Wait, That's Real?

I thought this Politicon post was a joke [image].  It seems to be a real thing.  And it looks horrible.  Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

Shout Out to a Good Read

This is all correct.  Also, very frustrating.

Future Failure

Not sure what's going to happen, either with the supreme court [monster] nominee nor with elections this fall, but I do know that, if Democrats gain power in the house and senate, and they don't impeach Kavanaugh (assuming he'll still be confirmed), then they will have failed miserably.  They won't likely have the votes to remove him, but if they allow that horrible human to get a free pass (again, assuming he's confirmed) then it is going to further erode what trust Americans (particularly women) still have that there is anyone in Washington that actually gives a damn about them.

Nice Speech, Why Didn't You Do Something?

You know, when you were President yourself?

Obama is a hard person to dislike, and gods know he gives a great speech, but right now, reading through it (I didn't watch/listen) I mostly keep being reminded of how a lot of this is his fault.  Not because of the nonsense the right has vomited up about him and socialism and "Most Liberal President Evah(TM)" but because, despite the obvious craziness of the right (and the GOP in general) in this country he worked so fucking hard to try to meet them in "the middle" on policy grounds, to make them happy in the hope that they would come sidle over to him on some grand bargain.  The ACA is one example (and probably not the best since it's not clear anything better could have passed...though wouldn't it have been great if he'd tried?). 

The foreclosure crisis (shovel money at banks, fuck homeowners who were lied to by said banks), immigration (deport lots of people), militarism (we're not in Afghanistan anymore are we...oh, wait), and more are areas where he just was not good, and not because his hands were tied by congress but because he chose to be. 

Dreamers notwithstanding he was bad on immigration, Trump is worse, but if Obama had actually been good (or at least better) then Trump wouldn't have had the infrastructure to be worse (and it's pretty fucking apparent that without preexisting infrastructure he's too incompetent to do a damned thing). 

Additionally, he was in charge of the DOJ when there were investigations into both Hillary (for something stupid) and Trump (for something that was maybe stupid but only until he won the election, though there's likely a lot of legitimate illegal activity there too...just not as consequential to the country).  We heard about one of those investigations, during the campaigning, a lot...and the other?  Not so much, or really, at all.  The FBI doesn't answer to congress, it answers to the President, yet Comey (a Republican) was doing the GOP congresscritters bidding...whether or not he knew it.  Comey was not good, but he was Obama's pick, and Obama could have picked someone better. 

I could go on, but it's been gone over before.  The ability of Obama to give a great speech shouldn't hide the fact that he could have been a much better president, and if he had, we maybe wouldn't have ended up with the clusterfuck we have now.

Needing "Leaders" is a Problem

Ignoring my many disagreements with French toward the end of this pretty good interview he's talking about a solution and he says:

...I think leadership really, really matters. I think what's needed now is compelling, bold leadership to help repair a rotting political infrastructure...

I'm not sure that he really understands the problem.  Donald Trump is, for all his many faults, "compelling, bold leadership."  He compelled a truckload of mostly [politically] uncaring people to get to the polls for the Republican primary.  He compelled people in states that were considered locks for Dems, who had voted for Obama, to switch to vote for a "Republican" and he is so bold that he not only commits sexual assault but then brags about it.

The problem, fwiw, is that the GOP leadership has, for decades, cultivated their supporters to be particularly stupid.  It's pretty much the only way to win elections when the platform your party stands for boils down to "tax cuts for rich people and whatever the moral outrage of the day is so we can keep the plebes in line/distracted".

The health care thing is the perfect example.  The complaints from the GOP is that people have to spend too much for crappy coverage, but their "fix" is to cut taxes for rich people and make it so that everyone else will have to spend more for worse coverage or go uncovered.

The Lead is My Concern

This Dara Lind post at Vox starts out with my real concern for the next 4 years: "It is entirely plausible that Donald Trump will succeed on his own terms, and will flourish politically for it."

I'm not so sure that I see it unfolding the same way--I think it is more likely that the economy is getting better and will largely continue to do so for at least the next 3 years despite any horrible things Donald does, and that the voting population doesn't care how or why but better means the person in charge stays.  The part that got me thinking, however, was a little lower down.  She states:

...arguments about how the Democratic Party can build a winning coalition again. They tend to bear a suspiciously strong resemblance to whatever the speaker himself thinks is most important.

I have a pretty strong feeling regarding climate change and science research being most important (the latter is very important for combating the former) but I don't think that has anything to do with building a winning coalition.  The only way science in general and climate change specifically get to be a winning coalition is if/when half of Florida finds itself underwater (literally).  Even then I'm not so sure.

