All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Username taken]

SCOTUS has ruled that states can't remove Trump from the primary ballot.

I'm not surprised.

I didn't think the Colorado ruling or any of the other states that barred Trump from running were right in doing so.

It seemed off considering he hasn't been convicted of anything related to the insurrection. The states were being a bit heavy handed.

[kidfresh512]

I'm not surprised.

I didn't think the Colorado ruling or any of the other states that barred Trump from running were right in doing so.

It seemed off considering he hasn't been convicted of anything related to the insurrection. The states were being a bit heavy handed.

Yeah totally expected ruling. I get that they were trying to get the result that should have happened from his second Impeachment. But it was over reach each state so far.

[Malvolio]

There really is no law that says you even have to have primaries. The two major parties decided to have primaries in the 1970s to "let the people decide" because they were having too many problems with protesters at the conventions (see Chicago 1968). But since they don't even have to have primaries in the first place, the 14th amendment doesn't apply here. What we should focus on now is getting Trump barred from the ballot for the general election in November.

[babyblob]

SCOTUS has ruled that states can't remove Trump from the primary ballot.

Not surprised and I have mixed feelings on this. I hate Trump but Trump was not convicted of any crime so it really seemed like over reach. And if they got away with Banning Trump what is to stop GOP run states from Banning Biden?

In the end I think it is the right call but I am still unhappy about it.

[kidfresh512]

Not surprised and I have mixed feelings on this. I hate Trump but Trump was not convicted of any crime so it really seemed like over reach. And if they got away with Banning Trump what is to stop GOP run states from Banning Biden?

In the end I think it is the right call but I am still unhappy about it.

Exactly. They are already trying to Impeach him with no evidence at all. Impeached Mayorkas for nothing just because they told the base they were going to impeach SOMEONE. One of the wacky red states would easily make some crap up.

________________________________________
Opill, first over-the-counter birth control pill, will go on sale later this month

Opill, the first over-the-counter birth control pill that can be purchased without a prescription, will be available later this month online and in pharmacies for $19.99 a month, $49.99 for a three-month supply or $89.99 for a six-month supply, its parent company, Perrigo, said Monday.

Opill has been heralded as a potential game-changer for access to birth control because it eliminates the step of finding a doctor to write a prescription, which can be costly or burdensome depending on where women live and what health insurance coverage they have.

Expect some Red State drama and lawsuits for something that has been on the market for 50 years already and cleared the FDA

[Tami]

Makes a certain amount of sense that something affecting every state, like a Presidential Election, must be consistant for every state....which makes me wonder how the SCOTUS would rule if someone brought a case saying that it is wrong for individual states to use their own election process for the Presidential election instead of having a federally approved election system that all states much follow [for example: caucus versus primary election].

this could be a step towards standardizing the Presidential Elections across all states.

[achilles]

And now, a refreshing pivot away from Trump....though this story does involve him in a way....the story of the California election to replace the late Sen. Feinstein. The players are: Adam Schiff (D), Steve Garvey (R), former Dodger great and Padre player, Katie Porter (D), running on a promise to stop eating children, and Barbara Lee (D), running on a pledge to permanently destroy the nation's economy by raising the federal minimum wage to $50 an hour.

Those are the players, but the campaign is...unusual. Garvey hasn't run a single ad; AFAIK neither has Lee. It's all Schiff and Porter, and they're running....against Garvey, who HAD no chance at all to win. It's all----"Look at Garvey, he's a Republican who voted for Trump....TWICE!".

And how is this working? Garvey, who started the race in a distant 4th to 3rd, quickly has risen to lead the former leader Schiff by a statistically significant lead over the rest of the field, including Schiff. What will happen is that he and Schiff will go on to a runoff, (the top two in a race move on regardless of party), and Schiff will win as the voters for the other candidates will vote instead for Schiff.

What I don't know is why voters have shifted TOWARD Garvey so much.

This is against the context that it is pretty much impossible for a Republican to win a statewide office in CA. So why did the polls shift so far toward the lone Republican in the race? And why did Schiff run against Garvey, a non-entity as far as CA politics go instead of his real rivals, Porter and Lee?

[kidfresh512]

And now, a refreshing pivot away from Trump....though this story does involve him in a way....the story of the California election to replace the late Sen. Feinstein. The players are: Adam Schiff (D), Steve Garvey (R), former Dodger great and Padre player, Katie Porter (D), running on a promise to stop eating children, and Barbara Lee (D), running on a pledge to permanently destroy the nation's economy by raising the federal minimum wage to $50 an hour.

Those are the players, but the campaign is...unusual. Garvey hasn't run a single ad; AFAIK neither has Lee. It's all Schiff and Porter, and they're running....against Garvey, who HAD no chance at all to win. It's all----"Look at Garvey, he's a Republican who voted for Trump....TWICE!".

And how is this working? Garvey, who started the race in a distant 4th to 3rd, quickly has risen to lead the former leader Schiff by a statistically significant lead over the rest of the field, including Schiff. What will happen is that he and Schiff will go on to a runoff, (the top two in a race move on regardless of party), and Schiff will win as the voters for the other candidates will vote instead for Schiff.

