American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Kowani]

I will provide the polling when I get in front of a computer, but there’s a difference between “defund the police is unpopular” (which it is) and “defund the police made us lose elections” (where the data is far more murky)

Anyone trying to blame DTP alone for midterm performance, on either side of the debate, though, no, you’re being manipulated.

[Ifreann]

The 2020 House Races.

Look, I'm not usually one to get caught up on semantics, but when you had leading figures of the Black Caucus telling us "the catchphrase hurt us down-ballot and thereby hurt our movement," I'm inclined to listen to them. I think we can reform bloated police unions, cut funding to mismanaged departments, and emphasize strict training over other daft resource allocations, and call it something other than "defunding the police." Because when boomer Jim out of Indiana hears that, he doesn't understand the nuance of the term, he just hears "cut funding off completely."

What we call it instead, I'm not sure. I won't pretend to be the marketing wizard in that capacity.

I think reform the police is a good start.

It's not "a start" when there's already a political movement that you're trying to co-opt.

[Kowani]

Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee votes to abolish death penalty, takes on criminal justice reform

The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Friday called for passage of a number of major changes to criminal law, including abolishing the death penalty in Nevada.
In addition to removing capital punishment going forward, AB395 lifts the death sentence from the more than 70 inmates currently on Nevada’s death row, converting their sentence to life without the possibility of parole.
For a variety of reasons including an inability to get the drugs for lethal injection, Nevada hasn’t executed anyone for more than a decade.
There was no discussion during the work session and all six Republicans on the 15-member panel voted against the bill. In addition, the committee voted to amend and pass AB341, which would legalize cannabis consumption lounges in Nevada. The bill creates two kinds of lounges where patrons could consume cannabis products: those next door or within an existing licensed dispensary and those independent of a dispensary.
Again, the bill was opposed by all six GOP members of Judiciary.
The committee approved AB243, a measure designed to reduce or eliminate racial bias in charging criminal defendants. There was testimony during the hearing that people of color face disproportionately heavier charges for alleged crimes than whites. The so-called “race blind” charging statute was again opposed by the Republican members.
AB251 would require a peace officer to let a child defendant consult with a parent, guardian or lawyer before an in-custody interrogation. Opponents in law enforcement said that just isn’t practical in certain situations. AB132 would require an electronic recording of any interrogation of a suspect under the age of 16. Republicans P.K. O’Neill and Jim Wheeler voted against the measure. Those measures were also approved by the committee.
AB116 converts traffic offenses that are currently all criminal offenses to civil infractions that would be treated as a citation rather than an arrest. It exempts offenses such as DUI where a specific criminal penalty is on the books.
Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen, (R)was among those who questioned the fiscal impact that could have on local governments. Sponsor Rochelle Nguyen, (D), said there will have to be language to ensure that the fines and fees money stays with the courts so local courts don’t take that financial hit.
The Assembly Government Affairs Committee also approved several bills involving law enforcement as the committee passage deadline loomed this week.
AB186 sought by police unions would ban imposition of ticket and arrest quotas for officers and prohibit the use of those numbers in evaluating officers.
AB268 would prohibit the use of deadly force against some one who is not a danger to anyone except himself.
AB315 would require police agencies to provide police and fire personnel with counseling and other mental health/psychological help and AB304 would provide police with continuing education on subjects including mental health, de-escalation, profiling, human trafficking and firearms.
All those bills go to the Assembly floor for a vote.

[Senkaku]

Prove it, Mr. Draper.

The 2020 House Races.

Look, I'm not usually one to get caught up on semantics, but when you had leading figures of the Black Caucus telling us "the catchphrase hurt us down-ballot and thereby hurt our movement," I'm inclined to listen to them. I think we can reform bloated police unions, cut funding to mismanaged departments, and emphasize strict training over other daft resource allocations, and call it something other than "defunding the police." Because when boomer Jim out of Indiana hears that, he doesn't understand the nuance of the term, he just hears "cut funding off completely."

What we call it instead, I'm not sure. I won't pretend to be the marketing wizard in that capacity.

You can empirically isolate the slogans “defund the police” and “reallocate the police”/“reduce the police budget” as factors in the 2020 House elections that clearly correlated with Democratic vote share and turnout on a national level across multiple, geographically and demographically varied districts? Please, present the data, this must be some truly groundbreaking stuff!

[Major-Tom]

The 2020 House Races.

