Dispelling the Myth of the "Pro-Clinton Media"

In recent months, as the ability to tell the difference between a Bernie Sanders supporter and a Tea Partier has gotten tougher--on various forums angry Sanders supporters have suggested that Clinton supporters are only voting for her because she has a uterus (and that's probably the least sexist thing said in relation to Hillary Clinton by these people), have pondered whether "ignorant minorities" should be allowed to vote in the primaries, since they can't possibly understand politics or decide what is in their best interest, and therefore may need some good white folks to protect them from themselves, have made "liberal elites" the boogeyman (and a target of various grievances), and have taken up Hillary's e-mails and Benghazi with even more gusto, perhaps, than your average right-winger--it seems that Sanders supporters have found yet another villain to cast blame upon or their candidate's every failure: the "lamestream" media.

Yes, that's right. I'm sure you've heard it too many times to count at this point. The media is "in the tank" for Clinton. The media is helping the DNC "fix" the election for Clinton. Of course there's no other way she could be beating Sanders by nearly 2.5 million votes, is there?

Simply put, as with many of the things that Sanders' supporters believe to be true, the evidence simply isn't there. Let's take a look at a few examples of the media's treatment of Secretary Clinton in relation to Senator Sanders, and then you can decide if they are in the tank for her.

1. Iowa
Hillary Clinton won Iowa. I know that must come as a surprise to you, however, after being told by the media time and again that Clinton and Sanders tied in Iowa.

2. Momentum
On March 15th, Hillary Clinton won five states in one day, two of which the Sanders campaign predicted that Sanders would win. Do you recall the media talking about "momentum"? Do you recall them talking about how Clinton's supporters must be "fired up", or "energized", as evidenced by here commanding victory on that day? I don't either. I do recall the media telling us again and again that the momentum is with Sanders because he went on a pretty good run after that day, winning seven of eight contests. I don't think I've heard any reporting on Sanders in the last couple of weeks that didn't include some mention of momentum. What they fail to mention, as if it has completely slipped their minds, is that everyone knew that Sanders was going to have a few good weeks between March 15th and April 19th (the day of the New York Primary). The map favored him--six of eight contests were held by caucus, a process widely acknowledged to be favorable to Sanders. Most of the states being contested happened to favor Sanders demographically, i.e. they were very white (Hawaii being an exception). So Sanders won a bunch of states where both the demographics and the voting process favored him, and what the media makes of this is that he has momentum on his side.

3. "The Michigan Upset" (or, "What About Mississippi?")
On the same day that Bernie Sanders pulled a come-from-behind upset in Michigan another contest was being held, this one in Mississippi. I doubt you heard much about Mississippi in the days that followed, however. While the media was busy chattering about the "stunning results" of the Michigan Primary, and how once again the theory (or, as it would be more accurately called, the MYTH) that Hillary Clinton under-performs had been proven, the ignored the fact that while Bernie won Michigan by 1.5 points that day, Clinton won Mississippi by 66 points, a feat that is even more impressive when you consider the fact that "under-performing" Hillary was leading in Mississippi polls by significantly less (RCP avg. +44) than she ultimately won by. Clinton finished the night with a net gain of 24 pledged delegates. But once again the media told us that the "momentum" was with Bernie.

4. Clinton only wins in the South
Not only is this oft-repeated claim made by Sanders and his supporters, as well as by their friends in the media, offensive to Democratic voters in the South (and, as journalist Robert Schlesinger puts it, suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America"), but it a lie so obvious that one can only assume that the people telling it have absolutely no shame. Ohio, Iowa, Massachusetts, Arizona and Illinois are southern states? The media rarely questions this claim, but as Nate Silver writes, Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.

5. Clinton is only winning states that the Republican nominee will win in November
Again with the shameless lies. Clinton has won several major swing states: Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina. She has also won states like South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, states that, while longshots, some Dems think can be turned blue this November, such as South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Meanwhile, Sanders has won the key battleground states of...Wyoming and Idaho?

6. The "Sanders surge" in New York
A lot has been made in the media over the surge in Senator Sanders' poll numbers in New York in recent weeks. Where polls once showed Clinton leading by 30+ points, the numbers started to tighten, with polls showing Sanders narrowing Clinton's lead to as little as ten points (if you consider ten points "little"). The media hasn't given much thought to the fact that the "Sanders surge" has (at best) plateaued, and (at worst) receded, with one recent poll showing Clinton's number climbing to +17. Curious that the evil elitist media isn't playing this "Clinton surge" up, seeing as how they are trying to "steal" the election for her and all.

