Skip to content

Month: March 2016

What do women want?

What do women want?

by digby

It turns out it doesn’t really matter much, at least when it comes to politics. Via Vox:

Looking at both federal and state government, [A recent paper for the NYU Law Review by University of Chicago law professor] Nicholas Stephanopoulos used exit poll data to estimate how race, gender, and income level affect an individual’s level of influence on policy in cases where there is significant disagreement between demographic groups. For example, he looked at where men and women, or whites and African Americans, fell on policies such as raising the minimum wage or mandating that employers provide health insurance, and compared the data to the likelihood of those policies’ passage.

The gaps cited in the study only apply in cases where the opinion differences between groups are substantial (that is, greater than 10 points). However, there are several notable areas in which opinions differ by at least this margin.

For instance, women are much more likely to support policies that help the poor or unemployed and limit the power of Wall Street, including increasing the minimum wage. They are also more in favor of restrictions on gun ownership and of maintaining entitlement programs rather than cutting the federal budget. Meanwhile, men are significantly more likely to support religious exemptions for contraceptive coverage, while women are not.

There are also significant points of disagreement along racial lines. African Americans below the age of 30 are more likely than whites to support the Affordable Care Act. African Americans in general are also much more liberal in their politics — recent statistics show that approximately 80 percent of African Americans are registered Democratic voters, while only 40 percent of whites are. At the same time, a greater percentage of white people support same-sex marriage, perhaps because significantly more white Americans believe that people are born — rather than choose to be — gay. Among the millennial generation, white people are significantly more likely to identify themselves as pro-life compared with African Americans.

In cases with strong disagreement, like the above, Stephanopoulos has found that women fare far worse than men, while racial divides exist both between African American and white constituents, and between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. Income also seems to play a role, as those in the top 10th percentile had sway over the voices of those lower down the economic ladder.

Among the demographics Stephanopoulos looked at — including racial minorities and low-income individuals — women have the least influence on policy at both the state and federal level. In cases where there’s major disagreement between men and women, the chance of a policy taking effect falls the more it’s supported by women, and it falls dramatically: from 80 percent to about 10 percent.

Similarly, state policy changes reflect men’s preferences but not women’s. Using slightly different methodology, Stephanopoulos compared states’ overall ideological bent (as measured by actual policies enacted) to the bent of different demographic groups within the state. As this graph shows, women’s political ideology has almost no effect on states’ overall leanings:

Stephanopoulos says he was most surprised by the gap between men and women — a gap larger than those between black and white or rich and poor Americans. “When you think about what cleavages are in the news,” he said in an interview, “you hear about race and income, but you don’t hear as much about gender differences in terms of influence.”

I don’t think this matters to very many people, but it’s interesting. To the extent that men and women differ in their priorities and concerns, women are the losers across the board — the biggest losers among any demographic group. This is not a matter of class since women are equal in every class. So, whatever could it be?

.

QOTD: A Trump voter

QOTD: A Trump voter

by digby



Michelle Goldberg reports from CPAC:

Susan Najvar, a grandmother from southern Texas and a fan of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, used to support Cruz, but says she was disappointed in 2014, when he joined Glenn Beck in bringing clothes and toys to migrant children at the Mexican border. “We said, ‘That’s it,’ ” she told me. Now she’s a passionate Trump backer. “Where we live, those people down there are so fed up, they don’t know what do,” she says. She describes her community being transformed by immigration: “We go into Wal-Mart and they’re speaking Spanish. And we turn around, my husband and I, and say, ‘We’re in China!’

I’m pretty sure they’ve been speaking Spanish in southern Texas since the conquest. But whatever.
It’s interesting that she likes to shop for those cheap good in Walmart but worry that they’re in China. But don’t worry, Trump’s going to take care of that for them. The cheap goods part, I mean.

There are some people there who don’t like Trump. But like Rubio and Cruz last night, they’ll vote for him:

William Temple, a Georgia pastor who parades around CPAC in Revolutionary War garb, plans to lead a walkout when Trump takes the stage of the convention on Saturday. He calls him a “Mussolini-like figure,” and holds out hope that Cruz could still prevail electorally. “God still has a plan,” Temple told me. “And if he wants Ted Cruz, heaven and earth won’t stop Ted Cruz.” Trump, he says, “could have a heart attack tomorrow. Who knows?”

