Quick hits (part II)

1) This whole Donald Trump book report thing is what the internet was made for.  So good.

2) Really good Zack Beauchamp piece on how Russia has been able to so successfully manipulate our media through Wikileaks:

When you hand over stolen information that’s damaging to Hillary Clinton to a radical transparency group that detests Hillary Clinton (because of her relatively hawkish foreign policy), the result is eminently predictable: That information will be published online for the entire world to see.

At that point, journalists really don’t have any option but to cover the disclosures.

Journalists can’t just ignore information that’s in the public interest because the source might be shady. If it’s important, true, and valuable for the public to know, then journalists really should be covering it. That’s why the New York Times, which resisted publishing information from hacked Sony emails in 2014, ended up covering them once they were made public.

“Is it possible to dismiss the fact that these emails have such tremendous news value? Absolutely not,” Lonnie Isabel, a senior lecturer at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, says of the recent Clinton disclosure. “A lot of the decisions that are made for us in the digital age are made simply by disclosure.”

3) How John Podesta (and Colin Powell were hacked).  Never, never, never click a link in an email unless you are 100% sure it is legit.

4) That was really, really dumb (on many levels) for Hillary Clinton to promise not to add a dime to the debt.

5) Dahlia Lithwick on McCain and the Supreme Court:

It seems to me that what’s causing all the melting messages here is the unforeseen consequence of a decades-long campaign by the GOP to make the composition of the court the only important issue for voters. Whether it was a way to rally opposition to Roe v. Wade, or a means of mobilizing gun rights voters, it’s useful to push the idea that the only thing that matters in a presidential contest is the court. The problem with that argument is that in its purest form it leads precisely to where we are today: Trump’s repeated claims that no matter how odious he may be as a candidate, you’ll vote for him anyhow because otherwise Hillary judges will destroy America.

For some people, that’s a convincing enough argument. Unfortunately for Trump, though, it’s been roundly rejected by anyone who believes that the rule of law is more important than the composition of the court. On the same day Grassley and McCain were ripping the mask off Garland obstruction as blood sport, a list of the most respected constitutional originalist scholars published a devastating attack on Donald Trump, regardless of whom he may name to the court.

6) Evan Osnos on what a Trump loss does to the Republican Party.

7) Frustrating political battle with the Carbon Tax in Washington State.

8) The actual reality of late-term abortion.  Shockingly, it’s not at all what Donald Trump describes.

9) How Republicans have made very fertile ground for Trump’s claim of election “rigging.”

Over the past few years, Republicans in many states took an opportunity — enabled by a 2013 Supreme Court ruling — to pass a series of new restrictions on voting. Critics said the restrictions disproportionately hurt minority voters. But Republican backers, at least in public, have pointed to a single issue to defend the measures: voter fraud.

A previous report by the US Department of Justice captured the sentiment among many Republicans: Rep. Sue Burmeister, a lead sponsor of Georgia’s voter restriction law, told the Justice Department that “if there are fewer black voters because of this bill, it will only be because there is less opportunity for fraud. [Burmeister] said that when black voters in her black precincts are not paid to vote, they do not go to the polls.” Other Republicans, such as North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and Iowa Rep. Steve King, have similarly warned about the dangers of voter fraud.

Trump isn’t even the first Republican presidential candidate to raise concerns about voter fraud. Back in 2008, many Republicans, with the support of conservative media outlets like Fox News, pushed concerns that ACORN — a community organization that focused in part on registering African-American voters — was engaging in mass-scale election fraud. At the time, Republican nominee John McCain warned that ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

10) And, speaking of which, voter fraud reality– with skittles!

11) Chait on the 2000 Florida recount and Trump.

12) County-by-county maps of 2012 and what they can tell us about 2016.

13) Yglesias on the “silent majority” for Hillary Clinton.

14) It’s more than fine to be an “anti-helicopter” parent.  But that doesn’t mean you have to be a jerk about it.

15) Maria Konnikova on how practice doesn’t make perfect.  Honestly, I find it amazing that there are still serious people out there arguing that genetics doesn’t matter in these things.  Time to plug The Sports Gene again.

16) NYT on how the Trump and Clinton Foundations are different (mostly, the Clinton Foundation money mostly goes to helping needy people).

17) Really enjoyed Ron Brownstein on the changing electoral college map:

That new geographic pattern is rooted in the race’s defining demographic trends. In the six major national polls released just before last week’s first presidential debate, Trump led among white voters without a college education by resounding margins of 20 to 32 percentage points. But he confronted deficits of 40-50 points among non-white voters, and was facing more resistance than any previous Republican nominee in the history of modern polling among college-educated whites: five of the six surveys showed him trailing among them by margins of two-to-eleven percentage points (while he managed only to run even in the sixth.) The race is on track to produce the widest gap ever between the preferences of college-and non-college whites, while Trump may reach record lows among voters of color…

While the Sunbelt states are growing steadily more diverse, the Rustbelt states are remaining predominantly white, and aging at that: as I wrote earlier this year, the non-partisan States of Change project has projected that from 2008 to 2016 the minority share of eligible voters will rise by more in each of the Sunbelt swing states than in any of the Rustbelt battlegrounds. And data from both the Census Bureau and the exit polls show that whites without a college-education represent a larger share of the vote in almost all of the Rustbelt states than any of the Sunbelt states. Indeed, one key reason Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Ohio is that college-educated whites represent a larger share of the vote there, especially in the exit poll data.

18) And, speaking of demographic trends, not at all surprising that Asian-Americans of all kinds are pretty united against Trump (as the Republican Party is ever more the White People’s Party).


19) I have little doubt that blinding prosecutors to the race of the person charged would lead to more fair outcomes.

20) Great Krugman column on Hillary Clinton:

When political commentators praise political talent, what they seem to have in mind is the ability of a candidate to match one of a very limited set of archetypes: the heroic leader, the back-slapping regular guy you’d like to have a beer with, the soaring orator. Mrs. Clinton is none of these things: too wonky, not to mention too female, to be a regular guy, a fairly mediocre speechifier; her prepared zingers tend to fall flat.

Yet the person tens of millions of viewers saw in this fall’s debates was hugely impressive all the same: self-possessed, almost preternaturally calm under pressure, deeply prepared, clearly in command of policy issues. And she was also working to a strategic plan: Each debate victory looked much bigger after a couple of days, once the implications had time to sink in, than it may have seemed on the night.

Oh, and the strengths she showed in the debates are also strengths that would serve her well as president. Just thought I should mention that. And maybe ordinary citizens noticed the same thing; maybe obvious competence and poise in stressful situations can add up to a kind of star quality, even if it doesn’t fit conventional notions of charisma.

