This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the March 24 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
At Eclectablog, LOLGOP writes—The GOP can lose the popular vote by 3 times the margin Trump did and keep the House:
A new report from the Brennan Center finds Democrats will need a massive landslide in November to retake the House:
Because of maps designed to favor Republicans, Democrats would need to win by a nearly unprecedented nationwide margin in 2018 to gain control of the House of Representatives. To attain a bare majority, Democrats would likely have to win the national popular vote by nearly 11 points. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have won by such an overwhelming margin in decades. Even a strong blue wave would crash against a wall of gerrymandered maps.
Michigan’s electoral map, which has been extraordinarily well gerrymandered for GOP pleasure, gets a special mention:
In Michigan, even if Democrats win five seats with 38.38 percent of the statewide vote, they are not projected to compete for a sixth seat until their statewide vote share reaches 54.89 percent, an increase of 16.51 percentage points.
Even the pushback against this report presents a timely warning for Democrats. [...]
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a 2.1 percent while losing the Electoral College. That means Democrats would need to improve upon her margin by at least 3 times and as much as 5 times. This, of course, is all an inexact science as many districts won’t be contended at all and it’s almost impossible to properly poll 438 districts. But you get the idea: House Republicans could get millions fewer votes than their opponents and still end up with the majority and possibly even a larger Senate majority. Then, watch out.
At Montana Cowgirl, Montana Hat writes—SURPRISE: Ryan Zinke Caught Lying About Public Lands–Again:
[...] The Peanuts comic strip is kind of like Ryan Zinke and his statements about public lands. You see ole Ryan assures everyone he’s going to be for public lands. He says, “I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.” He puts on his waders, or his camo, or his cowboy hat and assures us he is going to keep public lands public. But at the last minute he always pulls the football away and reveals himself to be nothing but a regular old Lucy.
This week’s episode finds Ryan Zinke being called out by Politifact for this whopper:
“The president is a builder and the son of a plumber, as I am,” Zinke told the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. “I look forward to working with the president on restoring America’s greatness through a historic investment of our public lands infrastructure. This is the largest investment in our public lands infrastructure in our nation’s history. Let me repeat that, this is the largest investment in our public lands infrastructure in the history of this country.”
[...]
Politifact has a pretty comprehensive take down of his lie but the kicker comes at the end:
Zinke said that a Trump administration proposal for the Interior Department “is the largest investment in our public lands infrastructure in our nation’s history.”
It’s far from assured that the maximum figure of $18 billion in the proposal will ever be reached if enacted. Beyond that, though, Roosevelt’s $3 billion investment in the Civilian Conservation Corps would amount to $53 billion today, and it accounted for vastly more than the Trump proposal as a percentage of federal spending at the time.
We rate the statement False.
At Democurmudgeon of Wisconsin, John Peterson writes—The Scary Desperate Scott Walker Twitter Tantrum; What is it with Liberals and Blacks?
The juvenile Trump-like tweet storm spewing out from the fingertips of Gov. Scott Walker is the first truly honest look at who this career politician is behind those sleepy sociopathic eyes.
Walker's casual off-handed rejection of holding special elections for two vacant legislative seats because it was a "waste of taxpayer resources" flipped representative government on its head, and the
judicial branch reacted quickly:
After a three-month delay, a lightning-quick lawsuit and three orders from as many judges, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called two special elections Thursday and GOP senators dropped legislation to block the contests.
The Divider and Conqueror Tantrum blames Liberals and Blacks: The lingering question; why did it take former AG Eric Holder to go to challenge Walker in court?
Having not learned anything about his legal obligations, a Walker tweetstorm started off by questioning all three of the court's independently reached decisions, using every dog whistle in his holster; "Obama" "Eric Holder," the fact they're both black, and "D.C. based special interests (that Republicans oddly don't have?):
At Better Georgia, Schafer Sirmir writes—Why are conservatives afraid of more voters?
Yesterday, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a bill that would carve out a new city, called Eagle’s Landing, from the existing city of Stockbridge, along racial lines.
The bill was amended slightly from the Senate’s version, so now it’s headed back to the Senate for another vote.
So far, it seems the vote has been split on party lines — it’s clear that Republicans in the state legislature are determined to carve out a new, very white city from a city where people of color make up nearly three-quarters of the population.
In the new city, the percent of white voting-age people would jump from 32 to 43 percent.Meanwhile, the number of black voting-age people would drop from 53 percent to 44 percent.
The people that would be affected by the change are speaking out about their outrage. Stockbridge officials and residents gathered outside the Capitol building and protested the bill during the vote yesterday. [...]
Conservative politicians in Georgia have also tried to suppress voting by pushing a bill that would cut voting in Atlanta at 7 p.m., even though Atlanta polls usually close at 8 p.m.
