Daniel Ruth tries to understand the strange alliance between Ted Cruz and John Kasich. A snippet:
In theory, these two chaps are betting that by selectively retreating, their supporters will flock like rabid Beyonce fans to either Cruz or Kasich in Indiana, New Mexico and/or Oregon, thereby preventing Trump from getting the required 1,237 delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination. Talk about the DREAM Act.
Isn’t this a bit like Albania and Burkina Faso plotting to forge a strategic alliance to run away in the delusional belief they’ll be able to thwart the Game of Thrones’ Ramsay Bolton’s perverse lust for power in Westeros?
Alexandra Petri plays Trump with her “woman card.”
I have been carrying one of these for years, proudly.
It is great. It entitles you to a sizable discount on your earnings everywhere you go (average 21 percent, but can be anywhere from 9 percent to 37 percent, depending on what study you’re reading and what edition of the Woman Card you have.) If you shop with the Woman Card at the grocery, you will get to pay 11 percent more for all the same products as men, but now they are pink.
Read the rest. Collect the full deck.
But wait! The card pays strange dividends.
Cenk and the gang consider what Trump’s success says about Republican voters. I don’t buy everything they say–I often pick stuff to post because I find it thought-provoking, rather than necessarily persuasive–but I think their skewering of the punditocracy is right on the mark.
As Science 2.0, Ryan J. Thomas wonders whether Trump may accidentally perform a public service by bringing to an end the unqualified “on the one hand on the other hand” fact-free never-call-out-a-lie reportage that passes for “objectivity” in the news industroy. A snippet:
Objectivity is a much misunderstood concept and is too often uncritically mythologized as central to American journalistic practice. What interests me is how the pressure to be objective – and therefore disengaged from the very real impact Trump is having on the democratic process – may impede journalists’ crucial role as stewards of democracy.
Follow the link for a long and thoughtful meditation focusing on a recent kerfuffle at NPR.
. . . are a sometime thing.
Without taking a stand on the specific legal issue at at stake, I can still point out that some states clearly think that they are more equal than others.
When I was a young ‘un, back in the olden days, the proponents of segregation and of the War in Viet Nam (not necessarily the same persons, mind you) loved to blame “outside agitators” for civil rights sit-ins and anti-war demonstrations.
The chorus of reaction hasn’t changed, but it wasn’t “outside agitators” then and it’s not “outside agitators” now.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Gleb Tsipursky tries to understand the appeal of Trumpery and concludes it’s all in the pitch.
In related news, Berwood Yost looks at the news coverage of voter registration figures and finds that a fascination with Trumpery and other bright shiny things has led to skewed reportage. Here’s a snippet:
So neither the patterns in the current registration data nor the patterns we’ve seen compared with previous registration changes provide any evidence that a widespread change in voter alignment is taking place in the state, regardless of the news stories that say otherwise. It just isn’t happening.
How could the media and their expert commentators be so mistaken? The answer could be the real “Trump effect”: Members of the media were captured by the compelling national storyline about the Trump candidacy. Knowingly or not, they substituted what they knew was happening elsewhere for what they thought might be happening in Pennsylvania. That’s a too-common mistake when many of us make quick judgments, particularly about those things that seem to confirm what we think we know.
Image via Job’s Anger.