This Is Why We Have A Federal System

Here is a controversial idea from Ithaca, NY:

Ithaca’s Anti-Heroin Plan: Open a Site to Shoot Heroin

Don't get hung up on the clickbait headline - the supervised injection site is one part of a four part plan.

Ever since Mr. Myrick, 29, unveiled a plan last month for what he called a “supervised injection facility,” critics have pounced on it as a harebrained idea that would just enable more drug abuse. A Republican state legislator, Tom O’Mara, called it “preposterous” and “asinine,” and a Cornell law professor, William A. Jacobson, said it would be a “government-run heroin shooting gallery.”

When Wild Bill Jacobson has a strongly held view I listen very carefully. On the other hand, when the Times is honest enough to provide a link to their source, I check it - mistrust but verify, as someone should have said about the Old Colored Lady. Bill Jacobson's conclusion:

I have mixed feelings about such a location from a public policy perspective. The heroin scourge is real, I’m just not sure normalizing the use helps the problem.

He's not sure and neither am I, but I am sure we have been fighting the War on Drugs for forty years with no exit strategy. If this idea is a disastrous failure, the failure will be limited to Ithaca and environs; if it looks like a success, we can build on that elsewhere.

The Times notes a bit of relevant experience:

Though unheard-of in the United States, supervised injection sites have existed in Europe for years — one of the first was in Switzerland, 30 years ago — and in Vancouver, British Columbia, the only city in North America where the practice is allowed. They have been linked to a reduction in harm from heroin abuse: In Vancouver, fatal overdoses dropped 35 percent in the community surrounding its main injection site in the two years after it opened in 2003 and fell 9 percent citywide.

More on Vancouver in this guest op-ed piece.

The Ithaca piece is interesting on the legal issues:

The proposal for an injection facility, part of “The Ithaca Plan: A Public Health and Safety Approach to Drugs and Drug Policy,” would require changes to a number of state and federal laws, according to state health officials.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who has mounted a forceful response to the heroin epidemic, told reporters at an unrelated news conference recently that he was unfamiliar with the details of the Ithaca plan and would not offer his opinion.

Much of the Ithaca drug plan has been embraced by a cross section of the community. The plan calls for more drug education, both for children and adults; improved mental health screening; a detoxification center; and a methadone clinic. But the supervised injection program has divided local law enforcement officials.

Ithaca’s police chief, John R. Barber, said he could not support the proposal because “right now, heroin is considered an illegal substance under the law.”

So the police chief has an obvious problem. But...

Gwen Wilkinson, the district attorney for Tompkins County who helped lead the committee that formulated the plan, said after its release that she was “prouder than ever to be an Ithacan.”

Ah, well, then - prosecutorial discretion, Obama-style! Unless the local police chief call in the State Troopers or the Feds, of course. And there is at least a hope of change in NY State law:

And Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, a Democrat who leads the Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, has endorsed the proposal for the injection facility, saying she would work on legislation to allow it.

 

Comments

[sbw]

Hmm. Safe, legal, and rare.

[Porchlight]

He's not sure and neither am I, but I am sure we have been fighting the War on Drugs for forty years with no exit strategy

Some wars can never end. No one knows whether the alternative would be an improvement on the status quo. It most certainly could be worse. I don't want to take a flyer on people's not-sureness about the results of this social experiment.

sbw nails it - how did "safe, legal and rare" work out with abortion? We've seen this movie before.

[_peter]

couple participation with a mandatory waiver of all welfare, disability and food stamp benefits for the next ten years, and it might be a good idea.

[Captain Hate]

Oh c'mon, peter; in the Nanny State drug abuse is a disability. Why do you h8 disabled people?

[Buckeye]

I found this on the ios 9.3 to iPad 2. Haven't updated my iPad 2 yet... probably will tonight. I will definitely do a backup first, then update via iTunes. Seems safer per that article.

I threw caution to the wind and launched the update last night and then went to bed.

