Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

Bits: Ohio voters reject GOP authoritarianism; DJT lunacy continues; Wisdom from the Peanut Gallery

In a bit of good news, Ohio voters rejected the GOP's attempt to assert party power over voters. Issue 1 was solidly rejected. According to the NYT, with > 95% of the votes counted, 57% say no to 43% who voted yes. Now, abortion rights can be put into the Ohio constitution. The rural-urban divide is clear. Rural voter continue to support authoritarianism and reduced civil liberties.


_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Everyone is reporting that DJT is in crazy-go-nuts mode. He's lying, slandering and crackpotting a galactic scale, and we're talking a huge galaxy, not a little one. A couple of examples:

Trump Pushes Total Lie About Georgia Prosecutor Sleeping With Gang Member | The former president baselessly accused Fani Willis, who is investigating his 2020 election meddling, of having an “affair” with a “gang member”

DJT lawyer John Lauro contended that the DoJ “will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump had corrupt or criminal intent.”; An expert blandly commented: “Here's an example: I honestly believe my bank has ripped me off and stole my deposit money. That's a sincerely held belief, but it doesn't mean I could go to the bank and rob the bank. It's not an excuse. Just because you think your cause is righteous, that doesn't mean you have to break the law in response to try to fix it.”

Trump Tells Supporters His Criminal Indictments Are About ‘You’; The former president, who has made his 2024 campaign principally about his own personal grievances, is attempting to convince supporters to see themselves in him.; As lawyers for Donald J. Trump float various legal arguments to defend him in court against an onslaught of criminal charges, the former president has settled on a political defense: “I’m being indicted for you.” 

Yeah, and this Bud is for you too! MAGA!! Implausible as it is, maybe this latest indictment really is going to actually nail his lying, dictator ass with a few felonies and, Gasp!, possibly some jail time. DJT is acting like it. Lock him up? Nah, that's too good to be true. Slap his naughty wrist! That sounds more like it.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

A comment from the peanut gallery struck me as worth a mention. A WaPo opinion by Alberto Gonzales, No, fellow Republicans, the Justice Department is not biased against us, argued rationally about the DJT legal situation. Gonzales was the 80th attorney general of the United States and counsel to President George W. Bush.

The peanut gallery commented: Why do GOP folks always need to have “was” in their summary statement to have any sort of moral compass or backbone? . . . . It's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

MAGA!! to that insightful rhetorical  question.

Another peanut gallery denizen snarked about the DoJ, They are biased against criminals!
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

From the Christian Nationalist Theocracy Files: The New Republic reports about a rabid Christian nationalist Trump judge in Texas flying off the rials:
Texas Judge Orders Airline Lawyers to Take Training From Far-Right Hate Group

A Trump-appointed Texas judge has ordered three senior Southwest Airlines lawyers to take eight hours of “religious-liberty training” from the far-right Christian hate group Alliance Defending Freedom.

In his late Monday ruling, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr specifically mandated the lawyers take the training as part of court-ordered sanctions for religious discrimination. He described ADF as one of several “esteemed non-profit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated ADF as an extremist hate group.
That's what radical right, authoritarian CN theocracy looks like in the legal system.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Ars technica writes about wonderful steady advances in AI:
Author discovers AI-generated counterfeit books written in her name on Amazon

Amazon resisted a removal request, citing lack of trademark registration numbers

Upon searching Amazon and Goodreads, author Jane Friedman recently discovered a half-dozen listings of fraudulent books using her name, likely filled with either junk or AI-generated content. Both Amazon and Goodreads resisted removing the faux titles until the author's complaints went viral on social media.

In a blog post titled "I Would Rather See My Books Get Pirated Than This (Or: Why Goodreads and Amazon Are Becoming Dumpster Fires)," published on Monday, Friedman detailed her struggle with the counterfeit books.
That's just like the credit rating agencies making a mistake in your credit rating and then refusing to fix it. I just love tales like this from unregulated capitalist markets running free, wild and butt naked. They're arrogant, unaccountable and happy. 

Monday, August 7, 2023

Open politics-society-science-personal grievance thread

Unless I missed something, the news today is mostly repetition or repetition-adjacent. There's too much about DJT's machinations, lies and schemes to weasel out of his 1/6 treason lawsuit and milk the cult for cash to pay his legal bills. Meh, I'll pay more attention when something important happens.

