[Winstonm]

I feel like Emily Litella.

[sharon j]

Winstonm, on 2022-July-30, 17:43, said:

I feel like Emily Litella.

That's just too funny. You're one of my favorite posters. Thanks so much.

[kenberg]

sharon j, on 2022-July-30, 18:29, said:

That's just too funny. You're one of my favorite posters. Thanks so much.

It's good to hear from a fresh voice! Winston and all are fine, but with you I had to read what you wrote before I knew what you would say.

It's been 25 years since I watched SNL so I had to Google Emily Litella but that's me.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2022-July-31, 12:05, said:

It's been 25 years since I watched SNL

Classic.

[y66]

Alexa Corse at WSJ said:

https://www.wsj.com/...d=djemalertNEWS

A Texas man was sentenced to seven-and-a-quarter years in prison for provoking the crowd at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and other crimes, representing the longest sentence given to a Jan. 6 defendant so far.

Guy Reffitt, who was the first Jan. 6 defendant to stand trial, was convicted of obstruction, a gun crime and other charges by a jury in March. His case has been watched closely as hundreds of other Jan. 6 defendants weigh whether to take plea deals or continue fighting their charges.

Mr. Reffitt wore an orange inmate’s outfit and a white mask in the courtroom. “I did want to definitely make an apology,” he said. He said he didn’t want anything to do with politics going forward.

Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, questioned Mr. Reffitt’s apology, saying he previously hadn’t accepted responsibility for his actions and that he had described himself as a martyr. Mr. Reffitt said he wasn’t good at explaining himself and that he had a tendency to exaggerate. “Clearly, I’m not as smart as I’d like to think I am,” he said.

[y66]

Stephen Colbert said:

Researchers say Paxlovid rebound is caused by insufficient drug exposure: not enough of the Paxlovid drug gets to infected cells to stop all viral replication. So the Covid pops right back up, which is why the White House is now trying to give Paxlovid to Biden’s poll numbers.

Tyler Pager at WaPo said:

While Biden has had COVID:

-Congress passes CHIPs bill
-Manchin-Schumer strike an agreement on a major piece of legislation
-U.S. kills al-Qaeda leader

One of Biden’s most successful weeks as president has come as he has mostly been isolating

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

https://www.bloomber...author_18529680

Democrats sometimes refer to Fox News and other conservative media with envy, presuming that the influence of right-leaning news outlets gives the GOP a large advantage in electoral politics. Even if Democrats have an easier time making their case in “neutral” media — something both Republican voters and party actors strongly believe but for which proof is hard to find — wouldn’t it be nice to be able to reach supporters easily, with hardly any filter?

Democrats should be careful what they wish for.

For one, ceding a central role to party-aligned media puts the preferences of Fox News, talk-radio hosts and their corporate bosses above those of other party actors.

Having such a powerful media megaphone in their corner also tends to make politicians and political parties lazy. Why sharpen one’s arguments when they are going to be adopted with little scrutiny by content-hungry outlets? That makes it challenging for Republicans to talk to the majority of the nation that isn’t tuned in to Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other highly politicized media personalities.

Two examples of that laziness, one small and one big, emerged last week.

The small one was the decision by Republicans to ridicule Vice President Kamala Harris for introducing herself at a White House event by saying “I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit” and mentioning her preferred pronouns. Whether one feels that declaring one’s pronouns is an inclusive courtesy or a sign of overeager wokeness, the GOP mockery ignored that Harris was only following the suggestions of those who organized the meeting with disability rights leaders.

It was ridicule that played well on right-wing media but probably didn’t broaden the party’s appeal, something the GOP needs to do if it wants to win back the White House in 2024.

The larger moment was a decision by Senate Republicans to defeat what had been a bipartisan bill to help veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits while serving overseas. An earlier version of the bill passed the Senate earlier this year, but last week it failed to overcome a filibuster when 25 Republicans switched their votes. The reasons for the change had to do with overall budget policy. Or at least that’s what Republicans say; there also is some suspicion that the switch was prompted by GOP anger toward Democrats over the surprise agreement between Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Joe Manchin on a big health care, climate and tax package.

