True story. I jad a case once where someone was trying to prove something or other about sentiment on a college campus (I forget now why that mattered, but it did) and attached to his papers one of those polls The Onion used to run, using the same four or five respondents' photos every time.
Come on, guys, no fair letting facts interfere with the fun. And no fair pointing out the central contradiction of the piece: the Democrats are obsessed with "cool" and inauthentic and are going to nominate -- Joe Biden?
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
Considering how many federal programs involve federal funding and state or local administration, it seems likely that folks already know, or at least believe, this.
I don't actually "needs to take note of" anything. If he dies in prison in some way that isn't obvious, I'll be happy to await the results of what I have reason to believe will be a thorough investigation.
I don't think so, but that's just me. Sadly, it won't stop the "Weinstein didn't kill himself" stories if he dies anywhere outside of a prison hospital bed -- and maybe not even then.
There was no Bloomberg "pop tax" struck down by the courts. Bloomberg got the NYC Dept. of Health to ban large sugary drinks, like the big Arizona-brand soft drinks, not to tax them. The courts blocked it because the NYC Dept. of Health lacked the regulatory authority to do that. The court never addressed what the City Council could have done in its legislative capacity, either to ban big gulps or to tax sugary drinks. (I simply don't recall, and don't much care, if he had previously tried to get a tax through the City Council or not before having DOH issue its big gulp ban.) In other places, like Philadelphia, where the city's legislative body passed an actual tax, there has been no legal problem.
Last I looked, Joe also had a long platform full of positive goodies too. His is marginally more likely than Bernie's to pass, and only if someone assassinates Mitch McConnell. The differences aren't likely to make a difference as far as messaging goes. Either the Bernie supporters will swallow their disappointment and vote blue, no matter who, or they won't. Exercises in Don Draper-ism aren't likely to make a difference.
The world is a bigger place than this blog. If all you're saying is that on this blog there was less attention given to the topic of Hillary's mistakes than you wanted, well, fine. That's a statement about what they found interesting to talk about and how that didn't match what you wanted to hear. If anyone finds that interesting, they can have at it.
Who, exactly, says "we don't know if Clinton made any mistakes in 2016," or that Clinton didn't make any mistakes in 2016, or that nobody talked about Clinton's mistakes? I heard plenty of griping about mistakes Clinton made in 2016. I griped about some of them myself. All campaigns make mistakes, though nobody talks about them if you win, only if you lose. But what with everything else that was going on in 2016-- Comey, e-mails, Russia, etc. -- ordinary discussion of ordinary mistakes stuck out less. There's only so much oxygen, and the really weird stuff took up a lot of what would ordinarily go to the losing candidate's mistakes.
That main thing that *I* would, personally, worry about is being able to figure out whether Clinton made any mistakes with the states in question and, if so, avoid them.
If, of course, she didn’t make any mistakes and it’s sexist to imply she did, I’d wonder if we weren’t lying to ourselves.
You can, personally, worry about anything that floats your boat or confirms your priors. Any 2016 Hillary mistakes that an amateur can figure out have probably already been factored into the 2020 campaign plans. And the professionals would be fools to talk about that for public consumption. This time around, the candidate will make his own mistakes, not repeat hers.
How about state-by-state polling? From a recent L.A. Times piece, behind a paywall:
Biden polls ahead of Clinton’s electoral margin in each of the 26 states for which polls are available, except for New Mexico, New York, and California, which are all blue enough that his relative performance wouldn’t cost any electoral votes. Meanwhile, Sanders polls worse than Clinton’s electoral performance in four states, including a disadvantage in Delaware large enough to put the state in play for Trump.
Particularly crucial are states that swing to Republicans (in the lower-right) and states that swing to Democrats (in the upper-left). Both of the leading Democrats left in the race are projected to win all of the states that Clinton captured in 2016.
Current polling suggests that Biden is expected to flip eight states blue (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona) and Sanders would flip six (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida).
To determine the expected electoral college votes for each candidate, we use reported poll means and standard deviations to determine the probability that each candidate would win the state’s electoral votes based on that poll. We then calculated the average likelihood that each candidate would win a given state, weighting by the number of days since the start of 2019 (in order to give recent polls more importance). Having calculated the expected probability of winning each state, we determined the expected number of electoral votes a candidate would receive from each state with polling data. (Since all of the states without polling data are considered either safely Republican or safely Democrat, we assume that their electoral votes will go to the party that won the state in 2016.)
matters “settled” incorrectly by the Court rarely stay settled in the rest of the public sphere.
