Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Sorry but this is silly. Ulaanbaatar has low population density compared to other cities. 307/km2 is less than some countries such as Netherlands and Bangladesh. It is certainly a lot less than New York.

I agree completely that population density does not explain Mongolia's success. This was someone else's point.

[y66]

On Wednesday, Republican senators laid into the chief executive officers of Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google for anti-conservative bias. They asked pointed questions like: How many of the employees and content moderators are liberal versus conservative? And how many high-profile posts from Democrats have they removed, versus posts from Republicans? (They don't keep data on either question, the CEOs said.)

 

Senate Democrats criticized their colleagues for bullying the companies, saying the hearing was a transparent effort to pressure the online platforms to make calls favorable to President Donald Trump days before the critical election. They had a point. However, for months, the Democrats have been pressuring companies, too. They’ve repeatedly said the platforms aren’t doing enough to correct misinformation about voting.

 

Whatever happens during the U.S. election next week, the political party that loses the presidency is likely to lay the blame at least partly at the feet of the country’s social media giants—either for doing too much or not doing enough. That means scenes like Wednesday’s hearing battering the tech CEOs will remain a favored political pastime for the foreseeable future.

 

This state of our politics is, in part, the companies’ fault. For years, executives have argued that their websites and apps were neutral platforms. But they always had an algorithmic bias toward content that sparked an emotional response, spreading those posts farther and faster. That amplified more extreme views and exacerbated arguments and division online. Now that the companies are finally reckoning with their societal impact, the fixes can look superficial and even random. That’s in large part because the companies haven't fundamentally altered their algorithms—they’re reacting to and moderating content after it’s already up.

 

There’s plenty to criticize about social media content moderation—it's often applied inconsistently, and even unfairly and untransparently. But the reason for that isn't a conspiracy to silence certain users. (Indeed, claims of anti-conservative bias tend to go viral on these same platforms.) Rather, the culprit is the companies' own focus on getting bigger and driving engagement, rather than cleaning up messes.

 

Eventually new artificial intelligence systems could effectively tamp down on hate speech and viral misinformation. But right now, the computers aren’t smart enough to understand all the contours of human discourse. So Facebook, Google’s YouTube and Twitter are compensating by building election resource hubs, where they’ll give verified information. And they're adopting dramatic policies—like no political ads at all on Twitter, and a link to verified information on every Facebook post about voting—so that companies don’t have to make decisions one-by-one on billions of posts.

 

These changes have come piecemeal, over the course of hundreds of incremental announcements, because of consistent pressure from regulators and other third-party critics. The companies are so powerful, hosting so much of our election-related discourse, that tiny tweaks to their policies can have massive ripple effects. Wednesday’s hearing showed that the politicians have learned this pattern, and know the fastest way to get the companies’ attention to a problem: a loud critique.

[y66]

THE COUNTRY that elected Donald Trump in 2016 was unhappy and divided. The country he is asking to re-elect him is more unhappy and more divided. After almost four years of his leadership, politics is even angrier than it was and partisanship even less constrained. Daily life is consumed by a pandemic that has registered almost 230,000 deaths amid bickering, buck-passing and lies. Much of that is Mr Trump’s doing, and his victory on November 3rd would endorse it all.

 

Joe Biden is not a miracle cure for what ails America. But he is a good man who would restore steadiness and civility to the White House. He is equipped to begin the long, difficult task of putting a fractured country back together again. That is why, if we had a vote, it would go to Joe.

 

King Donald

 

Mr Trump has fallen short less in his role as the head of America’s government than as the head of state. He and his administration can claim their share of political wins and losses, just like administrations before them. But as the guardian of America’s values, the conscience of the nation and America’s voice in the world, he has dismally failed to measure up to the task.