I started reading Sources of the Self by the prominent philosopher Charles Taylor. I was looking for insight on morality, personal belief and behavior in modern advanced societies. But the book was too hard for me to comprehend. I had to set it aside. I suspect I could have learned a lot from that highly respected author. 

Now I'm reading Political Science for Dummies. That one is comprehensible. The first sentence of the book is, “Political science is the study of politics and more precisely power.” See, I told you to never lose track of where power flows in politics and policies. That was science and I didn't even know it. Social science to be more precise.

So, anything anyone wants to talk about?

Once Upon A Time...........

 I heard it said that if you want to gauge elections, you don't rely on polls, oh no, you rely on sports betting sites.

Why? Glad you asked.

Betting markets called the presidential election more accurately than polls



 Why gambling markets often predict elections more accurately than polls


So, what are the sports betting sites saying about 2024?

Joe Biden is the betting favorite to win the 2024 Election, with odds of +150.

Incumbent President Joe Biden is the favorite at most sportsbooks to win the Presidency in 2024.

August 3 update: President Joe Biden (34.8%, 15 to 8) ticked upward a little, while former President Donald Trump (30.8%, 9 to 4) held steady.

Joe Biden remains the favorite on the US presidential elections board at +162 but former president Donald Trump is right behind him at +200 despite his latest indictment.

 Biden leads the 2024 election oddsboard at +150 while Trump is behind his predecessor in the White House at +240.



So? So, stop hand wringing and hair pulling, all will be ok come 2024.

Want to place a bet on it?   😏


Sunday, August 6, 2023

John Eastman concedes that he and DJT were trying to overthrow the government

NOTE: I added material taken directly from the interview to this post so that people can see what Eastman said in his own words.

This is worth a stand alone post. Talking Points Memo published comments by John Eastman, a key architect of the 1/6 coup attempt. Eastman is a central figure in fomenting treason on 1/6. TPM writes:
John Eastman Comes Clean: Hell Yes 
We Were Trying to Overthrow the Government

I want to return to this revelatory interview with co-conspirator John Eastman, the last portion of which was published Thursday by Tom Klingenstein, the Chairman of the Trumpite Claremont Institute and then highlighted by our Josh Kovensky. There’s a lot of atmospherics in this interview, a lot of bookshelf-lined tweedy gentility mixed with complaints about OSHA regulations and Drag Queen story hours. But the central bit comes just over half way through the interview when Eastman gets into the core justification and purpose for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and overthrow the constitutional order itself. He invokes the Declaration of Independence and says quite clearly that yes, we were trying to overthrow the government and argues that they were justified because of the sheer existential threat America was under because of the election of Joe Biden.

January 6th conspirators have spent more than two years claiming either that nothing really happened at all in the weeks leading up to January 6th or that it was just a peaceful protest that got a bit out of hand or that they were just making a good faith effort to follow the legal process. Eastman cuts through all of this and makes clear they were trying to overthrow (“abolish”) the government; they were justified in doing so; and the warrant for their actions is none other than the Declaration of Independence itself.

“Our Founders lay this case out,” says Eastman. “There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force under American law. It’s not a legal document. It’s a public explanation of a political decision: to break the colonies’ allegiance to Great Britain and form a new country. But it contains a number of claims and principles that became and remain central to American political life.

The one Eastman invokes here is the right to overthrow governments. The claim is that governments have no legitimacy or authority beyond their ability to serve the governed. Governments shouldn’t be overthrown over minor or transitory concerns. But when they become truly oppressive people have a right to get rid of them and start over.
That anyone in DJT's close circle had the guts to admit the truth is astonishing to me. I never expected anyone in the inner circle to admit obvious truth. Hell yes, it was a coup attempt. 

What justified DJT's coup attempt in Eastman's mind? Decades of lies, slanders and crackpottery about nothingburger things like OSHA regulations, Drag Queen story hours, illegal immigration, woke, the LGBQT community and transgendered people. Those grievances are what has triggered most or nearly all of America's radical right into a lethal fit of blind fear, rage, hate, bigotry and outright support for dictatorship. Radical right supporters who know better, are cynical opportunists, grifters, trolls, thugs, deranged Christian nationalist theocrats and capitalist kleptocrats.

Of course, DJT will continue to lie and deny there was any coup attempt. The radical right Republican Party will continue to officially claim that 1/6 was “legitimate free speech.” 

In my firm opinion, Eastman, DJT and the rest of the inner circle should be tried for treason. 

