Trial update; What voters want; Marketing and anti-abortion tactics update

The NYT published a long interview between NYT columnist David French and two experts, Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor. Two points about the interview are of interest.  

1. The experts shed light on whether some of the Stormy Daniels testimony that was improperly allowed to get to the jury would be sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction of DJT. One expert said that the error would probably not be sufficient to cause a mistrial and the other did not respond. I assumed that the error would be a good basis to get a mistrial. My assumption was wrong.  

2. Both experts think the prosecution is doing a pretty good job and their assessment of the trial so far regarding one or more felony convictions is positive. They believe the jury will understand the nature of the case because the evidence has been laid out for the jury in a clear way. 

The relevant parts of the interview:

French: Is the judge’s decision to deny the motion for mistrial a reversible error?

Roiphe: I don’t think this will cause a huge legal problem for the prosecution on appeal. Defense lawyers call for mistrials all the time, and judges have a great deal of latitude in dealing with moments like these when testimony slips out that should not have.

French: Let’s end with some lightning round questions. First, since the trial has started, in your view has the chance of conviction gone up or down?

Roiphe: Up.

White: Up significantly.

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

A NYT opinion by David Brooks makes an interesting point about poll data suggesting a reason for why DJT is leading Biden in key contested states: 

What do American voters want? The latest New York Times/Siena polls of swing states offer some confusing evidence on this point. Some of the polling results suggest that Americans are in a revolutionary frame of mind: If you ask whether the political and economic system needs major changes, 69 percent say it either needs major changes or should be entirely torn down.

On the other hand, when the pollsters gave voters a choice between a candidate who would bring the country back to normal and one who would bring major changes, 51 percent said they would prefer the back-to-normal candidate and only 40 percent would prefer the major-changes candidate.

So which is it?

Well, different voters want different things. But if I had to write a single sentence that reconciled these diverse findings, it would be this: The people who run America’s systems have led the country seriously astray; we need a president who will shake things up and return the country back to normal.

When they hear “systems,” I assume voters are thinking of the network of institutions run by America’s elite — corporations, governing agencies, higher education, the news media and so on. If voters believe one thing about Donald Trump it’s that he’s against these systems and these systems are against him.

Voters clearly see President Biden implicated in these systems. The heart of Biden’s problem heaves into view when you ask people which candidate will bring about change. Seventy percent of voters believe that Trump would bring about major changes or tear down the system entirely if elected. Yet 71 percent of voters believe that little or nothing would change if Biden is re-elected.

In other words, the evidence suggests that the swing voter wants reactionary change, not revolutionary change. The mood suggested by the evidence is angry nostalgia. That would be my explanation for why Trump is so convincingly ahead in most of the swing states.

That is plausibly part of the reason for support among some voters who might not otherwise vote for DJT. Biden does seem to be both unable and unwilling to change the status quo. DJT will shake things up, but in a very bad way.

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Radical antiabortion influencers are flooding social media with blatant lies about the alleged horrors of using birth control pills: 

US wellness influencers are increasingly targeting birth control pills, pushing their followers to abandon the contraceptives with false claims about infertility and low libido that researchers say leave them vulnerable to unintended pregnancies.

That includes Taylor Gossett, a TikTok influencer with nearly 200,000 followers who explicitly called the medication "toxic" alongside offers to join her "master class" in "natural" birth control.  

Podcaster Sahara Rose called birth control the "divorce pill" in a video viewed more than 550,000 times, claiming it impacts who "you're attracted to" and leads users to choose the wrong mate.

"This spike in contraception misinformation [lies actually] correlates with the restriction of abortion access in a number of states," misinformation researcher Jenna Sherman told AFP, adding that many of the online falsehoods stemmed from "anti-abortion actors."

Lying has truly been normalized in America. It is not confined to just politics. Grifters and radical activists are out there lying for money, fame and influence in the basically unregulated world of advertising and political dark free speech. The bad consequences of lies and grifting is not an obvious concern for morally rotted liars.