Furthermore, there’s one thing Mrs. Clinton brought to this campaign that no establishment Republican could have matched: She truly cares about her signature issues, and believes in the solutions she’s pushing.

I know, we’re supposed to see her as coldly ambitious and calculating, and on some issues — like macroeconomics — she does sound a bit bloodless, even when she clearly understands the subject and is talking good sense. But when she’s talking about women’s rights, or racial injustice, or support for families, her commitment, even passion, are obvious. She’s genuine, in a way nobody in the other party can be.

So let’s dispel with this fiction that Hillary Clinton is only where she is through a random stroke of good luck. She’s a formidable figure, and has been all along.

21) And last, read this terrific Alec MacGillis piece on how people are increasingly sorting themselves out geographically and politically.  It makes it really hard for Democrats:

More recently, a confluence of several trends has conspired to make the sorting disadvantageous for Democrats on an even broader scale — increasing the party’s difficulties in House races while also affecting Senate elections and, potentially, future races for the presidency.

First, geographic mobility in the United States has become very class-dependent. Once upon a time, lower-income people were willing to pull up stakes and move to places with greater opportunity — think of the people who fled the Dust Bowl for California in the 1930s, or those who took the “Hillbilly Highway” out of Appalachia to work in Midwestern factories, or Southern blacks on the Great Migration. In recent decades, though, internal migration has slowed sharply, and the people who are most likely to move for better opportunities are the highly educated.

Second, higher levels of education are increasingly correlated with voting Democratic. This has been most starkly on display in the 2016 election, as polls suggest that Donald J. Trump may be the first Republican in 60 years to not win a majority of white voters with college degrees, even as he holds his own among white voters without degrees. But the trend of increasing Democratic identification among college graduates, and increasing Republican identification among non-graduates, was underway before Mr. Trump arrived on the scene. Today, Democrats hold a 12-point edge in party identification among those with a college degree or more. In 2004, the parties were even on that score.

Quick hits (part II)

Oh, my a practically 100% politics version.  Well, there has been a lot going on.

1) Ronald Brownstein on Trump’s legacy for the Republican Party:

Minorities, millennials, and white-collar whites have been the most likely groups of voters to reject Trump personally as unqualified and temperamentally unfit for the presidency. But in polls they are also most resistant to his insular agenda. Those voters display particular opposition to Trump’s most racially barbed proposals—including his plans for a Mexican border wall and the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, and his evolving proposals to bar Muslims from entering the United States—and are most inclined to view Trump as biased against women and minorities. As a new national survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows, they are also the most dubious about his protectionism on trade—and most likely to view greater global economic integration as benefiting both the country overall and their own living standards.

All of this signals that, even without his personal foibles, Trumpism alienates precisely the electorate’s fastest growing groups, which include minorities, millennials, and college-educated white women. That’s why so many Republican strategists have long feared he was steering the GOP to disaster by identifying it so explicitly with white backlash against demographic, cultural, and economic change.

The challenge those Trump critics face is that his bristling defensive nationalism has struck a powerful chord within the Republican coalition—primarily, but not exclusively, within its growing blue-collar wing. Chen, like many GOP thinkers, believes Republicans can’t simply revert to their old agenda of free trade and smaller government if Trump loses, but must find ways to address the white working-class anxieties that “Trump exposed” in ways that don’t alienate so many other voters.

2) Paul Waldman on what the hacked emails really tell us about American politics.  Nothing we didn’t know:

It takes a mighty effort to turn this into something sinister. But some are trying, though. The New York Times story about it notes:

The private discussions among her advisers about policy — on trade, on the Black Lives Matter movement, on Wall Street regulation — often revolved around the political advantages and pitfalls of different positions, while there was little or no discussion about what Mrs. Clinton actually believed. Mrs. Clinton’s team at times seemed consumed with positioning and optics.

That’s like saying that emails circulating among the coaching staff of the Washington Nationals “at times seemed consumed with how to score runs and prevent their opponents from doing the same.” These are political operatives. That’s what they do.

3) Jay Rosen on how the mainstream media is ill-equipped to properly cover the asymmetry between the parties.

4) Molly Ball talks with disaffected and smart conservative Avik Roy on the problems with the Republican Party.

5) Waldman on how Trump has revealed his loathsome self:

It’s safe to say that commenting, even implicitly, on the looks of his accusers would not be part of that plan.

But think about it: Since this story broke last Friday, have you heard Trump say a single thing that demonstrates he’s even attempting to understand women’s perspectives on this question? Beyond a perfunctory “No one respects women more than I do,” he has been completely unable to express even an iota of sympathy for what women go through every day, the way that harassment and unwanted advances are a reality of life for them. An ordinary politician would do that, or at least try, even if it wasn’t sincere and someone had to explain to him how to go about it. But not Donald Trump.

6) I decided to find some good, simple explanations of Hillary’s email “scandal.”  This Politifact was the best.

7) NC Senator Richard Burr probably picked the wrong time to become an official Trump adviser.

8) And Paul Waldman, again, on Ted Cruz, laughingstock:

The fact that Cruz caved in so quickly and so easily and for such motives might have been a tragedy. The fact that he did it just two weeks — two weeks! — before Trump’s campaign collapsed in on itself and was deserted by one prominent Republican after the next, that’s not tragic. That’shilarious.

And the funniest part of all? There wasn’t a single aspect of this that wasn’t utterly predictable, utterly obvious — apparently to everyone except someone of Cruz’s universally recognized intelligence. I mean, who could have thought that Donald Trump would self-destruct? Who could have thought that some horrible new thing would come out that would finally break the camel’s back? Who could have foreseen this, except anyone who had paid attention at any of the last six months?

If Cruz could have held his nerve for just two more weeks, he’d be looking smart, courageous, and principled. A prescient man, one who could be TrusTed. Two weeks!

There are many, many causes for sadness these days in American politics. Ted Cruz, however, has become a source of mirth. And these days, I’ll take all the comfort I can get.

9) Great Seth Myers clip on Trump supporters denying sexual assault claims.

10) Speaking of which, Brendan Nyhan wrote this two years ago on how social science explains the floodgate of accusations coming loose on Bill Cosby.  Very much applies to Trump as well.

11) Whether or not Trump is an anti-Semite doesn’t matter, because he’s gone full-on anti-Semite in his rhetoric.

