SUNDAY, AUGUST 11, 2024
Siena, don't fail us now: You can't assume that some particular survey is "correct." The possibility of error is built into the very method.
That said, we're going to start with this Sunday morning prayer:
New York Times/Siena Polls, please don't fail us now!
This very morning, the front-page headline in today's New York Times—above the fold!—happily offers this:
Harris Leading In 3 Key States, New Polls Show
That's happy news for Harris voters. Online, the dual headline says this:
Harris Leads Trump in Three Key States, Times/Siena Polls Find
New surveys of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania taken this week offer the latest indication of a dramatic reversal in standing for the Democratic Party since President Biden abandoned his re-election bid.
According to this new survey, Candidate Harris leads Candidate Trump by four points in each of those key states.
They even cited these numbers on this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend! That proves the reporting is accurate!
This survey doesn't—this survey can't—tell us how things will turn out. The survey can't even tell us, with anything resembling certainty, where matters stand right now.
Polling is an approximation, with various possible sources of error. But Siena has Harris ahead in those states. Siena, don't fail us now!
We'll cite two interesting points within the Times report. We start with this mixed blessing:
Mr. Trump’s attacks on Ms. Harris as “not smart” and “incompetent” have not landed with most voters. Nearly two-thirds of voters see Ms. Harris as intelligent, more than say the same about Mr. Trump. A majority of white voters without a college degree—a demographic that typically favors Republicans—said Ms. Harris was “intelligent.”
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said Harris is intelligent? Be thankful for small favors!
On the one hand, we'd say this: Sad! On the other hand, we're glad that Candidate Trump's relentless insults don't seem to have gained more purchase.
The second point is found in this passage, as the report continues directly:
But the polls also indicate clear vulnerabilities for the new Democratic presidential nominee. Forty-two percent of voters said Ms. Harris was too liberal; 37 percent said the same about Mr. Biden last October. Mr. Trump and his campaign have tried to define Ms. Harris as a left-wing extremist from deep blue San Francisco who is out of touch with swing-state voters.
In recent days, Ms. Harris has disavowed some of her previous stances on issues including border enforcement and fracking, as well as her support for a single-payer health care system.
Jonathan Ball, a floor installer from Jackson, Mich., said he believed Mr. Trump would do more to help working Americans than Ms. Harris.
“I think she’s more liberal. I just don’t think she’s all for the middle class,” said Mr. Ball, 46, who plans to support Mr. Trump for a third time this fall. “I just see her one-sided. You know, for the rich.”
Intriguing!
The quoted remark is just one remark, made by just one voter. Still, please riddle us this:
How and when did we reach the point where even one of our neighbors and friends apparently sees the world that way—apparently believes that liberals are only "for the rich?"
We think that story dates back sixty years. That said, Citizen Ball is only one voter, though he lives in a major swing state
Tim Walz was a fine educator. He had a deep insight into an approach to teaching about genocide and the Holocaust.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.timesofisrael.com/lauded-by-former-students-tim-walz-wrote-his-masters-thesis-on-holocaust-education/
"By Wednesday, the opposition had mobilized with lightning speed for one of its first political attacks, dubbing Walz “Tampon Tim” in reference to a new state law providing free menstrual products to school students.
Delete[...]
Social-media users swiftly took sides as well, and as usual, facts and context were missing, especially from those who see the new law as evidence of a radical Minnesota under Walz’s leadership. But a closer, more informed look at the issue should yield a different conclusion. This is good and necessary policy. Providing free menstrual products is a practical, compassionate remedy to address an under-the-radar reason for student absenteeism. Some families can’t afford menstrual products, and when that happens students stay home instead of going to class, falling behind as they do.
There’s a lot of talk about closing educational achievement gaps in Minnesota and elsewhere, particularly for low-income students. The new state law, which has a price tag of about $2 million a year, is an actual solution to help address this, one that’s relatively low-cost. And there’s real-world data to back it up. New York City schools reported a 2.4% increase in attendance after a state law went into effect requiring free period products for students, according to the advocacy group Alliance for Period Supplies.
Minnesota is far from alone in providing this type of assistance. More than half of the nation’s 50 states have taken steps to help students who struggle to afford tampons and pads. Ohio, led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, now requires period products in schools and has provided $5 million in funding for this, the Alliance for Period Supplies reports. Alabama and Georgia provide grants for schools to make free products available.