Luckily I remembered my "iTunes" password this morning and the activation was uneventful.

This is just a sample of one, and as Man Tran says "you can draw any curve you want through one data point".

[NK]

How will they determine if quality of life has suffered in Ithica?-- NYS Blue Hell destroyed Ithica, and the rest of upstate NY, decades ago.

[henry]

NK, i guess PP will get fewer visits if quality of life decreases...

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

That Kasich or Hillary or anyone else can even broach the subject of picking a running mate from the other party is an indictment and confirmation of the incestuous, inbred hillbilly, uniparty elite ruling over us.
It's the opposite of when our country began and we had pres and veep from different parties because of differing and divergent electoral choices.

The possibility now is the result of a merging consensus of the ruling class that the proper form of government is for the consent of the governed to be limited to only those castor oil candidates they deem good for us.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Legalize drugs. Throw those who commit serious crime in prison and throw away the key.

The peaceful fools kill themselves or seek help.
The violent ones die in prison.

[Buckeye]

inbred hillbilly

careful Iggy....Mrs. Buckeye's genealogy research beginning to hint at some slight resemblance to that in her family ;)

She also found that 200 years ago it was common practice among the Quakers to boot a couple out of the "fold" if any 1st cousins or closer married.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I was only speaking of ideological and power sharing incest, Buckeye.

You wife's relatives are still free to intermarry.
She should start a website; Plenty 'O Cousins. :)

[Tom Bowler]

He's not sure and neither am I, but I am sure we have been fighting the War on Drugs for forty years with no exit strategy

As long as Police and the DEA can seize private property that they say was used in drug trafficking, there ain't gonna be no exit strategy.

[NK]

This Fox poll makes much sense. Bottom line, Trump is the only Repub who would lose to Hilligula: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/24/fox-news-poll-cruz-gains-on-trump-who-loses-to-hillary-by-double-digits-n2138346?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

[henry]

Yeah NK, last time we were bombarded with "Mitt is electable."

[narciso]

Its westeros, btw I found abler chimp to voxplain brussels, kristof who lived in cairo, fears the kraken, massive flooding due to skydragon.

[Porchlight]

The peaceful fools kill themselves or seek help.
The violent ones die in prison.

There's a lot of collateral damage with that prescription, Iggy.

First, the peaceful fools and the violent ones will have children and other dependents whose lives will be destroyed (and whom the state must then step in to care for).

Second, crime. Why should I have to pay in decreased safety for someone else's habit? The police can't keep up now - how will it look post legalization? It's not like the gangs will go away - they, like the mob during Prohibition, will just find a new revenue stream. And then there will be the crime committed by junkies needing a few bucks for a fix. Or food. Or rent.

Drug use is not a victimless crime.

That doesn't even get into the growth of the nanny state (try and stop it) to "take care" of the poor pitiful addicts and everyone else they harm.

[Buckeye]

You wife's relatives are still free to intermarry.
She should start a website; Plenty 'O Cousins. :)

She is mostly embarrassed by the fact that she and Obama are distant cousins ;)

[NK]

yeah henry he was. the polling assumed he'd go after millions of getable working class votes. 2016 has proven why he did not even try.

[GUS]

2 thoughts.
Are they opening any UNDERAGE DRINKING establishments
And.
Can we EXIT the WAR ON POVERTY yet??

[cheerleader]

If they let any cigarette smokers into the injection sites, someone might die from second hand smoke.

[James D]

I don't like this idea. I'm with Porch that legalization is a terrible idea, with the potential for vast harm.

But I also think we need to rethink the way we fight the War on Drugs, because what we're doing now is causing vast harm as well.

[cheerleader]

It sounds like a new version of the opium den.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_den

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

We've been round this mescaline bush before Porch and I doubt the result will be any different.
I don't think it's automatic that a drug being legal will automatically increase in usage; tobacco being one contrary case.
A fraction of the money now spent on enforcement and imprisonment redirected to education and treatment might very well result in fewer ruined lives not more.