Look, I'm not usually one to get caught up on semantics, but when you had leading figures of the Black Caucus telling us "the catchphrase hurt us down-ballot and thereby hurt our movement," I'm inclined to listen to them. I think we can reform bloated police unions, cut funding to mismanaged departments, and emphasize strict training over other daft resource allocations, and call it something other than "defunding the police." Because when boomer Jim out of Indiana hears that, he doesn't understand the nuance of the term, he just hears "cut funding off completely."

What we call it instead, I'm not sure. I won't pretend to be the marketing wizard in that capacity.

You can empirically isolate the slogans “defund the police” and “reallocate the police”/“reduce the police budget” as factors in the 2020 House elections that clearly correlated with Democratic vote share and turnout on a national level across multiple, geographically and demographically varied districts? Please, present the data, this must be some truly groundbreaking stuff!

Believe it or not, you can't empirically isolate many, if any, issues and how they harmed they harm candidates downballot. What we're often trained to do in the political world, then, is to look at how sample groups responded to issues and policy proposals during campaigns and try to weigh whether or not that had a tangible impact. That is called political science. For instance, could I find empirical data that says "we lost 6% of the vote in district x because of healthcare policy?" No. It doesn't exist. The same is true for this, that is why we look at the evidence presented and see if we can draw a logical conclusion.

What we do know, seen here, is that while police reform is broadly popular, the messaging isn't among non-Democratic voters. Registered Dems comprise about 35% of the voting age populace, and in districts that Biden narrowly won, where the Dem candidates lost their seats, or in seats held by Blue Dog Dems, it isn't a leap to assume that the framing of police reform might have harmed these candidates. Did it hurt every Dem house candidate nationwide? No. Did it hurt some vulnerable incumbents? Yeah...

I don't know why this is such an anathema for you. If you and I broadly agree that we need tangible police reform, judicial reform, and criminal justice reform (which I assume we both do), then why is it so bad for me to suggest that we improve our messaging if we both want the same end result? Such a narrow focus on sticking to one script that isn't broadly popular seems ludicrous to me. So, you tell me, do you think the idea of "Defund the Police" didn't hurt a single down-ballot candidate? Really?

[Kowani]

You can empirically isolate the slogans “defund the police” and “reallocate the police”/“reduce the police budget” as factors in the 2020 House elections that clearly correlated with Democratic vote share and turnout on a national level across multiple, geographically and demographically varied districts? Please, present the data, this must be some truly groundbreaking stuff!

Believe it or not, you can't empirically isolate many, if any, issues and how they harmed they harm candidates downballot. What we're often trained to do in the political world, then, is to look at how sample groups responded to issues and policy proposals during campaigns and try to weigh whether or not that had a tangible impact. That is called political science. For instance, could I find empirical data that says "we lost 6% of the vote in district x because of healthcare policy?" No. It doesn't exist. The same is true for this, that is why we look at the evidence presented and see if we can draw a logical conclusion.

What we do know, seen here, is that while police reform is broadly popular, the messaging isn't among non-Democratic voters. Registered Dems comprise about 35% of the voting age populace, and in districts that Biden narrowly won, where the Dem candidates lost their seats, or in seats held by Blue Dog Dems, it isn't a leap to assume that the framing of police reform might have harmed these candidates. Did it hurt every Dem house candidate nationwide? No. Did it hurt some vulnerable incumbents? Yeah...

I don't know why this is such an anathema for you. If you and I broadly agree that we need tangible police reform, judicial reform, and criminal justice reform (which I assume we both do), then why is it so bad for me to suggest that we improve our messaging if we both want the same end result? Such a narrow focus on sticking to one script that isn't broadly popular seems ludicrous to me. So, you tell me, do you think the idea of "Defund the Police" didn't hurt a single down-ballot candidate? Really?

so, G. Elliot Morris (a data journalist at the Economist) had what I think is a decent look at it, and the data is...muddled

In America’s current era of hyper-competitive elections, every vote counts — a lot. The past two presidential contests have been decided by fewer than 100,000 votes out of 150 million. In terms of electoral handicapping, it makes sense for analysts and activists to put a premium on candidates who are more palatable to the median voter, relative to extremists. There, amongst the ideological middle of the masses, they can win more votes.