Other states, such as Washington, Nevada, Illinois and Utah, require schools to provide these products, though they didn’t fund them. To Minnesota’s legislators’ credit, the new law provides dollars to schools and is not an unfunded mandate.
[...]
The legislation itself was passed during the 2023 session as part of a broader educational bill, which Walz then signed. Rep. Sandra Feist, DFL-New Brighton, was the bill’s chief author in the Minnesota House. Sen. Steve Cwodzinski, a retired teacher and DFLer from Eden Prairie, championed the measure in Minnesota Senate.
But the most powerful advocates for it came from outside the State Capitol. Young Minnesotans reached out to Feist about this issue. After Feist introduced it, these students testified on its behalf as the legislation made its way through various committees. Among them was Elif Ozturk of Golden Valley, who is now 18 and will attend Columbia University this fall.
In an interview, Ozturk told an editorial writer she got involved after seeing other students struggle to afford these products in junior high. She spoke to counselors and was told that some students had to leave class or couldn’t attend because they lacked pads or tampons. Ozturk dug into the issue and discovered that other states had taken steps to help students’ access these products. She thought Minnesota should do the same.
“If we don’t talk about it, it’ll never be fixed. These people who are in power, predominantly old men, have no clue what young girls go through every single day,“ Ozturk said.
Other advocates for the law’s passage: school nurses, who testified movingly about how students struggle to afford these products and the educational and emotional consequences when they can’t.
A specific but ill-informed attack on the new Minnesota law is in dire need of a reality check. Critics contend, wrongly, that it mandates menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms. This has unfortunately been used to stoke ongoing culture wars over transgender individuals.
DeleteBut the law’s actual language provides considerable flexibility for school districts to implement it, according to Deb Henton, the executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.
That might mean making these products available for free in various locations for all who need them, such as unisex bathrooms, girls’ bathrooms, the school nurse or the front office, but not necessarily in boys’ bathrooms. Henton, in an interview, lauded the “local control” the law provides for implementation, and said she’s fielded no concerns about its rollout.
At Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest school district, the free products are not found in traditional male-only bathrooms, a spokesman said. But they are provided for free to all in “nongendered bathrooms,” girls’ bathrooms or from health staffers.
There’s nothing radical about Minnesota’s new law. Instead it’s a smart, low-cost measure to address educational achievement gaps, one that many states are embracing. Weaponizing this measure is laughably out of touch and likely to backfire not only with women, but all who care about them."
https://www.startribune.com/a-reality-check-on-the-tampon-tim-meme/600965646
I don’t know, Mike. Somerby thinks Walz is perhaps strange.
DeleteI remember when Somerby used to debunk the bullshit hurled at Al Gore. Now, he just shrugs and declares Walz strange and Harris concerning. 🤷♀️
DeleteAnd PP tells us that Somerby is doing his part to save democracy … by dissing the candidates of the one political party that can save it.
Delete"Strange" is an utterly subjective concept. A lot of people would consider Bob strange. He should stop watching so much Fox.
Delete5 Minutes and 26 Seconds of Tim Walz Being AWESOME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez19iQMirzE
It's important to acknowlerge that there are a lot of stupid people in this country. They don't support Democrats. Surprise!
ReplyDelete"They even cited these numbers on this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend! That proves the reporting is accurate!"
ReplyDeleteIt proves nothing of the kind. In this single instance the reporting is accurate (according to the poll) but it says nothing about any other reporting on Fox.
FYI, he's being sarcastic.
DeleteYou can never tell with Somerby.
DeleteTo think that Somerby considers the approval of Fox & Friends as confirming anything, is to say that you know nothing about how to read him.
DeleteSomerby says he does not like the childish tone of Fox News but that they often make valid points, in comparison to the blue tribe which Somerby sees as dumb and performative.
DeleteReading Somerby literally, one gets the strong impression that if you actually care about issues you should hold your nose and vote Republican, whereas the Dems seem feckless and distasteful.
Somerby talks around things and leaves room for readers to project their own words onto his essays. There is no way of knowing his real views without knowing him personally in real life.
