The New York Times - Motley Rainbows and Dead Unicorns

Smedley said:

maybe that’s not the best poll as it’s 47% dem and 36% Rep, but even assuming 100% of Ds in that poll don’t want Trump to run, that’s still a fair amount of Rs who also don’t want Trump to run.

My literally back-of-a-napkin math: If 27% of the total sample would like to see Trump run, and 0% the Democratic share want him to and, let’s say, 27% of the independents do, that leaves 62% of the Republican share who’d like to see Trump run.


DaveSchmidt said:

My literally back-of-a-napkin math: If 27% of the total sample would like to see Trump run, and 0% the Democratic share want him to and, let’s say, 27% of the independents do, that leaves 62% of the Republican share who’d like to see Trump run.

which fits comfortably alongside this:

the percentage of Republicans who do not want him to run ranges from 23 to 30 percent

and the percentage of voters needed to win a presidential nomination is really small.

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees


It will be very interesting to see trump’s poll numbers against DeSantis. I think DeSantis will challenge him in 2024, and he could get the nomination. That’s the scary part. We have this fascist governor in Florida who is a lot more educated than trumpenstein, added to his military background, he’s a much better pick for the far right militants who seem to have taken over the Republican Party. In two years trumpenstein will be irrelevant. IMHO


Jaytee said:

It will be very interesting to see trump’s poll numbers against DeSantis. I think DeSantis will challenge him in 2024, and he could get the nomination. That’s the scary part. We have this fascist governor in Florida who is a lot more educated than trumpenstein, added to his military background, he’s a much better pick for the far right militants who seem to have taken over the Republican Party. In two years trumpenstein will be irrelevant. IMHO

So that's the question I'm unsure of -- how much of Trumpism is Trump, and how much is transferable to someone else? The idea of a more competent, focused Trump is absolutely terrifying and not unimaginable -- Trump consolidated many existing strands in the Republican party, but didn't create them. Now that he's done the shaping, could someone else pick that up and run with it? OTOH, maybe there's something unique to Trump and a DeSantis, while plenty authoritarian and alarming in all sorts of ways, would actually not cross lines like "support a violent insurrection" that Trump did?

Now that Trump has legitimized authoritarian attacks on democracy, has the GOP permanently become an insurrectionary movement?


PVW said:

So

Now that Trump has legitimized authoritarian attacks on democracy, has the GOP permanently become an insurrectionary movement?

That is the most concerning issue really. I see this  union of right wing extremists so closely linked to paramilitary street violence, as the worst case scenario for this country. Kinda reminiscent of the 1930’s in Europe. It’s not a stretch to think we can actually become so divided that it would facilitate this dangerous situation. When I hear these people speaking about ‘ my country’ I hear it. 
When we have people like Kyrsten Sinema infiltrate the Democratic Party, it’s looking more like they have decided change the way they traditionally acted politically. She’s been a wake up call really.


PVW said:

So that's the question I'm unsure of -- how much of Trumpism is Trump, and how much is transferable to someone else? The idea of a more competent, focused Trump is absolutely terrifying and not unimaginable -- Trump consolidated many existing strands in the Republican party, but didn't create them. Now that he's done the shaping, could someone else pick that up and run with it? OTOH, maybe there's something unique to Trump and a DeSantis, while plenty authoritarian and alarming in all sorts of ways, would actually not cross lines like "support a violent insurrection" that Trump did?

Now that Trump has legitimized authoritarian attacks on democracy, has the GOP permanently become an insurrectionary movement?

yes.  states didn't pass laws allowing legislatures to overturn election results if they didn't intend to use them.


As Yogi said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but it's not impossible.

I'd be extremely surprised if Chis Christie became the Republican nominee in 2024 but I'd be shocked beyond belief if Liz Cheney became the nominee. And that is the power of Trump.


mtierney said:

If I hadn’t read the religious pontifications here, I would never have believed it possible for smart people to be so dumb.

I haven't "pontificated". I went to a Mass yesterday and heard the Priest recite the words of Jesus. Which statements of Jesus do you agree with and which do you disagree with? 

Please surprise me by answering. Thank you.


I used to like David Leonhardt, but his covid reporting has made me wonder about him


It was a toss-up between this thread and the Wordle thread, but I realized this is more about politics.


Best response: 



Dems in disarray.  The Squad says start with "adieu", but Manchin and Sinema go with "miaou"


In today's NYT:

Biden to Present Ambitious Plan to Cut Cancer Death Rate in Half 

The president aims to revive the cancer “moonshot” program he headed as vice president. 

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

The White House is billing the event as a fresh push by the president to “reignite” the moonshot program and “end cancer as we know it.” Specifically, Mr. Biden will set a goal of cutting the age-adjusted death rate — a statistic that accounts for expectations that older people are more likely to grow ill and die — by more than half over the next 25 years. But there were few specifics about how that goal would be achieved.

I mean, really?  Was it necessary to mention there were "few specifics?"  It's like they are just reaching for something negative to add.  Joe Biden announces a push to fund research to reduce cancer deaths, and they have to find fault. I'm surprised they didn't have a quote from Mitch McConnell complaining about the cost.


compare and contrast


ml1 said:

In today's NYT:

Biden to Present Ambitious Plan to Cut Cancer Death Rate in Half 

The president aims to revive the cancer “moonshot” program he headed as vice president. 

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

The White House is billing the event as a fresh push by the president to “reignite” the moonshot program and “end cancer as we know it.” Specifically, Mr. Biden will set a goal of cutting the age-adjusted death rate — a statistic that accounts for expectations that older people are more likely to grow ill and die — by more than half over the next 25 years. But there were few specifics about how that goal would be achieved.

I mean, really?  Was it necessary to mention there were "few specifics?"  

Yes it was. Journalists should be skeptical. 

Nice initiative on Biden's part, but until there are specifics on how to get there I don't think it's anything to get excited about. 

https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/15/cancer-moonshot-rhetoric/


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

In today's NYT:

Biden to Present Ambitious Plan to Cut Cancer Death Rate in Half 

The president aims to revive the cancer “moonshot” program he headed as vice president. 

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

The White House is billing the event as a fresh push by the president to “reignite” the moonshot program and “end cancer as we know it.” Specifically, Mr. Biden will set a goal of cutting the age-adjusted death rate — a statistic that accounts for expectations that older people are more likely to grow ill and die — by more than half over the next 25 years. But there were few specifics about how that goal would be achieved.

I mean, really?  Was it necessary to mention there were "few specifics?"  

Yes it was. Journalists should be skeptical. 

Nice initiative on Biden's part, but until there are specifics on how to get there I don't think it's anything to get excited about. 

https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/15/cancer-moonshot-rhetoric/

the purpose of such initiatives is NOT specifics.  Politicians aren't scientists. They try to provide resources to the scientists.  The people who figure out the details.

Not surprised you don't approve of Biden's performance.  He announces an effort to reduce cancer deaths, and your response is "meh". 


As I said, it's a nice initiative. I don't expect this announcement to move the needle on Biden's approval rating, but I guess you think it should, and you judge all those who remain in the disapprove camp as morally defective people. 

I think the NYT published a fine article, with lots of context, history and expert perspectives. Struck the right balance of telling the administration's story (which 100% occupies the prime real estate of the headline and the first 3 grafs), and being skeptical. 

I can only imagine how it would read if you were the NYT editor. Get out the pom-poms.  


Everything starts with an idea, and the incentive to materialize the idea. Let’s be supportive of the president in this please. Cancer is our worst nightmare. 


Smedley said:

As I said, it's a nice initiative. I don't expect this announcement to move the needle on Biden's approval rating, but I guess you think it should, and you judge all those who remain in the disapprove camp as morally defective people. 

I think the NYT published a fine article, with lots of context, history and expert perspectives. Struck the right balance of telling the administration's story (which 100% occupies the prime real estate of the headline and the first 3 grafs), and being skeptical. 

I can only imagine how it would read if you were the NYT editor. Get out the pom-poms.  

as long as they struck the right balance, guaranteeing their journalistic objectivity, all is well in Smedley-ville.


Here's some useful skepticism.

“This moonshot is 100 percent hype; this is the absolute wrong way to do
this,” said the analyst, Stephen Brozak, the president of WBB
Securities.

With no details from the not-a-cancer-expert-investment-analyst.

What exactly is "this", anyway?

How did an editor let this through? Except to insure that pros vs cons were 50-50.


Smedley said:

As I said, it's a nice initiative. I don't expect this announcement to move the needle on Biden's approval rating, but I guess you think it should, and you judge all those who remain in the disapprove camp as morally defective people. 

I think the NYT published a fine article, with lots of context, history and expert perspectives. Struck the right balance of telling the administration's story (which 100% occupies the prime real estate of the headline and the first 3 grafs), and being skeptical. 

I can only imagine how it would read if you were the NYT editor. Get out the pom-poms.  

if I was the editor I would have cut that one sentence. It wasn't pertinent. The initiative isn't meant to provide detail. 


We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Few specifics. 

But somehow it's considered one of the greatest presidential pronouncements. 


drummerboy said:

“This moonshot is 100 percent hype; this is the absolute wrong way to do this,” said the analyst, Stephen Brozak, the president of WBB Securities.

With no details from the not-a-cancer-expert-investment-analyst.

What exactly is "this", anyway?

A little more about the analyst, and possibly "this," in the article's previous paragraph:

Yet one Wall Street analyst who specializes in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals said that the time, money and effort might be better spent on initiatives to prevent cancer, like reducing smoking and rates of obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says being obese increases a person’s risk of cancer. And reducing smoking is a proven way to cut the cancer death rate.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

“This moonshot is 100 percent hype; this is the absolute wrong way to do this,” said the analyst, Stephen Brozak, the president of WBB Securities.

With no details from the not-a-cancer-expert-investment-analyst.

What exactly is "this", anyway?

A little more about the analyst, and possibly "this," in the article's previous paragraph:

Yet one Wall Street analyst who specializes in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals said that the time, money and effort might be better spent on initiatives to prevent cancer, like reducing smoking and rates of obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says being obese increases a person’s risk of cancer. And reducing smoking is a proven way to cut the cancer death rate.

I don't think that describes "this", unless "this" means "not that".

Anyway, a poorly written couple of paragraphs if you ask me. The "100 percent hype" comment doesn't really follow from the prior paragraph, so we're given nothing, really, to back up that comment, as jarring as it is.

And do we even give a hoot about the opinion of an investment guy?


drummerboy said:

Anyway, a poorly written couple of paragraphs if you ask me.

I didn’t plan to. The last thing I asked you was who was president when the homeless problem became a crisis, and I’m still chewing on that answer.


Back in the 1961 there was another "moonshot" announcement made with great fanfare, but the press didn't complain that there were "few specifics" about how it would be accomplished.


nohero said:

Back in the 1961 there was another "moonshot" announcement made with great fanfare, but the press didn't complain that there were "few specifics" about how it would be accomplished.

Boy the way Glenn Miller played…


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertisement

Advertise here!

Featured Events