Jonathan V. Last's Blog, page 46

Wait–White Voters Matter? WTF?!?

I know, I was as surprised as anyone. But here’s Sean Trende AND Ruy Teixeira making very similar cases as to the importance (dominance?) of white voters.

Every once in a while, when I’m talking with someone about the changing demographics of American elections, I ask them what percentage of the electorate they think is non-Hispanic white. The answers I get are nearly always in line with Gallup’s awesome findings about Americans’ perceptions of the gay population:

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or “homosexual,” the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates,approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,” Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

This Week’s Newsletter

Best subject header ever?

“We need more illegal immigration . . . from Krypton!”

In the course of my mini newsletter review, I elide all of the obvious policy-nerd questions:

If the Gang of Eight bill passes, does Kal-El get a blue card or a green card? Does his employment by the Daily Planet mean that everyone else at the paper loses their health insurance, per Obamacare and the no-ACA-for-amnestied-immigrants clause? Does granting Kal-El amnesty really open the door to more phantom zone immigrants, such as Zod and Faora-Ul? And by the way, what have we really done to secure the phantom zone? Another 20,000 unionized border-patrol agents aren’t going to cut it. Maybe it’s time we finally stand up a S.W.O.R.D.

You can always sign up for the newsletter here.

Death to Autoplay

No, I couldn’t figure out how to mod the code to make Russell Brand stop. But this bonus post should do the trick.

In Praise of Maria Sharapova

Despite myself, I find like Sharapova more and more with each passing year. Today’s WSJ piece by Tom Perrotta (the best tennis writer in America, hands down) about how Sharapova has evolved her game over the years is pretty interesting. And it’s a real credit to Sharapova that, despite all the endorsement money and early success, she stayed hungry enough to care about tennis this much the whole time.

Editing at the LA Times

Courtesy of Galley Friend B.F., we have this LA Times op-ed on Russia’s demographic crunch, by Patricia Herlihy.

She goes over Russia’s new super-conservative, family-values program, which has been instituted to help make more babies: Divorce and abortion are being actively discouraged. Same-sex marriage? Forget it. Even same-sex sex is being looked at unfavorably:

The state also is ramping up an anti-homosexuality campaign, with plans to commission artwork promoting “traditional moral and spiritual family values,” declared Sergei Ivanov, the Kremlin’s chief of staff. And last week, the Duma passed a bill banning “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” by a vote of 436 to 0.

So the country which gave us this is now to the right of Pat Robertson. Awesome.

Anyway, Herlihy goes on to make the perfectly sensible argument that if Russia is going really move the demographic needle, it needs to address its massive public health failures, especially concerning alcohol. She’s spot on. It’s a great piece. Right up until the last graph, which closes thusly:

And if, to put forth another long-shot idea, same-sex couples were allowed to wed, some of those Russian orphans that Americans are forbidden to adopt, who lie languishing in orphanages, might find loving, nurturing families.

I would bet the milk money that this kicker was foisted on Herlihy by an editor at the LAT. Because The Most Important Subject in the World will solve everything; even demographic failure.

About the Iron Sheik

A long biographical sketch of one of wrestling’s greatest heels.

High School Days

Remember high school? Aren’t you glad to be done with it?

About Immigration

I’m a well-documented squish on the subject of immigration, but we’re in a weird place today where people’s thoughts about the upsides and downsides of “immigration”–which is a very broad subject–have been completely conflated with a much narrower question about a single immigration bill, of which the primary question is whether or not to amnesty a discrete population of illegal immigrants who already reside in America. You could, theoretically, be all in favor of increased STEM visas opening the legal pathway for new immigrants over the next decade, but be against the current amnesty bill, and you are hence classified as “anti-immigration.” Which is telling.

But more telling is the manner in which many of the supporters are attempting to sell the bill. For starters, we have liberal writers ranging from Jonathan Chait to Al Hunt–not to mention Congressional Democrats such as Bob Menendez–claiming that passing the current bill is necessary for the continued political success of the Republican party. On the merits, this claim is utterly unconvincing. The fact that the political expediency argument is being raised so vociferously by political opponents of the Republican party is, like the weird framing above, also telling.

Then you have Republican proponents of the bill making demographic arguments which are either beside the point, or intentionally misleading.

And finally there’s the discussion about what’s actually in the bill itself:

The key items, according to reports and sources, are: A doubling of the size of the border patrol, to 40,000 agents. Seven hundred miles of border fence. A requirement that the security plan submitted by the Department of Homeland Security include provisions — such as those above — mandated by Congress. All of these would be “triggers” that would have to be achieved before the path to citizenship can start.

But — and this is big – the provision sought by conservatives such as John Cornyn, that 90 percent apprehension be achieved as a “hard trigger,” is no longer in the deal as a precondition for citizenship. As the Times puts it: “Republicans agreed to make the 90 percent figure a goal rather than a requirement.” The key is that additional Republicans beyond the gang of eight — such as Bob Corker and John Hoeven — appear prepared to accept this.

Leading immigration advocate Frank Sharry, who was briefed on the emerging deal, tells me Dems successfully beat back Republican demands for inclusion of the 90 percent “hard trigger.” And so Sharry’s group, America’s Voice, can support the deal, albeit reluctantly.

“The deal is ridiculous from a policy point of view — it’s excessive and wasteful,” Sharry tells me. “But from a political point of view, if it brings 10 or 11 Senate Republican votes, we’ll probably will be able to live with it.”

In other words, some of the pro-reform forces aren’t even pretending that the language in the bill is being offered in good faith.

It’s this “good faith” part which is so worrisome to anyone who likes immigration in general, but is ill-at-ease with this bill. Because everywhere you look on the pro-reform side, you see people operating in what does not look like good faith at all.

Strip away all questions about policy merit and wisdom and just focus on the raw politics here for a moment. It makes you wonder how Republicans could ever get themselves suckered into voting for such a thing.

But then again, the Republican party signs on with stupid all the time.

“I’m only flesh and blood. I’ve got instincts.”

I always thought Russell Brand was pretty funny. But not this funny. MSNBC has now justified the entire network’s existence with this guest spot.

Best cable news segment ever I’m Ron Burgundy?

No, really: “Thank you for your casual objectification.”

For the Yglesias Clipfile

The next time anyone considers engaging anything written by Matt Yglesias, keep the following in mind–and please note the time stamps:

Is Bobby Jindal’s reputation for intelligence anything other than ethnic stereotyping?

— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013

 

Fair enough! Those are hard to get. RT @nick_bunker: @mattyglesias he was a Rhodes Scholar!

— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013

 

For the record, now that I know more about Jindal’s life it’s clear that he’s a very smart man who just says lots of very dumb stuff.

— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013

What started it all was Yglesias proclaiming that Jindal “doesn’t understand money.” You can’t make this up.

Bobby Jindal doesn’t understand money: http://t.co/lGiZ9yucK5

— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013