, partisan wish lists, the critics are right to say Leader McConnell and Republican senators are blocking election security,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Tuesday.

… Mr. McConnell said Monday that he would not be intimidated into acting on election interference.

He also will probably not be answering his phone “Moscow Mitch.”

[y66]

From Jennifer Medina and Annie Karni at NYT:

Quote

President Trump will not be eligible for California’s primary ballot unless he releases his tax returns, under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday.

The law requires that all presidential candidates release their tax returns in order to be placed on the ballot for the state’s primary next year, in a move that will almost certainly lead to legal challenges. Mr. Newsom’s decision to sign the legislation seemed designed to escalate a running feud between the White House and California.

The state is currently involved in more than 40 lawsuits with the Trump administration on issues ranging from environmental regulation to immigration.

The California State Legislature approved a similar measure in 2017, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it, questioning whether it was constitutional. Mr. Brown, who left office in January, also said it would create a precedent for requiring other information — including medical records or certified birth certificates — from candidates.

Mr. Newsom sent mixed messages on whether he would sign the law, but finally did so on the final day before the bill would become law without his signature. The legislation does not explicitly cite Mr. Trump, but lawmakers made no secret that he was the target when they passed the bill along party lines.

The law, which goes into effect immediately, requires candidates for president or governor to submit copies of their tax returns from the last five years with the California secretary of state at least three months ahead of the state’s primary. That means Mr. Trump would have to provide his tax returns by the end of this year.

“These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement as he signed the legislation. “The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”

The governor cited several legal scholars who signaled support for such a requirement, but it will probably be left to the courts to decide.

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment on potential lawsuits, but called the legislation unconstitutional.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” Mr. Murtaugh said. “The bill also violates the First Amendment right of association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

The Trump campaign, which has been closely tracking ballot access issues for months and coordinating with the White House Counsel’s Office, is likely to respond with a lawsuit, according to an official with the campaign. That suit could potentially include a number of plaintiffs, including the Republican National Committee, the California Republican Party and the Trump campaign, but the official warned that nothing about a suit had been finalized.

Nearly a dozen similar bills are active in other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The vast majority of presidential nominees in the last several decades have released their tax returns, with the exception of Gerald Ford in 1976. Mr. Brown and his Republican opponents declined to release their returns during the governor’s races in 2010 and 2014.

Mr. Brown warned in his veto message that such legislation would be a slippery slope.

“A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system,” he wrote. “For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.”

After Democratic state senators introduced the same legislation this year, aides to Mr. Newsom asked the sponsors to add the requirements for candidates for governor as well.

“This is a huge step forward for financial transparency from people who are trying to become the most powerful person in the world,” said Scott Wiener, the state senator from San Francisco who sponsored the bill. “It is absolutely not just written for Donald Trump. This is for every Democratic and Republican and presidential candidate until the end of time.”

Mr. Wiener said that the requirement would apply only to the primary, a decision sponsors made “because it strikes the right balance.”

“It creates a strong incentive for a candidate to disclose their tax returns,” he said. “Losing California’s large number of primary delegates is significant, while ensuring that someone who is a party’s nominee isn’t kept off the ballot in the general election.

While Mr. Trump remains deeply unpopular in California, Mr. Newsom could face a backlash for escalating the state’s longstanding feud with the president in a way that even some Democrats believe is a distraction. Blair Ellis, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, accused California officials of “trying to deny voting rights to the millions of Californians who support President Trump and wish to vote for him in the primary.”

“Instead of trying to beat President Trump at the ballot box next November, he said, “Democrats are resorting to gimmicky tactics that are unconstitutional, undemocratic and just plain dumb.”

Mr. Wiener introduced the legislation in 2017, after a conversation with Brad Hoylman, a state senator in New York who had been a classmate at Harvard Law School. Mr. Hoylman’s legislation stalled in Albany, but his office has tracked similar bills in 30 states in the last two years.

“We now can point to California as a model for the substance and the politics of passing this innovative concept into law,” Mr. Hoylman said. “That will give us an enormous boost of credibility with my colleagues.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, and a First Amendment expert, said he was confident the state was on firm legal ground. He said that states also have the right to make a similar requirement for a general election ballot, and that he hoped other states would do so.

“The Supreme Court has said that states have broad latitude over who is going to be on the ballot so long as they aren’t discriminating based on wealth and ideology,” he said. “I think the state has an important interest in that the tax returns can provide vital information to voter.”

But by asserting themselves in national elections, states find themselves in uncertain territory, said Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University.