Whether or not their concerns were valid, Republicans have been taking almost all the blame from veteran’s groups and advocates, who say open-air trash incineration near military bases led to cancer and other health problems. Mainstream media is following the lead of those groups and dumping on Senate Republicans.

This was entirely predictable. The unaligned media isn’t actually neutral, but its biases aren’t based on partisanship; they are more often tied to norms that have been built up over the years. And one of those norms is that veterans are always good. So while many fights over spending are treated as disputes between two sides that are entitled to their positions, battles over legislation for veterans are generally covered as if there is an obvious good side and an obvious wrong one. And Republicans were putting themselves on the wrong side.

There are other reflexive biases in media. Budget deficits are invariably seen as bad. Oddly enough, high voter turnout is always seen as a good thing, while laws to make it easier to vote are subject to both-sides treatment, even though there is a good case to be made that the opposite should be true. But it’s hard to think of a media norm much stronger than the one that holds that veterans are good.

Senate Republicans should have known that opposing the burn pit bill would get them into trouble. But it appears they didn’t see it coming. And while it’s hard to prove any specific effects of this kind, the core problem likely is that Republicans are so used to just feeding their talking points to their willing partners in Republican-aligned media that their ability to make strong arguments to the rest of the media — and to the rest of the electorate — has atrophied.

This has been true for quite some time, and it has only become worse. The failure to speak to a broader audience won’t necessarily make the difference in elections, especially when Republicans don’t have the White House or majorities in Congress, because elections are fought over big-picture issues such as the economy and war and peace. But it probably does have an impact at the margins, and when elections are close even small effects can change the results. It also makes governing and healthy representation harder. Democrats shouldn’t envy that.

Of course, Dems don't want their own version of Fox. They just want everybody to respect their facts and to be able to blame the media when it suits them instead of taking responsibility for their own failures to persuade more voters.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2022-July-30, 13:29, said:

Since I don't know who Chuck Todd is, it would have to be at least second hand.

He's the moderator of "Meet the Press". If you don't watch that, just substitute whatever programs you watch where politicians are interviewed.

[y66]

Bill Kristol said:

8 of 9 PA Republican House members endorse Doug Mastriano for governor. (The other, Brian Fitzpatrick, leaves the possibility open.) The Republican Governors Association supports Mastriano. We're way beyond bad apples. The party is rotten to the core.

[shyams]

WaPo article:

(Quote) Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro spent an estimated $855,000 boosting Mastriano in an ad calling him one of “Trump’s strongest supporters,” and talking about his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. The ad notes that if Mastriano wins the primary, it would be a “win for what Donald Trump stands for.”

Shapiro spent more than double what Mastriano spent on his own ads. (End quote)

[kenberg]

This is terrific:
https://www.washingt...ion-referendum/

Quote

In a major victory for abortion rights, Kansas voters on Tuesday rejected an effort to strip away their state's abortion protections, sending a decisive message about the issue's popularity in the first political test since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.

The overwhelming support for abortion rights in a traditionally conservative state bolsters Democrats' hopes that the historic Supreme Court ruling will animate their voters in an otherwise difficult election year for their party. The Kansas vote signals that abortion is an energizing issue that could affect turnout in the November midterms.

The question presented to voters here was whether abortion protections should be stripped from the state constitution. A "yes" vote would allow Kansas's Republican-led legislature to pass future limits on abortion — or ban it altogether — in its coming session in January. A "no" vote would leave those protections in place.

Forget fake news, forget elitism, forget a lot of stuff. We have normal everyday people saying enough is enough.

I keep thinking and hoping. Maybe, just maybe, we have reached a turning point. People have been having sex for a long time and it has not always taken place within a happy marriage with everyone hoping it leads to pregnancy. Everyone knows that to be true, and for most people it is not some abstraction that they read about in racy novels. Perhaps we are ready to tell those who wish to make our choices for us to mind their own damn business.

I really hope so.

[y66]

Sandy hook lawyer Mark Bankston said:

You know what perjury is, right Mr. Jones?

