Kevin Drum Feed | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Trump Toes the Line on Energy <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Stop me if I'm wrong, but Donald Trump's big energy speech today was just the usual conservative mishmash, right? Global warming doesn't exist. Drill baby drill. Dig more coal. Repeal job-killing Obama environmental rules. Fracking is great. Wind and solar meh. Nukes, sure, whatever.</p> <p>This is the usual establishment Republican line, and Trump is carefully toeing it. Or am I missing something?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 27 May 2016 01:55:07 +0000 Kevin Drum 305141 at How Can You Like Barack Obama But Loathe Hillary Clinton? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Shaun King says he's giving up on the Democratic Party. He can't abide Hillary Clinton's establishment views and thinks the Democratic Party is fundamentally corrupt and in thrall to moneyed interests. Fair enough. This isn't my position, but I understand it.</p> <p>But there are times when I wonder if we've all succumbed to some kind of mass memory wipe. Although King dislikes Hillary, he says he respects President Obama "a great deal." This prompts interviewer Emmett Rensin to ask an <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/images/Blog_Obama_Clinton.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">obvious question: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pretty similar domestic policy positions. So why loathe one but like the other? <a href="" target="_blank">Here is King's answer:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>I think we would have to go down each and every one of the president&rsquo;s positions to really evaluate, what does the president think about health care? Yes, there is a thing called Obamacare &mdash; <strong>but was that what he campaigned on?</strong> What came out of the sausage factory, was that his dream? <strong>No. Of course not.</strong></p> <p>So is the president for universal health care? <strong>Well, he was. For years and years and years.</strong> And I don't know that he stopped being for universal health care. It was just that he used virtually all the political capital he had in his first term to get something decent through Congress, and what came out was very different.</p> </blockquote> <p>What? I don't doubt that Obama, in his heart of hearts, favors truly universal health care. He's said as much in the past&mdash;though in the next breath he's always added that it might take a while to get there. But the only thing he ever <a href="" target="_blank">campaigned on</a> was Obamacare. He unveiled his health care plan nine years ago almost to the day, and&mdash;well, <a href="" target="_blank">let's roll the tape:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage. Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan is similar to the one covering members of Congress.</p> <p>Obama's package would prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions. The plan doesn't have the mandate that rival Democratic candidate John Edwards is proposing to ensure that all Americans get coverage. The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee would require everyone to have health insurance, much like state requirements for auto insurance for every driver. Both candidates would require businesses to help cover their workers.</p> </blockquote> <p>Obama was, by universal consensus, <em>less</em> ambitious on health care than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. He introduced his plan in 2007, he campaigned on it for the next 18 months, and it's quite close to what eventually got passed. The big difference is that the final version of Obamacare added an individual mandate, something that Hillary had in her plan from the start.</p> <p>There are plenty of reasons to like Obama more than Hillary Clinton. I certainly do. But we all need to stay reality-based too. On domestic policy there was very little difference between Obama and Clinton during the 2008 campaign, and to the extent there was, it was generally Obama who was considered a bit more centrist. It was Obama who was the darling of Wall Street. His climate change plan was all but identical to Hillary's but included lots of happy talk about clean coal. Etc. etc.</p> <p>This whole thing is crazy. Do people even remember the 2008 campaign? Obama was an inspirational speaker, for sure, but on policy matters he was a relentlessly pragmatic, mainstream Democrat. And that's how he's governed ever since he won. If you like Obama on domestic policy, it's really hard to see just what you'd have against Hillary. Their differences lie mostly in foreign policy instincts, and not anywhere else.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 23:03:34 +0000 Kevin Drum 305121 at Chart of the Day: Housing Is Back! <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Well, maybe. April saw sales of 619,000 new single-family homes. This is starting to get very close to the average from 1980-2001, before the housing bubble and subsequent crash. At our current rate, we'll exceed the old average by this time next year.</p> <p>Is this good or bad? It's nowhere near bubble territory, so it should be good. If people are buying new homes, it's a sign not just that the economy is picking up (we already knew that), but that people are confident enough in the economy to tie themselves into 30-year mortgages at the same rate they did back when the economy was motoring along. So: two cheers for housing!</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_new_single_family_homes_q1_2016.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px 10px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 19:27:06 +0000 Kevin Drum 305096 at The Campaign Press Corps Needs to Rediscover Its Inner Cynic <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>For the past several months, the press&mdash;and sadly, I suppose I have to include myself in this&mdash;has demonstrated an eager willingness to chatter away about literally anything Donald Trump says. Trump's MO is pretty simple: say ridiculous stuff, but say it with utter confidence. If any other politician said the kinds of things he said, reporters would take it as obvious&mdash;and fairly desperate&mdash;spin. <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_paul_manafort.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">But Trump's apparently total belief in what he says causes reporters to shed their years of well-earned cynicism and write with an almost wide-eyed fascination.</p> <p>This is sort of inexplicable. It's as if campaign reporters have never encountered a top-notch salesman outside the world of politics. Good sales people aren't slick and oily, folks. They aren't the ones who sell used cars&mdash;that's for penny-ante sales people. The really good ones go after much bigger game. They speak with total confidence, they appear to believe everything they say, and they have the gift of seeming completely truthful. Trump is one of the best, and he doesn't try to hide it. He's written whole books about it. He's <em>proud</em> of his ability to snooker folks, and he brags about it openly if you ask him.