In 2020, this intuition combined with the ideological centrism of the press to increase the base rate of circulation for takes that the Democrats’ high-profile shift to the left on policing probably costs them votes. Eric Levitz’s interview with David Shor in New York Magazine last month was even tweeted out by Obama.


In 2020, this intuition combined with the ideological centrism of the press to increase the base rate of circulation for takes that the Democrats’ high-profile shift to the left on policing probably costs them votes. Eric Levitz’s interview with David Shor in New York Magazine last month was even tweeted out by Obama.

But I think the issue isn’t as black-and-white as pundits, who have largely adopted the thesis as conventional wisdom, make it seem. It could very well be the case that Defund The Police and BLM hurt Democrats among some voters. But public polling and county-level electoral results suggest competing thesis. At the best, the #Defund movement is one big explanation among many. But it might not even be that big.

First, consider the results of the last two presidential elections. The following map shows the swings toward and away from Democrats between 2016 and 2020 in each county. An area shaded red is one that got more Republican. Blue is more Democratic:

This map shows the county-level change in per-capita disposable income between 2017 and 2019, with green counties being ones that got richer and orange being counties that got poorer.

Now, I have talked a little about this on Twitter, but if you control for the standard demographic variables in each county — such as the share of whites, Hispanics, African Americans, and educated voters that live there, as well as the results of the 2016 election — the above percent growth in income is residually predictive of whether a county swung to the left to the right. This is especially true in counties with more Hispanic voters. I don’t usually drop regression coefficients in this newsletter, but in case you like that sort of thing, here you go:

To me, this makes a lot of intuitive sense! Hispanic voters are more split along ideological lines than Black voters are (see the next chart), and also less polarized by education than whites. It would stand to reason that they might be less moved by the ideological issues that dominated the 2016 campaign and more prone to reward the incumbent party when the economy was doing well, as it definitely was before the lockdowns imposed on Americans to help stem the circulation of covid-19.

On the other hand, we don’t have a whole lot of evidence of this pattern in past elections, and I can’t find much scholarship on racial differences in the effects of economic growth on incumbent vote shares. It would make sense that poorer groups would also react more to modest percentage increases in their income, but there is a difference between thing x makes intuitive sense and has modest evidence for its existence and thing x is true across data sources and model specifications. So I don’t think we have disproved any hypothesis about Defund The Poice here, but the county-level results and economic data are an enticing alternative.

Now, consider the polling. The table below (also from my Twitter) shows the 2016 and 2020 voting breakdowns of the 3 most populous racial groups and a lumped category for the rest, each further split up into thirds by voters’ self-described ideological affiliations. This is according to self-described voting behavior in YouGov’s online panel. Their data shows that moderate Hispanics swung 10 points to the right in 2020 relative to 2016, and that conservative Hispanics swung by 5 points.

Before I say anything, I want to issue a caveat: I doubt these numbers are exactly right. The actual county-level swing in highly Hispanic counties suggests the group shifted closer to 20 points (on margin) toward Republicans, which isn’t reconcilable with this polling. Other data show something similar, especially among conservative Hispanics. The discrepancy could be due to online polls having problems reaching the “right” Hispanics. But the point is not the precision of the Hispanic estimate; it’s that Democrats made gains with white liberals and moderates, who make up about 41% of the electorate according to YouGov. If that’s true, it throws a lot of water on the theory that Democrats are hurting themselves by moving left on policing; considering the electorate as a whole, it may have even helped them.

Other online polling data also show (a) increasingly left-leaning views on the police and (b) stable voting behavior of Hispanics throughout the 2020 election cycle. See the trend in approval toward Black Lives matter over the past couple of years, per Civiqs…

…or the highly negative trend in favorability the police between summer 2019 and summer 2020 in Nationscape data, this courtesy of my friend Rob Griffin:

Rob has also posted this picture of Hispanic loyalty toward Trump increasing a lot from 2019 through 2020, with the Goerge Floyd protests and rise of the chant “Defund the Police” by Black activists not causing a significant change in the trend:

Now, maybe all this internet polling is wrong. It could be the case that Hispanics responding to online polls weren’t the ones that were put off by the #Defund movement, and so they don’t show up in the trend. But if that’s the case, I haven’t seen any alternative evidence for it. I’d really like to hear from a private pollster, like Shor, who talked to hard-to-reach Latino voters and found evidence that BLM turned them away from Biden in huge numbers.