--It's not like the gangs will go away - they, like the mob during Prohibition, will just find a new revenue stream.--

I think you have that backwards. Gangsters reached their peak of power under the black market of Prohibition.

Conditions are bad enough now that it seems reasonable to try something else. It might very well be it would be a Prohibition in reverse and they would be made illegal again, but then again it may not. I'd like to find out.

[Theo]

In terms of "electability," my general observation is that in hindsight everything that happens appears inevitable. Whether Willard could have won in 2012 by doing this or that is unknowable. But I will ask anyone who wants to insist that Romney would have won if only he had done "X," if "X" basically translates into "taken positions closer to MY desires" or "argued more forcefully for the the things that *I* care about most," you are probably wrong. Your vote was never in question.

Obama was a vulnerable incumbent, similar to Bush in 2004. I think either of them COULD have been beaten under the ideal circumstances for the opposition. But I do not believe that either man could have been defeated easily (and of course neither was). I absolutely do not believe that there was some other Republican candidate in 2012 -- not Santorum or Newt or Herman Cain or anyone else -- who would have had a better chance to win that election.

But fighting the last war does not us a lot of good.

The bottom line is that with his high unfavorables, among many other things, Donald Trump appears to be the least electable of the remaining GOP candidates this year. As Ignatz says, you never know about the future, but there is no strong reason to expect Trump to win.

[Miss Marple 2]

http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/maelbeek-bomb-survivor-i-will-get-back-on-the-brussels-metro/

I am of two minds about this. One is that we shouldn't let our movements be controlled by terrorists.

But the second is this: If the terrorists know that people are going to go right back to their same lifestyle, won't the terrorists strike again?

What I am wondering about is really this: do the terrorists want to change our lifestyle, or is it that they just want to kill Westerners to demonstrate their reach and power, in order to attract more to the strong horse side? If it's the latter, the attacks will continue no matter how we behave.

[Theo]

Miss Marple --

They have no grievances or demands. They do not seek any accommodation. They want us to either convert or die. The attacks will continue until we do one or the other, or until we defeat them.

[Miss Marple 2]

I am looking at pictures of Chump-in-Chief dancing the tango with some Argentine woman.

Since I am dead sure he didn't go to Mrs. William Gates Ballroom Dance and Deportment classes (like a lot of my friends did) and since the tango wasn't big at Harvard or Chicago, I can only assume that part of taxpayer money paid for DANCING LESSONS for him.

I am positive I am right. How many hours did it take? How much did it cost?

[Porchlight]

I don't think it's automatic that a drug being legal will automatically increase in usage; tobacco being one contrary case.

Because of shame, in part; also better education about effects.

But nearly every other example suggests that's the exception to the rule, abortion being exhibit A. When you remove the legal and social stigma from something, you get more of it.

As I've mentioned in previous conversations about this, I was a sometime recreational drug user in my youth. You can damn well bet I would have indulged far deeply and more frequently if I wasn't afraid of getting busted. Illegality is a major deterrent for a huge number of people. Drug testing at work, too.

[Captain Hate]

R$ was never gonna appeal to the regular guy voter. First of all, look at him; he just exudes Richie Rich. And the MFM would never drop that bone.

He was a decent candidate through the first debate in which he gave as stirring a defense of free market capitalism as anybody has since Reagan. Then he stopped listening to Sununu and came up with limp wristed "404's not a bad guy, just misguided" [Redacted for Lent] and every [Redacted for Lent] misgiving the Anybody-but-Willard group had came to pass.

[Threadkiller]

Why didn't Fox skew their poll to favor Trump?

I understand the network is in the tank for him.

[Porchlight]

As Ignatz says, you never know about the future,

Actually, Ignatz has been stating unequivocally for months that Hillary will never be president. About which I hope to heaven he's right.

But it's good to see you say that it's not possible to know the future. :)

[Captain Hate]

Remember how Sex Ed was going to end all the unwanted pregnancies? Just bulldoze all the taxpayer indoctrination and extended daycare centers, preferably with illegal aliens in them.