</p> <p>But no matter. Say it with enough brio and the marks will come running.</p> <p>This has been obvious for a long time, so why bring it up now? Because apparently Trump has finally trained an acolyte. A few months ago he hired Paul Manafort to run his delegate operation, but that job is no longer necessary now that he's wrapped up the nomination. So these days Manafort plays some kind of vague role in the Trump campaign that will probably get sorted out eventually when all the current infighting is over. <a href="" target="_blank">Yesterday he gave an interview to Howard Fineman,</a> and Manafort sounded just like the master himself. It was endless spin delivered with absolute, utter confidence regardless of how ridiculous it was.</p> <p>And as near as I can tell, Fineman bought it. There's barely a hint of cynicism, barely a nod to the possibility that Manafort is just delivering garden variety political spin. "Manafort's sunny vision may be a little skewed," Fineman says, arousing hope that he <em>does</em> see through Manafort's charade, but no: "Having made millions as an image crafter for foreign tyrants, he can't help but see Trump as an easy lift by comparison." See? The guy's just calling them as he sees them!</p> <p>This is all bad enough, but there's more: as near as I can tell, Fineman's interview generated as much chatter as an interview with Trump himself&mdash;most of it taking Manafort at face value. So now we have <em>two</em> master salesmen who can generate endless chatter just by delivering ordinary spin and making it sound like something more.</p> <p>I dunno. Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe this was just a standard bit of beat sweetening, and nothing to get bothered about. But I'm bothered anyway. Trump is a master salesman, and the same reporters who routinely get suckered by Silicon Valley "visionaries" seem to be getting suckered not just by Trump anymore, but by Trump's minions as well. Where's the cynicism, folks?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 18:11:41 +0000 Kevin Drum 305071 at Bernie Sanders Is Switching Teams <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Donald Trump says he'd be delighted to debate Bernie Sanders:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary.</p> &mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="">May 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>This is just sad. Trump is the master of modern publicity, and he knows perfectly well that a debate like this would (a) help Trump and (b) hurt Hillary. That's it. That's all it would do. And Bernie is all in.</p> <p>Is Bernie really so aggrieved by losing the Democratic nomination that he's now willing to explicitly campaign on Trump's behalf? Because that's all this is. What happened to the old Bernie Sanders?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 16:45:10 +0000 Kevin Drum 305056 at It's Time to Kill Off the Scripps Spelling Bee <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Sarah Kliff provides the basic argument for <a href="" target="_blank">killing off the spelling bee:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Here's how the final round of the Spelling Bee works. Once the competition is narrowed to two or three competitors, officials go to a list of 25 words. These are supposed to be the Bee's hardest words, reserved for the very top contenders.</p> <p>....But something weird happened in 2014: Both finalists got all their words right. It happened again in 2015....Co-championships used to be rare in the spelling bee world. Before 2014, there had only been three such instances in the Bee's 90-year history. And now we've had the unprecedented situation of back-to-back co-champions. <strong>All because we're running out of words that are too hard to spell.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>I've been unhappy about the spelling bee for years. For starters, I don't like the idea of national TV coverage for kids that young. Like the Little League World Series, it becomes an ever bigger television spectacle every year, and I just flatly think <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/images/Blog_Spelling_Bee_1930.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 25px;">that's wrong. At the very least, we should wait until kids are in high school before they get that much pressure dumped on them.</p> <p>There's also the fact that the bee has become cool at precisely the time that no one cares about spelling anymore. Computers have made it an obsolete skill, so the bee reinforces the notion that academic prowess is dumb and nerdy. Look at all those kids spending thousands of hours practicing something of no use whatsoever! Suckers!</p> <p>Finally, as Kliff points out, the bee has finally been hacked. Unlike most competitions, spelling bees have a ceiling. If you can spell every word in the dictionary, you're done. You're the best speller that will ever live. And that makes it time to retire the trophy.</p> <p>I'm all in favor of academic competitions. Maybe ESPN could hire some color commentators and televise the Academic Decathlon or something. That's mostly for high school juniors and seniors, which is fine, and there's no ceiling on the competition. If the kids keep getting better, just make the questions harder. Or maybe ESPN should make up its own academic version of American Ninja Warrior. "No one has ever made it through the trigonometry ladder in less than two minutes, but it might happen tonight! Tune in!"</p> <p>But the spelling bee? It had a great run. Now it's time to end it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 16:20:51 +0000 Kevin Drum 305051 at Economic Productivity Is Looking Bleak <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">From the <em>Financial Times</em>:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Productivity is set to fall in the US for the first time in more than three decades, raising the prospect of persistent wage stagnation and the risk of a further populist backlash. Research by the Conference Board, a US think-tank, also shows the rate of productivity growth sliding behind the feeble rates in other advanced economies, <strong>with gross domestic product per hour projected to drop by 0.2 per cent this year.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>The San Francisco Fed tracks a different measure called utilization-adjusted total factor productivity, which they say is a better benchmark of technological improvements than old-school labor productivity. <a href="" target="_blank">Here's their current series:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_factor_productivity.