One added wrinkle is that the Hispanic voters who immigrated from Venezuela and Cuba were much more likely to swing from Clinton to Trump, again according to Nationscape data:

To me, this speaks to larger patterns of ideological sorting than it does to a specific effect from the popularity of defunding the police. It is reasonable to expect that Donald Trump’s campaign against “socialism” hurt Democrats with groups that had the most experience in poor socialist countries.

In fact, the table of YouGov data above supports the idea that Hispanics simply became more ideological voters in 2020, “sorting” themselves into the Democratic and Republican camps by their ideologies. This makes sense; in 2016, motivated by racial issues and Donald Trump’s crusade against Mexican immigrants, Hispanics would have been more likely to see their place in the electorate delineated along racial lines than in 2020 when immigration was not so much of an issue.

According to my friend Alexander Agadjanian, this is very likely a huge part of the explanation. He analyzed the recently-released polling data from the 2020 Congressional Election Study and found that “The relationship between police attitudes and 2020 Trump vote switching is not unique to Hispanics” and “Police attitudes, compared to non-police attitudes, are not consistently stronger predictors of vote switching among Hispanics (or any racial group).” He posts the following two charts on his blog, which shows that attitudes toward policing — especially toward defunding the police — are not any more predictive of Clinton voters switching to Donald Trump in 2020 than, say, their positions on Abortion or general ideological position.

Now, Agadjanian’s analysis has the same asterisk next to it that Griffin’s and mine do; the data we’re relying on might miss hard-to-reach Hispanic voters. But if there really is data out there that shows Defund The Police is particularly damaging to Democrats, and especially among Hispanics, I really would like someone to show it to me.

[Senkaku]

You can empirically isolate the slogans “defund the police” and “reallocate the police”/“reduce the police budget” as factors in the 2020 House elections that clearly correlated with Democratic vote share and turnout on a national level across multiple, geographically and demographically varied districts? Please, present the data, this must be some truly groundbreaking stuff!

Believe it or not, you can't empirically isolate many, if any, issues and how they harmed they harm candidates downballot.

Well, it's not like I forced you to pick up the sword for someone else's shitty argument! If you can't defend Lumen on his own terms, why even bother? It seems like you have your own original take on the matter. But I'll remind you: he asserted that two very specific slogans would "sell better" than "defund the police", and then tacked on a third in a later post. You then said that the 2020 House elections were proof of this. If there's data to support that claim, then put up or shut up.

What we're often trained to do in the political world, then, is to look at how sample groups responded to issues and policy proposals during campaigns and try to weigh whether or not that had a tangible impact. That is called political science.

Thank you for the lecture, I've so often thought to myself over the last three years that not enough men have condescended to me about the nature of political academic investigation!

For instance, could I find empirical data that says "we lost 6% of the vote in district x because of healthcare policy?" No. It doesn't exist. The same is true for this, that is why we look at the evidence presented and see if we can draw a logical conclusion.

Yes, you could, if someone had bothered to collect the requisite data to perform that analysis and prove their point. See, your failure to understand the scope of the possible when it comes to political analysis doesn't actually mean that analyses beyond your understanding have not been successfully conducted.

What we do know, seen here, is that while police reform is broadly popular, the messaging isn't among non-Democratic voters. Registered Dems comprise about 35% of the voting age populace, and in districts that Biden narrowly won, where the Dem candidates lost their seats, or in seats held by Blue Dog Dems, it isn't a leap to assume that the framing of police reform might have harmed these candidates. Did it hurt every Dem house candidate nationwide? No. Did it hurt some vulnerable incumbents? Yeah...

You are asserting it was the decisive factor in elections where many other extremely divisive issues were also on the table. If you're making that assertion, you have to show that the effects of other controversies are not as relevant to Democratic performance as messaging around this particular slogan, and that "defund the police" played a primary causal role in Democratic defeats or reduced vote share/turnout. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe that the effects you describe aren't attributable to any of the myriad other political issues that are being contested across the nation.

I don't know why this is such an anathema for you. If you and I broadly agree that we need tangible police reform, judicial reform, and criminal justice reform (which I assume we both do), then why is it so bad for me to suggest that we improve our messaging if we both want the same end result?