“There’s no question there are serious constitutional issues that are posed by this, particularly because it is a national election and it has implications beyond the state of California,” Mr. Pildes said. “What other kinds of regulations can one imagine that states might impose on presidential candidates to get onto the ballot?”

[y66]

Debates Round II part 1 -- Nutshell version from David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

“So far, the big picture on the debate is the leading Democrats will criminalize private health insurance and decriminalize unauthorized border crossing. It’s a very different theory of the electorate than Democrats deployed in 08 or 12 or 18,” Vox’s Ezra Klein said on Twitter, after the start of the debate.

Klein’s colleague Matt Yglesias made a similar point: “If you stop and think about it for a minute, there is probably some wisdom to be gained from the reality that the biggest proponents of progressive policies on the stage hold safe blue Senate seats from New England while the former governors of Montana and Colorado are skeptical.”

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2019-July-30, 21:46, said:

From Carl Hulse at NYT:

I single out one part:

Quote

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense — as only he could.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 11.7px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 11.7px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">“Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump,” the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. “And I know nothing.”

OK, taken literally we have a man bragging about the fact that he doesn't know anything. But of course we are repeatedly told we should not take trump literally. So how should we take it? It's clear. Clear enough so that there can hardly be disagreement, regardless of how much one likes or dis-likes Trump. He is saying not just that he doesn't know anything, he is saying that if the Russians have any plans to interfere in 2020, that's fine by him. He doesn't know about any Russian interference, past, present or future, and he has no intention of supporting any effort to find out about it. No doubt he sees such interference as being to his advantage, so he encourages it. There really is no other way to see his statement, unless we say no, we will only take the strict literal meaning that he is bragging about not knowing anything.

I watched about an hour of the debates last night and I just couldn't stand more. I think quite a few people feel the same, this is what I mean when I say I am an ordinary guy. I know I should watch but yuck, something like that. And the election will depend on wht ordinary people, people who just get tired of listening to back and forth sound bites, decide. I think the above quote from Trump is completely clear to such an ordinary person, and we should make sure no one forgets it.

Sure, Trump can say anything. I don't know if he could really shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, or wherever it was he said, and not lose votes. But it often appears he can say anything. We have to hope that there is some limit somewhere. Here he is, unusual as it may be, telling the truth. He is absolutely fine with Russian interference. It helps him, he favors it. those who have some part of an open mind might want to give that some thought. Trump is centered on Trump. Any thought that he gives a rat's whiskers about anyone or anything else is deluded.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-July-31, 06:51, said:

I single out one part:

[/size][/color]


OK, taken literally we have a man bragging about the fact that he doesn't know anything. But of course we are repeatedly told we should not take trump literally. So how should we take it? It's clear. Clear enough so that there can hardly be disagreement, regardless of how much one likes or dis-likes Trump. He is saying not just that he doesn't know anything, he is saying that if the Russians have any plans to interfere in 2020, that's fine by him. He doesn't know about any Russian interference, past, present or future, and he has no intention of supporting any effort to find out about it. No doubt he sees such interference as being to his advantage, so he encourages it. There really is no other way to see his statement, unless we say no, we will only take the strict literal meaning that he is bragging about not knowing anything.

I watched about an hour of the debates last night and I just couldn't stand more. I think quite a few people feel the same, this is what I mean when I say I am an ordinary guy. I know I should watch but yuck, something like that. And the election will depend on wht ordinary people, people who just get tired of listening to back and forth sound bites, decide. I think the above quote from Trump is completely clear to such an ordinary person, and we should make sure no one forgets it.

Sure, Trump can say anything. I don't know if he could really shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, or wherever it was he said, and not lose votes. But it often appears he can say anything. We have to hope that there is some limit somewhere. Here he is, unusual as it may be, telling the truth. He is absolutely fine with Russian interference. It helps him, he favors it. those who have some part of an open mind might want to give that some thought. Trump is centered on Trump. Any thought that he gives a rat's whiskers about anyone or anything else is deluded.

Addressing only one aspect of your comment, but CNN is as much at fault for last night's poor debate telecast as is any candidate. It looked like a city-wide infomercial run by a high-school drama department instead of a serious attempt at gathering news.

[hrothgar]

Pete Buttigieg had the most important answer at the Democratic debate
Buttigieg is right about why Democrats keep failing to pass their big plans.

https://www.vox.com/...n-TYGEcRt1MSsek

[y66]

Ezra Klein writes:

Quote

This is what Buttigieg gets: To make policy, you have to fix the policymaking process. Some of the other candidates pay that idea lip service, when they get pushed on it. But he’s the one who places that project at the center of his candidacy.