Other sources are starting to report on this, e.g., Newsweek. I will wait to see if this turns out to be a fake story, but at this point it seems to be real. If it is real, it seems to be important.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Added content from part 3 of the interview: Eastman's rationale for the coup attempt in his own words. This is from part 3 of the three part interview, starting at 20:55:



Key passages from the transcript (online here) are highlighted below.

John Eastman: Before we get to 2020. Let's have a brief stop over in 2000.

Tom Klingenstein: Okay

John Eastman: Because, because the claim is that Al Gore in conceding after Bush versus Gore rather than continuing to fight, exhibited the same kind of for the good of the country statesmanship, let's put an end to this. Um, I think that, uh, attributes to both of them, a greater magnanimity than is warranted. You look at Nixon's situation and every path, every judge in Texas, every judge in Illinois, uh, were Democrats. There was no way that he was gonna be able to bring election challenges that would result in his victory.

 And so if he did challenge and loses anyway, uh, uh, then he's put the country through a lot without any, any resolution, uh, it to the, the correct judgment. Same thing with Gore. I mean, we know for a fact that his folks had looked at every path. What happens if it gets to Congress, the joint session, what happens if it gets sent to the House of Representatives and in every path he loses no matter what happens in the litigation.

 So I, I don't want to give as much magnanimity of thought to either one of them. But, but let's assume the standard version and that Nixon is magnanimous, certainly not in 1960, but also not in 2000 were the stakes about the very existential threat that the country is under as great as they are. I mean, we're not talking about, you know, handing over to John Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon who's gonna deal with the Cold War.

Um, we're, we're, we are talking about whether we are gonna, as a nation completely repudiate every one of our founding principles, uh, which is what the modern Left-wing, which is in control of the Democrat Party, believes that we are the root of all evil in the world and we have to be eradicated. This is an existential threat to the very survivability, not just of our nation, but but of the, uh, example that our nation properly understood provides to the world.

That's the stakes, and Trump seems to understand that in a way a lot of Republican establishment types in Washington don't.  And it's the reason he gets so much support. In the hinterland, in the flyover country. People are fed up with folks, you know, get along, go along while the country is being destroyed.

 And so I think the stakes are much bigger. And, and, and that means a stolen election that thwarts the will of the people trying to correct course and get back on a path that understands the significance and the nobility of America and the American experiment is really at stake and we ought to fight for it.

 Tom Klingenstein: I'm assuming that if the conditions that obtained in this early sixties obtained now, you might not have made…

 John Eastman: I, I may, I may have come to a different conclusion and look, our Founders lay this case out. The prudential judgment they make in the Declaration of Independence is the same one. There's actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that says, you know, a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable – Tolerable while they remain tolerable.

 But at some point, abuses become so intolerable that it's not only their right, but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government. So that's the question - have the abuses and the threat of abuses become so intolerable, uh, that we have to be willing to push back.

 Tom Klingenstein: To what degree are the differences between you and others on the fraud and the legal matters a function of a very different assessment of where we stand today.

John Eastman: So I had, I had one of my longtime friends call me and say, you know, you gotta quit with this Eastman. You know, it's all a blow over. Just write a book. You'll make a lot of money and everything will be fine. And I told them, “I said, you really don't understand the stakes of what we're dealing with, and I don't know how you can miss it, because it's just there for anybody with eyes to see.”

Tom Klingenstein: The narrative is Eastman and Trump tried to initiate a coup. Isn't that the narrative?

 John Eastman: Well, and I actually published an article saying, trying to trying to stop an illegal election is not a coup, but trying to thwart a coup. Um, but the fact that that true narrative is being censored and shut down so that the false narrative can prevail, uh, is I think part of the existential threat.

And it's not just shut down, it's, it's shut down any people that raise legitimate questions about the validity of the election.

Tom Klingenstein: And, and you are a good example in unfortunately this censoring and de-platforming comes almost as much from the Right as from the Left.   

John Eastman: Let's, let's kind of distinguish the Right. We've got, uh, what our friends at the Claremont Institute like to call Conservatism Inc. The, the establishment conservatives. Uh, they're, they're very much a part of the establishment and, and what Trump and more importantly, what, what the movement that Trump got ahead of, remember it was not called the MAGA movement until Trump came along. It was the Tea Party movement. It's the same movement.  It's the same, goes back to 2008 or 2010. They don't want the federal government controlling our healthcare, you know, taking over one sixth of the nation's economy. They don't want command and control. They don't want OSHA telling me what, what kind of chair I can have in my home office.