[y66]

Nate Cohn at NYT/Upshot said:

https://www.nytimes....dit_up_20220804

There was every reason to expect a close election.

Instead, Tuesday’s resounding victory for abortion rights supporters in Kansas offered some of the most concrete evidence yet that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has shifted the political landscape. The victory, by a 59-41 margin in a Republican stronghold, suggests Democrats will be the energized party on an issue where Republicans have usually had an enthusiasm advantage.

The Kansas vote implies that around 65 percent of voters nationwide would reject a similar initiative to roll back abortion rights, including in more than 40 of the 50 states (a few states on each side are very close to 50-50). This is a rough estimate, based on how demographic characteristics predicted the results of recent abortion referendums. But it is an evidence-based way of arriving at a fairly obvious conclusion: If abortion rights wins 59 percent support in Kansas, it’s doing even better than that nationwide.

It’s a tally that’s in line with recent national surveys that showed greater support for legal abortion after the court’s decision. And the high turnout, especially among Democrats, confirms that abortion is not just some wedge issue of importance to political activists. The stakes of abortion policy have become high enough that it can drive a high midterm-like turnout on its own.

None of this proves that the issue will help Democrats in the midterm elections. And there are limits to what can be gleaned from the Kansas data. But the lopsided margin makes one thing clear: The political winds are now at the backs of abortion rights supporters.

[Winstonm]

I saw a fascinating example of the effect of this decision on some news show last night. In Arizona, when the polls asked a generic question about which party was preferred, the Republicans had a +5 point lead.

When the question was reframed as: which party would you prefer if the Republican candidate was strongly anti-abortion the Democrat surged to a +40 lead.

(This is from memory so sorry if not exactly correct on numbers, although I know +5 is right. The other is large, though but maybe not 40.)

[barmar]

I've been listening to lots of discussions about the implications of the Kansas abortion vote. This was a single-issue vote, and it's easy for voters to select the rational choice.

But that doesn't necessarily translate to how people will vote for politicians in elections, since a politician represents many different issues. It's not likely that a huge number of Republicans will switch side just over the abortion issue. The midterms are still expected to be mostly a referendum on Biden and the economy.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2022-August-04, 09:33, said:

I saw a fascinating example of the effect of this decision on some news show last night. In Arizona, when the polls asked a generic question about which party was preferred, the Republicans had a +5 point lead.

When the question was reframed as: which party would you prefer if the Republican candidate was strongly anti-abortion the Democrat surged to a +40 lead.

(This is from memory so sorry if not exactly correct on numbers, although I know +5 is right. The other is large, though but maybe not 40.)

So on this one issue, voters far prefer a Democrat to an ant--abortionist.
As Barry notes, that is not in itself enough.
What we need are several issues, say five, such that on each of those five issues voters far prefer a Democrat to someone holding the view of the right wing of the Republican Party. That would probably allow a D to win. One is a start, more is needed. Maybe not five, but more than one.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-August-04, 19:08, said:

So on this one issue, voters far prefer a Democrat to an ant--abortionist.
As Barry notes, that is not in itself enough.
What we need are several issues, say five, such that on each of those five issues voters far prefer a Democrat to someone holding the view of the right wing of the Republican Party. That would probably allow a D to win. One is a start, more is needed. Maybe not five, but more than one.

You are probably right. One thing I think could happen. I think the Democrats can actually frame some of these arguments by making them quite specific. Only talk about eliminating the guns that were designed for soldiers like the AR 15.
The thing to remember is that you are not trying to solve an actual problem but to get elected. There are many people who agree that these weapons of war do not need to be on the streets. By focusing only on that you remove the Republican's claim about taking away your guns - no, just one type of gun. sorry.

I'm sure there are other areas where this could be done.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2022-August-04, 21:53, said:

You are probably right. One thing I think could happen. I think the Democrats can actually frame some of these arguments by making them quite specific. Only talk about eliminating the guns that were designed for soldiers like the AR 15.
The thing to remember is that you are not trying to solve an actual problem but to get elected. There are many people who agree that these weapons of war do not need to be on the streets. By focusing only on that you remove the Republican's claim about taking away your guns - no, just one type of gun. sorry.