What I don't know is why voters have shifted TOWARD Garvey so much.

This is against the context that it is pretty much impossible for a Republican to win a statewide office in CA. So why did the polls shift so far toward the lone Republican in the race? And why did Schiff run against Garvey, a non-entity as far as CA politics go instead of his real rivals, Porter and Lee?

Ex-Dodger Steve Garvey’s remarkable rise to the top of poll in California U.S. Senate race

Schiff (D-Burbank) would be an overwhelming favorite to beat Garvey in heavily Democratic California. The poll finds Schiff starting with a significant lead in a two-way matchup, 53% to 38%, with 9% undecided. By contrast, a general election between Schiff and Porter (D-Irvine) would start out tied, with 4 in 10 voters undecided, the poll found.

As Times columnist Mark Z. Barabak put it: “The calculus is plain. Schiff is hoping to clinch the Senate seat in the March 5 primary by lifting his weakest possible opponent, Garvey, into a November runoff. Brazen? Sure. Cynical or anti-democratic, as some critics claim? Not a bit. ... This is politics, after all. Not patty-cake.”

Interesting article and explanations. Sounds reasonable from a strategy perspective. This is pretty much breaking it down that its by design that the second choice is the weakest in a general election field. That there is no way a GOP Senator from California is happening.

[achilles]

Ex-Dodger Steve Garvey’s remarkable rise to the top of poll in California U.S. Senate race



Interesting article and explanations. Sounds reasonable from a strategy perspective. This is pretty much breaking it down that its by design that the second choice is the weakest in a general election field. That there is no way a GOP Senator from California is happening.

That may be the strategy, but I don't understand it, since Schiff's advertising attacks Garvey by linking him to Trump. Wouldn't that hurt Garvey in a state where Trump and indeed Republicans in general are anathema? So why is it having the opposite effect?

It's a purely academic question since as you point out, there's no way Garvey is getting elected with an R after his name in CA, but it does interest me since it seems so counter-intuitive.

[kidfresh512]

That may be the strategy, but I don't understand it, since Schiff's advertising attacks Garvey by linking him to Trump. Wouldn't that hurt Garvey in a state where Trump and indeed Republicans in general are anathema? So why is it having the opposite effect?

It's a purely academic question since as you point out, there's no way Garvey is getting elected with an R after his name in CA, but it does interest me since it seems so counter-intuitive.

Well as you said before him polling above Schiff is really only because the Democratic vote is currently split 3 ways. There is every reason to believe Porter supports and Lee supporters will just back Schiff when he beats them. So to me this explanation makes some sense if the idea is Schiff's camp wants to end this Democratic split quickly and not have to deal with a split vote Democratic runoff.

Basically its the potential minority Cali R vote that is "excited" for Garvey in these polls it isn't Democrats switching or anything. And that will play out even more in the General where it isn't even a contest

[zinderel]

That there is no way a GOP Senator from California is happening.

That’s why we all said about Trump beating Hillary in 2016…and look how that went.

There’s a fine line between ‘confident’ and ‘taking voters for granted’…

[kidfresh512]

That’s why we all said about Trump beating Hillary in 2016…and look how that went.

There’s a fine line between ‘confident’ and ‘taking voters for granted’…

I haven't seen a suggestion that that is the case here. I mean they said Schiff spent 25 million already. I mean if you can't count on 2 CA senators to be Democrats then there is no chance holding the Senate.

[Kirby101]

That’s why we all said about Trump beating Hillary in 2016…and look how that went.

There’s a fine line between ‘confident’ and ‘taking voters for granted’…

The national vote was about where they said it was, with Hillary winning by 3 million. The idiosyncrasy of the Electoral College and the late, calculated Comey announcement got him in.

[Jack Dracula]

Former New York Times editor Adam Rubenstein wrote a piece for the Atlantic, mainly about the internal disputes over the decision to publish an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-times/677546/

It shows ideological conformity among the staff.

There was one example that was dismissed by left-wing critics as unrealistic, when he says he was called out during an orientation for saying his favorite sandwich is from Chic-fil-A.



Except the story is backed up by people who were there at the time, and heard him discuss it contemporaneously.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...uite-real.html

Jonathan Chait considers what this means about the people who were wrong about the culture of the New York Times, and how media figures on the left try to delegitimize criticism.



This does not appear to be an organization with a right-wing work culture.

If true at all, the story is only about a single HR person not the entire “work culture”.

[Gray Lensman]

Not surprised and I have mixed feelings on this. I hate Trump but Trump was not convicted of any crime so it really seemed like over reach. And if they got away with Banning Trump what is to stop GOP run states from Banning Biden?

In the end I think it is the right call but I am still unhappy about it.

The court went way too far in the ruling though. The conservative justices basically declared that the insurrection clause was unconstitutional. Every other part of the 14th amendment is self supporting, but they ruled that Congress must enforce the insurrection clause. The clause that states Congress can grant relief with a supermajority, but only needs a bare majority to not require any relief at all.

It's amazing how fast this court can move when it wants to help Benedict Donald, isn't it?