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 7px;"></p> <p>These are 4-quarter growth rates, but the San Francisco Fed says that utilization-adjusted TFP has already gone negative on a pure quarterly basis: it was -2.66 percent in the last quarter of 2015 and -0.58 percent in the first quarter of 2016. So everyone agrees: no matter how you measure it, productivity growth is pretty weak these days. Is this because technological change has stagnated? Because low wages have prevented businesses from spending money on new labor-saving machinery? Because we're not measuring the effect of the app economy properly?</p> <p>Hard to say. Come back in a decade and I'll tell you. In the meantime, it's something to keep an eye on.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 15:26:09 +0000 Kevin Drum 305046 at Today's PSA: It's Time to Brush Up On All the Clinton Crap of the 90s <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Yesterday I nominated Joe Conason to write a series of cheat sheets on all the Hillary Clinton "scandals" of the 90s. Today he emailed to beg off, offering an excuse about having to finish up a "book," <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hunting_hillary.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">which I gather from context is some kind of long, paper-based blog post. Anybody ever heard of this before?</p> <p>But all is not lost. While we wait for this "book," it turns out that he and Gene Lyons have created "The Hunting of Hillary," an abridged version of their original comprehensive look at all the Clinton crap of the 90s. And it's free! I read most of it over lunch today, and if you need a quick refresher on this stuff, it's pretty good.</p> <p>For those of you who are new to all this, I'll warn you right off that you might initially feel inundated by a horde of Hales and McDougals and Tuckers and Nelsons and Scaifes. Don't worry, though: it will start to make sense eventually. They're mostly just various types of unsavory Arkansas political fauna.</p> <p>Anyway, <a href="" target="_blank">it's all here in PDF form,</a> free for nothing more than an email address. I hate to do this to you, but I have a feeling we're all going to need to brush up on this stuff sooner rather than later. Might as well do it now.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 04:58:09 +0000 Kevin Drum 305026 at "Roots" Remake Gets the Drudge Treatment <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This week's <em>Hollywood Reporter</em> features a 4,000-word cover story about A&amp;E's remake of <em>Roots</em>. About halfway through, <a href="" target="_blank">reporter Marisa Guthrie inserts this brief sentence:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The original <em>Roots</em> has its deficiencies. It hasn't aged well at all; Burton admits that it feels "dated." At times, it's also overly sentimental and historically dubious. <strong>A handful of white characters diverge seriously from Haley's novel, most conspicuously a benevolent slave-ship captain played by Ed Asner.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Here's how this plays at the <em>Drudge Report</em>:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_roots_reborn_drudge.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 47px;"></p> <p>Credit where it's due: Drudge knows his audience well.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 26 May 2016 03:34:16 +0000 Kevin Drum 305021 at Donald Trump Tried to Cheat Veterans out of $1 Million <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I want to make this simple. Here's what Donald Trump did recently:</p> <ul><li>He pledged $1 million to help veterans.</li> <li>He tried to weasel out of it for months and hoped no one would notice.</li> <li>When he finally got caught, he ponied up grudgingly and insulted the reporter who caught him.</li> </ul><p>Even among sleazebags, <em>this is not normal behavior</em>. This is pathological sleaziness. It's literally beyond belief. Do not let Trump distract you with his <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_five_dollars_0.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">latest barrage of insults. Do not turn your attention to the latest polls. Do not let this be normalized away as "just another Trump thing."</p> <p>Maybe we need to put this in simpler terms. $1 million is one ten-thousandth of Trump's claimed wealth. The average American household has a net worth of <a href="" target="_blank">about $50,000.</a> One ten-thousandth of that is $5. In terms of its effect on his personal finances, what Trump did was the equivalent of promising five bucks to a homeless vet and then trying to weasel out of it. What kind of person would do that?</p> <p>This deserves far more attention than it's gotten. If character is supposed to be important in our presidents, this is evidence of the most contemptible kind of character imaginable. <em>He tried to cheat a bunch of veterans!</em> Can we please not shrug our shoulders and let this fade away?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 19:09:29 +0000 Kevin Drum 304901 at Weekly Flint Water Report: May 14-19 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Here is this week's Flint water report. As usual, I've eliminated outlier readings above 2,000 parts per billion, since there are very few of them and they can affect the averages in misleading ways. During the week, DEQ took 189 samples. The average for the past week was 17.08.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_flint_lead_water_2016_05_19.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px 15px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 18:01:11 +0000 Kevin Drum 304871 at Chart of the Day: Here's Why Our Infrastructure Is Crumbling and Our Recovery Is So Weak <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Tim Fernholz says that <a href="" target="_blank">this chart shocked him:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_net_government_investment.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 60px;"></p> <p>It's pretty shocking, all right. We're allowing our infrastructure to crumble because we'd rather keep taxes on millionaires low than spend the money it takes to keep our country in decent shape. But it's even worse than that. This seems like a good time to update my chart showing total government spending after our four most recent recessions. Here it is:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_spending_recessions_26_quarters_1.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 7px;"></p> <p>It's now 26 quarters since the official end of the Great Recession and total government spending is <em>still</em> below its 2009 level. This is entirely unlike previous recessions, in which we spent our way to recovery. After 26 quarters, Reagan was spending 19 percent more than in November 1982, when his recession ended. Clinton (and the Gingrich congress) were spending 6 percent more. Bush was spending a whopping 26 percent more.</p> <p>But the Republican Congress has prevented the same thing from happening on Obama's watch. We're still spending 5 percent <em>less</em> than we were in June 2009, when the recession ended. Is it any wonder that our recovery has been so weak?