[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2020-October-21, 11:50, said:

Well, I wouldn't like it. Just as I would not like it if someone put sand in my gas tank or dumped trash in my yard. But I am not understanding the purpose of the question. What have I missed?

The difference here is the level of damage. If someone puts sand in your petrol tank, they will have to pay you back the cost of the damage plus costs plus additional damages for the inconvenience. You will get your car back in more or less the same condition as before the attack. An election though is different. If the GOP had done this not in California but rather in Michigan or Pennsylvania, and then subsequently won that state by less than 1000 votes, how confident would you be that the result was sound. Now take the case that this put DJT over the line at 571 electoral votes. What should the courts do?

Well, what they should do is perhaps a moral question; but that they actually would do most likely would be to say that there is not enough evidence that the illegal drop boxes cost more than 1000 votes and that therefore DJT won the state. The damages would be most likely to come in the form of a fine to the local GOP. The fine would be a cheap price to pay for having won the presidency for 4 years. You do not get back the country in the same state as without the illegal act as you might expect from your car.

Now perhaps you think I am exaggerating here but remember that I am English. In the Brexit referendum the Leave campaign was found guilty of a number if illegal campaign violations but the result was precisely as described above - they had to pay a fine and the Brexit result stayed in place. For the money men and foreign powers financing the Leave campaign, this was the cheapest price to pay possible compared to the prize they had won. I was damaged but the remedy I got in no way compensates for the illegal action taken. This is how I suspect you would feel if Michigan was the deciding state in the election and it was won by such underhand means as these illegal drop boxes. This is what you are missing.

[shyams]

There is a decent chance that Trump will lose Georgia and even Texas (?). If that happens, any insistence by Trump of rigged elections will be laughed at by everyone. Imagine losing Texas!!

[kenberg]

There is always a danger of getting in over my head. More than once I almost drowned when young.
Here in Maryland it was easy to get a ballot, the ballot has a number on it so it can be traced, I submitted it early so it can easily be recorded by Nov 3. I think the state has behaved responsibly and now i think voters should do their part.
If there is something illegal going on in California I favor addressing it.
But what I was saying was limited and simple: If we set things up for mail-ins to be accepted, it seems reasonable to say that those who choose that option do the mailing by, say, Oct 31. I do not want the system overwhelmed by a lot of last minute mail-ins that could easily have been done earlier.
I didn't know anything about California drop-boxes when I wrote that. Well, I still don't. But I will stick with what I said anyway.
So if the question is "Have you considered the California drop boxes?" the answer is no, I haven't. But I was not addressing California drop boxes in anything that I said.

A friend of mine advised his wife that when she is among a group of mathematicians she should just ask "Have you considered the five dimensional case?"

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2020-October-21, 14:12, said:

There is always a danger of getting in over my head. More than once I almost drowned when young.
Here in Maryland it was easy to get a ballot, the ballot has a number on it so it can be traced, I submitted it early so it can easily be recorded by Nov 3. I think the state has behaved responsibly and now i think voters should do their part.
If there is something illegal going on in California I favor addressing it.
But what I was saying was limited and simple: If we set things up for mail-ins to be accepted, it seems reasonable to say that those who choose that option do the mailing by, say, Oct 31. I do not want the system overwhelmed by a lot of last minute mail-ins that could easily have been done earlier.
I didn't know anything about California drop-boxes when I wrote that. Well, I still don't. But I will stick with what I said anyway.
So if the question is "Have you considered the California drop boxes?" the answer is no, I haven't. But I was not addressing California drop boxes in anything that I said.

A friend of mine advised his wife that when she is among a group of mathematicians she should just ask "Have you considered the five dimensional case?"

That's all besides the point. If the PA legislature makes a law that mail-in ballots in PA have to be mailed by October 31, and the PA supreme court agrees that this law lies within the bounds set out by the PA constitution, then so be it.

But SCOTUS interfering in a legal dispute within PA, essentially declaring that the PA legislature is not bound by the PA constitution, is a power grab that has no basis in the law or precedent, and can only be explained by highly motivated reasoning from justices who know which ruling "their" side would benefit from.

Yeah, it'd be nice if those governing the US all had a seasoned moderate temperament and were disinclined to follow extreme paths. But sometimes you've got to acknowledge what country you are living in.

[Zelandakh]

Just to add here Ken, it might be obvious to you, or indeed to me, that the fake drop boxes are illegal but apparently it is not obvious to US judges. This is the latest development in the story, effectively meaning that the GOP can continue doing this and not have to inform authorities about whose votes they have successfully cancelled.