7. Sanders rallies are big (and it doesn't mean much)
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (as well as their die-hard supporters) will tell you time and again that the large turnout they get at rallies proves that "the people" are overwhelmingly behind them. Yet to date Trump has only captured about 37% of the Republican vote, and on the Democratic side Bernie Sanders is trailing Hillary Clinton by about 2.5 million votes. Huge rallies on Ohio and Florida didn't do much good, apparently, as Sanders lost the first state by 14 points, and the second state by 31. Big turnout at Sanders and Trump rallies proves nothing more than that their supporters are more likely to attend a rally. But still, the media can't wait to tell you about the great turnout Bernie has had at several recent New York rallies, and what this means re: momentum.

8. Protestors, immaturity looks awful on you
It's not just Donald Trump who has felt the sting of overzealous Sanders supporters showing up to wreck the party. (And let's be clear, neither Trump nor his sucker-punching followers are without blame.) But let me ask you this: Have you seen Clinton supporters show up to a Sanders rally or speech, and proceed to shout him down? Have you seen Clinton supporters throw objects at a Sander's motorcade, the way Sanders supporters threw a thousand dollars in singles at a Clinton motorcade recently? (And what a fine use of a thousand dollars. Go to hell, homeless people, this money is for throwing at cars as a means of protest!) Yet the media doesn't call these people immature brats (which is what they are); instead they are called "passionate supporters".

As Eric Sasson wrote in the New Republic:

We never hear that Hillary Clinton has “momentum”—what she has is a “sizable delegate lead.” No one this cycle has described Clinton supporters as “fired up”—it’s simply not possible that people are fired up for Hillary. No, what we gather about Clinton from the press is that she can’t connect. She has very high unfavorable ratings. People think she is dishonest and untrustworthy. She is not a gifted politician. She is a phony. Hated by so many. The list goes on.

Yet almost 9.5 million Americans have gone out to the polls and voted for Hillary Clinton, a figure not matched by any other candidate. Yet, according the the media, Sanders the momentum, Clinton consistently under-performs, and a "revolution" is taking over the country. Boy, if the media is trying to steal the election for Clinton, they sure have a funny way of going about it.


sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/sanders-clinton-fundraiser-dollar-bills/index.html

Dispelling two myths re: Clinton and the Primaries

Myth #1: Clinton always underperforms

That is, that even when she wins, she ins by narrower margins than the polls showed. While she has underperformed in some contests, she has overperformed in others. A few examples:

State / RCP avg. (or last poll before contest if there was no RCP avg.) / Final results--
      
GA / Clinton +37 / Clinton +42.9
TN / Clinton +26 / Clinton +33.7
SC / Clinton 27.5 / Clinton + 47.5
VA / Clinton +21.5 / Clinton +29.1
MS / Clinton +44 / Clinton +66.1

And there are still more--Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, etc.

Myth #2: Clinton only wins states that will be won by a Republican in November

Both Clinton and Sanders have won many states that will either be blue or red in November no matter who the Democratic nominee is. (Or do you really think Sanders could win Utah and Wyoming in the General Election?) As far as true swing states go, it's no contest. Sanders took New Hampshire and Colorado, but even if you consider Wisconsin and Michigan to be swing states (and I am dubious about that), Clinton still outpaces him with wins in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada and Virginia, not to mention states that are long shots but which some Dems think can be turned, such as South Carolina and Arizona. Meanwhile she is currently ahead of Sanders in the polls by double digits in Pennsylvania, another key swing state.



Poll numbers courtesy of RealClearPolitics.

Trump: A Comparison of Autocrats (or, Does This Sound Familiar?)

Tell me, does any of this remind you of Donald Trump?

"I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts...at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked person breaks down..."

Throughout the Primaries Trump has moved from one target to the next, whoever he sees as his greatest threat being hammered down before moving on to the next greatest threat. Thus we have attacks on "Low Energy Jeb". When he's gone, Trump turns his malignant gaze to "Little Marco" who is "trying to be Don Rickles". Then, when Rubio is out of the picture, we get "Lyin' Ted" and his "crazy wife". If a particularly damaging new story comes out, he averts his attention to the threat of the moment, going on another anti-press (and anti-intellectual) tirade. If he gives a bad interview, well then it's time to turn his scorn on the interviewer for the next few days. Always aware of the enemy of the moment, and always ready to unleash a "barrage of lies and slander" until their nerves break.

"The power which has always started the greatest...political avalanches in history rolling has from time immemorial been the magic power of the spoken word...All great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses..."

Trump plays on emotions, particularly fear and anger. No critical thinking necessary, and reason is a vice; whatever you feel in your gut should guide you.