[Threadkiller]

http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/24/if-sen-mazie-hirono-is-a-naturalized-citizen-how-is-ted-cruz-natural-born/

Where is that "Just One Minute Of Fact Checking" new guy?

I need him to look into this.

[Miss Marple 2]

In the Pandora's box department:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/health/dennis-lo-dna-discovery/index.html

[Threadkiller]

Wrong thread.

:-(

[Theo]

CH --

I think that the numbers pretty conclusively show that Willard lost because Obama was able to turn out his core constituencies -- blacks, Hispanics and yutes.

Enthusiasm for Obama was actually less in 2012 than in 2008. Obama was the rare president to win re election with a smaller percentage of the vote than he got when he was first elected. Most presidents either gain electoral strength or are defeated.

The serious hope for the GOP in 2016 is that Rodham should not excite near as much turnout as Obama did, even in 2012.

The serious problem for the Republicans is that they cannot agree on a candidate who can capitalize on that and seem determined to nominate the one candidate who almost certainly cannot do so.

[Buckeye]

Remember how Sex Ed was going to end all the unwanted pregnancies?

Total fail.

It didn't even prevent a couple of buddies from catching "the clap".

Course I am convinced that Al K. Haul had something to do with that:)

[Threadkiller]

I thought Romney lost because Christians were a no-show.

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/06/27/republicans-woo-evangelical-base/32738

[DebinNC]

BOzo tangos ... scroll down for video.

[GUS]

Maybe ITHACA NY, could create JIHAD safe zones, where MUZZZLIM YOOTS could go shoot and blow up stuff.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Every time I try to pretend Trump is not so bad he pulls something like that Tweet using the most unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz (who is quite attractive) he could find juxtaposed with some soft filtered pic of Melania with her smokiest eye shadowed come hither glance.
It's juvenile in a how-can-his-judgement-be-trusted sort of way, not just in a what-a-clod manner.

Most importantly, sticking with the juvenile theme, it places an upward limit on his appeal in the same way that kind of stuff intentionally limits the members of a snobbish clique.

Limiting members in your stuck up sticky beak country club = country club still exists even if full of jerks.

Limiting numbers of people who will vote for you who, absent the juvenile behavior would have = possible loss and an unnecessary one.

I'll believe he will quit doing this for the general when I see it. I'm afraid as NK and Theo state he is unable to.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Since I am dead sure he didn't go to Mrs. William Gates Ballroom Dance and Deportment classes (like a lot of my friends did) and since the tango wasn't big at Harvard or Chicago, I can only assume that part of taxpayer money paid for DANCING LESSONS for him.--

Dancing With the 'Tards.

[NK]

the 11:37 link is particularly ignorant, uninformed, and plain obnoxious. why link it here?

[Buckeye]

I'll believe he will quit doing this for the general when I see it. I'm afraid as NK and Theo state he is unable to.

Live by the Twitter, die by the Twitter.

[Theo]

Ignatz --

Yes, he is not going to become someone else. And if he did, he would presumably lose support from the people who are most rabid about him now.

My despair is that this is a TOTALLY unnecessary loss. Your oft quoted prediction that Rodham could not win strikes me as pretty close to the truth UNLESS the GOP did something really idiotic like nominating Trump.

Virtually anyone else of the original 17 candidates (well, maybe not Carson or Gilmore) could have beaten her. A self-inflicted disaster in the making.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--You can damn well bet I would have indulged far deeply and more frequently if I wasn't afraid of getting busted.--

This is where libertarians get in trouble for being heartless but my reaction is,

"Sucks for you, but it was your choice. Why should I have to pay to incarcerate or rehabilitate you instead of your family or some charity?"

[James D]

in hindsight everything that happens appears inevitable. Whether Willard could have won in 2012 by doing this or that is unknowable. But I will ask anyone who wants to insist that Romney would have won if only he had done "X," if "X" basically translates into "taken positions closer to MY desires" or "argued more forcefully for the the things that *I* care about most," you are probably wrong. Your vote was never in question.