 

Without covid-19, Mr Trump’s policies could well have won him a second term (see first Briefing). His record at home includes tax cuts, deregulation and the appointment of benchloads of conservative judges. Before the pandemic, wages among the poorest quarter of workers were growing by 4.7% a year. Small-business confidence was near a 30-year peak. By restricting immigration, he gave his voters what they wanted. Abroad, his disruptive approach has brought some welcome change (see second Briefing). America has hammered Islamic State and brokered peace deals between Israel and a trio of Muslim countries. Some allies in NATO are at last spending more on defence. China’s government knows that the White House now recognises it as a formidable adversary.

 

This tally contains plenty to object to. The tax cuts were regressive. Some of the deregulation was harmful, especially to the environment. The attempt at health-care reform has been a debacle. Immigration officials cruelly separated migrant children from their parents and limits on new entrants will drain America’s vitality. On the hard problems—on North Korea and Iran, and on bringing peace to the Middle East—Mr Trump has fared no better than the Washington establishment he loves to ridicule.

 

However, our bigger dispute with Mr Trump is over something more fundamental. In the past four years he has repeatedly desecrated the values, principles and practices that made America a haven for its own people and a beacon to the world. Those who accuse Mr Biden of the same or worse should stop and think. Those who breezily dismiss Mr Trump’s bullying and lies as so much tweeting are ignoring the harm he has wrought.

 

It starts with America’s democratic culture. Tribal politics predated Mr Trump. The host of “The Apprentice” exploited it to take himself from the green room to the White House. Yet, whereas most recent presidents have seen toxic partisanship as bad for America, Mr Trump made it central to his office. He has never sought to represent the majority of Americans who did not vote for him. Faced by an outpouring of peaceful protest after the killing of George Floyd, his instinct was not to heal, but to depict it as an orgy of looting and left-wing violence—part of a pattern of stoking racial tension. Today, 40% of the electorate believes the other side is not just misguided, but evil.

 

The most head-spinning feature of the Trump presidency is his contempt for the truth. All politicians prevaricate, but his administration has given America “alternative facts”. Nothing Mr Trump says can be believed—including his claims that Mr Biden is corrupt. His cheerleaders in the Republican Party feel obliged to defend him regardless, as they did in an impeachment that, bar one vote, went along party lines.

 

Partisanship and lying undermine norms and institutions. That may sound fussy—Trump voters, after all, like his willingness to offend. But America’s system of checks and balances suffers. This president calls for his opponents to be locked up; he uses the Department of Justice to conduct vendettas; he commutes the sentences of supporters convicted of serious crimes; he gives his family plum jobs in the White House; and he offers foreign governments protection in exchange for dirt on a rival. When a president casts doubt on the integrity of an election just because it might help him win, he undermines the democracy he has sworn to defend.

 

Partisanship and lying also undermine policy. Look at covid-19. Mr Trump had a chance to unite his country around a well organised response—and win re-election on the back of it, as other leaders have. Instead he saw Democratic governors as rivals or scapegoats. He muzzled and belittled America’s world-class institutions, such as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. As so often, he sneered at science, including over masks. And, unable to see beyond his own re-election, he has continued to misrepresent the evident truth about the epidemic and its consequences. America has many of the world’s best scientists. It also has one of world’s highest covid-19 fatality rates.

 

Mr Trump has treated America’s allies with the same small-mindedness. Alliances magnify America’s influence in the world. The closest ones were forged during wars and, once unmade, cannot easily be put back together in peacetime. When countries that have fought alongside America look on his leadership, they struggle to recognise the place they admire.

 

That matters. Americans are liable both to over- and to underestimate the influence they have in the world. American military power alone cannot transform foreign countries, as the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved. Yet American ideals really do serve as an example to other democracies, and to people who live in states that persecute their citizens. Mr Trump thinks ideals are for suckers. The governments of China and Russia have always seen American rhetoric about freedom as cynical cover for the belief that might is right. Tragically, under Mr Trump their suspicions have been confirmed.

 

Four more years of a historically bad president like Mr Trump would deepen all these harms—and more. In 2016 American voters did not know whom they were getting. Now they do. They would be voting for division and lying. They would be endorsing the trampling of norms and the shrinking of national institutions into personal fiefs. They would be ushering in climate change that threatens not only distant lands but Florida, California and America’s heartlands. They would be signalling that the champion of freedom and democracy for all should be just another big country throwing its weight around. Re-election would put a democratic seal on all the harm Mr Trump has done.