This bill targets Fulton County, where the majority of residents are black. Already, this county has been repeatedly targeted for anti-voting rights measures and plagued by preventable voting issues.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—John Norris for governor:
I’ve been undecided on the governor’s race for the better part of a year. The six remaining Democrats–Nate Boulton, Cathy Glasson, Fred Hubbell, Andy McGuire, John Norris, and Ross Wilburn–agree on many core issues. All would invest more in education and other public services, reverse Medicaid privatization, restore collective bargaining rights, and stand up for reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality. All bring important life experiences to the table, as you can see from stump speeches Bleeding Heartland posted here, here, and here. Not only would I happily vote for any of them in November, I would knock doors for any of them this fall.[...]
We can’t start turning things around in Iowa without winning the governor’s race. Democrats have a chance to win back majorities in the state House or Senate, which would stop Republicans from enacting more destructive laws in 2019 and 2020. But we need more than that.
We need state agency leaders who are committed to improving services for vulnerable Iowans, instead of spectators who watch as their departments can’t function and private insurance companies hurt Medicaid recipients and care providers.
That will require nominating a Democrat who can beat Governor Kim Reynolds. Norris is best positioned to do so, because:
He has the most relevant experience for this job. [...]
He can unite Democrats. [...]
He is best-placed to improve on Democratic performance outside major metro areas. [...]
At Bayou Brief of Louisiana, Sue Lincoln writes—Resistance and Futility: Don’t Mess with My Guns or My God:
Next up was SB 406 by Sen. Neil Riser. It would let school principals recruit volunteer security for their schools – retired teachers or former military or law enforcement personnel who have concealed carry permits.
“Deadly force requires deadly force,” Riser said. “Now, with schools being ‘gun-free zones’, there’s nothing stopping these individuals. We have to be able to protect our kids from these domestic terrorists!”
Sen. Fred Mills (R-Parks) asked about the numerous statements and advisories from law enforcement, cautioning that responding to an active shooter requires consistent and frequent training.
“Do you think someone should have to have active shooter training before they fire to defend themselves? You have a right to protect your life with deadly force,” [bill sponsor Neil] Riser replied. “Someone who has been in the military or law enforcement should meet the criteria. A veteran has been trained in active combat.”[...]
Sen. Troy Carter (D-New Orleans) moved to defer the bill, over its author’s objections.
“Thank you for trying to do what you think in your heart is right. Respectfully, I disagree,” Carter told Riser. “Numerous studies show past experience is not enough, and that proficiency declines without regular training. What does that translate to? Friendly fire kills innocent bystanders. This isn’t the answer.” [...]
The bill was killed, on a vote of 4-3.
At Juanita Jean’s of Texas, Juanita Jean Herownself writes—Now Hold On Just a Minute:
Okay, it all started with Laura Ingraham saying something mean, which is what she does for a living. Maybe you’ve never seen her but she’s a regular on Fox News and Slime Tweeting.
She SlimeTweeted one of the leaders of the Parkland students by saying, “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it.”
The students called for a boycott of her show. Advertisers heard it and it’s working …
Online travel website TripAdvisor and Rachael Ray’s pet food brand Nutrish have since said they would stop advertising on Ingraham’s show.
So Ingraham tweeted an apology to Hogg.
Holy week? How ’bout you apologize in the spirit of human dignity?
Okay, I say we let it go this time. Think about this: if she loses her job on Fox, she’ll be the next Secretary of State or some damn thing.
At Capital & Main of California, Judith Lewis Mernit writes—Diablo in the Details: Who Will Shoulder the Costs of a Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown?
The agreement was lauded as historic. Environmental groups, labor and the state’s largest electrical utility had come together in the summer of 2016 and crafted a joint proposal to shutter California’s last nuclear power plant. For the enviros, who had opposed the plant since the San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas & Electric first proposed it more than a half century ago, there would be the promise of clean energy to replace the plant’s annual 18,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity, supplying three million homes — 20 percent of PG&E’s service area — with energy free of greenhouse gases. For labor, represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, there would be ample funds to retain skilled workers, and retrain the ones losing their jobs.
There was even $85 million in “community impact mitigation” funds for the local community to offset lost property taxes and other costs to the local economy.
With this agreement the utility would finally secure the California Public Utilities Commission’s approval to unplug and dismantle Diablo Canyon’s two units when their federal licenses expire in 2024 and 2025.
The approval to unplug, at least, was granted. An administrative law judge with the utilities commission responded to the joint proposal with a proposed decision, authorizing the utility to take the Diablo Canyon facility off the grid six years from now. But the revised proposal denied PG&E the $1.76 billion it had requested for the suite of benefits in the joint proposal. Instead, it authorized the utility to recover from its customers exactly $241.2 million for costs associated with the plant’s retirement. It shifted the responsibility for community impacts to the legislature, and punted the issue of replacement power to the utility. And it cut what was a proposed $363.4 million to retain and retrain workers by more than a third.
On January 11, the commissioners adopted a final decision that made only modest changes to the proposed decision as written by the administrative law judge.