All of, they don't want them telling me that I can't have gas stoves in my kitchen. They're tired of that. That was a tea party movement. And the Republicans were as much opposed to the Tea party, populist uprising against what was happening and coming outta Washington as the Democrats were. And Trump got ahead of that movement, and it's now called the Make America Greater Movement.

Uh, uh, uh, again, movement, but, but that's what the establishment in DC or more broadly, the northeast corridor, if you will, to bring in New York. That's, that's, that's what they wanna stop. Mm-hmm. Partly because they think they're smarter than the average American, and therefore the average American just ought to bend the knee or whatever comes out of the expert.

And this is just a fruition of that a hundred year effort.  But it's, it's, uh, it's, uh, come to a rapid conclusion. I mean, it kind of, it kind of went, there were a couple of bumps when it increased quickly, but, but you look at that curve and it's been an exponential increase in the last few years.

You're gonna let 50 year old men naked into teenage girls' showers at public pools. That's one of the, or, or drag queens doing story hours to six year olds. If I had said that 10 years ago, you would've laughed me outta the room and you, you would've said, Eastman, you're way outta the limb. You're crazy.

Tom Klingenstein: Anything more?

John Eastman: No, I, I, I would just, you know, kind of bring it all together in this way. The amount of information about illegality, I thought was clear cut. That opened the door for fraud. And I think both the statistical evidence and the anecdotal evidence, if I had about people engaging in that fraud because the door had been open to it, was significant enough to have altered the results of the election.

And then the question is gonna be, is there any legal remedy to deal with a stolen election? Um, and I put together the best legal arguments that I thought, uh, were plausible to, to, to deal with that. But I did that because I thought the stakes were high. And I thought, uh, if we do not address the illegality here, what we're gonna see is they're, I mean, they use the institutions of government to affect the outcome of that election in ways that we now know - the Twitter files, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, those were done with collusion with agencies of the United States government, putting a big thumb on the scale of the election, and, and they did that when you know, when the incoming president was gonna be able to call him on it, and they continued to do it after the boss was their enemy.

Um, and, and if they can do it that time, when they then get a boss who's in agreement with them, then there are no longer, you know, any impediments to them preventing us from ever having a fair election again, which means there are no impediments to them blocking the consent of the governed, having control of the direction of the government, and we no longer are free people.

I mean, those are the stakes. And if those are the stakes, I, you know, what are you supposed to do? Just, just sit around and twiddle your thumb, eh? It would be too messy to do anything about this. I'll just. You know, and maybe when the alligators come for everybody else, they'll eat me last. No, that's not my nature. I'm the one out there on the rampart. If they eat me first, at least I've gone down fighting.


Qs: 
1. Did the TPM article sensationalize or distort what Eastman said? (FWIW, I think it sensationalized and distorted what Eastman said)

2. Was what Eastman supported and fomented on 1/6 as best he could, a coup attempt, an insurrection, legitimate political discourse, something else, or something unknowable?

Saturday, August 5, 2023

News bits: Abnormalizing the politically abnormal; Memory enhancement method; GOP hypocrisy; Misc.

A NYT opinion by Russ Douthat makes an interesting argument about normalizing vs abnormalizing the abnormal in politics. Douthat opines
In the quest to escape Donald Trump’s dominance of American politics, there have been two camps: normalizers and abnormalizers.

The first group takes its cues from an argument made in these pages by the Italian-born economist Luigi Zingales just after Trump’s 2016 election. Comparing the new American president-elect to Silvio Berlusconi, the populist who bestrode Italian politics for nearly two decades, Zingales argued that Berlusconi’s successful opponents were the ones who treated him “as an ordinary opponent” and “focused on the issues, not on his character.” Attempts to mobilize against the right-wing populist on purely moral grounds or to rely on establishment solidarity to deem him somehow illegitimate only sustained Berlusconi’s influence and popularity.

The counterargument has been that you can’t just give certain forms of abnormality a pass; otherwise, you end up tolerating not just demagogy but also lawbreaking, corruption and authoritarianism. The more subtle version of the argument insists that normalizing a demagogue is also ultimately a political mistake as well as a moral one and that you can’t make the full case against a figure like Trump if you try to leave his character and corruption out of it.

