Daily Clips: October 14th, 2015

October 14, 2015 Nick Cassella

Off

GOP tweets from last night’s debate: #DemDebate was really boring but had a lot of fun live tweeting and picked up by far the most followers. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2015 Racism exists because we have a sin problem in America, not a skin problem. #DemDebate — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 14, 2015 Sec. Clinton might be the only person who thinks the Obama/Clinton foreign policy has been a success. "Smart power at its best" Seriously? — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 14, 2015 Clinton towers over her debate rivals: Dana Milbank came away deeply impressed with Hillary’s debate performance last night, but his praise was incredibly sexist. He complimented her by saying: She was, in short, a man among boys. What? Is that supposed to be a joke? If so, it’s not funny and it’s certainly degrading towards her gender. Can you not be a woman among boys? Sanders: Climate change is the nation’s biggest national security threat! Good on Senator Sanders for highlighting the importance of addressing climate change in this debate. The environment certainly did not gather much attention at either of the two GOP debates. In his typical yelling fashion, he warned America that inaction will be costly: The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.

+ Read More

Tonight’s Democratic Debate Was Inspiring and Substantive (Except for the Parts with Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee)

October 14, 2015 Paul Constant

Off

2016, Economics, Guns, News

Tonight’s Democratic debate felt like that first gust of fresh air after being stuck on a transatlantic flight for altogether way too long. The clowning and capering of the last two Republican debates had transformed our ideas of normalcy to something unrecognizable. Of course a bunch of adults would spend three hours pretending to have seen nonexistent videos and creating scary straw men for us to fear. Isn’t that what politicians do? Well, no. The truth is, politicians are supposed to talk about issues. That’s what happened tonight. Let’s be clear: the debate wasn’t perfect. Very little attention was paid to LGBT issues. Host Anderson Cooper spent the first half an hour trying to incite petty squabbles. And the two conservative Democrats on the stage—the stodgy Jim Webb and the loopy Lincoln Chafee—were not deserving of our time or our attention. (Chafee was out of his league and Webb didn’t seem to understand that he was not running for the Republican nomination.) But for most of the night, real issues were discussed: income inequality, the Black Lives Matter movement, criminal justice reform. And the candidates didn’t try to pick fights with one another. It was downright civilized. Hillary Clinton, by any metric, won the night. Even when she was saying something disagreeable to most Democratic voters—she sounded conservative when talking about Edward Snowden, for example, and she sounded old-fashioned when talking about marijuana legalization—she demonstrated a reasonable and authoritative air. She seemed, yes, presidential. Her moment of real passion, a sturdy defense of Planned Parenthood and a refutation of conservative attempts to control the reproductive rights of women, was a truly powerful argument. She didn’t let anyone trample over her, and she was mostly gracious toward her fellow candidates. Bernie Sanders, too, had a great night. At first, Sanders seemed
+ Read More

+ Read More

Big Money Gushes Into Presidential Politics as the Media Gushes Over Big Money

October 13, 2015 Paul Constant

Off

2016

Last night, Politico breathlessly reported that Marco Rubio is romancing Republican super-donor Sheldon Adelson. It’s one of those stories whose very publication says more than the content of the piece itself: we’re at the stage in politics when wealthy donors are celebrities who are worthy of celebrity coverage. Have you read the brilliant New York Times story about the 158 wealthy families that have financed nearly half of the 2016 presidential race so far? It’s really something, a data-rich dive into who’s spending money on what and why. The 158 families each contributed $250,000 or more in the campaign through June 30, according to the most recent available Federal Election Commission filings and other data, while an additional 200 families gave more than $100,000. Together, the two groups contributed well over half the money in the presidential election — the vast majority of it supporting Republicans. The walls between donors and politicians are increasingly porous, if not downright flimsy. Sure, the contributions are supposed to end up with “Super PACs” that do not coordinate with campaigns, but that’s pretty much an open joke. Even Jeb Bush can’t seem to keep that distinction separate anymore: he just said in an interview with an Iowa public radio station that “We just started to advertise,” before stumbling and stopping and starting again: “actually, the Right to Rise PAC started to advertise, not our campaign.” If we know anything about the Bush family by now, it’s that their gaffes are often more telling than what they’re supposed to say, and this gaffe indicates that Bush doesn’t know where his campaign ends and his super PAC begins. We’ve learned that there are limits to super PAC cash. For all his billions, Adelson couldn’t buy us a President Gingrich, after all. In 2012, super PACs basically ran out of television advertising space to buy, super-saturating the market. But at some point super PAC heads could figure out more effective
+ Read More