What the masses needed, he thought, were not only ideas--a few simple ideas, that is, that he could easily hammer though their skulls--but symbols that would win their faith, pageantry and color that would arouse them, and acts of violence...which, if successful, would attract adherents and give them a sense of power over the weak.

Simple ideas to be hammered through skulls: Mexico and China are bad!! We need to ban Muslims!!! I will kick ISIS' ass!!! I will make everything great!!!

Symbols and pageantry: Witness any given Trump rally.

Acts of violence: I repeat, witness any given Trump rally.

...he was intrigued by what he called the "infamous spiritual and physical terror" which he thought was employed by the Social Democrats against their political opponents. Now he turned it to good purpose in his own anti-Socialist party. [People] were assigned to his meetings to silence hecklers and, if necessary, toss them out.

Protestors at Trump rallies being immediately set upon by violent supporters, while Trump smirks from the stage and offers to pay the legal costs if any of his supporters are arrested, and saying things like "maybe they SHOULD get attacked" when asked about the events later.

Other comparisons: The use of a minority group (or groups) as a scapegoat for all, or most, of society's ills (ban the Muslims, and deport all the Mexicans, and our problems will be solved!), and his use of the "Great Man Theory" ("Only I can solves your problems...Only I can make you great...Only I can protect you...Only I will tell you the truth...Listen only to ME...Trust only ME...Not a party, not an ideology, just Me! Me! Me!").

I have started rereading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I couldn't help making these connections between one autocrat and another. I'm not suggesting that Trump would murder six million people (well, he may do so if he makes good on his threats to nuke the Middle East, but let's assume that he would never actually follow through with that), but I think there is no doubt (based on his public statements) that he would be perhaps the most authoritarian president we have ever had. This is a guy who brags that the military will follow his orders even if the orders are illegal. He promises to crush the free press by changing the law so that people can't report negatively about him. He threatens to strip the "racial enemy" of their very citizenship (i.e. the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants). He says all of this...and his supporters cheer!

It's at times like this that I think of a line of dialogue from film Revenge of the Sith:

So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.

Hopefully we will never have to witness what a Trump presidency would have looked like, but the fact that millions of people have come out specifically to vote for this man is a sad statement, and a testament to this fact: history is a wheel, and it always comes 'round to the same place again.

sources:
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, ppg. 43, 46, 69 and 70.

Click here to see the scene that I referenced from Revenge of the Sith.

The state of the Democratic Primaries: From April, 19th onward the map favors Hillary Clinton

Sanders looks strong in Wisconsin tomorrow (April 5th), and will most likely win Wyoming on the 9th, but after that the map favors Clinton. I've put together some of the contests where she is favored (all numbers are RCP averages at the current time):

April 19
New York: Clinton +11 (even after the "Sanders surge" she's still up by double digits)

April 26
Connecticut: Clinton +15.5
Delaware--no polls, but it's a closed primary (which are seen as favorable to Clinton)
Maryland: Clinton +31.4
Pennsylvania: Clinton +27.5
Rhode Island--no polls, but it's a semi-closed primary (see Delaware)

May will be a good month for Sanders--West Virginia will go to him, and Oregon will probably go to him as well. Kentucky and Indiana are toss-ups that he could (and may be demographically favored to) take. But in June there are a few more contests where Clinton is favored:

June 5
Puerto Rico--no polls, though many people believe this to be a lock for Clinton based on her strong support among Hispanics

June 7
California: Clinton +9
New Jersey: Clinton +31

June 14
Washington, D.C--no polls, but widely considered to be a lock for Clinton

Sanders' supporters may lean on the common perception that Clinton "consistently underperforms", but this is a myth easily dispelled when one looks as past contests. While people can point to states like Iowa and Illinois, where Clinton's wins were by slimmer margins than the polls showed, this ignores the many contest in which she has overperformed, such as Louisiana, Texas and Nevada. In Mississippi and South Carolina her victory margins were more than 20 points higher than the polls predicted.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of Hillary Clinton's political death have been greatly exaggerated.

Bernie Sanders supporters are becoming insufferable

Remember when it was Ron Paul supporters who were seen as insufferable little twats? Many Bernie supporters could give them a run for their money.

There's the sexism (calling Hillary a bitch and a cunt, and taking cheap shots at her looks as if her appearance has anything to do with anything) and the racism (when they realized that minorities weren't defecting to Bernie en masse as they had hoped, many Bernie supporters became indistinguishable from Trump supporters, with talk of "stupid" and "ignorant" blacks who can't possible wrap their simple minds around politics and are just voting blindly for Clinton). Bill Maher recently pointed out the irony of Bernie supporters suddenly turning on Elizabeth Warren (who at one time was the very person the liberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted to be their candidate, and who some Bernie supporters would still like to see on a ticket with him) for committing the unforgivable sin of refusing to pick a side during the Primaries.