12) Former McCain adviser Steve Schmidt on the Republican Party:

As a conservative Republican, I find anathematic the regulatory and tax policies of liberal Democrats. But there’s no question that Republicans — as an institution and what we’re led by — are unfit to run the country, or to govern the country.

You have a massive reckoning coming due that will play out over years on the serially putting party above country. We’ve reached the moment in time that George Washington warned about in his farewell address with the danger of factions. You have basically warring tribes that subordinate the national interest to their tribal interest.

There’s no higher value obviously for most — though not all — Republican elected officials than maintaining fidelity to Donald Trump. What’s extraordinary about that is that in America, we don’t take an oath to a strongman leader; we take it to the Constitution of the United States. And Donald Trump is obviously manifestly unfit in every conceivable way to occupy the office of the American head of state.

13) Excellent Seth Masket on the moral failure of Paul Ryan:

Paul Ryan is the elected leader of the most democratic branch of government. The speaker of the House has a dual mandate — he or she functions as a party leader (and is often elected on a party-line vote) but is also a constitutional officer, serving as the leader of the chamber. Sen. Mitch McConnell, as the leader of a party caucus, bears no such official responsibility to his chamber. (Joe Biden is president of the Senate.) Indeed, it is often the speaker of the House who will push back against accretions of executive power, which can lead anti-democratic outcomes.

But when democratic institutions themselves are under attack, does not the leader of the most democratic branch of government have some obligation to defend it? How can Ryan maintain an endorsement for a presidential candidate who has promised, repeatedly and publicly, to undermine the nation’s democratic traditions?

To be sure, there has been no shortage of statements by Trump inviting condemnation by his fellow Republicans on a broad range of topics. But when democracy itself is at risk, there is no political figure better situated to stand up and defend it than the House speaker. By maintaining his endorsement for Trump, Ryan has failed at this vital task.

14) Nice exploration of the complicated relationships between race, class, and political views in the Monkey Cage.

15) Even Krauthammer cannot take Trump’s “lock her up” talk.

16) This 538 feature that lets you play around with the demographics of states and see how it would affect their voting patterns is so much fun.

17) Loved Barry Schwartz’s Paradox of Choice.  One of those popular social science books that has stayed with me ever since reading it (too much choice is a bad thing).  Here an article on the implications for the dating world.

18) Ryan Lizza’s profile of Trump campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway is good stuff.  This little bit at the beginning real caught me and certainly explained why a woman who thinks like this would work for Trump:

Conway, who is the first woman to run a Republican Presidential campaign, told me that she was proud of the milestone but not hung up on it. “I’ve been in a very male-dominated business for decades,” she said. “I found, particularly early on, that there’s plenty of room for passion, but there’s very little room for emotion.” She added, “I tell people all the time, ‘Don’t be fooled, because I am a man by day.’ ”

19) A 33 tweet long tweetstorm on how impossible it would be to “rig” the election (write a blog post already!!).  I’m sure Trump’s campaign will take this to heart😉.

20) A good explainer on just how absurd Trump’s accusations of libel are.

21) Ezra’s “unified theory” of Trump scandals:

A disciplined politician would have spent the past few weeks executing a strategy that played to Hillary Clinton’s vulnerabilities rather than his own. He would have focused on the WikiLeaks emails, and on his best messages. He would have dismissed accusations against himself as efforts to change the subject, and then moved on from them. He would have worked overtime to shore up support among wavering Republican politicians.

Of late, Trump’s behavior reminds me of the Joker’s epic speech in The Dark Knight. “Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just … do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon’s got plans. You know, they’re schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I’m not a schemer.”

That’s Donald Trump. A dog chasing cars. A guy who just … does things.

22) Walmart discovers that it is actually good business to compensate and treat your employees well.  It’s all about the theory of “efficiency wages.”

23) The fact that I want to believe this so much and that it seems to make intuitive sense with my experience actually makes me skeptical.  But I’ve been reading enough lately without actually delving into this article Mika tweeted a link to.  Here’s the abstract:

Conservatives differ from liberals in a variety of domains, including exhibiting greater fear and disgust sensitivity. Additionally, experimental procedures to reduce reasoning ability lead to stronger endorsement of conservative views. We propose that dual-process models of moral judgements can account for these findings, with conservatives relying on System 1 (fast, emotional) and liberals relying on System 2 (slow, reasoned) processes. To test this theory, we had liberal and conservative participants respond to moral dilemmas under cognitive load or with no load. As predicted, liberals took longer to respond under cognitive load than under no load, indicating a reliance on controlled reasoning processes. Conservatives’ response times were not affected by cognitive load. These differences cannot be accounted for by group differences in logical reasoning or working memory capacity. Instead, as predicted, logical reasoning ability positively predicted the time that liberals, but not conservatives, spent contemplating the dilemmas. These findings suggest that differential reliance on Systems 1 and 2 may be a fundamental aspect of left-right political orientation. They also challenge intuitionist models of morality and politics and suggest a dual-process theory of morality could account for some of the discrepancies in the political psychology literature.

24) Nice interview with the Post’s David Fahrenthold, who has done such exemplary work on the Trump beat.

25) No matter what happens November 8th, how damn well Republicans have gerrymandered this country is depressing in its ongoing long-term ramifications.

26) Fascinating essay from a psychologist who spent his career counseling Catholic priests who fall in love.

27) Paul Waldman on the wave of misogyny Clinton’s election will surely unleash.  When we think about what has happened with racism under Obama, it really is depressing.


Quick hits (part I)

1) Nice NYT feature on “what happened to North Carolina?”

But it is also Exhibit A of the partisan self-sorting that has defined national politics in recent decades; a trend that has produced violent mood swings. Its population is divided between the predominantly Democratic metropolitan areas surrounding powerful research universities, corporate centers and high-tech industries on one hand, and majority Republican voters in emptying towns struggling to survive the shuttering of once-dominant furniture, textile and tobacco industries on the other.

The opposing demographics held each other in relative check until after the 2008 election. But after Democrats won the presidential, gubernatorial and senatorial races that year, the national Republican State Leadership Committee coordinated donors to flip the Statehouse. Taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allowed virtually unlimited private spending on campaigns, this group of donors — led by discount-store magnate James Arthur Pope — flooded cheap, often-ignored state legislative races with attack ads against Democrats.

The resulting Republican majority immediately moved to impose drastic abortion restrictions and curbs on same-sex marriage, along with new limits on voter access — disproportionately and, according to the federal courts, intentionally affecting black voters — and police accountability. These policies have predictably sharpened the state’s partisan divide, but they have also more unexpectedly created a rift between what used to be the Republican Party’s most durable bases: social conservatives and business. The man most clearly caught in the middle is Governor McCrory.