I agree that economic populism is far more liberal than Democratic policy in general (and it can't even see Republican policy), but the general perception doesn't go that way.  If you ask people if rich should be taxed the same, more or less, most people say more, but far fewer people vote that way.  Similar issues arise with other economic issues, as well as with many other aspects that we talk about, like identity politics (people say racism is bad but lots of them voted for Trump).

I'm not sure how to win without pandering, or lying or disaffecting [millions] of Americans.  Those are all things that Donald did constantly, and it was pointed out by everyone, and he still won (yes, I know, he actually lost the popular vote by a fair amount, but even still).

The real difference between the parties' campaigning is that Democrats treat the voting public as intelligent, while Republicans treat them like rubes.  There isn't, therefore, anything that Democrats can do to change things short of having a better show.  So long as a sizable fraction of our electorate are, in fact, gullible rubes, it is very difficult to win them over without some form of pandering, lying, and/or showmanship.  The fact that an unqualified racist demagogue can win the presidency is proof positive that the show is of greater import than the message.  Looking back it's pretty easy to see that as a factor to Obama's victories.  It can also be easy to see it as a share of why Reagan, [Bill] Clinton and Dubbya won as well.  Their shows were better.

There is certainly a lot to blame to throw at the media for this (that is where and how the show plays out afterall) but it doesn't change the fact that looking back to recent history, the better showman wins the election.

My opionon since the start of this mess a year ago was that Hillary Clinton could be a very good president--possibly one of our best--but she was a horrible candidate.  No matter how well someone can do the job she has to win first.

Yes, Yes, A Million Times Yes!

Every time Republicans win something everyone (Republicans, sure, but also media and Democrats) acts like they actually won in the sense that we think of it, i.e., as though they got the most votes, but Republicans haven't won the most votes in a national election in quite a while including 2016.  This election more people voted for Democrats for: president, senate and house, and the only reason Republicans control all those things is the messed up system of electoral nonsense that exists in this country.

More people in this country wanted Clinton as president (or at least not Donald).  More people in this country want Democrats to control the Senate and House.  Democrats who are in those bodies need to act like they have the mandate of the people BECAUSE THEY FUCKING DO!

Republicans are good at winning election because they have learned and are willing to game the system (voter suppression, ballot initiatives, gerrymandering, appeal to lower population small states that hold disproportionate voting clout).  Democrats, however, are--and have been for a while--the party that the majority of people in this country actually wants in power.

It would be really nice if the media would also do that but the media, despite perpetual noise about "liberal media bias" actually it actually gives far more credence/deference/respect to things Republican than to things Democratic.

Self Control Ain't What It Is

Diet, exercise, spending, and saving are all considered demonstration of self-control or a lack thereof, but that is probably not the right way to think about it according to a study discussed in this article. It's apparently just that people with better habits aren't tempted as much.  Possibly because they have better habits.  

I also think there is something to be said about the relative ease of different activities.  If you have to spend half an hour getting ready to get exercise then you aren't going to do it very often, even if you like it.  If healthy eating requires lots of prep work and lots of cleanup then that becomes less likely too.  This is why mostly automated saving in 401k's is better than someone personally moving money into a savings/investment/retirement account and why the fully automated social security program is even better.  

Couple Good Reads

So much is terribly depressing and/or infuriating right now.  These two aren't exactly happy, but for democrats, liberals, compassionate people, human beings, non-racists, feminists, pro-LGBTQ...pretty much everyone save for the cesspool of humanity that elected our next president, these are worth reading.

Atrios is not normally this long winded, and he certainly makes many of these points on a regular basis, but shit is fucked up and bullshit.

The other is from Dean Baker at the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).  It's a bit harder to read, but does point forward rather than back.  He concludes:

I would argue that we have pursued policies that have been deliberately designed to shift income upward over this period...It is understandable that the losers from these policies would be looking to lash out at the winners. Voting for Trump was a way these people could spit in the face of the people who they see as wrecking their lives. 

It’s not pretty, but the best way to respond is to give them real ways to improve their lives and stop having all the benefits from growth go to those at the top. Trump is not going to help the people who have been left behind, and we have to make this fact as clear as possible. But we should also be showing them policies that will have substantial and direct effects in improving their lives.

That's pretty much how I feel about why people voted that way, and it pushes on my frustration with the Democratic party these past [20] years.

Twisted Logic

There is a very twisted logic that operates US elections.  The components make sense but assembling them into a whole leads to a twisted, regressive, non-functioning pile of shit.

In our system of government there are so many veto points that even an out-of-power party can do quite a bit to stop progress (mostly by way of the fillibuster in the Senate, and the president's literal veto power).  This means that to have a functioning government one of two conditions needs to be met: all the branches need to be controlled by the same party, and in the Senate that must be a supermajority (60 senators), or the minority party in the Senate must consent to allow the majority party to govern, and/or (depending on who controls what) the two parties must cooperate and work together.