Are you sure about this? Or does it apply only to cases you've actually heard of and have an opinion about? Just off the top of my head, here's a sample of settled matters that may very well have been settled wrong without much public outcry:
1. When does jeopardy attach in a criminal prosecution? The settled rule is that in a jury trial it is when the jury is sworn and in a bench trial when the first witness testifies. There is a body of scholarship that thinks this is wrong.
2. Is a lawsuit brought by a natural person who is a citizen of state A against a corporation incorporated and having its principal place of business in state B within the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction of the federal courts? Some recent scholarship says no.
3. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar suits by a citizen of state A against state A? This has been the law for well over a hundred years, yet some scholars have never accepted it as correct.
As to your larger point, the Constitution does not contain or come with an instruction manual on how to interpret it, so saying that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution doesn't say anything useful.
1. We are alone.
2. We're not alone, but we'll never be able to know.
3. We're not alone, we'll find some good evidence that we're not alone, but there will be no way to communicate with whoever is out there.
For 90% of Republican voters, there is nothing to understand. They are Republicans and voted for Trump because he was the Republican nominee. They will do it again, somewhat handicapped by a modest number of Republicans who just can't bring themselves to do it again. As for the rest, I grew up among people who became Trump voters. They have always liked people like Trump and always will. How, exactly, you describe the reasons they like people like Trump depends on whether you, yourself, approve of those reasons, and nothing is to be gained at this point by interviewing random diner patrons every four years.
On “Joe Biden: Staying Alive”
True story. I jad a case once where someone was trying to prove something or other about sentiment on a college campus (I forget now why that mattered, but it did) and attached to his papers one of those polls The Onion used to run, using the same four or five respondents' photos every time.
"
Come on, guys, no fair letting facts interfere with the fun. And no fair pointing out the central contradiction of the piece: the Democrats are obsessed with "cool" and inauthentic and are going to nominate -- Joe Biden?
On “The Free Market Case for Staying the Eff Home”
My point exactly.
"
Polite and fancy. A two-fer.
"
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
"
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
On “Linky Friday: Cancel Everything, Cease and Desist, Shut It Shut It Down Edition”
Considering how many federal programs involve federal funding and state or local administration, it seems likely that folks already know, or at least believe, this.
On “From the NYT: Harvey Weinstein Is Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison”
I don't actually "needs to take note of" anything. If he dies in prison in some way that isn't obvious, I'll be happy to await the results of what I have reason to believe will be a thorough investigation.
"
I don't think so, but that's just me. Sadly, it won't stop the "Weinstein didn't kill himself" stories if he dies anywhere outside of a prison hospital bed -- and maybe not even then.
On “Toeing the Line: Why Fear of the Unknown Fuels Panic, and Awareness Saves Lives”
I usually have close to 100 rolls of toilet paper in normal times.
On “From the NYT: Harvey Weinstein Is Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison”
Apparently, he has been depressed and even suicidal lately. We're probably looking at a "Weinstein Dead" thread one of these days.
On “Wednesday Writs: Easterseals Society v Playboy, and Other Assorted Smut”
Do the cookies exist to help fund the Girl Scouts, or do the Girls Scouts exist to sell the cookies?
On “Say No To Puritarian America”
There was no Bloomberg "pop tax" struck down by the courts. Bloomberg got the NYC Dept. of Health to ban large sugary drinks, like the big Arizona-brand soft drinks, not to tax them. The courts blocked it because the NYC Dept. of Health lacked the regulatory authority to do that. The court never addressed what the City Council could have done in its legislative capacity, either to ban big gulps or to tax sugary drinks. (I simply don't recall, and don't much care, if he had previously tried to get a tax through the City Council or not before having DOH issue its big gulp ban.) In other places, like Philadelphia, where the city's legislative body passed an actual tax, there has been no legal problem.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: The Easy Way, The Hard Way, and That Other Way”
Last I looked, Joe also had a long platform full of positive goodies too. His is marginally more likely than Bernie's to pass, and only if someone assassinates Mitch McConnell. The differences aren't likely to make a difference as far as messaging goes. Either the Bernie supporters will swallow their disappointment and vote blue, no matter who, or they won't. Exercises in Don Draper-ism aren't likely to make a difference.
On “The Revolution That Didn’t Come”
how freaking stupid do Republicans think that their voters are?
Very.
On “Nobody Owes Elizabeth Warren a Thing”
As I said, anyone who finds that interesting can have at it. We'll see who has at it.