In his story about infighting within the Democratic Party, Norm Ornstein mentioned the Democratic Study Group that Eugene McCarthy and the House class of '58 created which had a huge effect on policymaking in the 60s and 70s. Is there a similar entity operating today within the Democratic Party? It's surprising to me how much variation we hear about in the proposals of individual candidates and how little we hear about areas of consensus within the party and with the majority of voters.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2019-July-30, 13:37, said:

And yes, the vulnerable voting machines need to be replaced, but probably not by the companies that sold the original machines (they may not have machines that are safer from tampering, or there are better/cheaper alternatives). Otherwise those companies would have been in favor of the bill.

They are in favor of the bill. From the article:

Quote

Election Systems & Software's CEO Tom Burt did speak in favor of creating paper trails for digital election systems and urged Congress to pass legislation requiring states to do so. Election Systems & Software has said it no longer sells machines without paperless ballots, so a rule change would benefit them.
...
"He [McConnell] seems single-handedly to be standing in the way of anything passing in Congress around election security, and that includes things that the vendors might want, like money for the states to replace antiquated equipment."

He's going against what the voting machine manufacturers want, because anything that makes voting more fair is a potential impediment to Republicans maintaining their power.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2019-July-31, 09:46, said:

Pete Buttigieg had the most important answer at the Democratic debate
Buttigieg is right about why Democrats keep failing to pass their big plans.

https://www.vox.com/...n-TYGEcRt1MSsek

Structural reform is a huge Catch-22. It may solve the problem of Congressional gridlock, but it's that very gridlock that gets in the way of passing anything major like this.

He cited Prohibition as examples where we amended the Constitution and then quickly undid it. But Prohibition didn't really hit at the seats of power in government, and it wasn't a major ideological issue that strikes at people's core beliefs. It also merely expanded a movement that was progressing through the states to the national level, it wasn't something new and radical. It's not a good example of structural reform.

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2019-July-31, 09:46, said:

Pete Buttigieg had the most important answer at the Democratic debate
Buttigieg is right about why Democrats keep failing to pass their big plans.

https://www.vox.com/...n-TYGEcRt1MSsek

Quote

[This is] the conversation that we have been having for the last 20 years. Of course, we need to get money out of politics, but when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference — end the Electoral College, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have DC actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform — people look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform.

I think if you asked any of the Democratic candidates about this, they would probably all agree enthusiastically that these are good observations. As far as a plan goes, he hasn't proposed any plan about how he would get Red state support for any of those ideas, probably because there aren't any realistic solutions to get Republican support for any of them.

At last night's Democratic debate, the moderates were hammering Sanders and Warren about the implausibility of passing a Medicare for All bill. Clearly Medicare for All is a goal and will be very difficult to get the votes to pass. Still, this seems very doable compared to Buttigieg's observations. Amending the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college when it would disadvantage Republicans is a non-starter and the rules for amending the constitution makes this all but impossible today or anytime in the near or even distant future. Same for Citizens United (best plan is for a liberal/moderate justice to replace one or more of the right fringe ideologues and then have the Supreme Court reverse the decision), DC statehood, and changing the way the Supreme Court works.

* Note * There is already a movement to bypass the Electoral College which only requires a consensus of states with a majority of the electoral college votes to assign the electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). If the NPVIC gets to 270 electoral vote threshold, I fully expect the current Supreme Court to invent a reason to rule it unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote

[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2019-July-31, 15:44, said:

* Note * There is already a movement to bypass the Electoral College which only requires a consensus of states with a majority of the electoral college votes to assign the electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). If the NPVIC gets to 270 electoral vote threshold, I fully expect the current Supreme Court to invent a reason to rule it unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote

I am very much in favor of getting rig of the Electoral College, however, I am horrified by the idea of the National Popular Vote Interstate Contract.

My expectation is that if this were to "pass", some state legislature would renege on the contract and create a genuine constitutional crisis

[helene_t]

 johnu, on 2019-July-31, 15:44, said:

* Note * There is already a movement to bypass the Electoral College which only requires a consensus of states with a majority of the electoral college votes to assign the electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). If the NPVIC gets to 270 electoral vote threshold, I fully expect the current Supreme Court to invent a reason to rule it unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote

At the moment, some states have committed to NPV while others have not. This is terrible. It means that blue state voters (whose state committed to NPV) will be less motivated to vote, as their electors will be decided by NPV so they have less leverage as voters. And this then in turn will drag the national vote for democrats down.