It makes sense, however, for the out-of-power party to do all it can to stop the in-power party from achieving anything perceived as good.  Republicans, and only Republicans, have taken this to heart and understand that even if they control Congress, anything good (or bad) would get credited to the president (not really fair but that's the way it goes).

So it makes sense for the party that is not controlling the executive to make things in the country worse, so that the voters are more likely to change the control to them.  Republicans are perfectly content to harm the country so that they can gain in future elections.  If Democrats were willing to do the same, this might balance out but they are not.  Democrats, unlike Republicans, actually try and accomplish as much good for the country/their district as possible whether or not they are in power.  This means that they cooperate with Republicans to make bills more to their liking.  It also means that if they succeed the Republicans get credit, which means a weaker position in future elections (so Republicans are more willing to cooperate with Democrats if Republicans control the presidency).

This has the natural result of politics that will favor Republican policies over time.  This is true even if (as is actually the case) Democratic policies have more support in the electorate, and (as is also true) the evidence indicates they are better for [the economy, the planet, people's welfare, happiness...].

So why don't Democrats play the game the same way.  There are logical reasons for this too.  The main one is that Democratic voters are far more likely to believe that compromise is a good thing to do.  This has gotten less true of late, and is less true when applied to politics than to life in general, but it is still the case.  

Republicans play politics as a zero-sum game.  Democrats do not.  This means that, frustratingly for any thinking person: Republicans are more likely to win in the long run, and the US is more likely to lose (note: not because of policies, though I think that too, but because periods where Democrats are in charge, Republicans are fine with hurting the US to gain power back, but the reverse is not true).

The twisted logic is that it could be that voting for Republicans may be what is best for the country and best to advance Demcratic priorities, and that this will continue to be true so long as the two parties are playing different games.  Either Democrats need to wise up and play the same game as Republicans, or voters need to get over racism, sexism and xenophobia to actually vote for the party that has their interests in mind.  The past few decades hasn't left me with positive feelings about the Dem establishment, and after this election, I don't have much hope for the latter.

This Election "Undecided" = "Doesn't Like Clinton but Probably not a Racist", or "A Idiot"

I understand not liking the Clintons (not Hillary in particular who I think is better than Bill), but there is no world in which voting for Trump is acceptable to anyone who isn't a racist, misogynistic, sexist, xenophobic ass hole.

If you are voting for Donald Trump you are at least one of those things.  If you are a "liberal" and not voting for Hillary you are probably "a idiot" (if you are a "liberal" and voting Trump see the previous assessment).  I like the idea of viable Green and Libertarian parties for local politics and the US House.  There's really no way that works in this country for president (and really even for US Senate), so if you vote Jill Stein in most places you are a idiot.  If you are "conservative" and vote Gary Johnson, then that is probably the best sign that you are in fact conservative and not a racist ass hole pretending conservative means something it doesn't.

So undecided voters are a bit of a mix.  Some are "a idiots" certainly, but a large fraction are probably Republicans (nominal or de facto) who understand that supporting Donald puts you in league with racists, sexists, bigots and one yuuuge misogynistic authoritarian demagogue (who may or may not be a racist bigot, but that doesn't matter...no, it really doesn't).

Things that should be better than they are

"Dark Chocolate Toasted Coconut Cashews" from Costco sound awesome and are, I guess, pretty good, but have a major flaw: the cashews are actually first coated in a vanilla creme, then with the namesake dark chocolate and coconut.  That makes it taste like milk chocolate, which they may as well have used, but also, the coating vs. the size of the nut inside is insane.  Way too much outside, not enough cashew.

_________'s Supporters Are THE WORST!

Yes, Hillary is a weak candidate, but she's going to win.  Yes, Bernie's campaign is somewhat confusing at this point, but there are reasons to stay in it.

What really has been bugging me about the Democratic primaries is how stupid/horrible the supporters of the respective candidates are.  Yes, that shows up in comments sections the most, but even some of the higher profile "professional" supporters are pretty awful to the other side, and usually in counter-productive fashion.  Krugman is the one I have mentioned (repeatedly).  After I read any of his anti-Bernie columns/posts I just dislike Hillary more.  That is not helpful.  It isn't compelling.  It's just pissing people off because you disagree with them.  It's more likely to make them stay home in November, and you don't want that.

Stop being fucking horrible to people who you need to be on your side (or your candidate's side).

Good God Not Again

Dear Paul Krugman,

Please stop saying stupid things.