+ Read More

Daily Clips: October 13th, 2015

October 13, 2015 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

CNN WILL BROADCAST THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC DEBATE LIVE TODAY, ONLINE, FOR FREE, NO PASSWORD REQUIRED. (Also, follow us on Twitter for our live coverage of the debate!) Liberal is now cool: Vox highlights that liberal may not be a dirty word anymore and in my opinion, that has much to do with the rise of Bernie Sanders and his repackaging of far-left ideals. As you can see from Pew Center’s chart below, Democrats are embracing this identification more and more. Don’t expect a slugfest tonight, expect a policy debate: The fireworks you’ll see tonight will not be over someone’s appearance or whether they smoked pot in high school (gasp!), but rather attacks will most likely be related to policy. What a concept. As Phillip Rucker notes: Democrats expect the debate to be substantive and to set the course for an unexpectedly contentious nominating contest. Americans are either going to find a pleasing contrast to the rip-roaring show Republicans have put on — or they’re going to be bored senseless. David Brooks waxes poetic about what conservatism used to stand for: In his latest New York Times column, Brooks laments how the Republican Party’s “capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly, over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals.” He longs for the days when “conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible.” Kumbaya. He’s not describing a political ideology, he’s outlining a disposition.

+ Read More

What We Expect to Happen at Tomorrow Night’s Democratic Presidential Debate

October 12, 2015 Paul Constant

Off

2016, Economics

[What follows is a lightly edited transcript of a Slack discussion between Civic Ventures coworkers Zach Silk, David Goldstein (Goldy), Nick Cassella, and Paul Constant.] Paul: Okay! So the very first Democratic presidential debates are tomorrow night, and I have no idea what to expect. Goldy: What is this “Slack” thing? I think I remember something like this on Compuserve. Or was it Prodigy? Paul: At first, I thought Hillary Clinton was going to be all over Bernie Sanders for his lackluster record on guns, but it looks as though Sanders is going leftward on guns now. So what’s this debate going to look like? Is it going to be all email servers and Benghazi? Goldy: No, not just email servers and Benghazi. Maybe they’ll get to some important issues, like Whitewater. Nick: I think Martin O’Malley comes out swinging on these two issues. I expect him to spend most of his air time hammering Hillary on her trustworthiness and authenticity. Will that strategy work? I doubt it. I think it will make O’Malley look desperate, especially as Bernie and Hillary talk about policy solutions, as opposed to personally attacking one another. Zach The Republican field lends itself to a carnival vibe—complete with a barker named Trump. By comparison, this will seem civil, thoughtful and maybe even serious. In some ways, these early primary debates are a reflection of the essential qualities of each party’s electorates. Elephants = conservative AM radio / Donkeys = NPR. Paul: I’ve been dreading this debate in a way that I’ve not dreaded the Republican debates. In part, I worry because CNN is hosting it, and CNN is terrible at hosting debates. They lack tenacity and credibility on issues, they focus on personalities, and they try to start fights. I hate to say it, but Fox News generally
+ Read More

