From Governing: Maine voters will decide a ballot measure that would introduce ranked-choice voting.
From The Atlantic: How should journalists report a candidate’s lies?
From Politico: Gov. Kasich is pulling a Christie – embracing a Democratic President in an election year.
From Aeon: What Japanese religious culture may tell us about life in our post-Christian future.
From Scientific American: Sea ice in the Arctic has reached a stunning low and is unlikely to rebound.
For the less intrepid among us, the science of putting $$ on political campaign outcomes….
(I am not encouraging this, just found it interesting.)
A related Brookings article on the science of polls….
An interesting bit of info within this article on polling models:
“In spite of almost unprecedented opposition from Republican Party elites, Trump appears positioned to capture the lion’s share of his party base.”
Chris, does this comport with what your inside/outside contacts are telling you? Are the majority of Republicans really going to hold their noses and vote Trump?
Majority? No. However, if 5% of Romney’s voters defect to Clinton, you’re looking at a blowout on a historic scale.
I had read how Governor Rauner had donated money to the Republican Gubernatorial candidate in Indiana, now he has dropped 100k on the Republican Gubernatorial candidate in Missouri. No comment or judgement. He is an American and can spend his money as he wants. Just sharing.
Thanks to the education I am getting here I was struck by RNC Chair Reince Priebus’s comments today on Face the Nation http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-party-penalties-former-gop-trump-endorsement/
Am I wrong to think his take on “Never Trump” former Republican candidates foreclosed their right to run for the nomination again by their failure to follow the “agreement” to endorse is laughable?
It would suggest that the RNC Chair has any power, oversight or role in the nominating process. His party was hijacked on national TV for crying out loud by a reality TV show host. Isn’t the RNC Chair now just a paying gig to keep the party apparatus running while the barbarians at the gate determine who are the candidates?
I’m stunned they traded Michael Steele for this guy…Not that Wisconsin needs another unemployed white guy.
I don’t think it is laughable, I find it incredibly arrogant and sad. I’d be curious how Chris sees this. Priebus IMO is trying to hold onto his job and evidently thinks Trump will win and he will be safe.
As for the loyalty oaths (non-legally binding), I feel about them the same way I feel about the members of Congress who have signed the no new taxes pledge with Grover Norquist.
Chris? What do you think of Priebus’ threats?
ok, so this just happened…as a follow up to Priebus on Face the Nation the Kasich camp just fired off a strong rebuttal to the notion that candidates who fail to support the nominee will be out of luck come 2020. They warn of a looming 2016 GOP disaster, and that they are little concerned “with the political operative from Kenosha”. He is not my favorite politician, but there are traits in Gov Kasich that I admire.
Despite my strong pro-choice position, of all the candidates on the GOP primary stage, Kasich is the one I would have been most comfortable with as the Republican nominee. So, let’s see – of the 16 who were on the stage, Kasich, Cruz, Jeb, and belatedly, Graham refused to endorse Trump. Have I missed anyone?
Maybe the lesson that should have been learned was to not sign pledges that require them to put party before country. After all, one of the most important skills a president must learn is how to stand on principle.
FWIW, Sen. Jeff Flake of AZ is showing a lot of spine.
Reince Priebus is a calculating, needy, major suck up man who is betting his career on a Trump and Senate win.
OT, but nice for those who are located for optimal viewing:
No wonder I’m worn out this morning.
Any number of the liberal blogs I read are outraged because the New York Times and CNN and other outlets won’t call Trump a liar. I hate to be cynical, but I don’t think that makes any difference. I believe that the vast majority of voters fall into two groups: those who realize that Trump is a horrible human being who should never be elected to any position of authority, and those who realize that Trump is a horrible human being and don’t care. As Matt Taibbi said in his take on the issue, if Trump is elected it won’t be because the NYT won’t call him a liar, it will be because we’re a nation of idiots.
And we hope the idiots don’t outvote the rest of us…….
Waddyamean Trump is a liar? He just changes his mind a lot…..like on choice…..gotta move back to the right now that he’s locked in all the working folks….(Remember, he was agin it before he was for it…that was then, this is now…..)
“Donald Trump today named one of the nation’s top anti-abortion activists to his campaign coalition, in the clearest signal yet that the presidential candidate has fully embraced Republicans’ typically harsh stance against abortion. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B Anthony List, a group that works to elect Republican, anti-abortion women, will chair the loose coalition of conservative, anti-abortion rights leaders who are working to elect the Republican nominee. Trump’s campaign also announced that he would commit to a law banning public funding of abortion.”
Why, I wonder, do I need to subscribe to a British journal to learn these things? It can’t be that their sources are “better”; maybe, they are just more “responsible” in their reporting…Ya think?
1mime- I stumbled onto The Guardian a year ago and agree. Their coverage of US news is amazing and troubling…like the Wisconsin supreme court/Scott Walker and corporate funding story from yesterday. Still haven’t heard a major network even mention the story. The english language version of Das Bild is less comprehensive but occasionally great stories, and of course my favorite Russia Today-America….but as I’ve mentioned before you do need to learn the art of reading it like a Russian.