[y66]

For the yes by any other name files:

Alex Tarbarrok at Mercatus Center said:

Quote

Denver Post: A concerned passerby dialed 911 to report a sobbing woman sitting alone on a curb in downtown Denver.

Instead of a police officer, dispatchers sent Carleigh Sailon, a seasoned mental health professional with a penchant for wearing Phish T-shirts, to see what was going on.

The woman, who was unhoused, was overwhelmed and scared. She’d ended up in an unfamiliar part of town. It was blazing hot and she didn’t know where to go. Sailon gave the woman a snack and some water and asked how she could help. Could she drive her somewhere? The woman was pleasantly surprised.

“She was like, ‘Who are you guys? And what is this?’” Sailon said, recounting the call.

This, Sailon explained, is Denver’s new Support Team Assistance Response [STAR, AT] program, which sends a mental health professional and a paramedic to some 911 calls instead of police.

…The team has responded to an indecent exposure call that turned out to be a woman changing clothes in an alley because she was unhoused and had no other private place to go. They’ve been called out to a trespassing call for a man who was setting up a tent near someone’s home. They’ve helped people experiencing suicidal thoughts, people slumped against a fence, people simply acting strange.

The STAR team has just started to operate in Denver with a small budget but along with an older co-responder program which pairs mental health professionals with police it seems to be working well. On 350 calls, the STAR team has not yet had to call for police backup once. The benefit is not just that the STAR team is better at handling issues associated with poverty and mental health but also that it frees up police time to focus on crime. A good example of unbundling the police.

[y66]

David Leonhardt at NYT said:

It’s not just the public polls. Recent private polls conducted by political campaigns are filled with bad news for President Trump. He is doing eight to 10 percentage points worse in many congressional districts than he did in 2016, Dave Wasserman of The Cook Political Report writes.

His struggles have jeopardized the Republicans’ Senate majority and will probably lead to further Democratic gains in the House. “It would be a pleasant surprise if we only lost 10 House seats,” one Republican member of Congress told The Cook Political Report.

But there is one exception, and it will be familiar to regular readers of this newsletter: Trump and other Republicans don’t seem to be doing worse among Latino voters than in 2016. Nationwide, Republicans are still winning about one-third of the Latino vote, polls show.

As a result, Trump still has a good chance to win both Florida and Texas. Similarly, Senator John Cornyn of Texas continues to lead narrowly in his own re-election race, and House Republicans could hold onto districts in California, Florida and Texas.

Why is Trump holding steady with Latinos? There is no one answer, partly because Latinos are such a diverse group (many of whom also identify as white). But an important part of the explanation appears to involve gender.

Recent Times polls of battleground states show that the gender gap among Latino voters — 26 percentage points — is significantly larger than it is among Black, white or Asian voters:


By The New York Times | Source: New York Times/Siena College polls of 18 battleground states since September.

Among Latina women, Biden leads Trump by a whopping 34 percentage points (59 percent to 25 percent). Among Latino men, Biden’s lead is only eight points (47 percent to 39 percent). These patterns are similar across both Latino college graduates and those without a degree.

Stephanie Valencia, the president of Equis Research, which focuses on Latino voters, told us that its polls suggest that Latino men may have even moved slightly toward Trump this year. If so, they are the only large demographic group to do so.

In effect, gender seems to be outweighing ethnicity for some Latino men.

Race may get more attention, but gender also plays a huge and growing role in politics: The gender gap, which was virtually zero in the 1960s and ’70s, could reach a record high this year. The trend — men moving to the right and women to the left — is occurring in other high-income democracies as well, for a complicated mix of reasons, as Eric Levitz explains in New York magazine.

My colleague Jennifer Medina recently wrote an eye-opening story called “The Macho Appeal of Donald Trump,” focused on Latino men. The whole story is worth reading, but here is a key passage:

… what has alienated so many older, female and suburban voters is a key part of Mr. Trump’s appeal to these men, interviews with dozens of Mexican-American men supporting Mr. Trump shows: To them, the macho allure of Mr. Trump is undeniable. He is forceful, wealthy and, most important, unapologetic. In a world where at any moment someone might be attacked for saying the wrong thing, he says the wrong thing all the time and does not bother with self-flagellation.

The story was set in Arizona — a state that could decide the election.

[y66]

For the stable genius files:

Trump shoots himself in what's left of his foot and posts video on Facebook

[Winstonm]

Quote

President Trump and his advisers have repeatedly discussed whether to fire FBI Director Christopher A. Wray after Election Day — a scenario that also could imperil the tenure of Attorney General William P. Barr as the president grows increasingly frustrated that federal law enforcement has not delivered his campaign the kind of last-minute boost that the FBI provided in 2016, according to people familiar with the matter.