 

President Joe

 

The bar to Mr Biden being an improvement is therefore not high. He clears it easily. Much of what the left wing of the Democratic Party disliked about him in the primaries—that he is a centrist, an institutionalist, a consensus-builder—makes him an anti-Trump well-suited to repair some of the damage of the past four years. Mr Biden will not be able to end the bitter animosity that has been mounting for decades in America. But he could begin to lay down a path towards reconciliation.

 

Although his policies are to the left of previous administrations’, he is no revolutionary. His pledge to “build back better” would be worth $2trn-3trn, part of a boost to annual spending of about 3% of GDP. His tax rises on firms and the wealthy would be significant, but not punitive. He would seek to rebuild America’s decrepit infrastructure, give more to health and education and allow more immigration. His climate-change policy would invest in research and job-boosting technology. He is a competent administrator and a believer in process. He listens to expert advice, even when it is inconvenient. He is a multilateralist: less confrontational than Mr Trump, but more purposeful.

 

Wavering Republicans worry that Mr Biden, old and weak, would be a Trojan horse for the hard left. It is true that his party’s radical wing is stirring, but he and Kamala Harris, his vice-presidential pick, have both shown in the campaign that they can keep it in check. Ordinarily, voters might be advised to constrain the left by ensuring that the Senate remained in Republican hands. Not this time. A big win for the Democrats there would add to the preponderance of moderate centrists over radicals in Congress by bringing in senators like Steve Bullock in Montana or Barbara Bollier in Kansas. You would not see a lurch to the left from either of them.

 

A resounding Democratic victory would also benefit the Republicans. That is because a close contest would tempt them into divisive, racially polarising tactics, a dead end in a country that is growing more diverse. As anti-Trump Republicans argue, Trumpism is morally bankrupt (see Lexington). Their party needs a renaissance. Mr Trump must be soundly rejected.

 

In this election America faces a fateful choice. At stake is the nature of its democracy. One path leads to a fractious, personalised rule, dominated by a head of state who scorns decency and truth. The other leads to something better—something truer to what this newspaper sees as the values that originally made America an inspiration around the world.

 

In his first term, Mr Trump has been a destructive president. He would start his second affirmed in all his worst instincts. Mr Biden is his antithesis. Were he to be elected, success would not be guaranteed—how could it be? But he would enter the White House with the promise of the most precious gift that democracies can bestow: renewal.

[kenberg]

This will not be a deep comment.

 

DT says we have turned a corner. With he Dow falling and the covid cases rising, this reminded me of my first time in Philadelphia. I had a great day at the museums, I had a great dinner, then I went out for a walk. At some point I looked around, said uh oh, and did an about face. I had turned the wrong corner.

Surely people across the country have similar thoughts. Turning a corner is good only if you have chosen the right corner and the correct way to turn.

 

Anyway, we are going to be seeing how this corner turn has worked out. Could I just stay ion bed until next Wednesday or Thursday?

[cherdano]

Sorry but this is silly. Ulaanbaatar has low population density compared to other cities. 307/km2 is less than some countries such as Netherlands and Bangladesh. It is certainly a lot less than New York.

Population density actually explains the quickness of spread of covid-19 to a non-trivial extent, more than I would have guessed - if you measure it properly. You need to measure "how many persons live near a random person", not "how many persons live near a random pin on the map". That's because covid-19 spreads from person to person, not from pins on the map to persons!

(Scotland has very low population density, but most live in the central belt between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and for us of course it does not matter that the Highlands are extremely sparsely populated.)

 

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/news/2020/population-density.html

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.01167.pdf

[y66]

I concede Z's point that Mongolia is not a fair comparison, not because it's less densely populated than the U.S., but because its culture, interactions with the outside world and its government are so different.

 

Still, I hope the U.S. and other countries in the West can learn from what Mongolia and other countries in East Asia got right.