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 17:20:10 +0000 Kevin Drum 304866 at IG Report on Clinton Email Concludes With...Nothing New <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The State Department's inspector general has finally issued his report on email preservation and retention practices within the department, <a href="" target="_blank">and he's not impressed:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>OIG identified multiple email and other electronic records management issues during the course of this evaluation....Insufficient Oversight of the Recordkeeping Process....Print and File Requirements Not Enforced....Limited Ability To Retrieve Email Records....No Inventory of Archived Electronic Files....Unavailable or Inaccessible Electronic Files....Failure To <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_clinton_email_oig_report.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Transfer Email Records to IPS....Failure To Follow Department Separation Processes....Failure To Notify NARA of Loss of Records</p> <p>OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have used personal email accounts to conduct official business....<strong>OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business.</strong>...OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including,, and former Director of Policy Planning wrote: <strong>&ldquo;State&rsquo;s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Yikes! But no one cares about this. We care about Hillary Clinton. Are you ready? Here's the IG's blistering report:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, <strong>Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records</strong> with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department&rsquo;s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.</p> <p>NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that <strong>Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure</strong> and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s production was incomplete. For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s tenure.</p> <p>....With regard to Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s immediate staff...<strong>OIG learned of extensive use of personal email accounts by four immediate staff members</strong> (none of whom responded to the questionnaire). During the summer of 2015, their representatives produced Federal records in response to a request from the Department, portions of which included material sent and received via their personal email accounts. The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data.</p> <p>....During Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU [Sensitive But Unclassified] information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU information outside the Department&rsquo;s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non-Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM. However, <strong>OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution,</strong> despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, this is pretty much all the stuff we already knew. The Department of State apparently has epically bad email systems. Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton should have consulted with State's IT staff about her personal email account. She didn't. She should have turned over her work emails sooner. She didn't. Ditto for her staff.</p> <p>And that's about it. Hillary screwed up. The IG report doesn't present any evidence that her system was ever hacked. Nor does it suggest that Hillary was deliberately trying to prevent work-related emails from being retained. Nor was she the only one conducting official business on a personal account. Colin Powell did it too, as well as dozens of other State employees.</p> <p>Nonetheless, Hillary exercised poor judgment here. That's been clear for a long time. Beyond that, though, there's not much more to say.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 15:58:56 +0000 Kevin Drum 304851 at Repeat After Me: Democrats and Republicans Are Not the Same <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Charles&nbsp;Camosy proposes <a href="" target="_blank">a grand bargain for Democrats and Republicans:</a></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>How to pass federal paid family leave and limit abortions</strong></p> <p>Family leave programs and child-care support are energetically backed by liberals....[But] these kinds of programs violate the extremist small-government orthodoxy of the Republican Party. Even if Democrats were to win the presidency this year, and a majority in the House and the Senate, the GOP would almost certainly filibuster bills that meaningfully addressed paid family leave and child-care costs.</p> <p>That means that Democrats who want to see such bills pass need to come up with a carrot to get moderate Republicans on board. A nearly perfect one exists: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was passed by the House last year but filibustered by Senate Democrats. The bill would ban elective abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy. The United States is extreme in allowing such abortions in the first place; it is one of only seven countries in the world that permit abortions beyond 20 weeks.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hmmm. Paid family leave and child-care support in return for limiting abortions after 20 weeks instead of 26. Camosy is right: there are probably some Democrats who'd back that deal. At a guess, there would be at least enough to defeat a filibuster and put this on the president's desk. So let's give it a try!</p> <p>Oh wait. We need some Republican votes too. At the moment I can think Republicans who wouldn't dismiss this out of hand. Other than that, though, it sounds like some great out-of-the-box thinking.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 15:15:42 +0000 Kevin Drum 304841 at Peter Thiel's Secret War Against Gawker <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>Forbes</em> provides some interesting dirt on <a href="" target="_blank">Hulk Hogan's libel suit against Gawker:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook, <strong>has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan&rsquo;s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media</strong>....During court proceedings, which ended in late March with a $140 million victory for Hogan, there had been rumors that a wealthy individual had funded <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_peter_thiel.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Hogan&rsquo;s case though there was never any hard evidence that surfaced to prove that was true.</p> <p>....Money may not have been the main motivation in the first place. Thiel, who is gay, has made no secret of his distaste for Gawker, which attempted to out him in late 2007 before he was open about his sexuality. In 2009, Thiel told PEHub that now-defunct Silicon Valley-focused publication Valleywag, which was owned by Gawker, had the &ldquo;psychology of a terrorist.