The problem with Romney's campaign was that a lot of the things he did wrong were clear at the time.

No hindsight was necessary to know that running his campaign out of a deep blue city like Boston was a bad idea.

No hindsight was necessary to know that failing to talk about his admirable personal history, charitable work and so forth (especially in the face of Dem attacks on him as the second coming of Gordon Gekko) was a huge mistake. We were all saying it during the campaign.

No hindsight was necessary to notice that the only bounce he really got in the polls post-convention was right after his aggressive performance in the first debate, or to imagine that backing away from the one thing that moved the polls was a poor decision.

Anyone with good sense would not have made those mistakes. He might still have lost, but i have to think that if he did nothing different except for those three things:

Run the campaign out of Provo or Salt Lane City instead of Boston

Talk more about his personal history and trot out a parade of people whose mortage he personally paid off, or whose house he and his kids helped repair by hand, or the many other good acts that he didn't want to brag about.

Keep up the aggrsssion and attack posture after the first debate

...the final result would have been a lot closer than it was, at a minimum.

[Miss Marple 2]

Ignatz, look at the link Deb posted at 11:41.

I am positive that was planned as some super-cool photo-op, and has been for months. He HAD to have had lessons. Lots of them. Michelle, too.

An enterprising reporter would check to see which expert tango instructor entered the White House and how often, plus check the fees he charges.

I don't know why, but those pictures infuriate me more than the baseball game.

[NK]

Ig in all seriousness-- Trump's act the past 6 months, is way over the top beyond his behavior of the past 30+ years in business and as a celebrity. He has deliberately chosen this WWE type demeanor to run on. He's gone way past the point of no return to 'change' for the general (god forbid he's the nominee); the WWE persona is the essence of his campaign.

[Miss Marple 2]

Iggy,

I do hope you are not talking about the article I posted at 11:37. It's about DNA of a baby in his mother's blood plasma, and how it can be used to predict some areas of medical history.

[NK]

I was describing the 1137 'natural born' link.

[DebinNC]

Or to quote noted solon HC - "woulda choulda shoulda."

[Theo]

JamesD --

You may be right. We will never know.

My own reaction is that if he had changed the location of his headquarters to some other city it might have affected dozens of votes. Maybe scores at the very most.

I think his success in the first debate was almost entirely attributable not to his "attack posture" but to the fact that Obama obviously did not want to be there and phoned it in. When Obama actually showed up for the next debate, Romney was not going to have the same success.

I assume that the campaign made a lot of mistakes. But overall I think that if the Dems can turnout their base the way they did, they will win pretty much every time.

The lack of enthusiasm among Dems for Rodham is palpable. If only we had a candidate who could take advantage of that.

[Miss Marple 2]

NK,

I have assumed that is true (Trump deliberately choosing the WWE type persona) and I can only conclude he believes it will draw more voters than a more conventional performance (like his speech at AIPAC, which was actually quite good).

I doubt he drops it for rallies, although he has always seemed more serious in interviews.

The question is, will it work?

[Threadkiller]

NK has mentioned that part of his scam, for instance how he seemed Presidential in front of AIPAC, comes from "The Art of The Deal."

He is shape-shiffting to match his audiences.

Do I have that correct, NK?

Vicious Tweets could be part of the deal as well.

I believe Cruz is a lying POS. The ad that torqued Trump wasn't just anti-Trump. It suggested the only alternative was to vote for Cruz. Cruz should have put a boot on Mair's neck the second he saw his name on her scandalous ad. He didn't.

Now what I see is a guy doing whatever it takes to defend his wife. Something we never saw from Romney. Do I think his approach is tasteless? Yes. Do think he should say nothing? No.

A more national radio show had their two Heckel and Jeckel clowns debating this and they moved from the pictures straight to "yeah, who is Hedi Cruz and why doesn't anyone report more about her."