Yet absent an act of God, Temple doesn’t want to see Trump lose the nomination at a brokered convention. “That would result in a rebellion,” he says. If Trump is ultimately the nominee, he can count on Temple’s vote, even if he does seem like a fascist. “If Trump is my only choice, I will hold my nose like I did when I voted for Romney and I voted for McCain,” he says. It’s as if Trump, for all his fascist tendencies, is really just another RINO, not all that different from Jeb Bush, who Temple protested at last year’s CPAC.

But don’t worry, it can’t happen here, amirite?

.

The argument

The argument

by digby

Trump stripped it all down to this, as it were:

He brought it up again:

Here’s what he was saying in words:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.

So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly…

(APPLAUSE)

… that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.

BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?

TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.

They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?

(APPLAUSE)

BAIER: Senator Cruz, you were mentioned.

TRUMP: I have no problem with it.

By the way:

Donald Trump justified his policy of going after the wives of Islamic State members by saying that the families of the 9/11 hijackers knew about the attacks. “When a man flies into the World and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — they went back to a certain territory,” Trump said. “They knew what was happening. The wives knew exactly what was happening.” 

But there’s no evidence to support Trump’s claims. The 9/11 Commission report on the attacks states most of the attackers were unmarried, and Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, told The Washington Post in December that it was not possible because none of the hijackers brought women to the United States. 

Trump also said that the wives “watched their husbands on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane.” But there were four planes in the 9/11 attacks, not three: two that hit the World Trade Center, a third that struck the Pentagon and the fourth that was brought down in Pennsylvania.

A Climate Primary, by @Gaius_Publius

A Climate Primary

by Gaius Publius

Climate Hawks Vote is running a Climate Primary. Click the link to vote. Deadline is March 8, midnight ET.

One of the more successful activist climate PACs, Climate Hawks Vote, is asking you to help them decide whether to endorse one of the Democratic candidates, and if so, which one. As you’ll see if you click the voting link, “No Endorsement” is one of the choices.

Anyone who sees climate as one of the most important (and under-covered) issues of this election needless to say, I’m one of them — should consider casting a ballot. One benefit of voting would be to raise the issue of climate this year, something that badly needs doing.

From the announcement:

Climate Hawks Vote Political Action (CHV), a grassroots climate Super PAC, is launching the Climate Primary, its endorsement vote for the 2016 Presidential primary. In an open voting process, CHV members will decide if the PAC will back Secretary Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders as the strongest leader on our generation’s greatest challenge, manmade climate change. Every Republican candidate has been disqualified from consideration for their rejection of basic climate science.

Statement from Climate Hawks Vote President RL Miller on today’s announcement:

“Both Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders are running as climate champions. As the nation’s leading organization building grassroots-based political power for the climate movement, we’re listening to our members for how we should help elect the next Climate President.”

… CHV will campaign to promote the endorsed candidate’s leadership on
climate justice, renewable energy, and the fight to end the fossil-fuel industry’s corrupting influence on our democracy. No matter the outcome of the endorsement vote, CHV will vigorously support the Democratic nominee for president in the 2016 general election against the Koch-fueled Republican candidate.

And the details:

• Voting will take place at ClimateHawksVote.com/2016vote

• Sec. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders are on the ballot

• The endorsement threshold is a 75% supermajority of all votes cast

• All people concerned about climate change are encouraged to cast their ballot

• The voting hashtag on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere: #ClimatePrimary.

• Voting begins on Thursday, March 3, 2016 and ends at 11:59pm ET on Tuesday, March 8.

• Results will be announced at 12pm ET on Wednesday, March 9.

Consider voting in this one (and if you like, consider supporting Climate Hawks Vote). I don’t relish seeing my species return to the Stone Age, which is where we’re headed if we don’t stop put a dead stop to carbon emissions. As I wrote just recently:

The more I read and listen, and the more climate dithering I watch, the more I think “time’s wingèd chariot” is almost upon us and we have our backs turned to it. If we knew that, in five or ten years, an asteroid visible to our telescopes today were due to crash into the earth, we’d (a) start mobilizing against it immediately, and (b) not listen to the whiners who ask, “But how are we going to pay for it?” Those whiners would be kicked to the curb, especially if they were well-known worshipers at the “Church of the Giant Asteroid”.

Yet here we are, with maybe five to ten years at most to start mobilizing against a world all of us will hate, and … nothing.

It’s an emergency. The response to emergencies to mobilize. And we know how to do that.

One way to mobilize is to say loud and clear, “Enough. Stop now. This is an emergency.”

