PowerLine -> The Democrats’ Electoral Disadvantage Is Getting Worse How Google Has Just Harmed Its Women Employees

PowerLine -> The Democrats’ Electoral Disadvantage Is Getting Worse How Google Has Just Harmed Its Women Employees

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

Daily Digest

  • T
    he Democrats’ Electoral Disadvantage Is Getting Worse
  • How Google Has Just Harmed Its Women Employees
  • Climate Shark-Jumping Goes Past Eleven
  • Crying wolf at the EPA
  • The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Trump
The Democrats’ Electoral Disadvantage Is Getting Worse

Posted: 08 Aug 2017 04:38 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

At FiveThirtyEight, David Wasserman has a heartwarming analysis of why the Democratic Party is pretty much hosed in Congressional elections for the foreseeable future:

Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.
In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York — states with huge urban centers that combined to give Clinton a 6 million vote edge, more than twice her national margin. But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states — think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia — that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations.
In 2016, Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, but Republicans won the median House seat by 3.4 points and the median Senate seat by 3.6 points — that’s the widest Senate gap in at least a century and tied with 2012 for the widest House disparity in the last half-century.

The Senate is where the GOP has the largest built-in advantage, since so many Democratic voters are concentrated in a few large states:

Today, Republicans don’t even need to win any “swing states” to win a Senate majority: 52 seats are in states where the 2016 presidential margin was at least 5 percentage points more Republican than the national outcome. By contrast, there are just 28 seats in states where the margin was at least 5 points more Democratic, and only 20 seats in swing states.

With Democrats poised to be the minority party in the Senate for as far as the eye can see, the case for doing away with the filibuster is overwhelming. Still, Republicans can plausibly look forward to filibuster-proof Senate majorities:

[A]ll Republicans would need to obtain 60 seats would be to win every seat in the 30 states that Trump won — no Clinton states needed. That’s a plausible outcome over a few election cycles, thanks to today’s extraordinarily high rates of straight-ticket voting — if the basic contours of the nation’s political geography don’t drastically change in the next decade.

The implications beyond Congress, especially for the Supreme Court, should deeply worry Democrats.

Good point! The Democrats have refused to accept the result of the 2016 presidential election, and Senate Democrats have done everything possible, despite their minority status, to block President Trump from staffing his administration and making routine judicial appointments. Don’t think the Republicans aren’t taking notes. Next time we have a Democratic president, he or she will in all probability be dealing with a Republican Senate. If a majority-Republican Senate copies the minority Democrats’ 2017 playbook, a Democratic administration can be brought to a halt and never permitted to function. The Democrats asked for it. Let’s hope they get it, good and hard.


How Google Has Just Harmed Its Women Employees

Posted: 08 Aug 2017 12:52 PM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

Last week we noted here how the move to “ban the box” of criminal convictions on employment application forms actually increased discrimination against blacks, and with its decision to fire the author of the infamous “diversity memo,” Google has just done its women employees a huge disservice, likely leading to more discrimination against women.

David Bernstein of the Scalia Law School at George Mason University offers this shrewd observation:

How Google’s decision may harm its female employees: there is a coterie of female employees who want Google to fire not just the engineer, but anyone who expressed agreement with him, and who want to police political correctness among Google employees more generally. Now let’s say you are a man picking a team to go to a three week long tech conference/expo in Hong Kong. Are you more or less likely to want to put women on your team, knowing that if you or someone you like inadvertently says something “offensive” regarding gender, a woman on your team may call for termination?

And guess what? There’s some social science evidence for this in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities:

The unintended effects of political party affirmative action policies on female candidates’ nomination chances

Angela L. Bos, College of Wooster


Some state political party organizations that hold nominating conventions implement affirmative action (AA) policies to encourage the nomination of women and minority candidates. This paper assesses whether these policies help or hinder female candidates seeking statewide office. On the one hand, these policies could benefit female candidates since they demonstrate an organization’s commitment to diversity. On the other hand, diversity and AA policies may have negative, unintended consequences for female candidates such as promoting gender stereotype activation or creating a stigma of incompetence for female candidates. I examine whether and how delegates’ awareness of these policies shapes candidate evaluations, gender stereotypes, and nominee choice. I test this by analyzing unique survey data from Democratic state nominating convention delegates who evaluate candidates in statewide nominations in four states. The results suggest that while evaluations of the female candidate are not downgraded, focus on AA leads Democratic delegates to inflate their views of her male opponent. Furthermore, when delegates perceive that their party focuses on AA, they are less likely to choose the female candidate, in part because this perceived focus highlights that female candidates might lack masculine strengths. The resulting implications for female candidates and political party organizations are discussed.

Nice going liberals. Reminds of the old cliché, “Why is it we only hurt the ones we love?” Maybe the answer will come up in a Google search.


Climate Shark-Jumping Goes Past Eleven

Posted: 08 Aug 2017 11:08 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

One of my guilty pleasures is the silly Sharknado “movies,” so naturally I had to take in Sharknado 5 (“Make America Bait Again!”) on Saturday night. Seriously, just how did these movie series get green-lit by any movie production company in the first place? I’d love to hear a recording of the original pitch. “Yeah, we’re going to make a movie starring a washed-up lead from Beverly Hills 90210 where he defeats flying sharks with a chainsaw. . .”