They then read a quote from her regarding how she expects the nanny to feed her kids. Meanwhile the billionaire's wife is portrayed as a stay at home mom.

It makes Trump's "retweet" seem less unstable and more calculated to me.

[Theo]

MM@11:56 --

No.

[DebinNC]

I don't know why, but those pictures infuriate me more than the baseball game.

They showcase how vain and self-absorbed BOzo is, was, and will ever be. I view him as a plague of the OT boils and locusts variety. Unfortunately, I don't see a Moses.

[NK]

TK-- we don't have Jeff to check the JOM record right now so we are on the honor system. Was Cruz a 'lying POS' for you during the '14 filibuster/shutdown? my recollection is that he and others who rebelled against McConnell and pushed back against the budget resolution were heroes to you (and most here at JOM, Cruz critics like me were in the minority.)

[Threadkiller]

the 11:37 link is particularly ignorant, uninformed, and plain obnoxious. why link it here?

Seemed like the right crowd.

[Threadkiller]

Pete Rose was a hero as well.

[James D]

My own reaction is that if he had changed the location of his headquarters to some other city it might have affected dozens of votes. Maybe scores at the very most.

Oh, I imagine it affected a lot more than that.

Not because more people would have voted for him based on where it was run from.

But because of the likely presence of Dem/prog moles among volunteers low-level campaign staffers and especially as part of his "Orca project" big data center.

How much time and energy was wasted by the campaign dealing with staff, that would almost certainly not have been in a friendler locale? Those kind of things can make a big difference.

And it was something that was entirely forseeable ahead of time - I recall comments here about it during the campaign.

[Threadkiller]

Lance Armstrong used to rate prettt high as well.

[NK]

OK, fallen hero, got it.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

That was NK, MM.

[DebinNC]

Cruz critics like me were in the minority.

Cruz was showboating then imo. He was trying to be Jimmy Stewart with McConnell as Claude Akins, but I didn't buy it then or now.

[Captain Hate]

From the last thread:

My sil is a Cleveland Institute of Music grad. It was stellar back in the 1990s.

Good to hear of a positive CIM experience. I think its rep is still high but have no readily available way to confirm that.

[Theo]

JamesD --

Perhaps you are right. It does not seem to be that big of a deal to me, but we can never know.

Undoubtedly mistakes were made. But in my opinion 2012 was a tough but not impossible election for the Republicans. 2016 should have been a fairly easily winnable one. But the divisions with the party have come to the fore at exactly the wrong time and it looks like the GOP is giving it away.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I think you meant Claude Rains, Deb.
Claude Akins was a notorious Hollywood tough guy.
Probably a Todd Akin Freudian slip. :)

[Theo]

"He was trying to be Jimmy Stewart with McConnell as Claude Akins, but I didn't buy it then or now."

I think that that was Claude Rains.

[NK]

JamesD-- as a Romney supporter I can say it was worse than that. In hindsight, it is clear to me that the Romney 'top men' either deliberately avoided campaigning for Tea Party and working class votes nationally and especially battleground states, or negligently ignored them based on their faulty turnout models. Facebook and Google saved OFA in 2012 by turning out 2+ million older black and young white women votes in battleground states that no one anticipated. Could getting 5+M working class votes Romney ignored (and Romeny '16 leads me to believe he did so deliberately) changed the result? Probably not in the electoral college based on the FB/Google social media efforts, but it would have been far closer, and maybe even a popular vote win for Romney.

[Captain Hate]

Maybe the MFM can get Zippy's transcripts to see if there were any dance electives.

[derwill]

I have found Scott Adams explanations of why Trump does what he does, and why it has worked so far to be fascinating.