The $49/annual fee may be the best money I’ve committed to online journalism this year. I will not renew the WSJ. I am considering going from print to digital format for our local paper, the Houston Chronicle, and will maintain digital subscriptions for the NYT and WaPo. I read several journals online that have paywalls but try to be selective so as not to breech the 10 free article/month paywall. I’m partial to The Atlantic and the New Yorker. I am really going to enjoy the Guardian, and thank you for posting the super article on Walker, who I have long felt was a despicable man. It’s sad that American media have become so hesitant to go after issues like this when you know that if the Guardian has access to the info, they also do.
I found the Scott Walker and Wisconsin Supreme Court story picked up and expounded upon on Moyers and Company website : http://billmoyers.com/story/scott-walker-donors-email/
Good find, Kenneth! I tweeted to the author and asked what the status of the decision by SCOTUS is to hear the case. They can refuse to hear it, which wouldn’t surprise me, but this is incredibly egregious. It’s even worse than I thought from reading the Guardian piece. If there is any justice in the world…Walker will be held accountable.
Are Trump’s odds a little better than we’re giving him credit for, especially if the media keeps normalizing him while also atttacking Clinton? Throw in Jill Stein carving some of the left-wing vote from the Dems…
“The website FiveThirtyEight gives Trump more than a four-in-ten chance of actually, for real, winning. The Upshot, the New York Times’ forecaster, puts it at a slightly more comforting one in four, which sounds low except that, as the model’s authors point out, this makes the odds of a Clinton victory about equal to an NFL placekicker’s chances of making a 49-yard field goal. Also, the kicker has pneumonia. “
Nothing but needless worries coming from a media 100% invested in portraying this election as being as close and down to the wire as possible. Unless the fundamentals of the race change, ignore all the noise.
But couldn’t the media having an investment in trying to have a close race be a change that favors Trump in and of itself?
Or, could the media finally be coming to the realization that promoting a false narrative for a close race might actually be helping Trump…and now they are FINALLY starting to get pissed at enabling him, and might start actually calling it like it “really is”? The amount of “free” media time T has gotten will be quantified and will shock and embarrass the media. By then, it will be too late, of course. Not only that, we all know that he’s not been held accountable for his many outlandish, un-presidential, outright fraudulent statements.
I suspect all of those who have made the decision to support Trump pretty much don’t care what he does. No changing their minds. IF the millennials who actually turn out to vote don’t understand what’s a stake and will vote 3rd party rather than Clinton, that’s going to hurt her. I’m dubious that the debate moderators will be able to rein T in and I would be willing to bet that T will perform with more decorum there than he did in the primary debates. The moderators will be critical in holding him accountable for evasion and lies. Does anyone here think they can contain T?
I just keeping tracking 538…….Silver has been on the money for the last two elections.
Loved the suggestions in the Atlantic piece on media accountability. Delayed sound to allow for fact-checking that would be reported; silence or some type of overlay when candidates were flat out lying (maybe a meme with Pinocchios 1-5 or such to grade the lie); no return network appearances when you lie; etc. I’d add that when press conferences are called for bogus, free publicity, press needs to walk out and be filmed doing so.
This has simply got to stop. All candidates. If they are not sure, they need to qualify their remark. If they lie, they deserve to be held accountable. If they tell the truth, they need to be rewarded. Regardless, this campaign season has been a mockery of truth. Good for The Atlantic.
Just thinking about the live fact-checking…could do it NFL style….time out while fact checked in the booth with the verdict announced real time. This way, the networks have a time (is $$) incentive to encourage candidates to be truthful and the candidates will be publicly, real-time accountable to the viewing audience.
Who says football jocks can’t teach academics anything (-;
Good on John Kasich. I disagree with a lot of his policies, but he’s not the enemy, and government needs to be able to compromise to be functional.
You know you’re a good governor when a state decides it wants to change its entire voting system just so someone like you (or you in particular) never has a chance to take power again.
Bobo, I replied to you on the previous thread under your Mr. Trump/Dr. Oz comment.
I saw. I’ve always liked the word chimera and hate applying to that ridiculous Republican candidate for president. But he has those qualities.
What do you think of the suggestions in the Atlantic article?
I wish some network would try it. At the very least, they could have a video documentary of one presidential debate that might find an audience in some movie houses.
At the very most, they could have a brand new, expanded audience.
Roald Amundsen is smiling.
Gonna go out on a limb and say that Mainers approve RCV. I understand how some would find it too difficult, but I think the option brings far more good to the table than it does otherwise.
I’d vote for that in a nanosecond. Just avoiding runoff elections makes it worth it, and the possible temperating of extremists seals the deal. As for people too lazy/ uniformed/ whatever to fill out the ballot- any disenfranchising is on YOU.
Regarding the BSboycott, I’d love that 10 minute time delay-I might never even have to hit the mute button when you-know-who is talking. But where the hell was this boycott back in summer of 2015? Your lack of demanding accountability allowed this to metasticize.
Good for Kasich, although I’d be more impressed if he was caught in the same room with President Obama when he is up for reelection. Still nice to see some rational pragmatism. The people ragging on Christie for working with Obama after superstorm Sandy represent the depths of partisan stupidity. Refusing to work with the other party to help victims of a natural disaster ought to disqualify you for public office.