 

The conclusions for policy makers in the second paper cherdano linked are a good place to start:

 

This study attempts to robustly control one demographic variable, population density, so that relative differences in the spread of COVID-19 between countries can be compared. By highlighting where and when this factor has contributed to the spread of COVID-19, we believe this study can contribute to the discussion about which epidemic control measures are suitable for which countries. In general, shielding immunocompromised people living at relatively high density, for example the elderly in care facilities, should be essential. Other control measures exist over different time-scales. For example, in the short-term highly internationally connected countries such as the UK and USA should limit travel. However, in the long-term these two countries, as well as others across the West, should discuss democratically how to respond to new and emerging infectious diseases rapidly while preserving individual rights. As the prospect of a second wave of COVID-19 is likely, both the short and long term, however, are now and soon.

[y66]

We need to some day try to swim back to the idea that partisan politics is a contest about who will run the government and what will they do with that power, not just a referendum on diffuse cultural trends with tenuous connections to policy.

[akwoo]

The dangerous trend in American politics is that party realignment makes Republicans the rural party and Democrats the urban party.

 

You might think this is about cultural trends with tenuous connections to policy, but there's a lot of connected policy. In particular, it means that, broadly speaking, Republicans will want to tax services and subsidize goods, while Democrats will want the reverse, because the part of the economy that produces goods is mostly rural and exurban (recalling that most manufacturing has moved out to the exurbs for cheaper land), while the part of the economy that produces services is mostly urban and suburban.

 

The problem is that when politics is about interests rather than ideas and when, for geographic reasons, people don't have much contact with those who disagree, we degenerate first into war by other means, than into war.

[Zelandakh]

Republicans will want to tax services and subsidize goods, while Democrats will want the reverse,

Why not take the popular parts of both sides' ideas, taxing services and the rich while leaving goods more or less alone?

[akwoo]

Why not take the popular parts of both sides' ideas, taxing services and the rich while leaving goods more or less alone?

 

Because, broadly speaking, that's not enough tax money.

 

The GDP per capita of Mississippi is less than half that of New York.

 

If Mississippians demand that they have the same job opportunities as people in New York and their children have the same educational and life opportunities as the children of New York, that would require a massive wealth transfer. A truly populist Republican Party would make that demand.

 

EDIT: There is about a third of my county that would genuinely be better off if Pol Pot was in charge.

[y66]

For the "No más" files:

 

Four years ago, President Donald Trump’s unlikely victory put the world on notice that the U.S. was slamming the brakes on the 21st century. Last weekend, the White House and Congress defined the 2020 election in the starkest terms yet.

 

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told CNN last Sunday that the White House has given up trying to prevaricate the coronavirus into submission. With new cases spiking across the country, the president’s oft-repeated fairy tale about “rounding the turn” against the virus was murdered and dumped in an unmarked grave. “We’re not going to control the pandemic,” Meadows said. “We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigations.”

 

Meadows’ white flag was preceded by Bloomberg News uncovering more White House infections, this time among the staff of Vice President Mike Pence. At long last, the White House message on the virus was consistent and coherent: There is no White House policy, and there never will be.

 

Read the whole thing.

[shyams]

 

What foreign journalists based in the US think about the situation in the United States.

[y66]

From NYT Upshot's Analysis of the day in polls by Nate Cohn

 

A snapshot of current polling averages:

 

Wis. +10 Biden

Mich. +9 Biden

Pa. +6 Biden

Ariz. +4 Biden

Fla. +2 Biden

N.C. +2 Biden

 

Electoral votes counting only states where a candidate leads by 3 or more:

 

291 Biden 125 Trump

 

Electoral votes if polling leads translate perfectly to results (they won’t):

 

357 Biden 181 Trump

 

Electoral votes if state polls are as wrong as they were in 2016†:

 

335 Biden 203 Trump

 

NYT poll averages include all polls collected by FiveThirtyEight. The estimates adjust for a variety of factors, including whether a poll represents likely voters, whether other polls have shifted since a poll was conducted, and whether a pollster has leaned toward one candidate in a state or nationwide. Polls are weighted by recency, sample size, and by whether they're conducted by a firm with a track record of success. More details here. Source for polls: FiveThirtyEight polling database.

