Tag Archives: popular

Ted Cruz Is Almost as Popular as Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In case you haven’t been playing close attention, the Republican primary race has become quite the nail biter. Ted Cruz still has a lot of ground to make up, but as you can see in the Pollster chart below, over the last month he’s nearly caught up to Donald Trump in overall popularity. The Pollster chart also makes it clear why so many people are annoyed with John Kasich: he has no chance of winning, but he’s probably helping Trump stay alive. If he pulled out of the race, it’s likely that most of his followers would switch to Cruz, giving him a considerable poll lead over Trump, which in turn would help him win more primaries. Instead, Trump is hanging on for grim life.

FWIW, the same dynamic—sans Trump and sans a Kasich-esque spoiler—is visible on the Democratic side, where Bernie Sanders is now within a couple of points of Hillary Clinton in national polling. This is quite a primary cycle we’re having this year.

Original article – 

Ted Cruz Is Almost as Popular as Donald Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Is Almost as Popular as Donald Trump

Donald Trump Is Becoming Less Popular

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Looking for something to cheer yourself up? I don’t have much for you, but I have something: Donald Trump seems to be getting slightly less popular lately. He’s still winning plenty of Republican primaries, but ever since the first week of January his net unfavorables have been drifting upward slowly but fairly steadily.

This won’t help Republicans much, since all their other candidates appear to be getting unpopular even faster than Trump. And although Hillary Clinton is doing a little better than Trump, she’s not going great guns in the favorability race either. In fact, as near as I can tell, everyone is becoming less popular except for Bernie Sanders, who appears to be the only person left in America with a positive favorable rating.

If there’s a difference here, I’d say that Hillary has been getting pilloried ever since Benghazi, while Trump has only barely been attacked at all. Once Democrats really start hammering him, he probably has further to fall. That’s the glass-half-full analysis, anyway. Take it for what it’s worth.

Continue reading: 

Donald Trump Is Becoming Less Popular

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is Becoming Less Popular

What If Getting a Gun Were as Hard as Getting an Abortion?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After multiple shootings across the country in the past week, including a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people, a Missouri state lawmaker decided to take a provocative approach toward gun control. State Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat, prefiled a bill this week for the next legislative session that, if passed, would subject potential gun buyers to the same rigmarole of restrictions—a 72-hour waiting period, an explanatory video, a doctor meeting, a facility tour, reviews of photographs, and more—that are already imposed on or have been proposed for Missouri women seeking abortions.

From the bill, HB 1397:

Prior to any firearm purchase in this state, a prospective firearm purchaser shall, at least seventy-two hours prior to the initial request to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer located at least one hundred twenty miles from such purchaser’s legal residence, confer and discuss with a licensed physician the indicators and contraindicators and risk factors, including any physical, psychological, or situational factors, that may arise with the proposed firearm purchase. Such physician shall then evaluate the prospective firearm purchaser for such indicators and contraindicators and risk factors and determine if such firearm purchase would increase such purchaser’s risk of experiencing an adverse physical, emotional, or other health reaction.

The bill also requires gun purchasers to watch a 30-minute video about firearm injuries, to tour an emergency trauma center at an urban hospital on a weekend night, when rates of gun-shot victims are high, and to meet with two families who have experienced gun violence and two local faith leaders who have officiated a funeral recently for a child killed by gun violence.

This symbolic bill is reminiscent of the trend that cropped up several years ago, when legislators across the country filed tongue-in-cheek measures proposing restrictions on vasectomies corresponding to state abortion restrictions. None of those measures passed, and Newman’s bill is also virtually guaranteed to fail in Missouri’s Republican-controlled legislature. Newman’s intent is to highlight the high hurdles to getting an abortion in Missouri relative to the lack of accountability required for buying a gun.

“If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life’, then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities rising rates of gun violence,'” Newman told St. Louis magazine. “Popular proposals among voters, including universal background checks and restricting weapons from abuser and convicted felons, are consistently ignored each session. Since restrictive policies regarding a constitutionally protected medical procedure are the GOP’s legislative priority each year, it makes sense that their same restrictions apply to those who may commit gun violence.”

Original link:  

What If Getting a Gun Were as Hard as Getting an Abortion?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What If Getting a Gun Were as Hard as Getting an Abortion?

Social Security Cuts Are Fairly Popular If You Talk About Them Right

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Paul Krugman writes today that Republicans are engaged in an act of “political self-destructiveness.” They consistently support entitlement cuts, including cuts to Social Security, despite the fact that only 6 percent of Americans want to cut Social Security while 51 percent want it increased. Why are they doing this? Krugman suggests that it’s because they’re trying to curry favor with wealthy donors, who generally favor cuts.