You can do that with a vote in the Climate Primary, whichever way you decide to cast your ballot. And thanks!

GP

.

Of penises and potties by @BloggersRUs

Of penises and potties

by Tom Sullivan

Prior to Donald Trump boasting to allies and enemies alike last night about the size of his penis, this dropped into the in-box from the Speaker of the House of (what Charlie Pierce calls) the newly insane state of North Carolina (emphasis mine):

Subject: Press Release: North Carolina House Calls for Special Session to Address Charlotte Restroom Ordinance

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER
Rep. Tim Moore
Speaker of the House

                  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                              Contact: Mollie Young
                  Thursday – March 3, 2015                                                                                         919-733-5917
North Carolina House Calls for Special Session
to Address Charlotte Restroom Ordinance
Raleigh, N.C. – Today Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) announced he has received requests from more than three-fifths of House members to call a special session to address the Charlotte City Council’s recently passed ordinance affecting the safety and privacy of people using restrooms.
“The vast majority of my fellow colleagues in the House and I believe the ordinance passed by the Charlotte City Council poses an imminent threat to public safety.  We believe it prudent to consider immediate action because the Charlotte City Council decided to make its ordinance effective prior to the convening of our short session.  We understand that special sessions have a cost, but the North Carolina House is unwilling to put a price tag on public safety,” said Speaker Moore on Thursday.
###

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER
16 West Jones Street | Room 2304 | Raleigh, NC 27601

What that’s about:

North Carolina state legislators are vowing to reverse a new law in Charlotte that aims to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents against discrimination from businesses.

In a 7-4 vote Monday [Feb. 22], the City Council of Charlotte approved broad civil rights protections for LGBT people, including prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBT patrons. The law also allows transgender customers to use the bathroom of their choice, a measure conservative state politicians have taken issue with.

[…]

Conservative lawmakers say that allowing transgender patrons to use the bathrooms that correlate to their gender identities could create possible dangers for other customers.

Yes, you read that right. And yes, they’re serious.

It is time once again for conservatives to break out the big, culture war guns. Republicans mean to hang onto control of the legislature and Pat McCrory’s weakened governorship by any means necessary. They have already implemented some of the most egregious voting restrictions in the country, including voter ID, attempts to roll back same-day registration, opening the polls at 10 a.m. during a shortened early voting period, and surgically redistricting the state (although federal courts overturned the congressional redistricting just weeks ago). Republicans must feel they need a little more of an edge.

In Detroit last night, it was penises. In Raleigh, it was potties. The reporting from WRAL begins:

Top lawmakers say they are poised to return to Raleigh in order to invalidate Charlotte’s transgender nondiscrimination ordinance if Attorney General Roy Cooper doesn’t act to derail it.

Guess who Democrats are likely to run for governor against Pat McCrory? Hint: His initials are RC.

In 2012 (the last presidential election year, curiously enough), Republicans in North Carolina’s legislature placed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the primary ballot. Voters approved it. Only a deal in the legislature prevented them from placing the emotionally charged measure on the fall ballot. Last June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling nullified it.

Early voting for the March 15 primary began yesterday and already I am receiving complaints about confusion at the local polls. “This in the first election when all the complexities of the ID are in full force, and it’s a very complex law,” Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, told poll watchers in-training. To add to the confusion, not all of the law’s provisions are in force for the primary. Some have been stayed in the courts. The February federal court ruling forcing the state to redraw its congressional districts has postponed the congressional primaries until June. I went from residing in NC-11 in 2010 to NC-10 in 2011 and back to NC-11 as of two weeks ago. Pending court approval of the redrawn maps.

In anticipation of tonight’s rematch #TrumpKelly

In anticipation of tonight’s rematch

by digby

There’s a little bit of excitement about tonight’s debate since it’s the first time Trump has appeared before Megyn Kelly since he implied she was on the rag when she moderated the last one, thus explaining why she was such a beyotch about everything.

Not that anyone really cares much about this but it’s interesting. When it comes to women, all the Republicans are horrible:

Some good news from the Reality Based Community

Some good news from the Reality Based Community

by digby

Via Think Progress

A new study published this week in a prestigious medical journal helps debunks abortion opponents’ claim that women who become pregnant are becoming less likely to choose abortion.