Peter Miller, western energy project director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says his organization was disappointed with the cuts. “We’d struck a great deal with the labor union on Diablo Canyon,” he says. Retiring a nuclear plant is, in terms of economic consequences, the same as powering down a coal plant. Avila Beach, where the plant sits, is a company town, organized around a “big, old power plant that doesn’t fit the modern grid,” Miller says. “Instead of just turning the key and abandoning the plant, the town and the workers, we wanted to find a more collaborative way to retire the plant and jumpstart the replacement process.” [...]
At Blue Jersey, deciminyan writes—Enlightenment vs The Dark Ages – Save the Date:
It seems odd that in this day and age, with all of the advocacy that we are involved in, that we need a march to promote science and fact-based reasoning. But with the current government denying climate change, gutting environmental regulations, and eviscerating consumer product protection, there are good reasons to promote science.
This afternoon, I participated in a conference call with the organizers of the second New Jersey March for Science – one of many satellite marches around the nation to promote fact-based decision making.
The marches will take place on April 14th. New Jersey’s march will start on the steps of the Trenton War Memorial with remarks from various speakers, and then the group will do a short march up to the State House Annex for panel discussions and activities for people of all ages.
Among the march organizers are Assemblyman Andrew Zwicker, the Sierra Club’s Jeff Tittel, Action Together New Jersey’s Environment Director Christine Clarke, Rutgers Physics Professor Matthew Buckley, and the organizer of last year’s Princeton march, Nicole Pezold-Hancock.
At Delaware Liberal, Alby writes—This Is Your Brain on Guns:
Second Amendment enthusiasts — as distinct from gun owners in general — are called “gun nuts” for a reason, and it’s not because they like shooting squirrels out of hickory trees.
Somewhere in this favored land some devoted NRA types are surveying the post-Parkland landscape with the calm reflection and somber dignity … oh, hell, let’s face it, they’re never that way. They see themselves as besieged, so every disagreement is another chance to engage in battle. They can’t back away, even if their foes are scores of traumatized teens who just survived an actual combat scene, because that would make them cowards.
Godwin’s Law must be unknown on the right, because an ungodly number of them went directly to comparing 17-year-olds to Hitler. Because, duh, the 17-year-olds are now running the country. Retweeting this meme already has cost a GOP aide his job. You know they’re full of shit on this one, because they don’t actually disagree with Hitler; a lot of them are all for getting rid of the Jews.
Not even veterans, because of whom we should never take a knee during the anthem, are safe if they dare speak out about battlefield weapons in civilian hands. There’s always someone whose towering patriotism leads him to call those fellow veterans “malcontents” who “treat the Constitution like a roll of Charmin Extra Soft.” Their sin? Marching with the survivors last Saturday.
Indeed, nobody is so low on society’s totem pole he can’t wrap himself in the mantle of the Second Amendment — not even the homeless ex-con who was caught defacing the memorial at Parkland High School. “I took that banner down because I am pro-gun,” Michael Kennedy, 37, allegedly told the cops.
At Green Mountain Daily of Vermont, BP writes—Income-based traffic fines could be just the ticket:
I heard about income-based traffic fines in Europe a couple years ago, and now I see the New York Times has an op-ed piece in support of it here in the U.S. The concept of basing fines for traffic violations on income is that flat-rate fines , associated costs, and collection fees weigh more heavily on lower-income drivers than on higher-income speeders. A flat-rate fine also fails its role as a behavioral deterrent to speeding if it is only a slap on the wrist to wealthy violators.
In Finland, several other European countries, and Argentina, penalties on offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities law violations are imposed on a sliding scale based on a person’s last declared income and the nature of the crime. In these nations it is believed the wealthy and the poor should suffer equally for infractions. In other words, as the title of nytimes.com opinion piece by Alec Schierenbeck suggests: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn’t Pay the Same Fine for Speeding.
And the author makes a good case for change: For people living on the economic margins, even minor offenses can impose crushing financial obligations, trapping them in a cycle of debt and incarceration for nonpayment. In Ferguson, Mo., for example, a single $151 parking violation sent a black woman struggling with homelessness into a seven-year odyssey of court appearances, arrest warrants and jail time connected to her inability to pay. [...]
In 2016 Vermont changed laws to help low-income drivers whose driver’s licenses had been suspended for non-criminal offenses regain the right to drive. Now the legislature is exploring changes to the new, rigid, computer-driven vehicle-inspection regulations. The change sought would allow some repairs to be listed as “recommended,” rather than “required,” where the faulty part is not safety-related. There is growing awareness that the stricter rules can be an unfair burden, particularly on low-income drivers who rely on high-mileage used vehicles. [...]
Hmmm, imagine that Jaguar driver on the side of the road in front of blue flashing lights having to pay 10 times what the 10-year-old Chevy driver pays. In the privacy of your vehicle, you’re allowed to smile.