Just today I was reading an article about Lena Dunham speaking at a Clinton campaign event, and her description of the backlash she has received from Bern-ites over her support for Hillary:

"I have received more hostility for voting for a qualified female candidate than I have ever received anywhere from the American right wing. The fact that other members of the Democratic Party have spoken to me like I was an ill-informed child for voting for someone who represents everything I think this country should be is outrageous."

source: refinery29.com

Then there's the "If I don't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!" attitude of many of them, with threats to vote for Trump--a candidate who has used appeals to bigotry to fuel his campaign more openly than any candidate in my lifetime--to "get back" at Hillary, or to not vote at all (which, let's face it, is just as good as a vote for Trump).

There's the insane double standard imposed upon Hillary in which Bernie is allowed to get up on stage day after day and not-so-subtly imply that she is an evil corporate whore who will sell out your children's futures, and no one has a problem with this. But let Hillary say the most innocuous thing and people go, "Can you believe what a bitch she was when she was talking about Bernie?!?!?!" It's a well-document phenomenon--when men are forceful they are seen as strong and confident; when women are forceful they are seen as hectoring shrews.

Bernie's supporters trend younger than Hillary's, so it could just be their immaturity showing through rather than genuine sexism or racism on their part, but either way it is very ugly. It also reflects poorly on the person they support, whether said reflection is justified or not.

When it comes to politics passions run deep. Heck, this may be many Bernie supporters' first time at the rodeo, and thus they are getting a hint at their first real tasted of electoral defeat. Whatever the case may be, it's time to face the facts (and the delegate math): Barring some strange turn in events Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for the White House, and the real enemy--the Orange One--awaits. It's time to get over this intra-party fighting over who is more pure and gear up for November.

How We Can Improve Our Election System

A few ideas about how we can improve the election system here in the U.S.:

A One-Year Election Cycle

Would-be candidates would be forbidden from forming PAC’s, taking campaign contributions or actively campaigning in any way until the November of the year prior to the election. Election Day doesn’t fall on the same day of the month each election year, so the one year mark could be set at November 2^nd, which is the earliest possible day that an election could be held (i.e. the Tuesday after the first Monday of November). Assuming that primary season would still begin in February--and that the parties still held their conventions in June--that would give candidates about three months to prepare for primary season, which itself would be approximately four months long.

Campaign Finance Reform

No more dark money, and no more corporate donations. Campaign donations can only be made by individuals, whether directly to a candidate, a PAC, the DNC and/or RNC, etc. PACs must be transparent about who is giving them money, and how they are using it. Unions can vocalize support for candidates, however donations must be made individually by any members who wish to do so. There should be a reasonable cap on how much money any one individual can donate to a candidate; this will help even the playing field and prevent millionaires and billionaires from singlehandedly funding a candidate’s entire campaign.

Automatic Voter Registration

Upon registering for a state I.D. or driver’s license all eligible citizens would automatically be registered to vote. Some states, such as California and Oregon, already have similar practices. Prior to an automatic registration bill being signed into law in 2015 California has an estimated 6.6 million eligible voters who were not registered. Automatic voter registration would prevent problems when unregistered voters--some of whom may not even realize there is a problem with their registration record--leave their registration status unresolved until just before an election.

Make Election Day an Election Weekend

Holding elections on a Tuesday, when most working Americans are…well, working, has the potential to disenfranchise many voters who cannot get to the polls during normal polling hours. Some states have laws on the books allowing workers to take time off to vote if certain conditions are met, but most states do not. A solution would be to have a three-day Election Weekend, Friday-Sunday. People who may not be able to get time off during the week would now have the opportunity to vote on the weekend. Voters who follow the Sabbath (understood to begin at sundown on Friday and end at sundown on Saturday) could vote early on Friday, late on Saturday, and all day Sunday. Those who attend church on Sunday would potentially have all of Friday and Saturday to vote, as well as Sunday after church service.

Compulsory Voting

This one I’m not strong on. There are obvious downsides to making voting compulsory, but an argument could be made that the pros outweigh the cons. Voting for president would be compulsory for all voters unless they have a valid reason why they cannot vote, i.e. religious objections to voting, mental, physical or intellectually disabilities that make it unreasonably difficult for them to vote, etc. Eligible voters who fulfill their obligation, or who can give a valid reason why they could not do so (as discussed above) would be eligible for a tax credit. Eligible voters who do not vote, and do not have a valid reason, would be ineligible for this credit.