2) Like this take from Ezra– at last, Trump has been un-normalized.

3) Drum takes a look at Clinton’s paid speeches and is unimpressed at what, if anything, we’ve really learned:

In other news, we learned that Clinton is pretty much the same person in private that she is in public. She’s moderate, pragmatic, and willing to work across the aisle. She dislikes protectionism and thinks we should try to cut the budget deficit in a balanced way. She doesn’t demonize Wall Street.

You may or may not like this, but it’s who Hillary Clinton has been forever. There are no surprises here. So while I may have skipped past a couple of small things too quickly on my first read, my overall opinion remains the same: There’s just nothing here that’s plausibly damaging, even when it’s run through the Donald Trump alternate universe pie hole. I guess we’ll find out tonight if I’m right.

4) Jamelle Bouie on Trump’s calls for race-based voter intimidation on election day.

5) Dave Leonhardt on Trump in the 2nd debate.  Honestly, this aspect got far too little coverage:

He lied about a sex tape.

He lied about his lies about ‘birtherism.’

He lied about the growth rate of the American economy.

He lied about the state of the job market.

He lied about the trade deficit.

He lied about tax rates.

He lied about his own position on the Iraq War, again.

He lied about ISIS.

He lied about the Benghazi attack.

He lied about the war in Syria.

He lied about Syrian refugees.

He lied about Russia’shacking.

He lied about the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.

He lied about her health care plan.

He lied about her immigration plan.

He lied about her email deletion.

He lied about Obamacare, more than once.

He lied about the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

He lied about his history of groping women without their consent.

Finally, he broke with basic democratic norms and called on his political opponent to be jailed — because, in large part, of what he described as her dishonesty.

6) Among the more bizarre things… conservative radio host and Trump adviser Alex Jones thinks Clinton is literally a demon.

7) Fascinating essay (and call for restorative justice) from a woman who discovered her husband was a violent rapist.

8) Benjamin Wallace-Wells on Clinton’s coming struggle with Trump supporters.

9) Though Republicans tend to refer to anything they don’t like as “political correctness” it is a real thing and can reach truly absurd lengths in America’s universities.  This case at University of Tennessee is just appalling.

10) Chait with a thoughtful post asking “would you vote for a sexual predator?”

Donald Trump is a vile human being. He also happens to advocate policies — or, in some cases, policy-esque impulses — that I find dangerous and horrifying. And so revelations about his boasting of sexual assault serve to reinforce my repugnance for this grotesque bully. This makes it easy for people who agree with me to judge the Republicans willing to overlook Trump’s obscene and even criminal mistreatment of women. But what if the candidate I supported were the Trump-like character? And, hence, what if the election of a sexual predator was the only alternative to eliminating health insurance for millions, allowing runaway climate change, submitting to right-wing control of the courts, and so on? Well, then, I have to admit that I would probably hold my nose and support him anyway…

Now, an important distinction has to be made between accepting a leader’s moral unfitness as a necessary trade-off for the greater good and minimizing or justifying the behavior itself. The most disturbing response to the Trump tapes is the casual insistence that his behavior is normal and therefore acceptable. A recent Politico survey of anonymous political insiders provided harrowing evidence of this very belief…

But policy matters an awful lot. Republicans find their policy preferences linked to the triumph of a loathsome man. I have little agreement with those policy preferences, but the dilemma is one with which I sympathize.

11) On the absurdity of Trump’s love for the “new” Russian nukes.

12) And a nice Post editorial on Trump as “Putin’s puppet.”

13) The behavioral economics of recycling.

14) How FIFA soccer video game is actually a useful tool for pros.  Personally, I haven’t really liked sports video games since I had a IBM PC Jr.  I am pretty intrigued by the idea of Football Manager, though.  Any recommendations on it?

15) The Post makes their “closing argument” against Trump.

16) Great tweetstorm from a Republican woman fed up with her party nicely compiled into a post, by Conor Friedersdorf.

17) I must admit I was shocked and fascinated to read this post on racism in academia.  I literally see absolutely zero of it among my colleagues.  We are so happy to have good minority applicants in our hiring pools and look to find more that I find it truly shocking that their are college professors who would look for ways to discount quality minority applicants.

18) I really find it kind of amazing that Samsung engineers simply could not solve the battery-catching-on-fire issue in their new phone and had to give up on it.

19) John Oliver was born to take on Trump’s latest scandal.

20) EJ Dionne on the problems in today’s GOP.

For years, Republicans managed an exceptional acrobatic act: to mobilize right-wing populist anger and white working-class voters behind a program whose benefits flowed to the economic elites. The operation was supported by large expenditures from the very rich. The assumption was always that the base would get the noise and the elites would get the policy.

21) Amazing story of how a drone and a twitter photo led to a NC man being saved from flooding.

22) After supporting him in numerous elections, The Charlotte Observer is done with Pat McCrory:

The Charlotte Observer’s editorial board has endorsed Republican Pat McCrory in every one of his bids for office since 1991. That includes twice for City Council, seven times for mayor and twice for governor. That streak comes to an end today.

McCrory’s term as North Carolina governor is the ultimate illustration of the Peter Principle: that people are promoted based on their past performance and not the abilities needed for the new role and thus rise to the level of their incompetence. McCrory has certainly done that…

McCrory had a notable career in public service. But he has climbed the ladder beyond his abilities. It is time for him to come home.

23) Republican former prosecutors on the amazing wrongness of Trump’s threats to put Clinton in jail.

24) Russell Berman on the wikileaks of Clinton-related emails:

But the leak of thousands of hacked email exchanges among Clinton’s top advisers suggest the same can be said about her—at least in her role as a public figure. They capture a candidate, and a campaign, that seems in private exactly as cautious, calculating, and politically flexible as they appeared to be in public. The Clinton campaign underestimated and then fretted about rival candidate Bernie Sanders, worried about Joe Biden entering the primary race and Elizabeth Warren endorsing her opponent, plotted endlessly about managing Clinton’s image in the press, took advantage of its close ties to the Obama administration and the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, and took public positions to the left of comments Clinton herself made during private paid speeches to Wall Street firms…

The most common thread in the Podesta emails, however, is that they show a political candidate being political. Not much more, and not much less. Clinton is a mainstream Democrat who admires “moderates” and pragmatism. And yes, she did move to the left to defeat an insurgent liberal opponent.

25) Loved this story about a math genius NFL player who knows he’s putting his brain and future at risk with every snap.