If you’ve never seen one of these campy classics, they are mostly an excuse for non-stop pop culture references and cameos. I especially liked Geraldo Rivera re-enacting his famous Al Capone empty vault stunt from 1986.

To mix my own pop culture references, Sharknado takes shark-jumping way past eleven. It’s like someone put Evil Knievel in charge of shark-jumping metaphors.

But even the madcaps behind Sharknado can’t keep up with the shark-jumping abilities of the climatistas. Anyone remember about ten years back when David Roberts of Grist said that someday we’d need to have Nuremberg Trials for climate skeptics?

When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.

Roberts, by the way, is now employed at Vox.

The idea didn’t go down very well at the time, and Roberts regretted it. But the idea is baaackk!

A website called EV World (Subtitle: World of Electric Vehicles) yesterday ran a fantasy story about the climate “crimes against humanity” trials of 2029. Here are a few excerpts (complete with misspellings and grammatical errors):

Hypothetical Climate Crimes trials projected to held in the year 2029 as a stark warning to humanity we do not want to let things go until we reach such an impasse. This story is meant to be a cautionary tale.

(Authors note the year 2029 was chosen here primarily to make this future trial coincide with the life times of the participants in these crimes. A later date like 2049 would find most of these criminals deceased from old age.) . . .

The Defendants: Note, Only American and European Oil Company Execs were tried at this trial. Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Valero Energy, Chevron Corporation, Marathon Petroleum, Conoco Phillips, Koch Industries. Duke Energy, Engie, National Grid, Next Era, EDF, Enel, Dominion Resources, Iberdrola, Southern Company.

USA Federal US Government Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, EPA and Department of Energy officers, 1970 -2020 European leaders, GB, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland 1970 – 2020.

Automobile Manufacturers, General Motors, Ford Motor, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota Motor Company, Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW Group, Honda Motor, Nissan Motor, Hyundai Motor.

The Trial was held in The Hague, Netherlands in 2029 from November 2028 to August 2029.

The Background, starting in 2017 Abrupt Climate Change begins exponential ramp up with amplifying feedback loops kicking in with a vengeance. By 2024 up to 5 C warming was being seen on the land in the interior areas of most continents. . .

There follows more such parade of horribles, none of which is currently predicted by the IPCC for the year 2029, or even 2049. So much for “following the science.”

The verdicts came down in August of 2029. Sentenced to death for the critical roles they played in retarding any meaning action to mitigate climate change in the United States were as follows: Sen. James Inhofe, Marc Morano (CFACT), Chris Horner (CEI), Myron Ebell (CEI), Steve Milloy (CEI), Patric Michaels (Cato Institute), Bjorn Lomborg (CCC), Matt Ridley (CWPF), Christopher Monckton, Fred Singer, Roy Spenser (sic).

Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Donald Trump (President 2017-19), Mike Pence (President 2019-21), Ken Blackwell (Head Domestic Issues (2017-21), Ben Carson (HUD), Myron Bell (EPA), Michael Flynn (was already in prison), Nikki Haley UN Ambassador), Mike Pompeo (CIA), Rick Perry (Secretary of Energy), Reince Priebus (Chief of Staff Trump admin briefly), Scott Pruitt (EPA Admin), Thomas Pyle (DOE), Jeff Sessions (Attorney General under Trump), Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State-Trump), Ryan Zinke (Sec of Interior).

You may note here that the death sentences handed down were heavily weighted towards the Trump/Pence Administration 2017-21 but there was a cogent reason for this. It was determined that after the ratification of the Paris Accords in December of 2016 that the new Trump Administration withdrew the United States from them in May of 2017. This act at this most critical juncture with little or no Carbon Budget left cemented in Abrupt Climate Change for the whole planet although the USA only represented only 25% of the emissions. This was enough to damage irretrievably the momentum coming out of the Paris Accords and to cause other countries setting on the fence to back off their efforts even if they did not publically announce. . .

The Koch brothers were executed. . . Surprisingly GW Bush was only given a 20 year sentence. (Emphasis added.)

There’s more, but you get the idea. Talk about jumping the shark!

There is no individual listed as the author of this unhinged screed. I have fun calling these fanatical sad sacks “climatistas,” but sometimes “climate haters” seems like it is more accurate. (Worth reading the comments, which are mostly negative.)

P.S. One of our sharp-minded readers sent in this sensible question: “How could they hold the Climate Denier Thought Crime Trial at The Hague when under their climate scenario all of the Low Countries would be underwater?” Heh.


Crying wolf at the EPA

Posted: 08 Aug 2017 09:26 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

There is no doubt that Scott Pruitt is shaking things up at the EPA. But are his changes being fairly characterized and reported?