As the national abortion rate declines, members of the anti-abortion community have argued it’s because more women are reconsidering the wisdom of ending a pregnancy. They say that laws designed to delay women’s access to abortion — such as requirements that women view an ultrasound before continuing with the procedure — are successfully changing the culture and helping convince women to choose life.

“This is a post-sonogram generation,” Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, a conservative group that helps write state-level abortion restrictions, told the Washington Post in 2014 in response to a study showing the national abortion rate had dropped. “There is increased awareness throughout our culture of the moral weight of the unborn baby. And that’s a good thing.”

But the evidence says otherwise. The abortion rate is declining because fewer women are accidentally getting pregnant, according to a new study from reproductive health researchers who tracked a sharp drop in unintended pregnancies in recent years.

The Guttmacher Institute, an organization that closely tracks the country’s pregnancy and abortion rates, found a striking 18 percent decline in unplanned pregnancies between 2008 and 2011. At the same time, they observed the rate of contraceptive use increasing. They also found evidence that more women are choosing the best forms of birth control. Use of the most effective contraception methods, like the IUD, more than tripled between 2007 and 2012.

“These findings provide significant new clarity for the U.S. abortion debate,” said Joerg Dreweke, a researcher at the organization who wrote a policy analysis accompanying the new study. “We now know that abortion declined primarily because of fewer unintended pregnancies, and not because fewer women decided to end an unwanted pregnancy.”

Tellingly, the proportion of unintended pregnancies that end in abortion has remained relatively constant — suggesting that, when faced with an unexpected decision about whether to become a parent, U.S. women are not shifting toward choosing parenthood over abortion.

Perhaps you will recall that the right believes women who use birth control are sluts.

What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pop.

.

QOTD: Mitt ‘n Don

QOTD: Mitt ‘n Don

by digby

A big moment in the Republican presidential election. Of 2012.

Donald Trump:

It’s my honor, real honor and privilege to endorse Mitt Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve gotten — and by the way, this is a great couple. You look at this couple. But Mitt is tough. He’s smart. He’s sharp. He’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. So Governor Romney, go out and get ’em. You can do it. 

ROMNEY: Thank you. Thank you. 

There are some things that you just can’t imagine happening in your life. This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump’s magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight. I’m so honored and pleased to have his endorsement and of course, I’m looking for the endorsement of the people of Nevada.
(APPLAUSE) 

Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy, to create jobs for the American people. He’s done it here in Nevada. He’s done it across the country. He understands that our economy is facing threats from abroad. He’s one of the few people who stood up and said you know what? China has been cheating. They’ve taken jobs from Americans. They haven’t played fair. We have to have a president who will stand up to cheaters. We believe in free trade and free enterprise, but we don’t believe in allowing people to cheat day in and day out. 

And I’m going to work very, very hard to make sure that the people in this country have a brighter future than that is being projected by the CBO. Their analysis of what’s going to happen and the future of America is driven by the policies they’re seeing from a president who’s failing. 

He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession and that’s true. But he made it worse. And he made the recovery long and tepid. The people here in Nevada are suffering. So many people have their homes underwater. It’s extraordinary. And Nevada leads the nation in a very negative way, which is if you look at foreclosures of the last 90 days, Nevada is number one in the nation. 

This is a very tough time for the people in Nevada. And I want to do everything in my power to get this economy going again so people can be in homes they can afford, so people can come here for tourism, so we can have the American people have rising incomes again, so we can make sure that America stands strong around the world.
We have a president who may be a nice guy, but he is way over his head. He does not understand what it takes to get America working again and I do. I spent my life in the private sector, not quite as successful as this guy, but successful, nonetheless, sufficiently successful to understand what it takes to get America to be the most attractive place in the world for innovators, entrepreneurs and job creators. 

I want American to be the place people want to come and grow. And I will use all of my energy to get America working again, to help the people of this country have rising incomes, good jobs and homes that are worth something again. 

So I want to say thank you to Donald Trump for his endorsement. It means a great deal to me to have the endorsement of Mr. Trump and people across this country who care about the future of America. I think it’s time for us to recognize we can’t keep going down the road we’re on. We have to dramatically change course. We have to restructure the way government interacts with people. Our government is too big, it’s too intrusive, it’s placed too great burdens on our people in this country. 

I will dramatically change the way this government is working. And I’ll also stand up for our friends abroad and make sure America remains the shining city on the hill. 

Thank you so much for your help and your endorsement today, and look forward to seeing you on the trail. 

Thank you, Donald.


Mitt seems to have changed his mind about Trump in the last four years.