+ Read More

Daily Clips: October 12th, 2015

October 12, 2015 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

Americans are feeling pretty glum about the economy: We all know that the American economy isn’t living up to its potential. But how do American citizens feel about their own economic situations? In a new poll, “42 percent of respondents described their current personal financial situation as excellent or good, while 56 percent called it only fair or poor.” These numbers are virtually unchanged from 2013. Interestingly, 36 percent of white Americans “expected their financial situation to improve over the next year,” while a whopping “59 percent of minority respondents said they expected better times ahead.” What Americans think should be done on illegal immigration: The Washington Post’s editorial board continues to rip apart Republican nominees and their policy prescriptions. This time, their column underscores the delusional nature of the far-right’s approach to immigration; namely, deporting over 10 million illegal immigrants: Aside from the devastating cost — to individual lives, families, communities, major sectors of the economy such as agriculture and hospitality, and America’s image — Mr. Trump’s plan would be overwhelmingly opposed by the American public. In a just-released poll from the Pew Research Center, 74 percent of Americans said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to remain in the country, with slightly less than half of respondents supporting full citizenship. Just 24 percent say they should not be allowed to stay in the country legally. Getting ready for the Democratic debate tomorrow: Vox has put together a nice, little cheat-sheet on all the Democratic candidates who will be up on stage tomorrow night. You know Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, but what about the other candidates? Did you know that Jim Webb is also running for the nomination? In wake of school shootings, Gov. Jerry Brown bans concealed guns on California campuses: Would you look at that, a common sense approach to resolving gun violence! What’s that you say? There are people that oppose said legislation? Well, what are their thoughtful protestations? “This bill will put thousands of innocent lives at risk,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Criminals will know that their intended victims
+ Read More

+ Read More

Does automation kill jobs? Forbes says Yes! And No! (But shhhh, don’t tell minimum wage workers, really, no.)

October 9, 2015 Goldy

Off

$15, automation, Economics, Forbes, Minimum Wage, robots, unemployment, Worstall

Forbes blogger Tim Worstall sure does love himself a vigorous debate—so much so that he’s taken to arguing with himself on the job destroying/creating impact of automation. When it comes to raising wages (minimum or otherwise) the dystopian Worstall repeatedly warns that if you raise the cost of labor, employers are going to respond with automation, leading to painful job losses for the very same low-wage workers the minimum wage is trying to help. Seems straightforward enough. Yet at the same time, the utopian Worstall consistently shrugs off automation-related job losses as all part of the healthy process of creative destruction. Dystopian Worstall : Higher wages means that automation becomes, relatively, more profitable. And it is to automation that most jobs go to die, not trade or international competition. Utopian Worstall : We’ve coped with this sort of thing before. There’s no reason at all to think that it’s going to be different this time. The increasing computerisation, roboticisation, of the economy is no more than a slight uptick in the normal rate of job destruction. Dystopian Worstall : So, their first change is going to be looking at greater automation. This raises the productivity of the labor that they do employ, which is great. But it also means that for any given level of output they will be employing less labor: That’s what automation and higher productivity both mean. So, job losses coming here. Utopian Worstall : What happens when the robots get good enough to come and steal all our jobs? There’s various possible responses to this, from screaming in fright and running from the room in Luddite panic all the way through to denying, flat out, that it can possibly ever happen. I’m in that second camp myself. Dystopian Worstall : Raise the price of human labour and people will substitute away from it to using more capital and more machinery. Things formerly
+ Read More

+ Read More

There Have Been Two Campus Shootings Today in America (So Far)

October 9, 2015 Paul Constant

Off

Guns

There have been two shootings on American college campuses today. (So far.) The first was this morning at Northern Arizona University. Three students were injured and one was killed. The most recent shooting just ended with the alleged perpetrator in custody at Texas Southern University. At least two people were shot at the latter shooting and the university was on lockdown for an extended period of time. President Obama is on his way to Oregon right now to meet with the families of victims of last week’s mass shooting. This is never going to end unless we do something. But what should be done? Time magazine published an article by Stan Stumbo, a former Navy commander, explaining why he finally resigned his membership to the NRA in 2012. Stumbo cites the NRA’s opposition to even the most common-sense legislation as the reason why he quit. What does Stumbo believe should happen? I feel that four things can help prevent such tragedies in the future. Requiring background checks on the state and federal level is the sensible first step. In addition, there should be penalties for officials of city, state and county governments who fail to enter people’s names in the database when they’re judged to be mentally ill, or a danger to themselves or others, or have convictions that would make them no longer eligible to own firearms. Another safety precaution would be to make sure that when a protection order is issued by a judge, that person’s guns are confiscated until the order is lifted. Finally, no one needs high-capacity magazines, firearms capable of holding more than 10 rounds, for target shooting, hunting for personal protection. Not only should they not be sold, but their possession should also be illegal. These are ideas that make perfect sense. Polls suggest that the American people agree with these proposed policies. Who doesn’t
+ Read More