Leave Redistricting to Independent Commissions

While I have focused primarily on presidential elections until now, congressional and legislative elections are also important, and in many states are tainted by partisan politics and Gerrymandering. We should leave the job of drawing up congressional and legislative districts to independent, non-partisan (or bipartisan) commissions. No party should be able to draw up districts to rig the game in their favor simply because they control a state legislature.

Eliminate the Electoral College System

The candidate who gets more votes should win. That’s about all I have to say about that. For more detailed criticism of the Electoral College system you can click here.

Morality Without Religion

In my last post I touched on the per capita rape and murder rates in nations that are highly religious versus nations that have lower rates of religiosity. In this post I will discuss the false equation of religion with morality by taking a look at children brought up with religion and without it, the morals exhibited by these children and the long-term effects these methods may have on the adults these children will become.

What we would expect to see in religious children, particularly those raised within Abrahamic (i.e. Judeo-Christian-Islamic) religions--which the studies references further on seem to focus on--are high rates of qualities held as virtues within these religions, e.g. empathy, altruism, forgiveness, generosity, etc. If one believes that religion is key to the development of a moral code then we should certainly see these qualities manifest themselves much more clearly in religious children when compared to irreligious children, who the “religion equals morality” crowd would argue have a weak or malformed moral code, or have no moral code at all. Let’s see if this is what we find.

One study, often referred to in the media as “the sticker study”, looked at more than a thousand children, aged 5-12, representing diverse ethno-racial backgrounds. The children studied came from six different countries (the United States, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa), and their religious breakdown was 24% Christian, 43% Muslim and 28% not religious. Smaller numbers of children belonging to other religions were not compared.

Originally published in Current Biology, the study was led by Professor Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago. The study gauged altruism using “the dictator game”, in which each child was given thirty stickers and told to choose how many to share with another child. The results were used to calculate a generosity score. The results revealed that irreligious children shared more stickers, while the religious children were less generous. All of the groups compared saw a drop in generosity with age, though religious children consistently scored lower, suggesting that the longer a child was exposed to religion, the less generous and altruistic they became. Meanwhile the parents of the religious children were more likely to consider their children to be “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others”, even as the results seemed to prove differently.

On the issue of sensitivity to perceived injustice, and the harshness of responses to that injustice, the children were shown videos depicting incidents of mild interpersonal harm (e.g. pushing or bumping), and then were asked to judge the “meanness” of the act, and to rate an appropriate level of punishment for the perpetrator. Overall the religious children rated the acts they witnessed as meaner than did the irreligious children, and favored harsher penalties. So much for “turn the other cheek”.

 Source: Forbes

How does one explain these results? One factor Decety points to is a psychological phenomenon known as “moral licensing”, in which a person will justify committing an immoral act because they’ve already done something they consider to be a “good” act.

“It’s an unconscious bias,” Decety explains. “They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been learning in church.”

For nearly forty years Vern Bengston, professor of gerontology and sociology at USC, has overseen the Longitudinal Study of Generations, the "largest study of religion and family life conducted across several generational cohorts in the United States”. In 2013 Bengston added secular families to his study in response to a rise of irreligion in society. What he found were “high levels of family solidarity and emotional closeness” between parents and youth in irreligious households, as well as strong ethical standards and moral values.

“Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious' parents in our study,” Bengston said. “The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterized by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.”

Some of the personal qualities taught within (and held in high regard by) secular families were rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought and empathy, as well as a willingness to question beliefs.

Irreligious families seem to be keen believers in the Golden Rule, which can be stated as: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. This is quite different from the moral lesson taught, whether explicitly or implicitly, within many religious families: that one should behave well out of the promise of divine reward and/or fear of divine punishment.

Studies have shown that, while growing up, irreligious teens are less susceptible to peer pressure, less likely to try to fit in with the “cool” crowd, and as adults (on average) tend to be "less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant”, than their religious counterparts. A 2010 Duke University study also showed that secular adults were less likely to exhibit racism than religious adults.

None of this is meant to give the impression that all people raised with religion are selfish, vengeful, or racist people, or that all people raised with secular ideals are selfless do-gooders who live in complete harmony with the rest of society. When one looks at the big picture, however, it would seem that a moral code based in reason--in which a strong sense of empathy is impressed upon children, and which allows for them to question everything, even the very moral lessons they are being taught--is more likely to have a better outcome, and result in children with  a stronger sense of empathy and generosity toward their fellow man, than one based on instructing children that they should behave a certain way because a book says so, and that if they don’t they will be punished by an omnipotent being.

sources:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/#566ee069670e
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/126.abstract