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Mother Jones</em> has had its own recent run-in <a href="" target="_blank">with a zillionaire who tried to sue us into oblivion,</a> so maybe I'm biased. But I'd like to hear a little more about this from the folks who think that safe spaces and campus protests are harbingers of doom for the First Amendment. You know what could <em>really</em> hurt a free press? Mega-millionaires who know that defending a suit can easily put a small publication out of business, and don't really care much if they win or lose. For them, a few million dollars is chump change anyway. And if they can do it secretly? All the better.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:35 +0000 Kevin Drum 304826 at Trump Finally Caves, Gives Money to Vets After Media Badgers Him Into It <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trump_greedy.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Our story so far: on January 28, Donald Trump pledged $1 million at a charity fundraiser for veterans. Four months later, after considerable digging, the <em>Washington Post</em> was unable to find any evidence that he had made good on his pledge, so they asked his campaign manager about it. <a href="" target="_blank">On Friday,</a> Corey Lewandowski said "The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump&rsquo;s money is fully spent." So who did he give it to? "He's not going to share that information."</p> <p>So the <em>Post</em> kept digging all day Monday. Finally, on Tuesday, we learned that Lewandowski had lied. Trump had not, in fact, <a href="" target="_blank">given any money to anyone:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Trump said in an interview Tuesday that he pledged the $1 million to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. The mogul notified the group's chairman, retired FBI official James Kallstrom, <strong>in a phone call sometime Monday night,</strong> according to Kallstrom's wife, Sue Kallstrom.</p> <p>The <em>Washington Post</em> had been querying charities on social media, trying to find evidence that his $1 million had been received by any veterans' groups. Trump fulfilled his pledge hours later, it appears.</p> <p>Why had it taken almost four months? "You have a lot of vetting to do," Trump said....<strong>When asked if the Monday donation was in response to questions from the news media, Trump said: "You know, you&rsquo;re a nasty guy. You&rsquo;re really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do."</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Even for Trump, this is inexplicable. Whenever you think he can't possibly be a bigger douche, he proves you wrong. What a revolting human being he is.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 23:49:25 +0000 Kevin Drum 304806 at Hillary Clinton Needs Some Better Hobbies <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>David Brooks tries to explain <a href="" target="_blank">why Hillary Clinton is generally disliked:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what Obama does for fun &mdash; golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.</p> <p>But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms....Clinton&rsquo;s career appears, from the outside, to be all consuming. Her husband is her co-politician. Her daughter works at the Clinton Foundation. Her friendships appear <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hillary_bill_clinton_dogs.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 30px 0px 15px 30px;">to have been formed at networking gatherings reserved for the extremely successful.</p> </blockquote> <p>Brooks has been mocked extensively for this, but that's unfair. He has a point here.</p> <p>Before I get to that, though, let's insert the obvious caveat: one of the main reasons Hillary is disliked is because Republicans have spent a quarter of a century attacking her character relentlessly. Benghazi is just the latest of a long string. This has done plenty of damage on its own, but it's also caused Hillary to build a very thick shell between herself and the press. This naturally makes her seem distant and calculating.</p> <p>Now let's get back to Brooks. Here's the thing: like it or not, from cherry trees to log cabins to men from Hope, presidents have always been as much about image as reality. In the modern era, that means presidents have a carefully constructed TV persona. JFK played touch football on the White House lawn. LBJ lassoed calves on his ranch. Nixon bowled.<sup>1</sup> Carter went fishing. Reagan rode horses on his ranch. Bush the Elder went sailing off Kennebunkport. Bill Clinton practically focus grouped his vacations. Bush the Younger cleared brush. Obama does hits on ESPN talking about his March Madness bracket.</p> <p>Apparently Hillary's hobbies are Scrabble, gardening, and crossword puzzles. That's not a lot to work with, but it's something. For example, here's a picture of Hillary and Bill in a Scrabble death match against the Bidens. Here's another of Hillary relaxing after a long day with the <em>New York Times</em> crossword puzzle. And here's one of her planting some new spring bulbs in her&mdash;</p> <p>Wait. What's that? You don't see any pictures? Sorry about that. I couldn't find any. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.</p> <p>Bottom line: Brooks has a point. It doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Modern presidents all know perfectly well that TV has brought the American public into their lives, and the public wants to know what they do for fun. They want to feel like their president is someone who relaxes at the end of the day and lets off a little steam. But Hillary Clinton won't let them see that.</p> <p>Sure, a lot of this is artifice. So what? It still matters.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>For all the good this did him. But at least he tried. Not for nothing did Nixon turn to media guru Roger Ailes for advice on how to appear less like the devious prick he was.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 23:20:48 +0000 Kevin Drum 304801 at Paging Joe Conason to the Assignment Desk <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>As we all know, Donald Trump recently suggested that Vince Foster's suicide was "fishy." He did this solely to get everyone talking about the old conspiracy theories that maybe Hillary had him murdered, and it worked. Everyone's talking about it. Sure, most of the talk is about how the conspiracy theories were thoroughly discredited years ago, <a href="" target="_blank">but as Digby says:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The problem is that nobody believes fact checks they don't already agree with. And from what I'm hearing from some of my readers, this is all news to them and they're ready to believe it. Clinton lies about everything so why not about murder?