Respectfully,
A Liberal

Yea, the Berniebros are pretty ignorant of facts, and I really don't get Sanders's campaign at this point (I think I read a theory on why...something about more delegates meaning having a stronger position for determining the party platform).  On the other hand, the "center-left" thought the Iraq war was a good idea.  They supported financial deregulation that gave us the financial crisis and lesser depression.  More recently they wanted to make a deal with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare because grand bargain mysticism rules them.  The [professional] center-left is hardly the home of "intellectual values".

Of course there are fact challenged liberals and other left wing types.  The more progressive activists of the Democratic party tend to be anti-GMO, and think that organic and local = sustainable.  There's also a lot of anti-nuclear [power] that tends to be more left-wing.  But, fortunately I think, those types are a (loud) minority within the party.  The liberal sphere of our politics is, as a whole pro-science, pro-facts, and pro-intellect.  So the saying "facts have a well known liberal bias" is accurate, but the second you try and subdivide the left you leave yourself very open to the failings of whichever branch you have decided is the bearer of The Truth.

The center left has some pretty fucking horrible failings.  Way out there left wing nuts may have some kooky aspects, but no one has ever listened to them...even when they have been right.

Crappy Statistics

Vox in talking about the liberal/moderate/conservative line and how it helps Clinton presents this chart:

This is an example of incomplete data that doesn't actually help inform.  If more conservative people call Romney liberal, Obama very liberal, and themselves very conservative, but more liberal people call Romney conservative, Obama moderate and themselves between moderate and liberal you can end up with that plot even if far more people are Obama supporters than Romney.

The perception of self vs. others is important and it is likely different between liberal and conservative individuals.  This plot is only useful if more liberal individuals and more conservative individuals have the exact same relative perception.  Nothing about that chart would imply they do.  

Obama is, on a historical scale, pretty much the same as Regan, which, at the most liberal, would put him right down the middle.  Romney, as governor would have been similar, though Romney the presidental candidate ran as closer to very conservative than moderate.  

Anyone using that chart to draw general conclusions is either lazy or bad at statistics.  Those numbers don't mean what they look like they mean.

Because We Don't...Listen?

Look, scientists are not necessarily the people we want to pay attention to for every little thing.  We are, however, the go-to people for, you know, science stuff.  That's why some of this crap is really frustrating.

Look at that list then think about where the two parties sit.  One party is pro-science, the other is not.  There are some crossover issues, but they are not really party platform points...Yes, more liberals (probably) think GM foods are not safe to eat, and certainly more liberal politicians push for laws on labeling, but the Democratic party does not really care.  Animal research is similar.  Nuclear power is also similar except that the party is very much pro nuclear power.  

Only one party has large numbers who state they do not believe the science on climate change.  Only one party has presidential candidates who publicly declare that they do not believe in evolution.  Indirectly on the list but only one party fights against alternative energy mostly that which comes in the form of solar.

I really do wish the Republican party wasn't anti-science.  I probably still wouldn't vote for them because I have a heart (i.e. liberal on social issues) but at least I would be somewhat less fearful of the damage that will be done to our country and our planet when they have power.

Infuriating and Depressing

There's really no good way to understand understand how [some] American [police] handle black citizens other than racism.  There's even less of a way to get around how the justice system treats these events other than racism.  There are two justice systems in America.  Black people who may or may not be guilty of some crime can be killed by police and nothing comes of it.  White gun nuts engaged in open carry while drunk on the other hand?  Pretty much nothing.  He loses his gun for an afternoon (because drunk) and that's it.  No citation, no wrestling, tazering, pepper spraying, and definitely no shooting because white.

Doing Iraq Wrongish

I don't think I really disagree with Obama's (stated, apparent) policies on Iraq and ISIS (or ISIL or just IS or the evil hobgoblins of doom riding the four horsemen of the apocolypse to destroy America and make the world a terrorist paradise of...but I digress).  It's the way he talks about them, and the way that most other news outlets and media people and politicians talk about them.

Digby's put together a piece that covers how I feel about this.

Shorter President Obama

"Torturers are patriots"

Not Learning Good

I would have thought that after Hillary lost to Barack in 2008 she would have learned that the Democratic base likes their candidate to be less warmongery.  It even sounded like she had really come to see how badly flawed her judgement was on Iraq.  Guess not.  I really want to like Hillary, but it is exactly this kind of right-wing sounding militaristic crap that I find outrageous coming from anyone, much less a Democrat.  I hope that we get a better candidate on military/intelligence that can displace her.  What is more likely is that such a candidate would make her pull back and lots of people would believe she is less of a warmonger than she is.

She's probably worse than Obama...who, still dissapointingly, was not a whole lot better than Bush Jr.  Why the fuck can't we get a presidential candidate that doesn't want to arm and then bomb the hell out of the middle east?!?