Trump won in 2016 by exploiting the weak points in this abnormalizing strategy, as both his Republican primary opponents and then Hillary Clinton failed to defeat him with condemnation and quarantines, instead of reckoning with his populism’s substantive appeal.

His presidency was a more complicated business. I argued throughout, and still believe, that the normalizing strategy was the more effective one, driving Democratic victories in the 2018 midterms (when the messaging was heavily about health care and economic policy) and Joe Biden’s “let’s get back to normal” presidential bid. Meanwhile, the various impeachments, Lincoln Project fund-raising efforts, Russia investigations and screaming newspaper coverage seemed to fit Zingales’s model of establishment efforts that actually solidified Trump’s core support.
On reflection, Douthat is probably right. Vilifying and calling out DJT's corruption, lies, moral failings and anti-democracy authoritarianism and ideology (the "rot") do not faze his rank and file supporters. It just doesn't. Maybe it is best to mostly (not completely) ignore the rot and focus much more on issues, especially ones where there is supporting majority public opinion. One aspect of the rot that should not be ignored is the lies, slanders and crackpottery about issues that radical right authoritarians want to impose despite contrary majority public opinion.

That would mean that the Dems should soften their stance about some issues such as aggressive wokeness, transgenderism and some aspects of public education. 
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Researchers At U. California Irvine published a paper in Frontiers in Neuroscience that used seven different odors to significantly boost memory in a word recall test. Brain imaging at the beginning and end of the study showed apparent improvement in a brain pathway that connects two parts of the brain. That pathway normally weakens or deteriorates with age. Science Daily writes
Simple fragrance method produces major memory boost

The project was conducted through the UCI Center for the Neurobiology of Learning & Memory. It involved men and women aged 60 to 85 without memory impairment. All were given a diffuser and seven cartridges, each containing a single and different natural oil. People in the enriched group received full-strength cartridges. Control group participants were given the oils in tiny amounts. Participants put a different cartridge into their diffuser each evening prior to going to bed, and it activated for two hours as they slept.

People in the enriched group showed a 226% [2.26-fold] increase in cognitive performance compared to the control group, as measured by a word list test commonly used to evaluate memory. Imaging revealed better integrity in the brain pathway called the left uncinate fasciculus. This pathway, which connects the medial temporal lobe to the decision-making prefrontal cortex, becomes less robust with age. Participants also reported sleeping more soundly.

Scientists have long known that the loss of olfactory capacity, or ability to smell, can predict development of nearly 70 neurological and psychiatric diseases. These include Alzheimer's and other dementias, Parkinson's, schizophrenia and alcoholism. Evidence is emerging about a link between smell loss due to COVID and ensuing cognitive decrease. Researchers have previously found that exposing people with moderate dementia to up to 40 different odors twice a day over a period of time boosted their memories and language skills, eased depression and improved their olfactory capacities. The UCI team decided to try turning this knowledge into an easy and non-invasive dementia-fighting tool.

"The reality is that over the age of 60, the olfactory sense and cognition starts to fall off a cliff," said Michael Leon, professor of neurobiology & behavior and a CNLM fellow. "But it's not realistic to think people with cognitive impairment could open, sniff and close 80 odorant bottles daily. This would be difficult even for those without dementia."

The study's first author, project scientist Cynthia Woo, said: "That's why we reduced the number of scents to just seven, exposing participants to just one each time, rather than the multiple aromas used simultaneously in previous research projects. By making it possible for people to experience the odors while sleeping, we eliminated the need to set aside time for this during waking hours every day."  
"The olfactory sense has the special privilege of being directly connected to the brain's memory circuits," said Michael Yassa, professor and James L. McGaugh Chair in the Neurobiology of Learning & Memory. The director of CNLM, he served as collaborating investigator. "All the other senses are routed first through the thalamus. Everyone has experienced how powerful aromas are in evoking recollections, even from very long ago. However, unlike with vision changes that we treat with glasses and hearing aids for hearing impairment, there has been no intervention for the loss of smell."
The research paper described the treatment protocol:
Individuals assigned to the olfactory enrichment group were provided with an odorant diffuser (Diffuser World) and 7 essential oil odorants (rose, orange, eucalyptus, lemon, peppermint, rosemary, and lavender; from The Essential Oil Company, Portland, OR) in identical glass vials that each fit into the diffuser. They were asked to turn on the diffuser when they went to bed, and the odorant was released into the air during the night for 2 h when they first went to sleep. They rotated through the different odorants each night. Individuals in the control group also were provided with an odorant diffuser, and they followed the same regimen as the olfactory enrichment participants, however they were provided with bottles that contained distilled water with an undetectable, de minimis amount of odorant added. Participants were instructed to change the odorant bottle daily before they went to bed, and they continued this regimen at home for 6 months.
The paper described the research protocol rationale like this:
While sniffing 40 odorants twice a day benefits patients with dementia, it is unlikely that they would be able to load, open, and close 80 sniff bottles each day. This problem would be expected even in older adults without dementia. Since it is important to get high levels of compliance for olfactory enrichment to obtain maximal benefits, we tested the idea that we could get enhanced neural and cognitive outcomes after minimal-effort olfactory enrichment at night.
Although memory enhancement is an elusive beast, this sounds like a plausible way to help maintain or even improve a neural pathway that normally deteriorates with age. This might actually be the real deal if this result is reproducible. Caution, this needs to be repeated at least once with more subjects to begin to confirm this astonishing result. The study had only 20 treated male and female participants, age 60–85, of good general health, with normal cognition. The control group had 23 people in it. That's a small sample size for the treated group.