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah. If you're under 35, you probably barely heard about this in real time. It's all brand new, and if you're a Bernie supporter who loathes Hillary as part of the corrupt, warmonger, Wall-Street-loving establishment, you're primed to give it a listen.</p> <p>Needless to say, Trump is likely to repeat this about every one of the long string of pseudo-scandals that have been aimed at Hillary over the past 25 years. So here's what we need: a series of cheat sheets. One for Vince Foster, one for Whitewater, one for Travelgate, etc. Here's a proposed format:</p> <blockquote> <p>Description of alleged scandal (100 words max).</p> <p>Where it came from (150 words max)</p> <p>Actual truth of the matter (250 words max)</p> <p>Conspiracy theory talking points (1 million words max)</p> </blockquote> <p>Just kidding on that last one. Let's keep it to a few hundred words, OK? The idea here isn't to be exhaustive, it's to provide something that people might actually read. Something that allows folks who don't know about this stuff to get up to speed in a minute or two. I nominate Joe Conason for this task, but anybody else with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Arkansas Project and its bastard cousins is welcome to contribute instead. I hate to say it, but we're probably going to need this.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 22:11:21 +0000 Kevin Drum 304786 at Millennials Are the First Generation In Which Men Outnumber Women <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This post was just completely wrong. Men generally outnumber women in every generation until mortality rates turn things around after middle age. I'm not really sure what I was thinking here.</p> <p>Anyway, I've deleted the whole thing. If you already read it, try to forget it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 19:21:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 304766 at Republicans Really Do Have Themselves to Blame for Donald Trump <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Is the Republican Party/Movement Conservatism responsible for the rise of Donald Trump? <a href="" target="_blank">Megan McArdle rounds up five theories about how Republicans brought Trump on themselves</a> and concludes that they don't make sense. It turns out that four of her theories seem pretty marginal to me, so instead I'm going to offer three of my own. Here we go:</p> <p><strong>#1: Talk radio and Fox News made conservatives crazy.</strong> This is McArdle's Theory #1, and it's the only one on her list that I hear frequently&mdash;and agree with. But she doesn't: "Media follows its audience, rather than leading it. Opinion columnists <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_frankentrump.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">who spend any time at all interacting with their readers are well aware of how pitifully rarely we manage to change anyone&rsquo;s mind about anything."</p> <p>I feel her pain. But Rush Limbaugh is in a whole different universe from Megan McArdle and Kevin Drum. Obviously his popularity owes much to the fact that he channels his listeners' views, but he's also influenced them over the years. It was (and is) very much a vicious/virtuous circle: Limbaugh and his audience basically egg each other on. His influence on his listeners is why he was made an "honorary member" of the congressional class of 1994. I don't know what the official political science view is about this, but Republicans at the time sure thought that Limbaugh was instrumental in stoking the anger that led to the Gingrich revolution&mdash;and I agree with them.</p> <p>Beyond that, common sense suggests that the Rush/Fox/Drudge axis has had a big influence on the conservative movement. It's created a take-no-prisoners style of conservatism that disdains facts, encourages conspiracy theories, creates secret enemies around every corner, rails against compromise of any kind, and insists that conservatives could win if only their leaders were strong enough. This became fertile ground for someone like Donald Trump.</p> <p><strong>#2: Tolerance of racism.</strong> Are leading Republicans racist? How should I know? But honestly, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they've been plainly tolerant of racism and xenophobia in their ranks because it's politically convenient. Now along comes someone like Trump, who all but wears his racism on his sleeve, and they're shocked, shocked, that much of the Republican base is swooning over him. But what did they expect? We've been through years of attacks on "urban" welfare recipients. Years of opposition to affirmative action policies that affect only a tiny fraction of the population. Years of attacks on political correctness that are barely concealed gripes about not being able to tell off-color jokes anymore. <a href="" target="_blank">Years of race-baiting from Fox News.</a> Years of pandering to angry white males. Years of racially inflected attacks on Barack Obama.</p> <p>Is it merely an amazing coincidence that all this stuff and more is really principled conservatism that just happens to code as racist? Spare me. Republicans let this stuff fester because it helped them keep their base enraged, and now Donald Trump has reaped the benefits.</p> <p><strong>#3: The hack gap.</strong> I don't imagine I'll persuade McArdle of this, but conservatives really do have an intellectual superstructure that exists almost solely to provide backup for conservative beliefs. Obviously there are liberals who play this role too, but there are also plenty of mainstream lefties who routinely try to keep things real. Hell, we even have a name for them: "Even the New Republic" liberals. These are the folks that Bernie Sanders supporters deride as sellouts and shills, and there's really hardly anything comparable on the right anymore. You can find occasional pushback against conservative dogma from, say, libertarians, but they have little influence among mainstream conservatives. In the heart of the movement, it's a considerable surprise if you ever find a think tank or magazine article warning that facts on the ground don't really support some beloved tenet of conservatism. I believe that McArdle herself <a href="" target="_blank">has been a victim of this.</a></p> <p>This has created an electorate that doesn't really care about facts anymore&mdash;or, at least, is convinced that they aren't worth worrying about since the facts are so plainly on their side. So along comes Donald Trump, the ultimate fact-free salesman, and it should be no surprise that the Republican base is fine with this. They've been trained for decades not to be concerned about trivia like telling the truth. If Trump says it, they're willing to believe it. Why wouldn't they?