DeleteSomerby does seem to be coy about his views, but taking his word at face value strongly suggests that Dems are completely distasteful, whereas Repubs are distasteful in tone, therefore reading Somerby literally, one is inclined to not vote for Dems and to instead support Repubs.
DeleteLook out below
DeleteThree idiots in a row.
Bob says the Times 'happily' reports a poll showing Harris leading in 3 states.
Delete'Happily', you misreading Mr. Magoos.
8:46 “ You can't assume that some particular survey is "correct." The possibility of error is built into the very method. ”
DeleteAnd Walz is strange and Harris concerning. And so it goes.
What is this, the stupidity Olympics? The issue under discussion was not the validity of polling methodology, you numbskull. It was whether Bob is was endorsing the expertise of Fox & Friends.
DeleteHe happily reported a poll, did he not? A fact mentioned by 8:46.
DeleteBrushing your teeth doesn't always prevent cavities. Also a fact and just as relevant.
Delete"How and when did we reach the point where even one of our neighbors and friends apparently sees the world that way—apparently believes that liberals are only "for the rich?"
ReplyDeleteSomerby thinks it is OUR responsibility to ensure that not one of our nation's citizens votes for the wrong guy? Meanwhile the right wing can tell any lies it wants. That's ridiculous.
This report is not friendly to Kamala Harris. First it says she has walked back some of her more "radical" ideas (implying she is unprincipled) and then it searches out and quotes a Trumpie, as if his opinion were representative of anything in a poll where the majority supported Harris not Trump. In that way it reports the numbers but then does a hit job on Harris (she is for the rich, after all).
ReplyDeleteI consider this biased reporting but perhaps the NY Times merely considers it balance. Given that the numbers support the Dems, it is only right to favor the Repubs in the remainder of the article. This is bad reporting of a type that I have no heard Somerby decry -- the false equivalence and balance-seeking that requires anything negative for Trump to be offset by a deliberate negative swipe at Harris.
Apparently Somerby is OK with that type of reporting and instead prefers to use it to berate Democrats because apparently we are supposed to have converted every single voter to our cause, even two-time Trump voters who clearly do not understand sociology (demographics) or politics much. Of course he thinks stupid stuff. He votes for Trump.
The report doesn't say Harris is for the rich. It quotes one person who thinks she's for the rich.
DeleteGlad you clarified that.
Delete“ How and when did we reach the point where even one of our neighbors and friends apparently sees the world that way—apparently believes that liberals are only "for the rich?"
DeleteWe think that story dates back sixty years.”
He’s implying it isn’t just one guy.
There are no coherent reasons to vote for Trump. This guy did it twice. Why should anything he says in support of his choice make sense?
ReplyDeleteSomerby thinks Harris is doing something wrong already because this guy slipped through her fingers? She has a new ad that emphasizes her middle class roots. Will it reach a floor installer who perhaps watches only Fox News (if he follows news at all)? How can it? But there are also "persuadable" voters who are seeking info and haven't already made up their minds to vote for a conman. Perhaps they will see her ad, and it doesn't take ALL of the votes to defeat Trump, just enough of them. The polls show that is likely to be happening already. But Somerby thinks we should tear our hair out because Jonathan Ball got away from us. He can make it his quest to convert Jonathan, his friend and neighbor. He doesn't seem to be among the many Republicans who are declaring support for Harris and abandoning Trump in his pathetic last days.
No wonder they are hiding her from the public. To ride out the whole 'she's intelligent' thing for as long as possible. .
ReplyDeleteShe has been making campaign appearances in swing states everywhere to massive enthusiastic audiences. You can’t will your own non-facts into existence, 11:06, especially not one as transparently ignorant and pathetic as this one.
DeleteMeanwhile, "Donald Trump is up late making up fake debates that nobody agreed to. His mental decline is deepening by the day."
DeleteAnd, he ain't gettin' any younger.
"How and when did we reach the point where even one of our neighbors and friends apparently sees the world that way—apparently believes that liberals are only "for the rich?"
ReplyDeleteWhen were we ever a country in which all people believed the same things at the same time? When have we ever all believed the right thing?
1. Half of our country thought slavery was A-OK.
2. Only 40-50% of our country were active patriots during the Revolution, 15-20% were Loyalists (wanted to stay a British colony) and the rest were oblivious or kept a low profile.