Because you are assuming, without evidence, that non-Democratic voters' choices are attributable solely to a failure in Democratic messaging to hew close enough to the political center, rather than to positive messaging for the other side's position, to the voter's own existing views, to what they had for lunch today, or the relative position of the constellation Vega or the weather conditions in Lhasa. It is not clear that if Democrats simply had "better (more centrist/palatable) messaging," with no other variables changed, that a significant number of voters would have been persuaded to vote differently than they in fact did. You are asserting that it is without evidence.

Such a narrow focus on sticking to one script that isn't broadly popular seems ludicrous to me.

Firstly: you're lecturing me on "sticking to a script"... while arguing that the Democrats need to simply stick to a different script. If you have a positive argument to articulate for a more centrist position on police reform, go ahead and make it, but otherwise this line of attack is a dead end for you.

Secondly: if present-day "broad popularity" were the metric by which we decided whether or not civil rights issues were worth fighting for, the South would still be groaning under Jim Crow, and Martin Luther King would've been buried in an unmarked grave.

So, you tell me, do you think the idea of "Defund the Police" didn't hurt a single down-ballot candidate? Really?

I don't know, because I haven't done exhaustive studies in geographically and demographically varied House districts to identify, isolate, and quantify the effects of a single slogan on electoral performance. I wouldn't claim it helped anyone either until I had such data in hand.

[Senkaku]

Also: "defund the police" is a particularly hard slogan to assess in terms of Democratic messaging (especially in the swing districts people are so worked up about its effect on), because in a lot of cases Democratic politicians and Democratic organizations weren't using it. Sure, more left-wing folks in major cities were using it, and the Republican opponents of swing-district Democrats might've used this to pillory them, but then you're talking about isolating the effects of a Republican message on Republican base turnout and Republican vote share from this one slogan... which is also a big challenge, and which would lead you to a more complicated conclusion than simply "Dem message bad" if you found that it did have a significant effect.

[Kowani]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

Did I time travel? What the fuck is creationism doing in the news again lol

[Senkaku]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

I'm pretty sure I'm living in Hell or Purgatory and this is all just part of it, so I suppose this is probably just God or the angels mocking me for my lack of faith in their creation in a veeeeery roundabout way...

[Kowani]

Maryland legislature votes to override Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of a bill to end life without parole for children

[North Washington Republic]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

Oh great, we have the creationism being taught in public school people again. And when these people mean creationism, they mean fundamentalist Protestant young earth creationism being taught in public school. Why do you Evangelical Protestants insist that their theology being taught to children who are not their own, in public schools?

[San Lumen]

Maryland legislature votes to override Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of a bill to end life without parole for children

Why the heck would he veto that bill?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Maryland legislature votes to override Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of a bill to end life without parole for children

Why the heck would he veto that bill?

You expect me to believe that there aren't a small minority of juveniles who commit crimes worthy of such a punishment.

[San Lumen]

https://blog.humanesociety.org/2021/04/ ... tests.html

Maryland legislature passes law banning wildlife killing contests. Disclaimer: link contains a disturbing image.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

Did I time travel? What the fuck is creationism doing in the news again lol

Welcome to the modern GOP, we use creationism to club the libs.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Why the heck would he veto that bill?

You expect me to believe that there aren't a small minority of juveniles who commit crimes worthy of such a punishment.

You expect me to believe that there aren't a small minority of juveniles who commit crimes worthy of such a punishment.

fify

Nationwide, seventy-seven percent of [life without parole] prisoners are members of minorities. "In [seventeen] states, more than 60% of the [juvenile] LWOP population is [Black]."

Which also answers the question about why the Republican governor of Maryland would veto a bill ending LWOP for juveniles.

[The Reformed American Republic]

You expect me to believe that there aren't a small minority of juveniles who commit crimes worthy of such a punishment.

You expect me to believe that there aren't a small minority of juveniles who commit crimes worthy of such a punishment.

fify

Nationwide, seventy-seven percent of [life without parole] prisoners are members of minorities. "In [seventeen] states, more than 60% of the [juvenile] LWOP population is [Black]."

Truly what I was talking about. I'm saying people like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_(murderer) do exist and should go away for life.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Did I time travel? What the fuck is creationism doing in the news again lol

Welcome to the modern GOP, we use creationism to club the libs.

True, but in the former Confederacy it's not just Republicans who want to teach their kids the world was made in six 24-hour days.

[Postauthoritarian America]

fify

Truly what I was talking about. I'm saying people like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_(murderer) do exist and should go away for life.

A. Eric Smith was not sentenced to life without parole.

2.