America and gender in red and blue

Pretty interesting maps via Nate Silver’s twitter:

Yes, too many men are troglodytes who cannot resist Trump’s alpha male appeal, but, yowza, those women in the deep South.

Quick hits (part II)

Sorry for the delay.  Loss of power due to Hurricane Matthew.  Fortunately, most of it was while we were sleeping and we got it back before too long.  My FB feed is filled with photos of trees on roads and powerlines all over the area.  Anyway…

1) Chait on reasons to stop freaking out about Obamacare.

2) An English professor says we are teaching composition wrong.

3) Chris Cilizza (before last Friday) refers to Trump’s lack of debate preparation as “the single most remarkable thing I have read about Donald Trump in a very long time.”  Seriously?  Is he in a coma?  Good take on it, nonetheless:

The problem for Trump is that a presidential general election campaign isn’t analogous to anything else he’s done in his life. You can’t wing it in a debate in front of 80 million people against someone who has spent virtually her entire life preparing for this one moment. You can’t ignore the advice of people brought in to give you advice because you are convinced you know better. In short, you have to pay attention.

That Trump couldn’t bring himself to do that in a moment of such critical import as the debate on Monday night is the only evidence you need of something I have been saying for a while now: There is no other Donald Trump. No new leaf. No pivot. No 2.0. This is it — take it or leave it. Trump is absolutely convinced that who he is — before he reads a single policy paper or briefing book or participates in a single mock debate — is good enough to win. That’s the most risky bet he’s ever made.

4) A cognitive bias cheat sheet.  Handy.

5) Chait on the myth of the change election.

6) Did not know how far the literary establishment was taking this “cultural appropriation” stuff.  Apparently, for some, if you are a white middle-aged man, that’s all you can write about in your fiction.  Ugh.

7) This Nate Cohn piece is from a bit ago, but it’s a nice explanation of key differences between public and private polls.

8) How Howard Stern owned Trump:

This much-craved publicity, of course, came at price: Stern has long had a devilish talent for lulling guests into a false sense of security—and then luring them into rhetorical traps. He casts his guests in a burlesque he scripts for them, and cattle-prods them into playing their parts, first fawning over them until they feel like celebrities, then bringing down the hammer of humiliation. He’s a diabolically domineering scene partner. No interviewer has ever been as adroit with treacherous leading questions in the vein of “When did you stop beating your wife?” Stern, in other words, gets people to publicly embrace their worst selves—and say things they live to regret.

That’s exactly what happened with Trump. Today, as the Republican nominee, he may fashion himself as a boss and a master of the universe. But what comes across in old tapes of the show, resurfaced recently by BuzzFeed and other outlets, is that Trump, like many of Stern’s guests, was often the one being played. By nailing him as a buffoon and then—unkindest cut—forcing him to kiss the Howard Stern ring, Stern and his co-anchor, Robin Quivers, created a series of broadcasts that today showcase not just Trump’s misogyny but his ready submission to sharper minds.

9) Atlas Obscura asks if there’s such a thing as too many blueberries.  They say “yes.”  I say, “no” until I can buy them fresh for <$3 pint year round.

10) It seems quaint now to talk about how Trump got rich in Atlantic City by ripping off people who invested with him.  But, it should not be forgotten.

11) Interesting interview with editor of NYT about the challenges of covering Trump and more good stuff.

12) Harsh take: Colombia’s referendum rejecting peace deal is proof democracy does not work.

13) Rob Christensen is back in the Sunday N&O writing about the NC Republicans’ massive miscalculation on HB2.

14) Somehow missed this from the summer.  Andrew Gelman on why political betting markets are not as reliable as they used to be.

15) It’s obviously been eclipsed by other news, but Trump digging in on the Central Park Five really is disgusting (but not at all surprising).

16) Frum argues that the GOP should learn from what Trump got right:

Trump saw that Republican voters are much less religious in behavior than they profess to pollsters. He saw that the social-insurance state has arrived to stay. He saw that Americans regard healthcare as a right, not a privilege. He saw that Republican voters had lost their optimism about their personal futures—and the future of their country. He saw that millions of ordinary people who do not deserve to be dismissed as bigots were sick of the happy talk and reality-denial that goes by the too generous label of “political correctness.” He saw that the immigration polices that might have worked for the mass-production economy of the 1910s don’t make sense in the 2010s. He saw that rank-and-file Republicans had become nearly as disgusted with the power of money in politics as rank-and-file Democrats long have been. He saw that Republican presidents are elected, when they are elected, by employees as well as entrepreneurs. He saw these things, and he was right to see them.

The wiser response to the impending Republican electoral defeat is to learn from Trump’s insights—separate them from Trump’s volatile personality and noxious attitudes—and use them to develop better, more workable, and more broadly acceptable policies for a 21st-century center-right. That doesn’t mean inscribing Trumpism as the party’s new orthodoxy. The GOP needs less orthodoxy, not more! What a wiser response to the defeat does mean is joining what can usefully be extracted from Trumpism to the core beliefs of the Republican Party: individual initiative, a free enterprise economy, limited government, lower taxes, and a proud defense of America’s global role.

Okay, finally post-Friday open tabs…

17) We’ll start with Yglesias‘ defense of Hillary Clinton’s speeches, etc., in the email hack:

Clinton, precisely because of her vast experience in government, is completely non-credible as a bringer of drastic change and systemic reform. She is, quite clearly, a creature of the system who is comfortable with it and intends to work within it. That is the “secret” revealed by every hacked email and every leaked speech, and it is also the completely obvious fact of the matter that is readily apparent to anyone who takes an even cursory look at her biography. It’s exactly what her allies are bragging about when they talk about how qualified she is.

Amidst all the other remarkable aspects of the 2016 campaign, this is a thread that tends to get lost but Clinton is asking the American people to do something they almost never do — admit that the American political system fundamentally is what it is, and so you might as well elect someone who’s good at operating it in rather dream of someone who’s going to show up and clean up the mess in Washington. Fundamentally, the only message of the secret speeches is that Clinton is exactly who we thought she was — someone who’s been around a long time, someone who knows a lot of stuff, someone who’s cozy with the established players, and someone who doesn’t really embrace good government pieties.

18) I think he’s basically right.  We didn’t really learn anything new about Clinton more than we learned anything new about Trump with the latest revelations.  That said, Jordan Weissman with a fair take on why Clinton surely did not want this stuff getting out.

19) I find Scott Adams‘ (The Dilbert guy) ongoing defense of Trump’s powers just amusing.

13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.