3. Only 68% of our country are Christians, spread across three major denominations (Protestant, Catholic, other).
4. Although the USA as a nation opposed Hitler, a large proportion of the American public supported him, largely because of his success combatting the depression in Germany.
5. People in America do not agree on which is the best pet, dogs or cats.
6. Nixon supporters continued to support him, believing him to be innocent and railroaded to resign after a witchhunt. His popularity remained high (60-70%) even during the height of the investigation. Trump has never had favorability ratings as high as Nixon's were, even after he resigned.
So, why should there be agreement about who to vote for as president? The close split reflects the tendency of American citizens to diverge on many topics important to them. Somerby's demands are unreasonable and appear to be just another way to claim to support Harris while slagging her (and Democratic) efforts, even though she has only been the nominee for a few weeks.
This essay shows Somerby's stupidity, not Ball's or ours. Who would write such a thing, claiming to support Harris while demanding she convert the most ardent Trump supporters or something is wrong?
About point 4: Hitler declared war on the US.
DeleteWhere in the report does Somerby demand that Harris convert the most ardent Trump supporter? If you can't find it, then stick your thumb in your mouth and stand in the corner.
DeleteThere’s a quick cure for you Somerby-haters — just snap out of it! Somerby does not “slag” Harris in this post. He suggests that the roots of this Ohio voter’s belief that liberals favor the rich go back 60 years, obviously predating the appearance of Harris on the political scene.
DeleteMichigan voter
DeleteWhat happened 60 years ago, PP? That would be 1964. Is it a coincidence that that is when the civil rights act was signed into law?
DeleteNo coincidence. Cause & effect.
DeleteMaybe, but I’m not sure how the Civil Rights Act would lead a voter to (erroneously) believe that liberals would favor the rich over the poor.
DeletePP, your ignorance is at this point notorious.
DeleteThis is not a shameful thing, it is an opportunity to be open minded to learning.
To help improve your circumstance, you should read up on Lee Atwater, he explained it pretty well.
However, you may have a personality trait that impedes gaining knowledge, as the other day someone well demonstrated that Somerby questions the efficacy and utility of democracy, and yet you stood firm in maintaining the ignorance that Somerby has so well cultivated.
Astonishingly, you are not just Somerby's White Knight, but also his Black Knight.
https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?si=GSuWsLp0zDuxOg6p
Perhaps Somerby will tell us why he thinks this, because he does.
DeleteThe answer to Bob’s question is that many current liberal policies do favor wealthier Americans. E.g.
ReplyDelete—Student loan forgiveness means giving huge amounts of money to people who attended college
— “Open” borders gives low paid employees to businesses. But, the poor bear the burdens
— School choice is already available to those of us who can afford private school. But Dems oppose giving the poor this option
The number one contributor to homelessness is medical debt. That suggests that it isn't immigrants who are robbing homeless people of jobs, but medical institutions keeping them from having a regular place to sleep. The lack of a place to receive phone calls and mail, keep clothes and get clean, eat regularly, and transportation to go to job interviews and work, all prevent the truly poor from getting jobs and keeping them.
DeleteThere are "help wanted" signs all over our country announcing unfilled jobs that are blocked from poor people by lack of affordable housing. David's perception that it is immigrants doing this is factually incorrect.
The other problems with David's ideas is that this is a zero-sum situation where helping the middle class comes at the cost of poor people. I especially like the Democratic proposal to make all community colleges free, because that helps both the poor and lower middle classes. But there is no reason not to help struggling middle class families who must mortgage their homes to the hilt to afford college for even one child, much less younger siblings. The same issue arises in working families where there are multiple children requiring high cost child care. That may be a struggle for the middle class but is entirely unaffordable for poorer people. That's why the left supports free preschool and universal low-cost child care (with a sliding scale based on income), as provided by Head Start and similar programs. David has mentioned that he is against Head Start, for example. It makes no sense to talk about school choice while preschool kids are being disadvantaged.
Current liberal policies at least include programs aimed at helping the poor, as well as middle class. Republicans don't even have those -- it seems to be every person for themselves without help to anyone. I don't agree with that approach because life is too capricious and there are too many random disasters that can affect even the best prepared, knocking them down in ways they couldn't have avoided. The pandemic was an example, but so are the tornados and flooding that afflict the red states more than the blue ones, health disasters like cancer, employer business failures, and tragedies like mass shootings. People need a safety net and only the left seems interested in providing one.