I want to push back on this a bit. Krugman’s comment is based on a post by Lee Drutman, which in turn is based on data from the 2012 National Election Studies survey. But there have been lots of other polls about Social Security too. Here are three taken at random from PollingReport.com:

Opinions about Social Security are very sensitive to question wording. If you flatly ask “Do you think we should cut Social Security benefits?” almost everyone will oppose it. But if you preface it with a question about the solvency of the system, more people are in favor of cuts. And if you ask about, say, raising the retirement age, you get even more people in favor—because most of them don’t automatically associate that with “cuts.”

This is the context for understanding the Republican position. First, they talk loudly and endlessly about how the system will collapse unless changes are made. Second, they make sure never to propose changes for retirees already receiving benefits. Third, they don’t talk overtly about cuts. They talk about raising the retirement age. They talk about slowing the growth of benefits. They talk about means testing. They talk about private accounts.

None of this is to say that cuts to Social Security—even when couched in veiled terms—are popular. They aren’t. But support is a lot higher than 6 percent. Usually it’s somewhere between 30-50 percent, and it’s often a substantial majority among Republican voters.

So that’s how Republicans get away with this: they appeal to fellow Republicans and they’re careful about how they frame their proposals. In other words, politics and salesmanship. But I repeat myself.

POSTSCRIPT: Why did I bother writing this post? Because it’s important not to kid ourselves about what the public really thinks. Opinions aren’t shaped in a vacuum. They’re formed in the context of time, place, tribal affiliations, external events, and framing. Simple, isolated questions don’t capture any of that.

We do ourselves no favors if we blithely assume that Republicans are committing obvious suicide without understanding exactly how they maintain support for a position that seems pretty unpopular at first glance. The answer is that they do it very skillfully, and if we want to fight back we have to understand that.

Link: 

Social Security Cuts Are Fairly Popular If You Talk About Them Right

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Social Security Cuts Are Fairly Popular If You Talk About Them Right

You Won’t Believe How Much Money Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC Just Raised

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Right to Rise, the super-PAC backing former Florida governor Jeb Bush, reported raising $103 million in the first six months of this year. It’s a record haul for a super-PAC and more than almost every presidential candidate has ever raised for their primary campaigns. The group has already spent about $5 million, but claims to have more than $98 million in the bank, which it is waiting to unleash to boost Bush’s candidacy and demolish his rivals.

The super-PAC’s massive fundraising total doesn’t necessarily represent a huge swell of popular support. According to a statement released by Right to Rise, the organization raised money from just 9,900 donors. The super-PAC reports that at least 9,400 of them gave less than $25,000. That may sound like those donors are relatively small time—and they may be compared to the group’s largest donors—but considering the most an individual can give to Bush’s actual presidential campaign is $5,400, the super-PAC’s “small donors” are still big donors in the world of political fundraising.

Continue Reading »

Read More:  

You Won’t Believe How Much Money Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC Just Raised

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Won’t Believe How Much Money Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC Just Raised

Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, the Jeb Bush campaign unveiled its official logo—Jeb!—which is only a slight variation on the logo Bush has used throughout his previous campaigns. As closely associated with the former Florida governor as it is, the trademarked logo belongs to neither the campaign nor the politician. It turns out that it’s owned by a corporate entity called BHAG.

Almost six months before the official logo unveiling, someone formed a Delaware shell corporation called BHAG LLC and used it to apply for a trademark on “Jeb!” A few days after this anonymous shell corporation was created, it was registered again in Florida, with the manager listed as the office manager of Jeb Bush & Associates, Bush’s business consulting firm. Bush’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on who established the shell corporation and why.

Continue Reading »

More here:

Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This isn’t exactly Oprah levels of adulation or anything, but President Obama’s Gallup approval ratings have been rising steadily ever since Republicans won the midterm elections last year. He’s been bouncing around positive territory ever since the start of 2015, and today he clocks in at 48-47 percent approval.

Is this because the economy is picking up and people are just generally happier? Is it because his executive actions have made a favorable impression on the public? Is it because Republican incompetence makes him look good by comparison? Hard to say, but it certainly suggests that Democrats are pretty happy with him. As Ed Kilgore says:

Among Democrats, who are supposedly on the brink of a “struggle for the soul of the party,” and ideologically riven between Elizabeth Warren “populists” and Obama/Clinton “centrists,” Obama’s approval rating stands at 81%. And looking deeper, he’s at 86% among self-identified “liberal Democrats,” 78% among “moderate Democrats,” and yes, 67% among “conservative Democrats,” such as they are….This is another example of isolated data being somewhat limited in value, but worth a couple of dozen Politico columns.

Yep. And I’ll bet that once things get going, Hillary Clinton will poll about the same way.

View original:  

Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

The USDA might tell Americans to eat less beef for the sake of the environment

The USDA might tell Americans to eat less beef for the sake of the environment

By on 6 Jan 2015commentsShare

The Department of Agriculture is responsible for issuing guidelines on what America eats: It tells us what foods make up a healthy diet, and, during the last dozen years, what foods are organic.

Now, the USDA is also considering offering recommendations on how Americans can eat to minimize their effect on the environment. That would mean more fruits and vegetables and less meat — especially meat from cows.