"
The world is a bigger place than this blog. If all you're saying is that on this blog there was less attention given to the topic of Hillary's mistakes than you wanted, well, fine. That's a statement about what they found interesting to talk about and how that didn't match what you wanted to hear. If anyone finds that interesting, they can have at it.
"
Who, exactly, says "we don't know if Clinton made any mistakes in 2016," or that Clinton didn't make any mistakes in 2016, or that nobody talked about Clinton's mistakes? I heard plenty of griping about mistakes Clinton made in 2016. I griped about some of them myself. All campaigns make mistakes, though nobody talks about them if you win, only if you lose. But what with everything else that was going on in 2016-- Comey, e-mails, Russia, etc. -- ordinary discussion of ordinary mistakes stuck out less. There's only so much oxygen, and the really weird stuff took up a lot of what would ordinarily go to the losing candidate's mistakes.
"
That main thing that *I* would, personally, worry about is being able to figure out whether Clinton made any mistakes with the states in question and, if so, avoid them.
If, of course, she didn’t make any mistakes and it’s sexist to imply she did, I’d wonder if we weren’t lying to ourselves.
You can, personally, worry about anything that floats your boat or confirms your priors. Any 2016 Hillary mistakes that an amateur can figure out have probably already been factored into the 2020 campaign plans. And the professionals would be fools to talk about that for public consumption. This time around, the candidate will make his own mistakes, not repeat hers.
"
How about state-by-state polling? From a recent L.A. Times piece, behind a paywall:
Biden polls ahead of Clinton’s electoral margin in each of the 26 states for which polls are available, except for New Mexico, New York, and California, which are all blue enough that his relative performance wouldn’t cost any electoral votes. Meanwhile, Sanders polls worse than Clinton’s electoral performance in four states, including a disadvantage in Delaware large enough to put the state in play for Trump.
Particularly crucial are states that swing to Republicans (in the lower-right) and states that swing to Democrats (in the upper-left). Both of the leading Democrats left in the race are projected to win all of the states that Clinton captured in 2016.
Current polling suggests that Biden is expected to flip eight states blue (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona) and Sanders would flip six (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida).
To determine the expected electoral college votes for each candidate, we use reported poll means and standard deviations to determine the probability that each candidate would win the state’s electoral votes based on that poll. We then calculated the average likelihood that each candidate would win a given state, weighting by the number of days since the start of 2019 (in order to give recent polls more importance). Having calculated the expected probability of winning each state, we determined the expected number of electoral votes a candidate would receive from each state with polling data. (Since all of the states without polling data are considered either safely Republican or safely Democrat, we assume that their electoral votes will go to the party that won the state in 2016.)
On “Wednesday Writs: Kimble v. Marvel”
matters “settled” incorrectly by the Court rarely stay settled in the rest of the public sphere.
Are you sure about this? Or does it apply only to cases you've actually heard of and have an opinion about? Just off the top of my head, here's a sample of settled matters that may very well have been settled wrong without much public outcry:
1. When does jeopardy attach in a criminal prosecution? The settled rule is that in a jury trial it is when the jury is sworn and in a bench trial when the first witness testifies. There is a body of scholarship that thinks this is wrong.
2. Is a lawsuit brought by a natural person who is a citizen of state A against a corporation incorporated and having its principal place of business in state B within the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction of the federal courts? Some recent scholarship says no.
3. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar suits by a citizen of state A against state A? This has been the law for well over a hundred years, yet some scholars have never accepted it as correct.
As to your larger point, the Constitution does not contain or come with an instruction manual on how to interpret it, so saying that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution doesn't say anything useful.
On “Thursday Throughput: Are We Alone Edition?”
Three possibilities:
1. We are alone.
2. We're not alone, but we'll never be able to know.
3. We're not alone, we'll find some good evidence that we're not alone, but there will be no way to communicate with whoever is out there.
I'm not sure which is more depressing.
On “Wednesday Writs: Kimble v. Marvel”
To settle things. As Justice Brandeis once observed, it is often more important that a question be settled than that it be settled right.
On “About Last Night, Super Tuesday Edition: Everybody Duck The Swinging Narrative”
For 90% of Republican voters, there is nothing to understand. They are Republicans and voted for Trump because he was the Republican nominee. They will do it again, somewhat handicapped by a modest number of Republicans who just can't bring themselves to do it again. As for the rest, I grew up among people who became Trump voters. They have always liked people like Trump and always will. How, exactly, you describe the reasons they like people like Trump depends on whether you, yourself, approve of those reasons, and nothing is to be gained at this point by interviewing random diner patrons every four years.
On “Super Tuesday Open Thread”
No. We can't. And you and everyone else knows why.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.