+ Read More

Daily Clips: October 9th, 2015

October 9, 2015 Nick Cassella

Off

Economics

Bernie Sanders, the populist prophet: The New Yorker has a beautifully written feature on the man, the myth, the legend: Bernie Sanders. Margot Tablot has done her research, going to events and interviewing with his avid supporters. This makes for incredible journalism. Take this passage, for instance: At a recent San Francisco gathering for Sanders, I met Derek Zender, a twenty-three-year-old marketing student. He told me that his parents, who live in Orange County, dismissed Sanders as “a decrepit old socialist who means well but doesn’t understand how the world works.” Zender thought they were overlooking the fact that “many American institutions—Social Security, unions, Medicare, the postal service—have elements of socialism.” Tablot also describes Sanders’ unique character in refreshing ways: He tends to sound both doleful and optimistic, like a doctor who has a grave diagnosis to deliver—and no time for small talk—but is convinced that he can help his patient heal. The Washington Post Editorial Board is PISSED at the House of Representatives: Kevin McCarthy’s retreat from the Speaker of the House election has left the House of Representatives in more chaos. Yes, I did not know that was possible, either. Read what the editorial board had to say about the situation: Now dysfunction could produce outcomes that would seriously harm the nation and the world, starting with default and shutdown. This isn’t a question of right wing vs. left but of nihilism vs. a willingness to govern. Perfectly put. PEW RESEARCH CENTER: About two-thirds of Republicans (66%) say people in the U.S. illegally should be allowed to stay if they meet certain requirements, while 32% say they should not be allowed to stay legally. America, you’re watching the beginning of the end of the Republican party: The GOP has become so incestuous it continues to hemorrhage and will die. It cannot adapt because the key consultants it has shaping its future are wedded to the capital that comes from not changing.

+ Read More

Urban Outfitters Shuffles One Step Forward, Stumbles Two Steps Back on Employee Rights

October 8, 2015 Paul Constant

Off

Minimum Wage, Overtime

Mary Beth Quirk at Consumerist reported on a little bit of good news for New York state low-wage workers yesterday: Following in the footsteps of retailers like Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Abercrombie & Fitch and Gap, Urban Outfitters says it will stop using on-call scheduling — but only in New York. This change comes after pressure from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office, which has been probing various companies’ use of the system. On-call scheduling is a practice in which employers keep their employees waiting until the last minute to learn whether they’re going to work or not. Employees have no way of knowing how many hours they’ll work, and they have to be ready to drop everything and show up for a shift at a moments’ notice. It’s almost impossible for workers to hold second jobs if their primary jobs demand that they work on-call schedules. They don’t get to enjoy financial stability since they will never know how many hours of pay they’ll receive on any given week. This is an abysmal way to treat an employee. It’s great that New York state is leading the fight against on-call scheduling. When employers are forced to prove that they can get by without on-call scheduling in one state, it will hopefully be easier for other states to promote anti-on-call laws of their own. Urban Outfitters may not have eagerly agreed to this change, but at least they agreed to it. Gawker also called Urban Outfitters out for some especially egregious behavior yesterday. They published an internal e-mail from UO parent company URBN asking their salaried office workers to volunteer to work weekends in their shipping warehouses. Yes, for free. What are the benefits? Well, they’re offering free transportation to employees with no cars. And it’s a “team bulding” exercise. And employees will get to “experience our fulfillment
+ Read More

+ Read More

Civic Ventures