 

† Poll error in 2016 is calculated using averages of state polls conducted within one week of Election Day.

[y66]

https://www.vox.com/2020/11/1/21544267/trump-biden-polls-2020

 

Saturday and early Sunday saw the release of a final batch of high-quality polling that generally confirms what polling has said along along: Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is in the lead.

 

Evidence for that proposition comes from a tetralogy of New York Times polls conducted in conjunction with Siena College, which were released Sunday morning. They show Biden ahead in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin — easily enough states to give him the win. But even a Des Moines Register poll conducted by the legendary Ann Seltzer that was released on Saturday evening, which showed Trump with a 7 percentage point lead in Iowa, is actually not very good news for President Donald Trump.

 

The only genuinely solid result for Trump was an ABC News poll showing him up two in Florida. But the same pollsters simultaneously found him down by seven in Pennsylvania.

 

Overall the message of the polls is crystal clear — Trump is losing the election, including in the key swing states and the margin is not small. That doesn’t mean he won’t win, as large polling errors do sometimes occur, but you’d be well-advised to bet fairly heavily against it.

[kenberg]

It seems that Biden will win. But I have learned that when putting down a strong dummy I should never say "Don't make too many". Usually this leads to a 5-0 trump break and inspired defense. No, I am not really superstitious.

 

Perhaps it is not too early to think about just what we can hope for after Biden takes office. I am aware that the world has changed since I was 20, but we are still the same species. Opportunity is still a good thing, including the opportunity to make a mistake or two and learn. Choice of how to live is good. Biden seems to understand that, as does Harris.

 

The above is vague, of course. Sometimes vague has merit.

 

I'll get back to this.

[y66]

From Why You Can’t Rely on Election Forecasts by Zeynep Tufceki at NYT:

 

With all the anxiety about Tuesday’s vote, it’s understandable that many of us look to statisticians’ election models to tell us what will happen. If they say your candidate has an 80 percent chance of winning, you feel reassured.

 

But after Donald Trump’s surprising victory in 2016 seemed to defy those models, there have been many questions about how much attention we should pay to electoral forecasting.

 

There’s a strong case for ignoring the predictions.

[barmar]

Btw, there is another way to reign in the powers of the SCOTUS.

 

Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

 

What this means is that the SCOTUS has limited powers as to when it has "original jurisdiction". Other types of disputes are subject to appellate jurisdiction, meaning Congress can change and even forbid the SCOTUS from having appellate jurisdiction in certain types of cases.

In what cases did SCOTUS claim original jurisdiction? AFAIK, every relevant case was appealed from a lower court.

 

But there is no such conflict in this case. What are you talking about?

I wasn't talking about a specific case, just in general.

 

Which specific case are we talking about, and how did SCOTUS usurp the relevant state's jurisdiction?

[Winstonm]

In what cases did SCOTUS claim original jurisdiction? AFAIK, every relevant case was appealed from a lower court.

 

 

 

 

Their appellate jurisdiction can be determined by Congress - it is not original jurisdiction, which is granted by he Constitution.

[Zelandakh]

Which specific case are we talking about, and how did SCOTUS usurp the relevant state's jurisdiction?

As I mentioned earlier Barry, the SCoPA ruled that the "free and fair" clause of the state's constitution meant that it was necessary to extend a deadline for receiving votes. That clause is legal and variations of it are found in around half of the states of the USA. The SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on ruling that that is unconstitutional, which requires a rather special interpretation of the Law that would essentially mean that any corrupt legislature could bypass the aforementioned "free and fair" clause, not to mention giving the SCOTUS a right to interfere in any state's elections. With ACB now on the court, the expectation is that this position will automatically turn to being the rule going forward. You should also look into the Kavanaugh's opinion on the recent Wisconsin decision, which quite frankly sounds more like something coming from a dictatorship than a supposed democracy. It was the PA case that started this sub-thread though and that is still going on with Republican lawyers having re-filed to have it fast-tracked now that ACB's vote is available.