But dang, I might give this a try. Even if the isn't real, there's no harm I can see in sleeping a couple of hours at night with different scents wafting around the room for a few months.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Barely a day after former President Donald Trump was indicted for the third time, some Senate Republicans are already trying to undermine the credibility of the federal judge who was randomly assigned to preside over his trial.

Here’s a detail they’re hoping you won’t notice: They unanimously voted to confirm her.  
Not a single Republican raised concerns about Chutkan during her nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2014. In fact, only one GOP member of the committee even showed up to the hearing: Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who was only there to rave about a separate Texas judicial nominee on the schedule. He left before Chutkan was up.
The named Republican hypocrites are Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Fun but hopeless ideas

We already name hurricanes, so let's name heat waves after oil companies, their executives, e.g., the Darren Woods (Exxon-Mobil CEO) Heat Wave, etc. 

Congress needs to pass a law requiring that offices of executives or politicians in pro-pollution companies and the pro-pollution Republican Party have air conditioning set to kick in at 85ᵒ, and heat set to kick in at 55ᵒ.

Congress needs to pass a law requiring gun owners to get a license and pay an annual license tax for each gun owned and take a gun safety course every three or four years.

Congress needs to pass a law requiring the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare, Medicaid and all government employees. It would be nice if it negotiated for the rest of us too, but that asks way too much because we are just us.

What about Kamala Harris?


Despite poor polling numbers, Kamala Harris viewed as key for Democrats in 2024


WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris’ poll numbers have stagnated at a lower level than many of her predecessors’ ratings, a daunting problem for a running mate as the 2024 presidential campaign gets underway.

Professors and political experts interviewed by States Newsroom say there are several reasons why Harris’ favorability numbers sagged after she took office. She is tied to President Joe Biden and he’s not especially popular at the moment. She’s the first woman and person of color to hold the role. Assigned intractable national issues like illegal immigration, she has been heavily criticized by Republicans for not producing solutions. And like any vice president, she can’t overshadow the president.

Experts interviewed also contend that nationwide favorability polling isn’t an especially important predictor of who voters will choose when they head to the polls in 16 months. They did argue that Harris, however she may be perceived, will play a more prominent role in the campaign than other vice presidents — due in part to Biden’s age. Now 80, he would be 86 at the end of a second term.

“As in 2008, when there were concerns about John McCain’s health, people will look at the vice presidential candidate and see whether or not they’re ready for prime time,” said Andra Gillespie, associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. “And the problem with Sarah Palin in 2008 was that she didn’t look like she was ready for prime time. People are going to ask the same questions about Vice President Harris.”

Jonathan K. Hanson, a political science professor and statistics lecturer at the University of Michigan, also said Biden’s age might lead voters to consider Harris more critically than they have other running mates in recent history.

“If we’re really looking at Biden’s strengths and weaknesses, his age has got to be one of the biggest areas of vulnerability. We’re not used to having the president quite this old,” Hanson said.

A drop in the polls

FiveThirtyEight’s polling average showed Harris with a 52% disapproval rating and a 39% approval rating in late June.

Those numbers are much lower than in April 2021, three months after Harris was sworn in as vice president, when her average approval rating was 55%. Her disapproval rating at the time was just under 32%.