I'm sure there are other areas where this could be done.

Yes, surely there must be.

The thing about the poll you cite is that the question, as I understand it, set an undescribed D against an anti-abortionist R. Most people are not single-issue voters so, when the ballot actually appears, their stances on other issues come into play.

Guns: Surely enough kids have been killed so that some control over the most extreme weapons would have broad appeal. I have mentioned before that I was given a shotgun, a single-barrel 16 gauge, when I was 12 or so. And I was taught how to use it, and I went pheasant hunting with it. I had started fishing when I was five or so and now, at 112, time to learn hunting. But nobody, absolutely nobody, would have said "Hey, let's get Kenny an AR-15 so he can really mow down those pheasants". So it seems to me a decent case could be made for reasonable gun control. Of course there will be nutjobs who think we all should have assault rifles and carry them with us wherever we go, but they are nutjobs and they would be seen as nutjobs by a large number of people. If the Rs want to go after their votes instead of the votes of people who see the point of reasonable controls, let them.

Most people approve of practicality. They are wary of theory. So the Kansas vote can be thought of as "Of course a woman who needs an abortion should not wait around for months to get it but she also should not be prevented from getting one simply because some theoretician says life, and the legal right to a protected life, begins at conception". That's practical. Yes, I think there are exceptional cases justifying a late-term abortion but if we could protect the rights of women to have an abortion as long as they get moving on scheduling it, that would cover most cases. Not all cases. So we could do better, but most cases. Kansas voters seem to agree. Of course, perhaps Kansas has been taken over by crazy extreme left-wing ultra-leftists, but I don't think so.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2022-August-05, 06:32, said:

Yes, surely there must be.

The thing about the poll you cite is that the question, as I understand it, set an undescribed D against an anti-abortionist R. Most people are not single-issue voters so, when the ballot actually appears, their stances on other issues come into play.

Guns: Surely enough kids have been killed so that some control over the most extreme weapons would have broad appeal. I have mentioned before that I was given a shotgun, a single-barrel 16 gauge, when I was 12 or so. And I was taught how to use it, and I went pheasant hunting with it. I had started fishing when I was five or so and now, at 112, time to learn hunting. But nobody, absolutely nobody, would have said "Hey, let's get Kenny an AR-15 so he can really mow down those pheasants". So it seems to me a decent case could be made for reasonable gun control. Of course there will be nutjobs who think we all should have assault rifles and carry them with us wherever we go, but they are nutjobs and they would be seen as nutjobs by a large number of people. If the Rs want to go after their votes instead of the votes of people who see the point of reasonable controls, let them.

Most people approve of practicality. They are wary of theory. So the Kansas vote can be thought of as "Of course a woman who needs an abortion should not wait around for months to get it but she also should not be prevented from getting one simply because some theoretician says life, and the legal right to a protected life, begins at conception". That's practical. Yes, I think there are exceptional cases justifying a late-term abortion but if we could protect the rights of women to have an abortion as long as they get moving on scheduling it, that would cover most cases. Not all cases. So we could do better, but most cases. Kansas voters seem to agree. Of course, perhaps Kansas has been taken over by crazy extreme left-wing ultra-leftists, but I don't think so.

That is in line with my thinking. The right will always try to paint a false portrait of Democrats so I think Democrats need to stake a claim to reasonableness so when attacked the voters will discount the attacker because that is not the Democratic Party they see.

[Evies Dad]

What we need are several issues, say five, such that on each of those five issues voters far prefer a Democrat to someone holding the view of the right wing of the Republican Party. That would probably allow a D to win.

Sorry for the crude copy and paste. It is all I can manage on my old, mini mobile.

If five such issues were found then would it not make equal sense for Republican candidates to stop holding such ridiculous views if it meant more votes.
Don't parties shift according to the electorate, or electoral system ?
You guys seem determined to win by building the biggest trench and capturing the most casualties.