[Zelandakh]

Summary of how the electoral college map looks (by my quick mental arithmetic). Assuming Biden wins Minnesota + Michigan + Wisconsin (not quite a lock but probable) he needs (in order of likelihood):-

 

Pennsylvania; or

Nevada + Arizona + Nebraska2; or

Florida; or

Nevada + North Carolina; or

Nevada + Arizona + Maine2; or

Nevada + Georgia; or

Ohio; or

Texas

 

Trump more or less needs Texas + Ohio + Georgia + North Carolina + Florida + Arizona + Pennsylvania. If Trump wins all of these except Arizona plus Nebraska2 and Maine2, there is a 269 tie and it goes to the House.

[y66]

OK, folks. First we elect Biden. Then we get a COVID vaccine. Then we drop the Medicare age to 0. Then we switch to 100% green energy. Then we double our housing stock and build some trains. Then we build a global alliance to balance China.

 

We can do this.

[y66]

From "a volume by Poe" read by Jim Carrey playing Joe Biden on SNL:

 

Once upon a midnight dreary,

While Trump retweeted QAnon theories

And rifled through his Adderall drawer,

I was writing my acceptance speech

When something stopped me with a screech.

It was a knock upon my chamber door.

It was someone still a little bit sore.

 

Into the room came Kate McKinnon, playing Hillary Clinton.

 

Carrey resumed:

 

It made me scared of four years more

Quoth the Clinton —

“We lost before,” McKinnon said.

 

Carrey’s Biden said to her: “But this time is different, I can win. The people know I have a plan.”

 

McKinnon responded, “But your real advantage is you’re not a woman, you’re a man.”

 

Carrey endured further visits from the polling analyst Nate Silver (Mikey Day), Mitch McConnell (Beck Bennett) and the rappers Ice Cube (Kenan Thompson) and Lil Wayne (Chris Redd), who have offered their support to President Trump.

 

Carrey’s last visitor was Maya Rudolph in her recurring role as Kamala Harris. Alternating lines, they delivered a final verse:

 

So whatever happens America, know that we’ll be OK.

Our nation will endure. We will fight another day.

I’m sure it will be peaceful, no matter who has won,

Though it’s never a good sign when Walmart stops selling guns.

Use your voice and use your vote. Democracy will represent.

This daylight saving time, let’s gain an hour and lose a president.

[Winstonm]

Don't sugarcoat it, kid. Tell us what you really think.

 

 

The president of the United States is a traitor.

 

He is a liar. He is a fraud. He is a racist. He is a misogynist. He is incompetent. He is corrupt. He is unfit in almost every respect for the high office he holds.

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

The big question a day before the election - did Mexico pay?

[Zelandakh]

To follow the earlier post about the electoral college map, a few moments for the possibly more interesting Senate election. There are (arguably) 10 competitive races (blue to red):-

 

Arizona

North Carolina

--

Maine

Georgia

Iowa

--

Montana

South Carolina

Alaska

Kansas

 

The 10th race is the Georgia special election, in which the top Democrat is leading but it will almost certainly go to a run-off.

 

So how does it stand? Outside of these 10, it would work out as Dem 47, Rep 43. So Dems need any 4 for control or any 3 plus the WH. A lot of these elections are incredibly close, particularly Georgia, Maine and Iowa. If Dems win any 2 (and AZ/NC go as expected) they get to 51 with Reps on 48; if they lose all 3 the reckoning is 49 to 50 and even with the WH Dems would need to win the GA run-off to avoid Mitch blocking everything. So while the POTUS election will get most of the headlines tomorrow, keep your eyes on the Senate. Because this is the election that is too close to call even without a polling error. And win or lose the WH, it will fundamentally change the way America is governed for the next 2-4 years and, by extension, also help to characterise the relationship of America to the rest of the world.