20) Jonah Goldberg just unloads:

Character is destiny. The man in the video is Donald Trump. Sure, it’s bawdy Trump. It’s “locker room Trump.” And I’m no prude about dirty talk in private. But that isn’t all that’s going on. This isn’t just bad language or objectifying women with your buddies. It’s a married man who is bragging about trying to bed a married woman. It’s an insecure, morally ugly man-child who thinks boasting about how he can get away with groping women “because you’re a star” impresses people. He’s a grotesque — as a businessman and a man, full stop.

21) Libby Nelson’s headline says it all, “Mike Pence enabled Donald Trump. Stop saying he’d make a good president.”

22) This whole “as a father of daughters,” etc., is just stupid.  Satire:

Listen, as a father of daughters, I’m really against this kind of behavior, this kind of treatment of women. The kind where they get hurt or they can’t vote or we don’t give any money to them. You know the kind I’m talking about. The kind I don’t want my daughters to experience, and then I just sort of extrapolate out from there.

It didn’t always used to be this way. I used to only have sons. Things sure were different then. How merrily I used to drive down country lanes in my old Ford, periodically dodging off-road to mow down female pedestrians (you must remember I had no daughters then). Was what I did wrong? How was I to know? I had no daughters to think of.

Before I had daughters — Stimothy and Atalanta are truly the apples of my eye — I would follow women into voting booths and knock their hands away from the lever whenever they tried to engage in the democratic process. Who knew having daughters would change all that? Not I.

And Dara Lind, “You shouldn’t need a daughter to know Trump’s behavior is disgusting and wrong.”

23) Great Molly Ball article on Trump and women:

It is tempting to see the maleness Trump represents as a relic of an earlier time. But Trump is not really that, as David Brooks observed a few months ago: “It’s not quite right to say that Trump is a throwback to midcentury sexism,” the New York Times columnist wrote. “At least in those days negative behavior toward women and family members was restrained by the chivalry code.” Trump represents a more brutal, primal, animal version of the male id, one that mates and slays and subdues unrestrained. One that dominates. One that refuses to be humiliated, that always lashes back against the forces trying to subdue it.

24) Not surprisingly, Yglesias‘ take is great (read it in full!):

But what Republican Party leaders — from formal party leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to lesser elected officials and quasi-party people like the Chamber of Commerce — should be learning this weekend is that they were wrong.

Not that Trump made a mistake and he needs to apologize, but that they made a mistake and need to apologize. The evidence was there, in spades, all along for anyone who wanted to see. But partisan and ideological incentives made them not want to see. The audio is vivid and stark and cuts through that fog of wishful thinking and self-deception. The people whose eyes its opened shouldn’t be demanding apologies from Trump, they should be offering apologies for their role in letting him get much closer to the White House than he ever should have.

25) And Jamelle Bouie with a great take:

The same Republican leaders who rushed to condemn Trump for his remarks on a hot mic were silent about his continued attacks on these men [central park five], which stretch back to the original event in 1989, when he placed an incendiary ad in New York City newspapers against the then-teenagers. “Bring back the death penalty. Bring back our police!” said Trump. “[M]uggers and murderers … should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence.”

Republicans didn’t say anything because Trump wasn’t attacking Republicans. The ground didn’t shift for the GOP nominee until he did. His “grab them by the pussy” comments don’t just threaten his own bid at the White House; they threaten the whole Republican political apparatus. They undermine party enthusiasm. They give millions of Republican-voting women a reason to stay home. And what happens if they do? Suddenly, the House and Senate are at risk. Suddenly, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are leaders of a minority party…

But of course the GOP could tolerate his place at the top of the ticket so long as he restricted his threats to groups outside the party. President Trump, after all, would nominate their judges, sign their tax cuts, and affirm their plans to gut the social safety net. Ryan, the House speaker, said as much in his endorsement. “For me, it’s a question of how to move ahead on the ideas that I—and my House colleagues—have invested so much in through the years,” he wrote in June. “It’s not just a choice of two people, but of two visions for America. And House Republicans are helping shape that Republican vision by offering a bold policy agenda, by offering a better way ahead. Donald Trump can help us make it a reality.” For him and many Republicans, Trump’s frank advocacy of racial repression is a small price to pay for their expansive reversal of liberal social policy. It’s hardly even a price…

In fact, we now have a list of all the things the Republican Party will tolerate solely for the sake of the White House and a continued congressional majority. It’s a long list.

The Republican Party will tolerate racist condemnation of Mexican immigrants and Latino Americans at large. It will tolerate the same racist condemnation of Muslims, even as both attacks feed an atmosphere of paranoia, distrust, and violence.

It will tolerate a policy platform that treats these groups—and Syrian refugees to the United States—as a dangerous fifth column. In Trump’s vision of America, Latino immigrants, when they aren’t “stealing jobs,” are the vector for crime and disorder, plunging towns and cities into lawlessness. It’s why Trump wants to root them out with a new “deportation force,” home by home, person by person. And it’s why he wants a wall on the Mexican border—a concrete prophylactic to keep those dark-skinned migrants from reaching our borders. [emphasis mine]


Quick hits (part II)

The almost all Trump edition (do you really blame ?)

1) Margaret Talbot on Trump and the media.

2) Good piece on the totally weird dynamic between the Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, and Trump.

3) Markets are afraid of Donald Trump.  As is any entity with money at stake and not blinded by white ethnocentrism.

4) Josh Marshall on Trump’s latest meltdown.  Great, as you’d expect.

We’ve seen a lot of Trump meltdowns. But I’m not sure we’ve seen one quite like this one with Alicia Machado. We had a recent preview with what I believe was his reaction to being gently rebuked by Pastor Faith Green Timmons of Flint, Michigan. But here we appear to have a special confluence of events. Trump becomes unhinged whenever he is challenged or insulted or injured by someone he perceives as beneath him in the gender or racial hierarchy. The list is almost endless: Hillary Clinton, Alicia Machado, Obama, the Khans, Judge Curiel. Trump is a bully who lives in a zero sum psychic economy of dominance. There are dominators and the dominated. That operates with white men too, as we saw in the Republican primaries. But when the injury comes from someone he believes is beneath him, there is a special intensity and charge. Taking down a Bush or a Cruz, Trump was vicious and dominating but seemingly in control. He wielded his aggressive bullying as a weapon. There’s aggression but not rage. In these other cases, he’s clearly not in control. It overcomes him.

5) Loved seeing the Trump defender getting embarrassed on national tv.

6) Jonathan Ladd on how Trump manipulates the media is great.  Sent this one to my class.