The conversations among the president and senior aides stem in part from their disappointment that Wray in particular but Barr as well have not done what Trump had hoped — indicate that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden or other Biden associates are under investigation, these people say. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions

And if Wray and Barr both are unlucky enough to accidentally imbibe Novochok poison I'm sure there will still be claims of "no collusion!".

[y66]

No more Trump debates. Can you dig it?

[Zelandakh]

y66, on 2020-October-22, 20:46, said:

No more Trump debates. Can you dig it?

At least this time it was a debate.

[PassedOut]

Arguing with Biden last night about the former catch-and-release program for asylum seekers in the US, Trump insisted:

Quote

"Less than 1% of the people come back. We have to send ICE out and border patrol out to find them," Trump said.

"When you say they come back — they don't come back, Joe, they never come back. Only the really — I hate to say this — but those with the lowest IQ, they might come back," he added.

Trump falsely claims that only migrants with 'the lowest IQ' return for their court dates after being arrested by US immigration authorities

Quote

Researchers from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) found in 2019 that 81.6% of migrant families without legal representation showed up to their initial court date, while that jumped to 99.9% for families with legal representation. Overall, they found, 81% attended every single one of their court hearings.

No evidence exists to support Trump's claim that intelligence is in any way correlated with migrants' likeliness to show up for their court dates.

When Trump told that lie, I believe that he was channeling his own belief that honoring one's obligations is the stupid thing to do. That's born out by his repeated bankruptcies and his refusal to pay those who've done work for him. And, of course, his position that (in effect) his cheating on taxes makes him smart.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2020-October-22, 20:59, said:

At least this time it was a debate.

I didn't see a debate. All I saw was Trump doing his impersonation of an internet troll.

[y66]

Zeynep Tufceki said:

I’m writing this the day after the second presidential debate. I, of course, understand the attractiveness of the idea of a debate, a back-and-forth between candidates that is supposed to highlight differences between them. But I don’t understand how it is remotely possible in this format, in this moment, between these candidates.

Yet we did it, as if it were a serious thing.

There could still be nationally-televised, focused events that attempt to meaningfully highlight the differences between the candidates. But the format shouldn’t be a moderator giving candidates merely two minutes to recite well-rehearsed soundbites or habitual rants, followed by 30 seconds alloted to his opponent to “respond.” It’s a joke. It’s not serious. It’s so ridiculous that I don’t think I need to explain all the ways in which this doesn’t work, even with the mute button that was deployed in the last debate. Debates in this format might have made some sense in an area before cable television, before social media, before our fractured epistemology, before a president that does not even pretend to nod to a common narrative.

Yet it goes on, in front of our serious faces.

But what else could be done in place of that format, you might be thinking? It might still be important to try to compare candidates, normatively speaking. But to make debates useful, we would need to change how they are done. We could, instead, have panels of journalists interrogate the candidates in separate hours, where the candidates have time to speak. The panel could consist of journalists chosen by the candidate and his opponent, with questions alternating between the friendly questions and those less friendly. The questions could be negotiated so that some of the same questions are asked of both candidates. They could be a mix of questions submitted in a town hall and questions polled among the public. The follow-ups could also alternate. And so on. Something else. Anything else.

[kenberg]

I recorded the debate, perhaps I will watch parts of it, but I do not promise.

It seems particularly absurd this time around. As I understand it, some 50 million voters have already voted. And, with the pandemic, good for them, it's the responsible thing to do. Even without that, I think a sensible approach for voters is to make up their minds well before the election and then not change their minds except in the most extreme circumstances. We have had a long long time to choose between Biden and trump, and stuff that comes up in late October should be treated as stuff that comes up in late October. Meaning we should treat it with at least ten times the already high level of skepticism given to political stuff. Who, today, says "Oh, I just realized that X (whether X=DT or JB) is a really different person from whom I thought he was on Tuesday"? Nobody.


So I should watch tihs why? I am waiting, not very patiently, for this to be over. I am not sitting around saying "Gee, I just can't decide which person to vote for."
I prefer apple pie to cherry pie. That got settled a while back. An open mind is good, but at some point we make a choice.

[shyams]

kenberg, on 2020-October-23, 14:38, said:

I recorded the debate, perhaps I will watch parts of it, but I do not promise.