David,
DeleteIt was the Capitalists all along.
Why would any "economically anxious" Republican voter support a HUGE tax break for businesses which are already getting low paid employees?
Delete(I know the answer. I want to see if David does, too).
A swing state is defined as a state that is so close that it can go either way in the election. That means that "Citizen Ball" will encounter many of his own friends and neighbors who disagree with him. They may be able to change his mind.
ReplyDeleteIt has only recently dawned on me that the reason Somerby appears to be right wing while professing to be a lefty, is that he is so damned weird himself. Today's essay is an example.
Today's headline is about Biden lowering mortgage rates so that the middle class can have an easier time buying a house. I suspect that Jonathan Ball may consider the middle class to be "the rich" because he himself has a marginal income as a flooring installer. That makes his statement a matter of perspective and not entirely wrong, since Biden and Harris have been working to help the Middle Class, who may look pretty rich compared to Ball's life. But Harris would have no chance at all of being elected if she announced she is "for the poor" because everyone would equate that to the welfare state, which has been reviled since Reagan. Most Democrats would like to see a continuing war against poverty, but it isn't politically smart to say so. That may be how Ball acquired his ideas about who is for what. His main confusion is about what Trump stands for. That means the left needs to hammer at the view of Trump as a conman and thief so that poor people don't look at him as an idol who will share any of his wealth with them (instead of robbing them blind).
That's easy, it began with the presidency of Bill Clinton and hasn't stopped. Its because the Democrats became shills not only for corporate America but for the weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon. Democrats are servants to the billionaire class and the party of permanent war. They don't even pretend to care about the working class. Look at the Democratic representatives of the people in Congress. They are obscenely rich multimillionaires who are obsessed with money and war.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like Dick Cheney and Haliburton and George W. Bush's Iraq war? Bill Clinton has devoted his life to his Clinton Global Foundation aimed at helping people worldwide. Their priorities are not war but helping the poor everywhere. The Clintons did not leave office rich, but gained wealth by writing bestselling books and giving speeches, as all former presidents have done.
DeleteI agree that there is too much grifting on the right and that some Democrats have inappropriately enriched themselves, while others started rich and stayed that way -- that is because of the way campaigns must be financed. Only the left appears to be interested in changing that. But the Republican representatives in Congress are far wealthier and far more supportive of measures to help the rich. That is so obviously true that your comment appears to be trolling and misinformation aimed at confusing voters, not a real statement of values about the two parties.
For example, look at the support for Vance provided by Peter Thiel. There is no one equivalent supporting Walz, who devoted most of his life to pubic service in the military and by teaching, until running for office.
Kamala Harris had the income of a public district attorney before she met Doug Emhoff, her husband. He was an attorney in private practice with a high income:
"Before she was married, the highest annual income reported by Harris was in 2010, when she reported earning $263,000. The next year, when she became attorney general, her reported income dropped to less than $160,000 a year in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
After marrying Emhoff -- whose clients have included retail giant Walmart and health care company Abbott Labs, as well as a Malibu real estate agent who found fame on "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" -- Harris' income went up significantly.
As a high-profile attorney for one of the world's largest companies, Emhoff earned more than $1 million per year and held dozens of investments and stocks, according to financial documents reviewed by ABC News."
They have not enriched themselves since Harris won elected office, because they took seriously the requirement to divest themselves of investments when Harris ran for president in 2015. Unlike Trump, they have sequestered investments and their income has gone down while Harris has been in office, not up. Compare that to Trump, who did the opposite, refused to announce his income by releasing tax returns, and has grifted off the presidency in every way possible. His Republicans in Congress have followed that lead, including people like Marjorie Taylor Greene who buys stocks using her info as a House member, and Lauren Boebert who ended up with over a million in income following her recent term in office, after having less than a high school education when first elected, and so much debt she illegally borrowed from her campaign donations to pay her $12,000 business taxes on her restaurant. You are confused about who does what, no doubt because you have watched too much Fox News.
I guess maybe you didn't read Somerby's post. He asked how it was the man in question believes that liberals are only "for the rich?".