Both of those numbers began moving in the opposite directions in June 2021, before leveling off about a year later.

Gillespie said there are numerous factors contributing to Harris’ low poll numbers, including that one of the key roles for a vice president is to stay in the background.

“Politically speaking, if she were to be taking a lead role on lots of key issues, there is the chance that she would end up overshadowing President Biden and that could cause friction within their own relationship,” Gillespie said. “But then in particular, given President Biden’s age, it would actually help to fuel the narrative that he’s really not fit for office.”

Another reason Harris’ poll numbers are lower than many of her predecessors, Gillespie said, is because she is the first woman of color to become a vice president and because Biden’s poll numbers are underwater.

Harris’ poll numbers are lower than those of the four vice presidents who came before her, according to an analysis of prior polling by the Los Angeles Times.

Biden began his presidency in January 2021 with a 54.7% average approval rating, but that quickly began trending downward, according to FiveThirtyEight.

By September 2021, Biden’s approval rating had dipped below his disapproval rating. He currently holds a 54.3% disapproval rating and a 40.5% average approval rating, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The Biden-Harris campaign did not offer on-the-record comments for this article.

Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said there are multiple factors affecting Harris’ poll numbers and the public’s perception of her role. She agreed with the other experts that one is Harris’ standing as the first woman and first person of color to be a vice president.

“A challenge of being a first is that the scrutiny on you is usually much higher and the expectations for you are unset, there’s no precedent,” Dittmar said.

Tricky assignments

Harris, who gets a fraction of the news coverage of the president or congressional leaders, has been handed some of the more politically polarizing assignments during the first few years of the Biden administration, from addressing the main drivers of undocumented migration to being a leading voice on reproductive rights following the fall of Roe v. Wade.

During the first year of the Biden administration, Harris was tasked with trying to address the long-running and complex issues within a few Central American countries that lead thousands of people to migrate to the United States each year.

Harris’ first international trip as vice president in June 2021 was to Guatemala before she traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border later that month, following weeks of criticism from Republicans.

Those GOP lawmakers have repeatedly rebuked Harris for what they call a “crisis” at the Southern border and laid the blame for undocumented immigration at her feet.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last summer, Harris became one of the administration’s leading voices on reproductive rights and abortion access.

But abortion access is an area where Democrats feel they can motivate their base and the swing voters that often decide presidential contests. And while Biden has spoken out in support of reproductive rights consistently since the Supreme Court’s decision last summer, in late June he distanced himself somewhat.

“I happen to be a practicing Catholic. I’m not big on abortion,” Biden said. “But guess what? Roe v. Wade got it right.”

Harris has spoken about dozens of other issues as well, including in recent days on the cost of child care, access to transportation for people with disabilities, artificial intelligence and renewable energy.

Some voters, Gillespie said, might have had unrealistic expectations about what Harris could accomplish as vice president, leading them to become frustrated with her job performance.

“I think it’s an important question to look at how much the public actually knows about what her issue portfolio is,” Gillespie said. “And then there is the other issue of whether or not Vice President Harris was potentially set up to fail.”

“There is the perception that by announcing that she would be handling these issues, that that was just inviting criticism when she was inevitably not going to be able to solve those problems in a short period of time, because these are entrenched long-term issues,” Gillespie added.

Bully pulpit and more 

Harris told NPR in an interview released this month that she views her role as vice president as similar to the role of Americans who “love” the country and believe in its promises, but who also “understand we have some work yet to do to fully achieve that promise.”

“I think about my role as vice president of the United States and what that means both in terms of the bully pulpit that I have and the responsibility that comes with that to hopefully inform folks of things I might be aware of, but also to elevate public discourse and hopefully cut through the misinformation,” Harris said during the NPR interview.

Harris has traveled throughout the country on behalf of the administration this year, including to purple states like Arizona where she spoke with Native American communities, Pennsylvania for an event with the Service Employees International Union, Virginia to speak about gun violence and Georgia to discuss climate change.

Harris has also attended several Democratic fundraising events.

And in mid-July she matched the record for the most tie-breaking votes a vice president has cast in the Senate.

“When it’s mattered most, Vice President Harris has provided the decisive vote on some of the most historic bills of modern times, from the American Rescue Plan to the Inflation Reduction Act, to so many federal judges who now preside and provide balance on the federal bench,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat said. “She’s carried out her duties with supreme excellence.”

Dittmar from the Center for American Women and Politics said it’s clear that many voters are evaluating Harris “in a different way than the white men who’ve come before her.”