Like the Lyin' Ted thing. Attach a trigger to a person's name (Lyin Ted, Little Marco) and repeat it over and over until it is implanted in the public consciousness. Then confirmation bias goes to work. All politicians will lie at some point, or at minimum fudge the truth. So Lyin' Ted gets caught out in a couple--bias confirmed. Pretty soon there doesn't have to be any proof he's lied, just a suggestion, and again, bias is confirmed. Think it doesn't work? Just read the comments on various blogs about whether Cruz knew about the naked Melania ad. Lots of people believe he did, because of their already firmly established confirmation bias created by Trump.

[NK]

stoners don't tango, so no way Obummer did any of that back in the day.

[DebinNC]

I think that that was Claude Rains.

LOL, you're so right.

[glasater]

Because of shame, in part; also better education about effects

Porch, what with shrinks telling us for decades not to feel shame about anything, kids nowadays do not understand the concept. Therefore..anything goes for many of the youth of today.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--"It makes Trump's "retweet" seem less unstable and more calculated to me."--

Even if he is compelled to do the things he does, the form they take is always calculated.
As you say, it remains to be seen if the calculations are correct.
They may very well be. It is quite possible the issues he resonates with are far more important and motivational to far more people than the crass, juvenile tactics.
It's also quite possible the headwinds facing any Dem are much more difficult to overcome than what, after all, are mostly just personal foibles and style.

Contrary to Theo I think this is one of the least predictable elections of recent times with more unknowns and wild variables than it is remotely possible to account for.
As just one instance, when has a guy with the negatives Trump has so dominated the Rep primaries. Ever?
And yet if that is your focus you lose sight of the fact Hillary a far more inflexible and static target is just as negatively regarded and almost certainly much less quick footed and able to change that.

[Theo]

NK --

I am not sure that I agree with your 2012 analysis entirely.

I agree that Obama was able to turn out his supporters (although he did less well at that than he had done in 2008). But I do not think that Romney avoided or ignored working class whites.

I did a lot of work on this back in the day. My conclusion was that there were 5 million white people who voted in 2008, were alive in 2012 and did not vote. One might leap to the conclusion that these were working class Republican voters who were unwilling to vote for the plutocrat Willard Romney and thus stayed home. (This scenario requires one to believe that John McCain was a working class hero, which I think is a stretch.)

But I became convinced by looking at the data that the 5 million "missing" white voters all had one thing in common. Just about every last one of them had voted for Barack Obama in 2008. In other words, these were not disgruntled REPUBLICAN voters, but disgruntled OBAMA voters who would not pull the lever for him a second time.

To be sure, some of them may well have been working class. But for the most part, I think that they were people who got caught up in the hype of 2008 and were at least open to Obama and his ideas, but were soured by the actual experience. Not soured enough to vote for Willard, but enough to stay home.

Could Romney have done a better job of reaching out to these people? Of course, but I think getting Obama voters to switch all the way to Republican was a hard sale to make.

[rich@gmu]

Theo-

R$'s Orca crash was a pretty big deal (and R$ was robbed by his IT staff generally), but the glaring defect in his candidacy was that he was the only Rep who couldn't make the case in repealing Obamacare-a hated piece of legislation that has caused some 30 Senators who voted for it their seats.

And if Hit were around he'd bring out the numbers but I'll pinch hit for him:

Romney had a modest vote gain from McCain's take in 2008. IIRC Romney had about 700k more.

Obama saw a drop of about 3.5 million.

It wasn't the evangelicals who stayed home. It was the white working class people, many who voted for Obama, and were cowed into not voting against him.

[Threadkiller]

The "trigger" does have to be plausible, IMO.

Ted didn't know he had Canadian citizenship until a reporter told him?

Either he is a liar or he is stupid.

This drum was banged before Trump picked "Lyin'" as the attachment.

[NK]

the 5+ M left on the table were NOT cross over Obummer voters from 2012. They were GWB 08 and Tea Party '10 voters. They were eminently getable by Repubs before '12 and since.

[rich@gmu]

and as I was composing my comment Theo was composing his ...

