Person #2547: 110 Posts

Recommended: 657 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. In that case it might have been better to use Standard English (1 Reply)

    …rather than legalese. A reasonable person might make a conclusion in a way precisely opposite from your intended meaning.

    Stare decisis does not mean “leaving things be”; it means looking at and citing (legally) decided examples from the past.

    Remember that legal terms are meant to be specific within their context. The context in this sense is political, but nevertheless a reasonable person will presume that the precedent (Prohibition in this case) makes a case to abolish criminalizing intoxicants.

    By using “stare decisis” you employed a term that undercut your argument.

  2. Are you certain that stare decisis is the term you want to use? (1 Reply)

    …since it means determining points in light of precedent.

    Given that the most obvious precedent hat comes to mind is Prohibition…

  3. Senator Warren described a symptom; Krugman diagnosed the disease (1 Reply)

    What occurred was systemic corruption, based upon the assumption of risk-free operations by brokerage houses and investment banks. (Note that “risk-free” did not apply to individual investors.) This trend started in investment banking and spread throughout the financial instruments community, including the big commercial banks.

    This cultural corruption can be illustrated by the fact that union-busting, the destruction of pensions, and mass layoffs were often subsidized by union pension funds.

    The result was a parasitic mindset including, but not limited to, the management of the big banks; it was much more systemic than that.

    Good analyses of the macronomics of all this, readable by the lay public, are by Krugman, Gary Gorton, and Raghuram Rajan.

    Senator Warren is by training a financial instruments attorney, not an economist. One can stipulate the validity of her criticisms of the large banks, while giving Paul Krugman the props for macroeconomic analysis.

  4. East Boston (unofficial) results are linked below (0 Replies)

    per East

    Lydia Edwards came in first in East Boston (782 votes), with Boncore second (589 votes), and Hwang third (499 votes).

    Rather than demographics-is-destiny (and Eastie Latino politics aren’t necessarily progressive), what happened in Ward 1 was a simple case of a chopped-up base.

  5. Clinton's support among nonwhite voters has not in any way collapsed (0 Replies)

    From the New York Times Wisconsin Exit Poll:

    Among white voters:
    Clinton – 41%
    Sanders – 59%

    Among black voters:
    Clinton – 71%
    Sanders – 29%

    Latino, Asian, and “Others”, at 3%, 2%, and 2% of the Democratic electorate respectively, were statistically too few to be listed statistically in the poll.

  6. There is now a tentative State decision to deny extending permits to Cape Wind (1 Reply)

    From the Cape Cod Times:

    A state board on Tuesday issued a tentative decision denying the extension of permits that would allow Cape Wind to build an electricity transmission line to connect its proposed offshore wind farm to land, further complicating the beleaguered project’s already grim prospects.

    Members of the Energy Facilities Siting Board will meet next week to finalize a decision on whether or not to renew nine state and local permits the board initially granted as a so-called “super permit” to the offshore wind energy developer in 2009. The permits allowed Cape Wind to construct a transmission line through state-owned territory in Nantucket Sound and Hyannis Harbor and across multiple Cape towns.

    A link to the tentaative decision is here.

  7. Sanders did not skip the South; his outreach backfired (1 Reply)

    Sanders put a lot of resources into the South; for example he spent more money into South Carolina and had more paid staff than Clinton..

    Alas, Sanders efforts tend to reinforce his negatives among black voters, as also happened in Illinois and Ohio.

  8. Time to lance this boil (0 Replies)

    …given that 33% of Sanders supporters say they will refuse to vote for Clinton, should she be the Democratic nominee, according to a Wall Steet Journal NBC News Poll.

    Let the following suffice to address this matter:

    How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Clinton so much that you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination? How protected from the consequences of a Trump presidency do you need to be to think your hatred of Clinton constitutes, as I saw someone say earlier this week, an “inviolable principle,” meaning that it’s more important than the lives of vulnerable Americans? That all applies equally to any Clinton supporters saying the same about Sanders. (We have yet to see the full weight of American anti-Semitism aimed at Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, we most certainly will.)

    Vote for whoever you like in the primary. But let’s step away from vicious attacks and hatred. Let’s step away from buying into debunked conservative propaganda about Clinton’s trustworthiness. Let’s look at the candidates’ actual proposals and weigh those proposals’ actual strengths and weaknesses. Let’s respect each other’s choices in the primaries.

  9. Rebuttal by Senator Warren (1 Reply)

    As posted on her Facebook Page (emphasis added):

    Trump seems to know he’s a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism. But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn’t mean he’ll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year – and it’s time to wake up…

    …More than anyone we’ve seen before come within reach of the presidency, Donald Trump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it’s our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it.

  10. Lemme worse-case this: (2 Replies)

    I’ll start with the fact that a Sanders victory is improbable, however:

    If Sanders means what he says about creating a movement, of which his campaign is merely a preliminary component, and if:

    That movement does the necessary on-the-ground organizing; and if:

    A critical mass is created at the grassroots level,

    A Clinton Administration can be held accountable. I need not mention what total Republican hegemony would do to the federal bench.