Eric Smith had been diagnosed by a defense psychiatrist with intermittent explosive disorder, a mental disorder causing individuals to be violent and unpredictable, but the prosecution's expert said it was a rare disorder that was rarely seen at Smith's age. Smith was subjected to extensive medical testing from specialists on both sides. They examined brain function, hormone levels and found nothing to explain his violent behavior. According to court documents, Smith was a loner who was often tormented by bullies for his protruding low-set ears, thick glasses, red hair and freckles. It later emerged that during her pregnancy, Smith's mother took an epilepsy drug, Tridione, which is known to cause birth defects.

[Neutraligon]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

...really creationism. One of the least scientific things in existence and you want that taught in schools. It does not matter if there are scientists who believe in creationism, since science does not give a damn who says something, what matters is if they can use the scientific method to back it up. Creationists can't.

[Major-Tom]

Believe it or not, you can't empirically isolate many, if any, issues and how they harmed they harm candidates downballot.

Well, it's not like I forced you to pick up the sword for someone else's shitty argument! If you can't defend Lumen on his own terms, why even bother? It seems like you have your own original take on the matter. But I'll remind you: he asserted that two very specific slogans would "sell better" than "defund the police", and then tacked on a third in a later post. You then said that the 2020 House elections were proof of this. If there's data to support that claim, then put up or shut up.

What we're often trained to do in the political world, then, is to look at how sample groups responded to issues and policy proposals during campaigns and try to weigh whether or not that had a tangible impact. That is called political science.

Thank you for the lecture, I've so often thought to myself over the last three years that not enough men have condescended to me about the nature of political academic investigation!

For instance, could I find empirical data that says "we lost 6% of the vote in district x because of healthcare policy?" No. It doesn't exist. The same is true for this, that is why we look at the evidence presented and see if we can draw a logical conclusion.

Yes, you could, if someone had bothered to collect the requisite data to perform that analysis and prove their point. See, your failure to understand the scope of the possible when it comes to political analysis doesn't actually mean that analyses beyond your understanding have not been successfully conducted.

What we do know, seen here, is that while police reform is broadly popular, the messaging isn't among non-Democratic voters. Registered Dems comprise about 35% of the voting age populace, and in districts that Biden narrowly won, where the Dem candidates lost their seats, or in seats held by Blue Dog Dems, it isn't a leap to assume that the framing of police reform might have harmed these candidates. Did it hurt every Dem house candidate nationwide? No. Did it hurt some vulnerable incumbents? Yeah...

You are asserting it was the decisive factor in elections where many other extremely divisive issues were also on the table. If you're making that assertion, you have to show that the effects of other controversies are not as relevant to Democratic performance as messaging around this particular slogan, and that "defund the police" played a primary causal role in Democratic defeats or reduced vote share/turnout. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe that the effects you describe aren't attributable to any of the myriad other political issues that are being contested across the nation.

I don't know why this is such an anathema for you. If you and I broadly agree that we need tangible police reform, judicial reform, and criminal justice reform (which I assume we both do), then why is it so bad for me to suggest that we improve our messaging if we both want the same end result?

Because you are assuming, without evidence, that non-Democratic voters' choices are attributable solely to a failure in Democratic messaging to hew close enough to the political center, rather than to positive messaging for the other side's position, to the voter's own existing views, to what they had for lunch today, or the relative position of the constellation Vega or the weather conditions in Lhasa. It is not clear that if Democrats simply had "better (more centrist/palatable) messaging," with no other variables changed, that a significant number of voters would have been persuaded to vote differently than they in fact did. You are asserting that it is without evidence.

Such a narrow focus on sticking to one script that isn't broadly popular seems ludicrous to me.

Firstly: you're lecturing me on "sticking to a script"... while arguing that the Democrats need to simply stick to a different script. If you have a positive argument to articulate for a more centrist position on police reform, go ahead and make it, but otherwise this line of attack is a dead end for you.

Secondly: if present-day "broad popularity" were the metric by which we decided whether or not civil rights issues were worth fighting for, the South would still be groaning under Jim Crow, and Martin Luther King would've been buried in an unmarked grave.

So, you tell me, do you think the idea of "Defund the Police" didn't hurt a single down-ballot candidate? Really?