7) John Dickerson on why Trump’s penchant for conspiracy theories is so problematic.

In campaigns, we investigate candidate instincts because they tell us how they’ll behave in office when the pressure is on. Situations may change, but the circuitry can’t. That’s why examining Hillary Clinton’s choice to set up a private email server and her misleading and incorrect answers about her server once it was discovered are important. They allow us to investigate a larger instinct about openness and the instincts of those around her.

Trump’s ease with the outlandish and unprovable has been seen as a topic for late-night comedians, but it’s more than a quirk. It is a habit of mind. Positions cooked-up in haste during a campaign can come and go, but habits of mind remain. White House decisions will flow through these same circuits. Advisers will have to shape and anticipate the way Trump’s mind works.

During the five years that Trump promoted the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he claimed reporters were only skeptical because “Obama’s minions” had gotten to them. Much like the Trump’s undisclosed plan for quickly  defeating ISIS, he promised that all the doubters would be proved wrong once the final reveal took place.

This is the allure of the conspiracy. The lack of verifiable facts is proof that the conspiracy is real. Anyone who is skeptical can be lumped in with the conspirators. Because the theory is cloaked in mystery, official refutations are obvious proof that everyone is in on the hoax. This is why Trump was resolutely skeptical about Obama’s birth certificate years after the president provided the short form and then years after he’d provided the long form…

There’s also a chance Trump doesn’t believe any of the conspiracies he promotes, but instead uses conspiracy to keep voters hopped up, confuse reporters, vanquish his enemies and deflect criticism. That’s a habit of mind, too.

8) Still need to finish reading, but the NYTT Magazine piece on how Trump started a civil war within right-wing media is really good.

9) Conor Friedersdorf on Trump’s cruelty.  Yep.  The guy is just a mean jerk, among other things.  Sadly, that’s about the least of his character flaws.

10) Yglesias on Trump falling for the Machado trap.

The Trump we are seeing unfold over the past 24 hours, however, is something different.

Not just a crude bully, a racist, a liar, or a misogynist — it’s Donald Trump as a sucker. The feud with the Khan family from earlier this summer is widely regarded as a self-inflicted fiasco, but at a minimum it appears to have been a genuine accident — the Khans’ speech was not scheduled for primetime, and Democrats seem to have underrated how powerful it would be.

The new war with Machado is nothing like that. The Clinton campaign laid surprisingly intricate groundwork to turn her into a major story both at the debate and in the days following it.

And Trump fell for it, revealing a new side to himself that the public hasn’t really seen before.

11) The Hillary-hating Millennials in this NYT article just embarrass themselves.

12) Derek Thompson on the under-appreciated economic record of Obama.

13) Meant to write a post on the role of gender in Hillary-hating.  Alas, didn’t happen this  week.  It was going to feature these two HuffPo pieces.  This:

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

And this:

Hillary Clinton is, by far, the most honest candidate and was also the most honest even among candidates in the sprawling primary field, but voters don’t care. For at least a year now, fact-check after fact-check has revealed the extent of Trump’s mendacity and, with each revelation, how little it appears to matter. Yesterday’s Washington Post-ABC News poll, for example, shows that 62% of voters think Clinton is not trustworthy compared 53% who say the same of Trump.

People want to believe that Clinton is less truthful and trustworthy because they feelstrongly that she shouldn’t be president. Voters who hate Clinton, for example, working class white men who overwhelmingly support Trump, mainly respond to the suggestion that she is a good candidate with anger and disgust – two of the strongest predictors of moral outrage and moral outrage – when and how people feel it ― is governed by gender role expectations.

14) As for the NYT story criticizing Clinton for not pushing a positive campaign message this week– seriously?!  Her opponent is sucking up all the political oxygen making an unbelievable fool of himself and she’s supposed to ignore that and put forward her positive message?  Get real.  Pretty sure the right strategy is to just focus on Trump’s unfitness this week.

15) Interesting profile of your run-of-the-mill, completely unhinged Trump supporter.

16) Headline of Ruth Marcus‘ column nails it, but for one thing– genuinely unfair to the socio-emotional development of middle-schoolers, “Most people grow out of middle school. Not Donald Trump.”

17) A former Hillary-hater on how she’s come to admire her.

18) This is why we cannot have nice things– without exploiting poor and disadvantaged people in third world countries.  It this case, the cobalt that makes all your lithium-ion battery-powered devices.  Great and depressing feature from the Post.

Quick hits (part I)

1) We’ve got some gasoline shortages here in NC.  There’d be an easy solution– higher prices.  But instead of higher prices, anti-gouging laws prevent the marketplace from working and we end up not with costlier gasoline, but no gas at all.  Great old post from Mike Munger about the problem with anti-gouging laws that he re-posted this week due to the present circumstances.  Rob Schofield, whom I generally agree with, points out that we can expect conservatives to come out and defend price “gouging,” but does not actually provide any argument for why these laws do more good than harm.

2) Not at all surprised to find out that pit bulls have better temperaments than chihuahuas.  Small dogs are the worst!  Why would anybody own a terrier?  Yap, yap, yap.

3) A nice look at all of Trump’s business failures.  He’s a brilliant self-promoter.  He’s far from a brilliant businessman.

4) When interviewed, people in the restaurant and bar industry think we should all be tipping a lot.  When tipping is a major part of the employees wages, of course I tip decently.  But tipping is so stupid and needs to go!

5) Really interesting case heading the Supreme Court’s way on racial bias among jurors pitting the secrecy of deliberations versus the problem of racism.

6) Back when I was young and unwise and attended a top-ranked college, I thought college rankings were great.  Now I know better.  So does Frank Bruni.

One of the main factors in a school’s rank is how highly officials at peer institutions and secondary-school guidance counselors esteem it. But they may not know it well. They’re going by its reputation, established in no small part by previous U.S. News evaluations. A lofty rank perpetuates itself.

Another main factor is the percentage of a school’s students who graduate within six years. But this says as much about a school’s selectiveness — the proven achievement and discipline of the students it admits — as about its stewardship of them.

7) Apparently missing emails are a lot more important for Hillary Clinton than George W. Bush.

8) Drum makes the progressive case for Hillary Clinton.  I strongly concur.

9) A dental practice that totally passes the evidence test?  Sealants.

10) Very much enjoyed this take on “all/blue lives matter”

Dear fellow white people, let’s have an honest talk about why we say “All Lives Matter.” First of all, notice that no one was saying “All Lives Matter” before people started saying “Black Lives Matter.” So “All Lives Matter” is a response to “Black Lives Matter.” Apparently, something about the statement “Black Lives Matter” makes us uncomfortable. Why is that?

