2020 Elections

[spork]

Washington Post publishes audio and transcript of Trump's call to Georgia officials in which he tries to get them to subvert the election results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html?.

Highlights (I'm leaving out chunks of the discussion):

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong."

"I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no way I lost Georgia. There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

"Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything."

"Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media . . . So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."

[mahagonny]

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.

I agree that what these Republicans are doing is shocking and dangerous.

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.

There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

[kaysixteen]

Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal.   I make do the best I can, as a Democrat voting  independent.   But I still will firmly assert that the democrats ignore people with views like mine, which has largely allowed the GOP to grab up such folks (who, like it or not,  tend to be older, more religious,  and less well educated), and thereby snooker them into voting against their own  best interests,  while never seriously delivering on those phony baloney social issues promises.  I try to convince people in my own religious orbit of this myself,  but probably have less success in 2021 than I had 5 years ago,  as many of these folks have doubled down on their bad choices,  largely to mitigate against cognitive dissonance and reassure themselves that they've been acting correctly.

[jimbogumbo]

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.

I agree that what these Republicans are doing is shocking and dangerous.

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.

There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship

You are just wrong.

[writingprof]

Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal.   I make do the best I can, as a Democrat voting  independent.   But I still will firmly assert that the democrats ignore people with views like mine, which has largely allowed the GOP to grab up such folks (who, like it or not,  tend to be older, more religious,  and less well educated), and thereby snooker them into voting against their own best interests.

We'll never agree about the broader issues, obviously, but I do wonder why you take for granted that "their own best interests" must necessarily be "economic" rather than "social."  My own best interest is to live in a country that doesn't murder thousands of babies every day.  That certainly means more to me than whether Uncle Stupid takes 39% or 40% of some rich guy's income.  I absolutely reject the idea that my support of Republicans goes against my best interests simply because the other party would redistribute more of someone else's money my way.

[mahagonny]

Jimbogumbo:
Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Just curious, (1) have you read the whole thing, and if yes (2) how many studies attempting to answer this question have you read all the way through, not just the summary?

[kaysixteen]

You would have a better argument  if:

1.  The GOP actually did anything about abortion.

2.  The GOP demonstrated that it was more pro-life than pro-birth.  Even before the pandemic, thousands of Americans have died owing to bad GOP policies wrt health care, living wages vs trickle down economics,  wealth inequality,  3d world conditions, etc.  Really, it would.

[mahagonny]

If I understand writing prof, he votes for the republicans not because they have everything figured out and no hypocrisy within; rather, he does that because he couldn't align with people who would legalize abortion. I don't think I have any special gift, but I find that not hard to understand.

[financeguy]

Quick side note: I don't believe anyone has the right to use the term "pro choice" as opposed to "pro abortion" to describe their views if the only area they support "choice" involves terminating a pregnancy while totally fine with every regulation on the planet for any other possible issue.

[mamselle]

But you're all guys, right?

So--while you might indeed have an opinion, it may not be very fact-based or experientially informed, on all the ramifications of any one of all the difficult choices involved.

I'm thankful I never had to decide, but when I left my abusive husband in 1980, it was a lot simpler because I had no children whose lives I also had to fear for.

There's more than one way to kill a child.

M.

[marshwiggle]

But you're all guys, right?

So--while you might indeed have an opinion, it may not be very fact-based or experientially informed, on all the ramifications of any one of all the difficult choices involved.

I'm thankful I never had to decide, but when I left my abusive husband in 1980, it was a lot simpler because I had no children whose lives I also had to fear for.

There's more than one way to kill a child.

M.

A similar argument could be made that the death penalty is a good thing because some people have been killed by people released from prison after a sentence for murder. The fact that some bad situations would not arise if <policy X> were enacted does not make a slam-dunk case for <policy X>. Has legalized government-run gambling stopped problem gambling? Has legalized alcohol eliminated all of the problems prohibitionists were concerned about?

Reductions in the secondary causes of harm caused by the restriction of choices  does not automatically outweigh the primary harm caused by allowing the choice.

[jimbogumbo]

Jimbogumbo:
Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Just curious, (1) have you read the whole thing, and if yes (2) how many studies attempting to answer this question have you read all the way through, not just the summary?

Yes.

Two recently. PNAS published a study which claimed there were no differences based on the data reviewed. There was an exchange in which other researchers reanalyzed the data on stating that claim was made on the basis of statistics which would not support it, and in fact there were differences. The article was then retracted.

The researchers who argued against the finding used a Bayesian analysis that a lay person won't understand.

This is not my area, but I have had a substantial amount of statistics at graduate level, and have used it in a different area. I've only been interested in this topic on a personal level.

You and I disagree on this topic. I don't want to prolong a discussion, but please look closely at the two recenT cases in Columbus OH. We have to do something different in policing. Society can't keep having people killed for possessing a sandwich or a cell phone.

[mahagonny]

You and I disagree on this topic. I don't want to prolong a discussion, but please look closely at the two recenT cases in Columbus OH. We have to do something different in policing. Society can't keep having people killed for possessing a sandwich or a cell phone.

We don't disagree on this. My problem with BLM and the democrats who pander to them for votes is where they go next. The case for better policing is much stronger if you actually educate yourself about the 1000 or so police killings happening every year, most of whom are not black. Instead of doing that, we're getting people going 'say their names', calling looting reparations and requiring us to learn how to teach 'anti-racistly.' Is this a blank check to be drawn from your account of academic freedom? Could be. Where are those verbose defenders of tenure and free dissemination of knowledge now? AWOL, mostly.
I know the people on my campus who are clamoring for new improved 'anti-racist' teaching. They are not educated in statistics, criminal justice, sociology. They are laypersons like me, but their demands are being considered essential because of their numbers, emotion, the administration's perceived need to appear like they're doing something, and the background of white guilt. That's why I've used the term 'hysteria.' And the democrats will use it to win elections.
I guess one consolation might be that administrators are happy to appear like they're doing something while things don't really change. CYA.
I read half the study yesterday. You are correct; it's tough going for the layperson. I'll read the rest of it today.

The researchers who argued against the finding used a Bayesian analysis that a lay person won't understand.

I believe you.

[marshwiggle]

There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship

You are just wrong.

I'm only partway through, but here are a couple of observations:

Professors Robert Sampson and
Stephen Raudenbush combined objective neighborhood video footage with
survey data to identify the predictors of perceived danger and disorder. Their
results showed that as the concentration of minority groups increased within a neighborhood, local residents of any race or ethnicity perceived greater disorder,
even after controlling for the actual level of disorder shown in carefully analyzed
video observations.

Interesting that residents, regardless of ethnicity, perceived greater disorder based on the same factors.

Concentrated patrol activity in high crime neighborhoods reinforces the message that these are dangerous places
simply by the repetition of that label. And that label provides convenient
shorthand not only to carry out patrols but also to use police discretion to take
actions in those places—especially stops and misdemeanor arrests.

This is puzzling, because it's not clear what the alternative is. More frequent patrols in high-crime neighborhoods are intended to deter crime and to allow quicker response when it occurs. Does this comment suggest that by having fewer patrols in high crime areas  that crime would be reduced?

[apl68]

Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal. 

I've thought for many years now that our nation's political parties have increasingly come to embody the worst of what tends to be associated with both "conservative" and "liberal," not the best.  Our politics are failing because our society has failed.  I've come to the conclusion that politics represents a false hope.