I don't know, because I haven't done exhaustive studies in geographically and demographically varied House districts to identify, isolate, and quantify the effects of a single slogan on electoral performance. I wouldn't claim it helped anyone either until I had such data in hand.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to come off as condescending. Political messaging was the better part of my full-time job last year, and I get perhaps too passionate/passive-aggressive over it. So, I'll tone it down because I respect you as a poster and don't want to come across as a jerk like I often make the mistake of doing. My apologies.

Second, I'm not really trying to die on Lumen's hill, that's another argument entirely and I don't really want to touch it. Strictly speaking, I'm not arguing to change our policy beliefs or our agenda, so it's not some "enlightened centrist" take or any garbage like that. Really, I just worry about the way in which we wrap progressive policies, the way we frame them, etc etc. So to stretch that in a way where somehow I'm arguing that this is a civil rights issue I don't want to fight for feels completely disingenuous.

I mean, really, my base assumption is the same, that defund the police is far from the sole thing that hurt Dems in competitive districts. I don't think its unfair to assume that the way it was (unfairly) framed by the right was one of many, many, many likely contributing factors. If it is demonstrable that the slogan is unpopular amongst non-Dem party ID voters, then I don't think it is a leap at all to suggest that it was a contributing factor in turning off a small sliver of voters. Small, yes, but impactful enough to be a factor in some of the very swingy, tight races we ultimately saw in 2020.

Take this article, for instance, that cites a Morning Consult Poll explaining that laying out the policy position of what "defund the police" sets out to do, is 31 points, 31 full points, more popular than asking a voter "how do you feel about defunding the police?" The end result is the same, the end result is we're cutting funds, redirecting funds in the police department to support community training and programs over anything else, etc etc, just with different semantics.

I wouldn't have much of a stake or say in this argument if my team and I didn't directly see the very voters we needed to reach being turned off by the slogan. Yeah, the Republicans would've probably found a way to bury us on this even if we had "switched slogans," but probably not to the same extent, when every misinformed voter I spoke to for months on end thought "defund the police" meant "abolish the police." It beats me why people make that logical leap, but I have an interest in making sure people don't make that logical leap.

At the end of the day, I feel that if we both have the same policy goals in mind, that is, the direct advancement of Civil Rights for Black Americans, then I don't know/see the need for a roundabout discussion.

[Luminesa]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

Well it looks like the bill against Planned Parenthood in the area basically shuts a door that was already half-shut, so I don’t have a problem with that. But...creationism?...No modern scientist has taught that creationism is a thing. This is ridiculous.

[The Black Forrest]

Arkansas House passes creationism and abortion bills

Arkansas public schools could be impacted by two new bills that were passed in the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Mary Bentley sponsored HB 1704 which would allow for teachers to use the creation theory in science along with the evolution theory.

“I’ve had teachers in my district ask me if we could please make it available for them to be able to discuss some scientists that truly believe that the theory of creation should be taught in school,” Bentley said, adding that it could be taught along with the theory of evolution, not in place of it.

Bentley said this bill would allow teachers the option to use creation theory but it does not force them. State Rep. Deborah Ferguson questioned the bill's legality. It was decided by the Supreme Court in ‘87 that you could not teach creationism as a science. You could teach it in philosophy or religion class. So your bill specifically says it is to be taught as science, so why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson questioned. Bentley responded by saying that the Supreme Court has changed its mind hundreds of times.

Ferguson also asked if this would allow for all religions to teach their creation theory in science as well.

“I think it’s open for debate, they have been debating this for thousands of years and I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom,” Bentley said.[...]
But it wasn’t the only bill passed in the House on Wednesday.

“If your main outlet is that you are providing abortions, you are not going to be checking those agendas or those beliefs at the door when you come in,” Rep. Mark Lowery said.

Rep. Lowery sponsored HB 1592. It says that no public school or open-enrollment public charter school shall knowingly enter into any type of transaction with a person or group who performs, induces, or provides abortion. Lowery specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood.

KATV reached out to the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Both say there is no formal partnership with Planned Parenthood. PCSSD said that teachers schedule speakers for classes all the time but may not go through the school district.

Both bills have passed in the House and will go to the Senate.

Well it looks like the bill against Planned Parenthood in the area basically shuts a door that was already half-shut, so I don’t have a problem with that. But...creationism?...No modern scientist has taught that creationism is a thing. This is ridiculous.

Creationism hasn’t even made it to a hypothesis.

Not worried about it. Science labs, etc. tend to pass on people who believe in creationism.....