</p> <p>So that's that. Republicans created a field that turned out to be fertile ground for someone like Donald Trump, and guess what? They got someone like Donald Trump. Now they're troubled because Trump has his own agenda&mdash;which, it turns out, the Republican base likes better than theirs&mdash;but it's too late. The only thing left to do at this point is to work for Trump's defeat and then spend some time rethinking their larger strategy. We'll see how that goes.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 18:07:55 +0000 Kevin Drum 304746 at White-Collar Coup in Brazil Becomes Ever More Coup-Like <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_romero_juca.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">I haven't had much to say about the recent impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Roussef, but today comes evidence that certainly makes it look ever more like a white-collar coup designed to keep a whole lot of people out of jail. When Roussef was impeached, vice president Michel Temer took over, and now Temer's right-hand man&mdash;planning minister Romero Juca&mdash;has gotten the plotters in some very hot water. For reasons that are a little fuzzy, Sergio Machado, a former oil executive, recorded a conversation <a href="" target="_blank">he had in March with Juca:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The recordings were allegedly made secretly by Machado who, like Juca, is the target of an investigation into massive embezzlement centred on state oil company Petrobras.</p> <p>In the conversations, <strong>Juca is heard calling for a "national pact" that he appears to suggest would stop the investigation,</strong> known as Operation Car Wash, in which dozens of top-ranking politicians from a variety of parties, as well as business executives, have been charged or already convicted for involvement in the Petrobras scheme.</p> <p>In comments immediately taken up by Rousseff and her supporters as evidence for her claim that the impeachment process is a coup in disguise, Juca said: "We need to change the government to stop this bleeding."</p> <p><strong>"I am talking to the generals, the military commanders. They are fine with this, they said they will guarantee it,"</strong> he said. He also said that he has been clearing his plans with justices on the Supreme Court, which oversees impeachment proceedings.</p> </blockquote> <p>Juca says his comments are being taken out of context, which is what I'd probably say too if I were in his shoes. However, since the entire transcript of the conversation has been leaked to the newspaper <em>Folha de Sao Paulo</em>, that doesn't seem like a defense likely to hold water.</p> <p>So why did Machado record this conversation? He's the former head of Transpetro, Brazil's largest oil and gas transport company, and is under investigation over his alleged involvement in the Petrobras scandal. <a href="" target="_blank">From the BBC:</a> "The newspaper alleges he recorded the conversations with a view to negotiating a plea bargain, wanting to exchange information implicating other suspects for a lower sentence."</p> <p>No honor among thieves, I guess.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 15:30:46 +0000 Kevin Drum 304726 at Trumpapalooza for May 23, 2016 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>A while back I asked how to handle the fire hose of Donald Trump news, and one suggestion was to ignore it during the day and then put all of it into a single end-of-the-day roundup. I'm not sure this is a viable long-term solution, but let's give it a <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trumpapalooza.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">try. Here's the Trumpapalooza for May 23, 2016:</p> <p><u><strong>Global Warming</strong></u></p> <p>Publicly, Trump has made it clear that he thinks global warming is a hoax. But when it comes to building a sea wall to protect one of his golf courses, <a href="" target="_blank">it turns out he's a true believer:</a> "If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct," his company says in a letter, "it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring....As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."</p> <p><u><strong>Wall Street</strong></u></p> <p>Trump apparently isn't quite as plugged into the world of the rich and powerful <a href=";_r=1" target="_blank">as he thinks:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>If there were any prevailing doubts of his stature on Wall Street, Mr. Trump said the chief executive at Deutsche Bank could easily allay it. &ldquo;Why don&rsquo;t you call the head of Deutsche Bank? Her name is Rosemary Vrablic,&rdquo; he said in the recent interview. &ldquo;She is the boss.&rdquo;</p> <p>Ms. Vrablic is a private wealth manager at Deutsche Bank in New York. <strong>She is not the company&rsquo;s chief executive;</strong> John Cryan holds that role. Both declined to comment on Mr. Trump.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Energy Policy</strong></u></p> <p>Trump recently met with Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, <a href="" target="_blank">and had a question for him:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>During the meeting, Murray said Trump had asked him about numerous facets of U.S. energy policy. At one point, Murray said he would suggest lifting obstacles to opening liquefied natural gas, or LNG, export facilities to reduce the supply glut of natural gas in the country.</p> <p>He said that Trump was agreeable with the idea, but then had a question. <strong>"What's LNG?"</strong> Murray said Trump asked.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Rape</strong></u></p> <p>Josh Marshall says that if Trump is going to dredge up groundless old rape accusations against Bill Clinton, it's time to ask him some questions about <a href="" target="_blank">his own past sexual conduct:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Trump's former wife Ivana said Trump raped her in a sworn deposition. Given how central a role rape accusations have played in Trump's campaign&nbsp;&mdash; against Mexicans, political opponents, etc. it is clearly a highly germane question, as frankly it would be for any presidential candidate.</p> <p>The details surrounding the alleged rape are bizarrely novelistic even by Trumpian standards. <strong>According to Ivana, Trump was driven to freakish rage by a failed anti-baldness surgery&nbsp;&mdash; a so-called 'scalp reduction'.</strong> But the actions are very clear cut. According to her deposition, Trump flew into a rage, attacked her, held her down and began pulling hair out of her head to mimic his pain and then forcibly penetrated her....This was a pretty concrete and specific [accusation]. And the author of the book that first surfaced the deposition said he'd found numerous friends of Ivana's who she had confided the incident to at the time.