Now some white people might say that singling out Black people’s lives as mattering somehow means that white lives don’t matter. Of course, that’s silly. If you went to a Breast Cancer Awareness event, you wouldn’t think that they were saying that other types of cancer don’t matter. And you’d be shocked if someone showed up with a sign saying “Colon Cancer Matters” or chanting “All Cancer Patients Matter.” So clearly, something else is prompting people to say “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter.”

Many of the people saying “All Lives Matter” also are fond of saying “Blue Lives Matter.” If you find that the statement “Black Lives Matter” bothers you, but not “Blue Lives Matter,” then the operative word is “Black”. That should tell us something.

 11) The authors of this study suggest that this election could be bad for daughters no matter who gets elected:

Even if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election in November, the 2016 campaign still could have profoundly negative consequences for a generation of girls exploring their own leadership potential. To be sure, electing the first female president would show American girls that women truly can overcome gender bias and win elections at the highest levels. But they will also have witnessed another truth: They will pay a price for trying.

It’s not just the price of hard work, or confronting the reality that many voters simply aren’t interested in voting for female candidates. It’s also discovering a presidential candidate chose one man charged with domestic violence to run his campaign and another accused of sexual misconduct to help shape its message. It’s a chipping away at women and their leadership potential throughout the campaign from all sides

That said, I think they are flat-out wrong and for young girls having a female president far outweighs the potential downsides.  Here’s results from their survey:

A 2014 survey conducted by Making Caring Common, the project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education where we are, respectively, director and faculty co-director, found that girls in middle and high school already face biases against their potential leadership from boys and girls alike. In our survey, fully 40 percent of boys and 23 percent of girls stated an explicitpreference for male over female political leaders (only 4 percent of boys and 8 percent of girls expressed an explicit preference in favor of female political leaders, with 56 percent of boys and 69 percent of girls stating no preference). Our survey also picked up male and female bias against girls as business leaders, and we found certain types of implicit bias against girls’ leadership from students and from parents.

Those are concerning.  But I’m confident Hillary Clinton would do far more to shrink those gaps than enlarge them.

11) Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a Millennial problem so much as young Millennial problem.  The ones old enough to have voted for Obama in 2008 are alright.  Damn kids today!

12) Larry Bartels (pretty much always worth reading) on the media’s mis-placed obsession on white males in 2016.

13) Yet more evidence that student evaluations of college teaching really don’t tell us all that much.  Frustrating, personally, as I so much want to believe they do.  The present system does not seem to work well, but there’s got to be something better.  It’s sure not peer evaluations where all faculty are better than average.

14) Republicans are outraged (rightly) by the behavior of Wells Fargo.  Alas, they want to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that uncovered the wrong-doing.

15) Excellent Dahlia Lithwick piece on a horrible 4th Circuit ruling on public prayer:

The reason legislator-led prayer is permissible, they argued, is because “the principal audience for these invocations is not, indeed, the public but lawmakers themselves, who may find that a moment of prayer or quiet reflection sets the mind to a higher purpose and thereby eases the task of governing.”

Predictably, the majority takes Justice Anthony Kennedy up on his claim from Town of Greece that only prayers which “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” might cross the constitutional line, but anything short of prayer intended to “proselytize or disparage” must be OK. Even though, the “Christian concepts typically consisted of the closing line, such as ‘In Jesus’ name. Amen,’ ” the court finds that “these are not really Christian prayers.” The majority simply rejects that notion that multiple references to such Christian concepts might “convey the appearance of an official preference for Christianity.” Sigh…

To summarize, the mild sectarian prayer is not sectarian, and the aggressive sectarian prayer shows that non-adherents are too sensitive…

Perhaps we are past the moment in U.S. history where majorities can be persuaded that minority views are anything more than hypersensitivity, or that scoffing at these grievances will neither calm the waters, nor restore America’s former “greatness.” When we belittle others in Donald Trump’s America, it’s not just their alleged thin skin we’re dismissing. We are also signing off on using the machinery of government to marginalize disfavored groups from full participation in this country.

16) Sasha Issenberg in a nice interview says he thinks Trump’s lack of a ground game is going to hurt him.  I agree.  I think it quite likely Trump will under-perform his polls in a number of battleground states.

17) Interesting essay on Trump, Brexit, and cycles in human history from an Archaeologist’s perspective.

18) John Cassidy on reasons to believe Trump may not be paying any income taxes at all.

19) Arizona with the worst child molestation law ever.  As written, you are molesting a child when changing it’s diaper (unless you can pull off the trick without touching the child’s genitals).

20) Nice LA Times editorial for Clinton:

Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents. As first lady, she worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare coverage to more than 8 million children. As a senator, she was instrumental in persuading a Republican president to deliver billions of dollars in aid to New York after September 11. As secretary of State, she led the charge to persuade nations around the world to impose the tough sanctions on Iran that led to the landmark nuclear agreement, and she negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas…

Trump’s ignorance of the issues is manifest. He has called climate change “a hoax” and vowed to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with “something great.” His signature proposal is to construct a wall along the southern border of the United States — and have Mexico pay the billions of dollars involved. Mexico, unsurprisingly, insists it will not. As for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally, they will either be rounded up and deported (though experts say that will cost billions of dollars, disrupt the economy, divide families and require massive violations of civil liberties) or perhaps some will be allowed to remain, living in the shadows.

Trump doesn’t take America’s global alliances seriously, he has cozied up to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and he has promised to bring back waterboarding “and worse.” His pronouncements, though vague and sometimes contradictory, raise the specter of an iron-fisted leader taking action based on gut impulses — rather than a president seeking common ground among citizens in a politically polarized country.

21) Chait annotates the NYT story on Trump’s debate preparation.  Good stuff:

If Trump is legitimately as stupid, lazy, and childlike as his advisers portray him to be, they should stop helping him get through the debate and instead warn America not to let him become president.

22) Catherine Rampell makes the case (with numbers) that Millennials will eventually come around for Clinton.  I think she’s right.

23) Eugene Robinson, “In America, gun rights are for whites only.”  Sadly, hard to argue with that.

24) Millennials really care about climate change.  Millennials disproportionately support Gary Johnson.  Here’s Johnson on climate change, taking the loooooooong view.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the “long-term view” of climate change. “In billions of years,” he said in 2011, “the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future.”

25) Your weekend long read– Andrew Sullivan on being an information addict and how it almost killed him (I resemble that information addict part, not the almost killed part).

%d bloggers like this: