For the past 3 national elections I've been fairly optimistic: disappointed in 2016, pleased in 2018 (though I tend to forget Republican gains in the Senate; happy in 2020. My optimism in each case was based on the polls.
Recently the polls have turned against the Democrats so I'm not optimistic for Tuesday (and the days and weeks after, since it may take that long to finally resolve some races). I won't venture predictions on the results.
The Constitution has a provison for holding a new constitutional convention whose powers would be essentially unlimited (just as the original convention far exceeded its authority). A number of states over the years have called for such a convention, and there's been recent discussion of it.
Lyman Stone doesn't connect the two, but his twitter thread on the faults of the 1982 Canadian constitution provide me evidence to argue against a broadbrush revision:
Canada's 1982 constitution is a lulzy document which was passed with little serious consideration and a large number of wild drafting decisions with massive unanticipated consequences.
— Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 (@lymanstoneky) November 3, 2022
What I learned today.
Interesting thing about Ireland’s university system is it’s very meritocratic and no one really objects to that
— Ronan (@rfitz77) November 2, 2022
I confirmed there's no legacies or athletic admissions in the Irish system. That's for the Irish.
But if you want to study there, here's the site.
Seems there's a controversy in AZ over a group which wants to put watchers over poll drop boxes, armed watchers. The argument against is it's intimidating.
I believe in transparency, but it seems to me the best approach is to put video camera(s) up, so people can watch in real time. The video could be stored and analyzed later if necessary.
SCOTUS considers affirmative action today, the occasion for lots of comments; Three blog posts of note:
Reading "Uncontrolled Spread" by Scott Gottlieb on the US response to Covid19. So far (100pp in) it's good. Gottlieb was on the outside (former Trump FDA director for a couple years) but offering input via Twitter and close enough to people on the inside to be knowledgable.
Those who attack the medical establishment often cite the confusing advice about masks in the early months of the pandemic. Gottlieb says both CDC and FDA relied on their experience in dealing with flu epidemics, assuming that Covid-19 would be like the flu, SARS and MERs. They were tracking respiratory cases using their "syndrome" system, which relied on reports filtering up from Medicare and hospitals, using statistical analysis to try to determine if there was a surge in cases which might mean a new virus. The system had defects--it was after-the-fact--and not precise.
Dr. Birx made much of the failure to identify asymptomatic spread. Gottlieb also notes the problem, with an interesting consequence. Some early cases, which we now recognize as resulting from asymptomatic spread which isn't usual in influencza, were instead explained by fomites--the idea that the virus was deposited on surfaces. This meant the early emphasis on handwashing and cleaning surfaces, and the discouraging of masks.
Lyman Stone is an ex-USDA bureaucrat with an interesting take on many things (demography, religion being two of the big ones). This morning he tweeted things weren't too bad.
the world is actually fairly okay. there is no compelling reason for anyone with a job in a rich country to be miserable and angry all the time. inequality mostly doesn't impact most peoples' daily lives. the best evidence we have suggests it's been falling for a few years now. https://t.co/yg3vZtJTLB
— Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 (@lymanstoneky) October 27, 2022
That was in response to a tweet by Claudia Sahm, an economics professor with a dismal outlook, at least today.
Today the sun is out after a spell of cloudy days, so my mood is improved. I'd claim now the world is in better shape than ever before. People are living longer and better, with more access to more options and more information than ever before. That's especially true of what we used to call the Third World.
I may be one of the few who remember the scandal which plagues the Clinton administration in the 1990s. No, not Monica, but Charlie Trie and John Huang.
Anyone interested can read this collection of Post articles, For those too lazy busy to do the reading, the capsule summary is that the Democrats accepted donations from various individuals, either Chinese or Chinese-Americans, which might have violated or indeed did violate laws on permissible political donations. The Republicans pointed at sleaze, claimed the money originated in China, were intended as bribes for favorable treatment and friendly attitudes by the government, and must be investigated by a special counsel.
If I recall, because I'm too lazy to research, the scandal eventually petered out with. Some cases ended in not guilty findings, some in plea bargains, some were more smoke than fire, some were fuzzy areas in the laws.
I'm now reading Andrew Weissmann's "Where the Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation". I'll comment on the book another time, but what's striking is the degree to which the Trump campaign welcomed Russian aid, specifically the hacks of the DNC and DCC. Granted there's a difference between money and other kinds of aid, but I don't remember Republicans criticizing the campaign for doing so.
Either the Post or the Times today had a piece on the effects of using primaries to select candidates, with the main argument being that primaries widened the gaps between parties and increased partisanship. I don't have the patience to find the url.
The overall thesis may be right; I won't dispute it. But one sentence I did dispute--describing the time frame during which primaries became important. It wasn't the 1980s, but earlier.
For example, in the 1960 campaign, JFK and Hubert Humphrey were the main competitors in several state primaries. I acknowledge not every state held presidential primaries, but effectively JFK won the nomination by winning the primaries. In 1960, and before, the selection process was a composite: "party bosses", the man in a given state or often a major citywho could sway the selection of delegates to the convention, and "favorite sons" usually the governor or highest elected official in the state who also could sway delegates. (The "bosses" were behind the scenes; the "sons" might or might not have dreams of becoming the nominee themselves.)
Today states use primaries, in 1960 the bosses and sons relied on the primaries to assess the strength of candidates, rather like polls today.
Marginal Revolution pointed to this Ezra Klein piece on housing for the homeless in LA. Interesting, encapsulated for me in this quote from one of the mayoral candidates.:
Funders don’t want to give you general operating costs. They want you to solve their pet issue. What I always wanted was money for general operating costs.”
She's talking about her experience as an NGO exec, but the problem is universal. Every problem which Klein identifies, and there are so many neither he nor his readers will come away optimistic, is the result of proponents having tunnel vision, pushing a good idea into law or the courts without reckoning for the effects.
Liberals criticize capitalism for ignoring exogenous effects of the market economy. We also need to recognize that our good ideas will also have exogenous effects.