Not surprisingly the narrative has been driven by the liberal media, aided by disgruntled EPA officials who, having reached retirement age, are leaving the agency. Elizabeth Southerland, until recently the director of science and technology in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water, pronounced it her “civic duty” to warn that “our children and grandchildren” face “increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment” due to President Trump’s “draconian” budget cuts, and his “industry deregulation.” Similarly, Michael Cox, who quit the EPA in April, complained in a letter to Pruitt about “indefensible budget cuts” and efforts to “dismantle EPA and its staff as quickly as possible.”

The editors of the Wall Street take issue with Southerland and Cox. For example, Southerland (who made $249,000 last year in combined salary and bonus) ripped Pruitt’s call to rebalance power between the feds and states. She claimed that the EPA “has always followed a cooperative federalism approach.” Pruitt, who dealt regularly with the EPA as Oklahoma’s Attorney General, must have had a good laugh over that one.

The editors point out that during the combined presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal air-quality implementation plans on states. Barack Obama’s EPA imposed 56. Moreover, the Obama EPA stripped states of their statutory development authority, whether with its preemptive veto of Alaska’s Pebble Mine, or its Waters of the United States rule that gave the feds de facto sway over tens of millions of acres of private land.

And to what effect? The editors remind us that the largest clean-water disaster in recent years resulted from the EPA’s 2015 decision to punch a hole in the Gold King Mine in Colorado, turning the Animas River yellow with waste water and heavy metals. The agency also shares blame for the Flint, Michigan, lead crisis, having failed to alert the public. In addition, according to the editors, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a dismal record recovering endangered species, while the Forest Service’s logging restrictions have left millions of acres of dead, bug-infested trees as tinder for catastrophic wildfires.

The Trump administration has proposed a 30 percent cut in funding for the EPA. It won’t happen. What will happen is a shift in priorities — as the editors put it, a refocus on core jobs like Superfund cleanups, and less interference with the states.

The likely result? An EPA that is more efficient and effective.

Note: This post has been edited to reflect that the editorial cited is from the Wall Street journal.


The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Trump

Posted: 08 Aug 2017 08:47 AM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

A plan titled “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action” found its way into the public domain some months ago, and is currently getting quite a bit of attention. It is a fundraising document created on behalf of four left-wing organizations: Media Matters, American Bridge, CREW, and Shareblue. All four organizations were founded by David Brock, and it is likely that he wrote the “strategic plan.”

The document appears to have been written around the time of President Trump’s inauguration and may have been prepared for use at this Democratic donor conference. It sets out a plan to destroy the Trump administration and return Democrats to power. The document is embedded in its entirety at the end of this post, so you can read it and draw your own conclusions.

Not surprisingly, these four groups do not accept the legitimacy of Trump’s administration and claim to have a “mandate” to resist anything he tries to do. (In all cases, click to enlarge.):

As a fundraising pitch, the proposal is full of bold plans and threats. It also reflects the still-fresh horror that Democrats felt after the election. It conveys a sense that the Left saw itself as beleaguered and on the defensive. This is the introductory description of how Media Matters and American Bridge will oppose the Trump administration and Republicans:

A few observations:

1) The document reflects, throughout, an obsession with “fake news.” If you didn’t know better, you might think leftists actually believe that that the 2016 election was swayed by, as this proposal says at one point, “teenagers in Macedonia.” A common theme is that Democrats control the “mainstream” press, but conservatives dominate in the digital space, including social media. The former is certainly true, but the latter strikes me as delusional. Here is another example of this theme, from a later portion of the document:

2) These organizations are confident of their ability to influence Facebook and Google to the detriment of the right. More on this later.

3) The irony of these organizations referring to conservatives trying to “silence dissent” is apparently unintentional.

4) Not surprisingly, these groups were already talking about impeaching President Trump by the time he was inaugurated.

Next, CREW and Shareblue:

1) CREW’s claim to be “nonpartisan” is risible.

2) Shareblue is more candid, pledging to “take back social media for Democrats” and “delegitimize Trump’s presidency.”

Media Matters claims to have a lot of influence with Facebook and Google. Unfortunately, I know of no reason to doubt that this is true:

Media Matters also brags of its ability to influence mainstream news sources, so as to “punish” “even the slightest bit of normalization of Trump.”

Media Matters says it has five issue-specific teams that deal with “the key progressive topics of our time.” But check out the list: with the exception of a general reference to the economy, these are not the issues that drove the Trump revolt or that promise to bring power back to the Democrats:

American Bridge pledges to stand in the way of President Trump’s appointments via extreme vetting:

CREW says it will enlist a “pro bono army” of liberal lawyers. Sadly, I suspect this project could succeed:

Shareblue anticipates that it will receive information via “leaks and intel from Democrats on House and Senate committees,” and vows to “weaponize oppo research.”

On the whole, the “Democracy Matters” plan doesn’t contain any surprises but provides a valuable glimpse into the mindset and strategies of some of the Left’s more important organizations. Completely absent from the document is any understanding of why the Democratic Party has been steadily losing influence, or what issues and concerns drove President Trump’s 2016 victory.

Here is the “Democracy Matters” plan in its entirety:

337535680 Full David Brock Confidential Memo on Fighting Trump by John Hinderaker on Scribd


Leave a Reply