    The same is manifestly untrue in the case of either Trump or Cruz. This is one of those “Vote-like your-whole-world-depended-upon-it” elections. I’m not so naive as to presume that this election will take us to heaven, but in this political environment (characterized by amok social Darwinism) only a Democratic victory will buy folks the time to arrest the slide.

  11. Some will vote for Trump (2 Replies)

    A couple of weeks ago, I had a conversation with a Sanders operative that I met a few campaigns ago. His premise was that there was no difference between Clinton and Trump; and his hatred of Clinton was so intense that he planned to support Trump post-convention.

    I cannot speak to how widespread this feeling is, but I’ve encountered it from a lot of people (their activist/campaign experience notwithstanding).

    There is a crazy dynamic out there, and the Clinton campiagn ignores it at their peril.

  12. A paraphrase of Sayre's Law (0 Replies)

    Linked to here.

    …and until I checked, I used to ascribe the aphorism to Henry Kissinger.

    The Google Is Your Friend.

  13. By getting those voters to the polls. (0 Replies)

    One of the limitations of polling in isolation is that sentiment does not automatically equate to voting results, as Secretary Clinton discovered in Michigan.

    The map is not the road.

    What Sanders lacked in broad support, he more than made up in enthusiastic volunteers who got his folk to the polls. Indeed the complacency of the Clinton effort in Michigan deserves a case study in and of itself.

    I believe that the same complacency adversely affects the Democrats in the final election cycle, the same as it did those Republicans who did not take Trump seriously as a threat.

    All Trump did was to make a pseudo-populist end run, enhanced by free media, and hijack the organized Right grassroots.

    In the years since the Democratic Party disinvested from permanent field operations back in the Seventies(a good history of this, written in 1992, can be found here), Republicans have had a field advantage for the simple reason that their folks were – and are – more embedded on the ground.

    The issue is not whether Latinos dislike Trump, but whether they are sufficiently motivated and organized to vote against him en masse. In the absence of embedded field, electoral history suggests that they are not.

    This is not an ethnic-specific observation: The same applies to other traditional Democratic cohorts, including working-class white voters, who could be brought back.

    Off-year and local elections, where there tends to be little competent Democratic field; hence Republican victories, prove my point.

    These wars are always won on the ground.

  14. My point was the unfamiliarity numbers. (2 Replies)

    The job of campaigns is to increase their candidate’s name recognition. As with black voters, the Sanders campaign failed with the Latino electorate.

    This is late in the cycle, and only 51% of the sample Latino electorate has ever heard of Sanders. The numbers you cite are for the electorate as a whole, not those specific cohorts that will be necessary for a Democratic victory in November.

    And I took pains not to make this an anti-Sanders post, but an operational critique of the Democratic Party’s limitations re: outreach and field operations. For what it’s worth the Clinton campaign has had conspicuously lousy field this cycle – and I include South Carolina.

    Like it or not, the Republicans have organizational advantages, as well as an edge in operational morale (all those fired-up Trump supporters). The “We-don’t-have-to-do-no-stinking-work-because-Trump-is-a-crazy-bigot” meme is dangerous because it is used as a rationale for avoiding the necessary infrastructure building.

  15. I don't argue that (1 Reply)

    However, I’d sleep better at night if I knew that the Democratic nominee will have a competent operation on the ground. I tend to believe that, all things considered, organization takes precedence over candidates.

    Your last paragraph is correct from a moral standpoint, but electoral politics aren’t morality plays. I’m less concerned about imperfect candidates than I am about inadequate organization.

  16. In fairness to Sanders (1 Reply)

    His campaign had not (and has not) a clue about how to do competent outreach to black voters; black women in particular (roughly 60% of the black vote), particularly in the South.

    Sanders actually outspent Clinton, and had more paid staff in South Carolina.

    The problem – and this is endemic to progressive politics – was a total misunderstanding of internal black political dynamics.

    The larger issue goes to turnout in November, and I don’t see the beginnings of any competent GOTV on behalf of either candidate at his point.

  17. One quibble: (0 Replies)

    His is more of a Perot mixture or a softer version of Pat Buchanan.

    Trump’s rhetoric is Buchanan, straight with no chaser.

  18. Your point is well taken. (1 Reply)

    Thus, my concern, as expressed here, is that the intra-Party hostility be kept within bounds; and that the Presidential cycle.

    Irrespective of the final nominee, neither can win without support from the other’s base.

  19. Food for thought (2 Replies)

    …can be found in this Washington Post think piece:

    But by the most commonly accepted measures, the voters who look most authoritarian are not those following Trump but those following Cruz. Not only do they score highest on the authoritarian scales, they also have that combination of populist elements correlated most strongly with authoritarianism. They are mistrustful of intellectuals and experts, highly nationalistic, yet strongly aligned with political and economic elites.