Public perception or favorability of Harris could also be affected by how she’s been deployed by the White House, Dittmar said.

“She tends to do more of her work behind the scenes and in things that are just covered less,” Dittmar said. “So when I see she has low favorables, it leads me to believe that in the absence of information of what she is actually doing, people are going to rely on other information put out there about her.”

Even then, Dittmar said, polls won’t give an indication of whether Biden will win reelection with Harris as his running mate.

“I’m always like a broken record about this, I don’t think that favorability tells us much,” Dittmar said.

Polling has also been broadly criticized for inaccurate numbers heading into the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research wrote in a report that the “2020 polls featured polling error of an unusual magnitude: It was the highest in 40 years for the national popular vote and the highest in at least 20 years for state-level estimates of the vote in presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial contests.”

“Among polls conducted in the final two weeks, the average error on the margin in either direction was 4.5 points for national popular vote polls and 5.1 points for state-level presidential polls,” the report said.

A president above the fray

Kathryn Tenpas, a nonresident senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that vice presidents often take a leading role criticizing opponents during a reelection campaign because presidents tend to follow the “Rose Garden” strategy.

That includes the president appearing above the fray, she said, while trying to project as a natural for a second term in office.

In addition to that, vice presidents, she said, often act like lightning rods, drawing volatile issues away from the president.

But Tenpas said national polling numbers aren’t particularly important because the campaign will likely focus on specific areas of the country that could decide presidential elections.

“I would contend that her national polling numbers are not super relevant when it comes to campaigning because they probably want to focus on certain counties within those swing states,” Tenpas said.

The University of Michigan’s Hanson said Biden’s somewhat low approval rating could affect Harris.

But, he added, because Harris is the first woman and first person of color to hold the role of vice president, that creates other dynamics.

Media attention on previous vice presidents, all of whom have been white men, didn’t focus on their race or ethnic background in the way it’s factored into Harris’ public image as a politician, he said.

Those vice presidents, he said, would talk about policy or other aspects of their background.

“But of course, when the nominee is a woman, or when a woman of color, then those features enter very prominently into the news coverage, and it kind of activates, you know, prejudices that voters have,” Hanson said. “So to the extent that there was prejudice against a Black woman or a woman of color, or, in this case, a person of mixed ethnic background, those prejudices can manifest themselves, depending on who is reading that story.”

Moving Harris to the forefront and trying to reassure voters that she could step into the role of president, should anything happen to Biden, might be a crucial benchmark for the 2024 Biden-Harris campaign, he said.

“I think it’s fair to say Republicans so far have had the upper hand as being pretty successful as trading in an image of incompetence, or that voters just don’t have very warm feelings or very positive feelings towards Harris,” Hanson said.

“So Democrats, of course, will want to flip that narrative and I think there is a possibility … that her relative youth and intelligence will be selling points and assets that will reassure voters that if something were to happen to Biden that she’s ready,” Hanson added. “But that’s going to have to be the result of an intentional campaign to create that perception.”

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/07/17/despite-poor-polling-numbers-kamala-harris-viewed-as-key-for-democrats-in-2024/

A kazillion questions popped into my head when reading the above but I will narrow my questions down to just a few.

There is a reason why I highlighted that last three paragraphs in red. Another example where the Democrats have failed in their messaging and allowed the Republicans to frame the narrative around Kamala Harris. Why have the Democrats NOT done a better job of highlighting her accomplishments and contributions? Why is THIS one of the few articles I could find that has done so?

A lot of commentary in the article above about Harris being a woman of color and how that plays into her lack of popularity. First, do you buy that? Or is that just an excuse? My question is, did Biden originally pick Harris primarily because she IS a woman of color over considerations of her qualifications? 

Consider: Biden also appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the SCOTUS, but she was eminently qualified. Was Kamala, on the other hand, the most qualified choice for VP at the time? 

Next, regardless of how pundits view her performance, or view her either as an asset or liability to Biden's campaign, the bigger question will be - how much of a factor WILL her presence be on the 2024 election? A lot or not much at all?

Finally, is questioning her abilities or even questioning if she was the right choice "racist?" If we questioned the abilities of any other VP we wouldn't be accused of that. So how much is any criticism of her stifled by accusations of racism? Reverse that, and we can ask - HOW MUCH of the criticism leveled at her by the Republicans IS because of her gender and race?