DeleteThe answer is because that man and everyone else can plainly see Democrats only give lip service to class issues, are for the rich, and are run by empty, greedy millionaires that are servants to the billionaire class and corporate America.
1:15, Somerby didn’t provide an explanation. None of what you said is in his post.
Delete1:15 your claim is at best partially true, through the neoliberalism of Clinton/Obama, but they did not play the main role in the $50 trillion redistribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1% since 1981. That redistribution of wealth was implemented by Republicans, a long standing plan of theirs that has had a disastrous impact.
DeleteFurthermore, Biden is the first president since FDR to work against and start to reverse that circumstance.
Therefore, that Michigan tiler's views can not be taken seriously. He is motivated by something else; his condition is often the subject of comments here so there is no need to repeat it.
Backing up my friend, a man said liberals are only for the rich. It was asked why they may think that and the answer is because it’s true. The man is astute. He sees that liberals are for the the rich. It’s not to say that Republicans are not also. So maybe it should’ve been asked why the man doesn’t believe and understand Republicans are also. But the answer to the question of why he believes that is that it’s true. The current Democratic Party is obviously without any question at all , an agent for billionaires and corporations and controlled by some of the most greedy, selfish, disingenuous pigs the world has ever seen. The man is just accurately describing what is plain for the whole world to see.
DeleteThat man, and you, are misinformed. Often, the only help that the poor receive comes via government programs created by liberal/democratic administrations, such as Medicaid, unemployment, welfare, the ACA, minimum wage. Old people of modest means have a guaranteed income and health coverage from social security and Medicare. All of these things were opposed and continue to be opposed by Trump’s party. That voter needs to be better informed, and quit buying the propaganda.
Delete11:22,
DeleteI may be a liberal, but I have voted for every Republican candidate that has promised to zero out our defense budget.
Have you ever been that bi-partisan?
Washington has become our Versailles. We are ruled, entertained, and informed by courtiers -- and the media has evolved into a class of courtiers. The Democrats, like the Republicans, are mostly courtiers. Our pundits and experts, at least those with prominent public platforms, are courtiers. We are captivated by the hollow stagecraft of political theater as we are ruthlessly stripped of power. It is smoke and mirrors, tricks and con games, and the purpose behind it is deception.
Delete3:42,
DeleteThe answer is publicly-funded political campaigns/ elections. Once you take the money out of it, the courtiers will move on to some other grift.
Calling everyone courtiers doesn’t help anything.
DeleteLet’s call them courtesans.
DeleteThe point remains the same. The man aim question associated Democrats with the rich. He did so, because Democrats are beholden to the rich and are courtiers to them. Everyone along with food chain like MSNBC etc., is in on the grift, pigs at the trough. They play so many of us for fools, including the Corby character here and the troll that posts under multiple nyms.. But they didn’t fool that worker.
DeleteOk, 6:55. When that worker starts getting social security and Medicare, he can continue to rail at those perfidious Democrats and vote for the party that wants to end them.
DeleteCorby hasn’t commented here in years.
Delete6:55 you'd have had an inkling of a point 10 years ago, when the asymmetry was apparent but not as striking.
DeleteThe man in Michigan only targets Dems for something that has been mostly perpetrated by Repubs; it is like playing the hero for getting hit in the ear with shrapnel, when someone else took a bullet to save is family.
The man in Michigan is not just a victim of the Republican con, he is actively engaging in it. Therefore, his stance is irrelevant.
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.
DeleteThanks for repeating the RNC platform, 8:20.
DeleteAll those rich illegals coming into the country, thanks to Democrats, have pushed the per capita wealth of the USA up 62%.
DeleteC'mon. 6:55 can't be the only person who sees how obvious that is.
6:55,
DeleteSo the 74 million Republican voters who say the Democratic Party is full-on Communist are full of shit?
Who knew?
(Narrator: Everyone).
Democrat communists cater to the rich.
DeleteJamelle Bouie discusses JD Vance’s friends and influences. Atrios quotes a few paragraphs:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.eschatonblog.com/2024/08/deplorables.html?m=1
“ We think that story dates back sixty years.”
ReplyDeleteThe civil rights act? (1964)
Bob is a poor student of society.
ReplyDeleteThe word "liberal" has flopped around between meaning small government and big government, but generally refers to government being involved in shaping a "free" society.
