Thursday, July 17, 2014

Last Call For Well Here's Your Problem

Everything wrong with the Villagers covering President Obama in one tweet:

Please keep in mind Peter Baker here is the NYT's White House correspondent.  It's apparently not his job as White House correspondent to cover the fact the President is giving a speech on our mutli-billion dollar infrastructure shortfall, and that 700,000 jobs are at stake should the Federal Highway Fund go dry due to Republicans not being too concerned about keeping it alive.

It's not newsworthy because hey, plane crash in Ukraine.  700,000 jobs?  That's not newsworthy at all.  So we have the NYT's point person at the White House bemoaning that the President's speech won't get covered.

If only some sort of news organization could do something about that.

Six Californias For The Price Of One

As I mentioned earlier this week, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Tim Draper says he has the 800,000+ signatures needed to get his effort to split California into six separate states on the 2016 ballot.  It's a ridiculous long shot that would require approval by California's solidly blue state assembly, and approval by Congress.  The political implications are intriguing to say the least.  Nate Cohn:

If California were to split into six states, it would create huge opportunities — and risks — for both parties in presidential elections. It would also empower Democrats in the Senate. Most of all, it would significantly increase the electoral clout of Hispanic voters, who are currently marginalized by America’s electoral system. 
Three of the six proposed states — North California, Silicon Valley and West California — would be solidly Democratic. The other three states — Jefferson, Central California and South California — would all be fairly competitive in presidential elections. Each of these three states would have been closer than battlegrounds like Virginia or Colorado were in the last presidential election.
If there had been six mini-Californias in 2012, President Obama would have carried South California, which includes San Diego, the Inland Empire and Orange County. Mitt Romney would have narrowly carried Central California, which includes the southern half of the Central Valley, and Jefferson, which includes the liberal Northern California coast and the conservative interior.

The payoff for Democrats:  Silicon Valley would be dark, dark blue. Central California would become the first majority Latino state in the US, with South California not far behind.  The demographics would heavily favor the Democrats in getting the bulk of the ten new Senators created, and they would almost break even on the electoral college votes, getting 53 by carrying Silicon Valley, and North, West, and South California, instead of the 55 now.  Central California and Jefferson would be in play as well, worth another 11 electoral votes.  Finally, all this means as many as 8 or maybe even 10 new Democratic senators.

Republicans on the other hand would very much like to win South California's 17 electoral votes, which would put a damper on the Democrats hopes for the White House.  If Republicans could split the 12 senators evenly with the Dems, that would go a long way towards helping them in Congress.

The big problem is Central California and Jefferson would end up being two of the poorest states in the country, particularly Central California.  That's a real issue, and that's the catch.  Silicon Valley would become the wealthiest state, and there you have the main problem with the proposal, an instant increase in America's inequality.

Democrats need to do everything possible to stop this.  It's Tim Draper's plan to fund a state For the One Percent, By the One percent, literally at the expense of millions of Californians.  It's a glibertarian scheme to create the ultimate gated community, a gated state, of America's tech wealthy and leave the rest of California out in the cold when it comes to tax revenue.  It's a terrible proposal.

Six Californias needs to go, big time.

More Exciting GOP Minority Outreach

I understand that it's difficult to judge Republicans in Mississippi as there are so many stereotypes that come to mind when you say "Mississippi Republicans" and all that, but it doesn't help when it turns out they are acting exactly like you'd expect them to act.

A new Public Policy Polling survey found that 37 percent of Republicans who voted in the Mississippi primary runoff election between incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) said they would back the Confederate side if there was another Civil War.

The poll, obtained by TPM, is full of goodies for poll geeks. Of those polled, including Democrats and Republicans, 50 percent said they would support the United States while 29 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America. 
Broken down by party affiliation, 82 percent of Democrats said they would support the United States while just 9 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America. Among Republicans, 37 percent said they would support the Confederate States of America while 41 percent said they would support the United States. Another 21 percent of Republicans said they weren't sure while 9 percent of Democrats said they weren't sure.

To recap, less than half of Mississippi Republicans would back the US if there were another civil war.  That's kind of a problem, considering the other side was fighting for what they considered the right to use human slavery as an economic stimulus.

Best part is the one in five Republicans who aren't sure which side they'd be on if it came down to a fight between America and Slave-Owning Treason Dudes.

Maybe they should just hand out candy while they're at it.

Minority outreach, whee!


Related Posts with Thumbnails