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Vince Foster</strong></u></p> <p>The right-wing fever swamp has long believed that Vince Foster, a deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration, didn't commit suicide on July 20, 1993. Rather, Hillary Clinton had him murdered and then ordered his body dragged to Fort Marcy Park, where he was found the next day. Even by conservative standards this is both fantastical and repulsive (Foster was a good friend of Hillary's). Naturally, <a href="" target="_blank">that didn't stop Trump:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>When asked in an interview last week about the Foster case, Trump dealt with it as he has with many edgy topics &mdash; raising doubts about the official version of events even as he says he does not plan to talk about it on the campaign trail. <strong>He called theories of possible foul play &ldquo;very serious&rdquo; and the circumstances of Foster&rsquo;s death &ldquo;very fishy.&rdquo;</strong></p> <p>&ldquo;He had intimate knowledge of what was going on,&rdquo; Trump said, speaking of Foster&rsquo;s relationship with the Clintons at the time. &ldquo;He knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.&rdquo; He added, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t bring [Foster&rsquo;s death] up because I don&rsquo;t know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don&rsquo;t do that because I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s fair.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>There was also some polling news, but who cares about polls in May?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 03:29:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 304711 at Conservatives Win Pyrrhic Victory in Facebook War <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Facebook has caved in to conservative demands that it revamp its Trending Topics feed. Brian Fung describes <a href="" target="_blank">how the algorithm works:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>To be considered for a place in the Trending Topics portion of the site, a topic must generally be mentioned 80 times per hour or more. Facebook takes steps to exclude repeated events that don&rsquo;t constitute news, such as the hashtag &ldquo;lunch,&rdquo; <strong>which usually produces more activity during lunchtime,</strong> the company said in its letter.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm glad to see that Facebook is on top of this. However, I suspect that conservatives are going to be disappointed in the results. Facebook has agreed to stop using external news sites to help it decide which topics are truly trending, and this is likely to have two effects: It will make the Trending Topics feed (a) stupider and (b) more liberal. After all, if you rely entirely on Facebook users, you're relying on an audience that skews young and college educated. How likely is it that this will favor stories about Agenda 21 and Benghazi?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 01:47:34 +0000 Kevin Drum 304706 at Bernie Sanders Kinda Sorta Officially* Admits He Lost <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Bernie Sanders <a href="" target="_blank">gets tossed a bone today:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Top Bernie Sanders supporters Dr. Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will be among those on the Democratic Party's important Platform Drafting Committee after the Vermont senator won a key concession as he looks to leave his mark on the party's platform. The roster of the drafting committee, released by the Democratic National Committee on Monday, <strong>reflects the party's agreement that Sanders would have five supporters on the committee, compared to six for Hillary Clinton.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>First off: If Bernie has officially agreed to accept five out of 11 members on the Platform Committee, isn't that a tacit admission that he's already lost the nomination?</p> <p>But also: Does anyone care about the platform? Seriously. I know it's a big fight every four years, but does either party platform ever have any effect at all on the election?</p> <p>And as long as we're talking about Bernie, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels write today that his supporters <a href=";_r=0" target="_blank">don't actually support his lefty politics:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders...were less likely than Mrs. Clinton's supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered...<strong>including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.</strong></p> <p>&hellip;Mr. Sanders has drawn enthusiastic support from young people, a common pattern for outsider candidates. But here, too&hellip;the generational difference in ideology seems not to have translated into more liberal positions on concrete policy issues&mdash;even on the specific issues championed by Mr. Sanders. For example, <strong>young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services.</strong> Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's interesting, if not especially surprising. We're all basically tribalists at our cores. Except for you and me, of course.</p> <p>*Okay, okay, it's not official. It's&hellip;um, a semi-admission of reality? Or something. In any case, I've gotten a bunch of non-ranty emails about this, which is a welcome change. So I'm happy to clarify that I was sort of semi-joking. Or something.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 00:03:32 +0000 Kevin Drum 304701 at Quote of the Day: The Conservative Fight to Become First Gnat <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">From conservative Jim Geraghty</a> on the ongoing spat between right-wingers about who's selling out to whom in the great Facebook War of 2016:</p> <blockquote> <p>I&rsquo;m pretty darn sure that throwing around accusations of gutlessness and useful idiocy are far more about deciding who should be deemed First Gnat than they are about actually changing behavior in Silicon Valley.</p> </blockquote> <p>The ostensible subject of this war is whether Facebook is deliberately suppressing conservative stories in its Trending Topics feed. A bunch of conservatives met with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about this, and when it was all over Glenn Beck praised Zuckerberg for listening while Tucker Carlson insisted that Beck was a Zuckerberg toady. It went downhill from there.</p> <p>But here's what gets me. Unless I've missed something, this entire squabble is based on the claims of one (1) anonymous former member of the team responsible for Trending Topics. That's it. Am I wrong about this? Has there been any other serious evidence one way or the other about Facebook's alleged bias? Are conservatives really rending their garments over something so thin?</p> <p>Of course, we liberals are going through the same thing on a larger scale in the current war between Hillarybots and Berniebros (or whatever we call them these days). But at least that's tediously normal, since it happens every time Democrats are competing for the White House. I recommend that conservatives go back to fighting over Donald Trump. At least that matters.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 23 May 2016 21:30:13 +0000 Kevin Drum 304691 at