It seems particularly absurd this time around. As I understand it, some 50 million voters have already voted. And, with the pandemic, good for them, it's the responsible thing to do. Even without that, I think a sensible approach for voters is to make up their minds well before the election and then not change their minds except in the most extreme circumstances. We have had a long long time to choose between Biden and trump, and stuff that comes up in late October should be treated as stuff that comes up in late October. Meaning we should treat it with at least ten times the already high level of skepticism given to political stuff. Who, today, says "Oh, I just realized that X (whether X=DT or JB) is a really different person from whom I thought he was on Tuesday"? Nobody.


So I should watch tihs why? I am waiting, not very patiently, for this to be over. I am not sitting around saying "Gee, I just can't decide which person to vote for."
I prefer apple pie to cherry pie. That got settled a while back. An open mind is good, but at some point we make a choice.

The debates are enlightening (in a perverse way) on the vacuousness of all the replies proferred by the two candidates. The candidates have no clarity, no vision and absolutely no desire to actually govern (other than occupy the high office on offer). It appears that the American people and the TV studios were mostly there to assess the candidates' ability to string together a coherent sentence even if the sentence itself is devoid of meaning or substance. And, if I may add, the TV studios were also hoping for some heated words so that they can increase their TV ratings by repeatedly analysing such soundbites.

What also comes across is the corruption of both the current and the incoming President of the United States. The way Biden used cute language to circumvent answering to his son's misadventures was telling. They are both corrupt --- it's only a matter of degrees. I guess Americans have to be happier that they are about to usher in a less corrupt guy compared to the one currently in office.

Finally, I feel sorry for those Americans who think this will be the second coming of "Yes We Can" even though deep in your hearts you all know that the powers that be will ensure that reality will be full of "no way! you can't".

[johnu]

PassedOut, on 2020-October-23, 09:02, said:

Arguing with Biden last night about the former catch-and-release program for asylum seekers in the US, Trump insisted:


Trump falsely claims that only migrants with 'the lowest IQ' return for their court dates after being arrested by US immigration authorities


When Trump told that lie, I believe that he was channeling his own belief that honoring one's obligations is the stupid thing to do. That's born out by his repeated bankruptcies and his refusal to pay those who've done work for him. And, of course, his position that (in effect) his cheating on taxes makes him smart.

You can take it to the bank that after the election when Trump is indicted, he will self-deport to a country without an extradition treaty because he knows how guilty he is. He is simply projecting what he would do.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2020-October-23, 15:08, said:

The debates are enlightening (in a perverse way) on the vacuousness of all the replies proferred by the two candidates. The candidates have no clarity, no vision and absolutely no desire to actually govern (other than occupy the high office on offer). It appears that the American people and the TV studios were mostly there to assess the candidates' ability to string together a coherent sentence even if the sentence itself is devoid of meaning or substance. And, if I may add, the TV studios were also hoping for some heated words so that they can increase their TV ratings by repeatedly analysing such soundbites.

What also comes across is the corruption of both the current and the incoming President of the United States. The way Biden used cute language to circumvent answering to his son's misadventures was telling. They are both corrupt --- it's only a matter of degrees. I guess Americans have to be happier that they are about to usher in a less corrupt guy compared to the one currently in office.

Finally, I feel sorry for those Americans who think this will be the second coming of "Yes We Can" even though deep in your hearts you all know that the powers that be will ensure that reality will be full of "no way! you can't".

Just curious why you think Joe Biden should be responsible for explaining his adult son's behavior?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2020-October-23, 15:08, said:

The debates are enlightening (in a perverse way) on the vacuousness of all the replies proferred by the two candidates. The candidates have no clarity, no vision and absolutely no desire to actually govern (other than occupy the high office on offer).

FWIW, I agree that the debates are pretty meaningless; however, you're an idiot if think that the answers provided necessarily reflect on the governing agenda that either candidate will follow or even their ability to govern.

The debates aren't design to provide clarity or even vision.
They are all about avoiding mistakes and spitting out sound bites.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2020-October-23, 14:38, said:

I recorded the debate, perhaps I will watch parts of it, but I do not promise.

To be honest the Town Hall replacements for the second debate were probably more interesting for you as someone who is interested in issues. But I think it was important for America that the candidates at least managed to have one debate that looked more or less like a grown up democracy. Like it or not, many countries still look up to the USA as a positive force in the world. That effect has been seriously degraded over the last 4 years but at least having the USA look a little bit less like a New World junta republic has to be a good thing for the whole world. The next part to the USA re-establishing its place would be for the American people resoundingly to reject the incumbent. After JB's (bland but adequate) performance in this debate, it looks very much as though that is the most likely outcome.