The significant shift in viewing "liberal" negatively came in early 50's, in the wake of FDR and Eisenhower, from right wingers like Robert Taft, McCarthy, and Buckley that gave birth to movement conservatives.
Surveys show that most Americans support a liberal consensus and that progressive policies are highly popular among Americans.
Elections are closer than policy stances suggest, primarily due to a) Republican tactics of voter suppression and other forms of gaming the system like gerrymandering and kicking people off voter rolls and b) a significant population susceptible to manipulation that have been primed by a long history of storytelling, from religion to advertising.
Also, an electoral college and Senate which were created to mollify slave states.
DeleteTrump is deteriorating.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/everything-is-crazy/
Republicans and corporate media share a notion, they both assume that they shape and dominate the political views of Americans. Harris/Walz, with independent media doing much of the heavy lifting, are shaking this misguided notion to it's core.
ReplyDeleteWithin the Republican Party there is a growing consensus that Trump/Vance should drop out and be replaced with more normal candidates that could inject enthusiasm, a la Harris/Walz.
However, the consensus among corporate media is that Harris winning in a squeaker with Trump attempting a coup, is the preferred circumstance that will garner windfall profits for their companies.
A third consensus is forming among American citizens, which is Harris/Walz winning by a reasonable amount, considering the partisan divide among the electorate, and the dirty tricks of the Republican Party.
Apparently more Americans are waking up to the notion that the Republican Party and corporate media have had their day, and now it is time to move on, and we are not going back.
7:45: What Democrats didn't bargain for, and that has blindsided them, is that Vance looks pretty good in a dress. May be a game changer. If I were Walz I would make the observation that normal men don't need their wives to go on network television to explain them to the general public. With this photo making the rounds I'm betting we're going to need to be seeing a lot more of Usha. This will, of course, piss off the White supremacist, MAGA base, even more than they already are, so maybe the dress wasn't such a great idea after all. That and the logical question of why Trump likes to hang out with guys who have a history of cross dressing may be a net negative after all. But you never know, it might get more " mainstream" Republicans out to the polls. You never know what the Evangelicals are thinking.
DeleteDon’t forget the relativity of simultaneity. Einstein got it right and explained it clearly.
ReplyDeleteRight, this is only one voter but he thoroughly describes how moronic he and people like him are.
ReplyDeleteFrom Meidas Touch:
ReplyDelete"The family of the late singer/songwriter Isaac Hayes has sent Donald Trump a letter ordering him to cease and desist playing 'Hold On/I'm Coming' at his rallies, and pay them $3 Million for past unauthorized use of the song.
The Hayes estate owns the copyright to the song, and has requested in the past that Trump stop using it at his rallies. It has become such a popular staple with MAGA fans because that is the song that Trump typically performs his "dance" to."
Artists take their intellectual property seriously, because it is their livelihood. It is wrong for others to steal it by using it without permission. That is Trump's theft but Somerby also crosses this line regularly when he cites song lyrics and poems, sometimes without attribution (so no one knows who the actual author was). Some of the confused trolls here think Somerby originated some of the lines he has used, largely because they are unfamiliar with the original source. That is unfair to the writers who did the actual creative work. If this happens enough, the material moves into the public domain, people forget who wrote it, and then everyone uses it indiscriminately, preventing the original author from earning a living off their work.
It is wrong to do this, even when the author has passed away, as is the case with Isaac Hayes. Further, Hayes would never have willingly given the implied endorsement to Trump. This is lying and cheating, just as much as when Trump holds a rally in a town and then stiffs the town on bills for security and clean-up afterwards. Trump is clearly a deadbeat, but Somerby shouldn't follow his lead. He was taught better at Harvard.
Also from Meidas Touch:
Delete"Observers took note on Friday when Donald Trump played Celine Dion's iconic ballad "My Heart Will Go On" at a recent rally in Bozeman, Montana. The song, synonymous with the tragic sinking of the Titanic due to its use as the theme song in the popular James Cameron film, has been used by Trump at past rallies, but its reappearance now has taken on a particularly ironic twist given the state of his campaign.
Celine Dion and her team, however, were not amused. In a statement released by her management and record label, Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Dion made it clear that the use of her music at the rally was completely unauthorized and unwelcome. "In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use," the statement read, before adding a pointed jab: "And really, that song?"