From the Associated Press:

[A USDA] advisory panel has been discussing the idea of sustainability in public meetings, indicating that its recommendations, expected early this year, may address the environment. A draft recommendation circulated last month said a sustainable diet helps ensure food access for both the current population and future generations.

A dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet,” the draft said.

That appears to take at least partial aim at the beef industry. A study by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year said raising beef for the American dinner table is more harmful to the environment than other meat industries such as pork and chicken.

The study said that compared with other popular animal proteins, beef produces more heat-trapping gases per calorie, puts out more water-polluting nitrogen, takes more water for irrigation and uses more land.

The committee is finding that it’s old aim, health, and its possible new aim, sustainability, go hand-in-hand: Food that’s better for you is also easier on the environment.

Of course, the meat lobby has a bone to pick (ahem) with the USDA over this, and its allies in Congress aren’t happy either. Last month’s CRomnibus bill to fund the government warned the USDA to only focus on nutrition and to not worry about “extraneous factors.”

The beef industry has long held sway over the guidelines the USDA puts out, with unfortunate results for the environment — University of Michigan researchers found last year that if all Americans followed the USDA dietary guidelines, we’d see a 12 percent increase in dietary-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Source:
New diet guidelines might reflect environment cost

, The Associated Press.

Government Dietary Guidelines May Back Off Meat To Be More Environmentally Friendly

, ThinkProgress.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Visit source: 

The USDA might tell Americans to eat less beef for the sake of the environment

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The USDA might tell Americans to eat less beef for the sake of the environment

Climate deniers don’t deserve to be called “skeptics,” scientists say

Climate deniers don’t deserve to be called “skeptics,” scientists say

By on 11 Dec 2014commentsShare

There’s a difference between those who are “skeptical” about climate change and those who outright deny that it is happening, and a group of scientists and science communicators is calling on the media to acknowledge it.

“Please stop using the word ‘skeptic’ to describe deniers,” 48 fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a science advocacy group, ask in a statement. Among the prominent people to sign the letter are Bill Nye, Cosmos co-writer and producer Ann Druyan, and Nobel prize-winning chemist Sir Harold Kroto.

The signees cast the media’s treatment of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) as exhibit A to illustrate the difference between a “skeptic” and a “denier.” Inhofe, who smugly believes climate change is a “hoax” that he and wise others have seen through, is a “denier.” NPR recently identified him as such, yet, around the same time, The New York Times identified him as a “skeptic.” Confusing.

From the letter:

As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.

Unfortunately, the distinction between skeptic and denier is one the media will need to be making more and more frequently, as greater numbers of both are moving into positions of power in Congress.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

×

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Source: 

Climate deniers don’t deserve to be called “skeptics,” scientists say

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate deniers don’t deserve to be called “skeptics,” scientists say

Who Makes Those Top 40 Piano Covers You Hear on American Airlines? We Found Out

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

If you’ve been on an American Airlines flight in the last few years, you may have noticed that the airline pipes in piano renditions of popular songs pre-takeoff and post-landing. “We typically offer slower piano music during the boarding process and more upbeat piano music upon arrival,” notes an airline spokesman. Interestingly, American is one of the few domestic airlines that play any music at all—much less these somewhat Muzak-y offerings.

Most of these covers were produced by a Minneapolis-based group called the Piano Tribute Players. According to their group’s website, they are “a diverse group of talented musicians devoted to transforming the music of rock and pop’s biggest acts of the past and present into unique piano arrangements.” To say that they are prolific would be an understatement: The Players have produced hundreds of tribute albums, spanning all eras and genres. It is, without doubt, the only group that has covered both Lil’ Wayne and the soundtrack to “Rent.”

It turns out that their covers, which run the gamut of Top 40 past and present, are the subject of contentious and often snarky debate among some of the airline’s regular passengers—there is a long thread devoted to the subject on FlyerTalk, a popular travel site. Here are a few of their thoughts, along with some tracks that have been in heavy rotation on American flights recently.

“The AA piano rips are dreadful. The worst one, from a mire of inadequacy, is OneRepublic’s ‘If I Lose Myself,’ truly horrific and I simply can’t believe the lead singer would have authorized his work to be massacred in this fashion.” —corporate-wage-slave

“I did not enjoy hearing “Blurred Lines,” by Robin Thicke. “What a crappy song to choose!” —FriendlySkies

“I really despise the music. Classical would be much nicer. The piano covers are actually very depressing.” —jmc1K

“Both times deplaning I heard “Lights” by Ellie Goulding. Could not figure out why, but it was a nice soothing touch after a long flight.” —dadaluma83

“I like the music…Guess I’m in the minority.” —jaimelannister

OneRepublic and Blink-182 did not respond to my requests for comment.

This article:  

Who Makes Those Top 40 Piano Covers You Hear on American Airlines? We Found Out

Posted in alo, Anchor, Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Makes Those Top 40 Piano Covers You Hear on American Airlines? We Found Out