[DebinNC]

It's hard to imagine a POTUS with the ego to prepare himself to tango ... in public ... abroad ... in tango mecca Argentina. But it's even harder to imagine a POTUS other than BOzo not cancelling his dance exhibition in light of this week's happenings. It wouldn't be prudent to cut his vacay short and rush back to DC in a panic, but he could and should have chosen to stifle the "Let's partay!" message he's sending out.

[Captain Hate]

The Scott Adams explanation makes sense and is why, imo, all polling numbers are of limited use. I could easily see Trump planting an "Unindicted Rodham" moniker into general parlance and reducing the Cackler to sputtering denials with her addled husband making things worse.

Years of nervous Nellies like Willard have made tactics like that unpossible. Admittedly it's a low class way to do things but it's not like the donks have taken the high road

[James D]

derwill @ 12:20

The Dems/MSM have been doing exactly that to all our candidates, forever. They did it to Quayle with "potatoe" and to Palin with a quote that she never even actually said.

[Threadkiller]

Admittedly it's a low class way to do things but it's not like the donks have taken the high road

I Agree.

Street fights aren't won when one party hides in the penthouse.

[NK]

good stuff here from Austin Bay. Of course he is utterly naive to think Obummer will ever change: http://www.governing.com/finance101/gov-pension-protections-state-by-state.html

[Theo]

Ignatz@12:25 --

As usual, you make some good points.

I certainly agree that so far 2016 has confounded most predictions, especially mine.

I absolutely believe that Rodham is a poor candidate running in a year that should be a tough year for the Democrats to win the presidency.

I think that Donald Trump is the least electable of the remaining GOP candidates and one of the least electable of the original 17. His success in the primaries has been to get 37% of the vote in a crowded field by feeding on the massive discontent of a large segment of Republican voters with the leadership of the party. But this success is not going to help him in the general election, where his historically high unfavorables are even worse than Clinton's.

You are right that things could change and anything could happen. But just because it has been unpredictable so far I am not going to throw up my hands and say that analysis is useless. Trump's high negatives combined with his nomination (if it occurs) by a shattered party that will not unite behind him make victory highly unlikely.

[derwill]

Another thing Trump does that may explain the Heidi/Melania photo.

He does something outrageous like that photo, which gets everyone talking and gasping and tsking, yes, but what it is also doing is bringing Heidi Cruz into the forefront of the public consciousness, especially LIVs, and not in flattering light (i.e. ugly photo). Then, just when she's the topic of the moment, all over social media, out will come the nitty gritty on the GS connection. Next thing you know the negativity is focused on Heidi Cruz, and Ted's connection to the evil big bank, and the outrageous thing that Trump did to start it all is forgotten.

I don't know for sure if that's what's going to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me, because he's been doing stuff like that all through the campaign and, like it or not, it works.

The Dems/MSM have been doing against Republicans for years. They did it to Romney big time in 2012. Most people don't vote on the issues, they vote on emotions. Trump has been manipulating emotions and driving the narrative for months now, quite openly, and all those high paid consultants and media talking heads are still clueless.

[Threadkiller]

derwill, see my 11:58.

You are right on the money.

[DebinNC]

Ditto, derwill.

[Captain Hate]

I'd be willing to bet that if Trump is the nominee he will bring up Rodham cancelling a fund raiser because it was being done by Kate Steinle's family's attorney against San Francisco. Hillbilly Rotten Clinton bringing Benghazi to the United States.

[NK]

there's a problem with spitting into the wind. The Legacy Media, though now despised by millions of important voters still has the biggest megaphone to reach LIVs, and is by far the biggest meme-making machine. Conservative efforts to tar Dems this way won't be nearly as effective and probably ineffective or worse with LIVs. That is an unfortunate reality.

[NK]

oops, sorry wrong Bay link: http://observer.com/2016/03/obama-needs-to-get-over-his-self-serving-guilt-trip/

[Theo]

derwill --

I too agree, but I think that this sort of thing has limits. Can he bully and insult his way to the presidency? I doubt it.

Again, let's put his "success" to date in context. He has gotten 37% of the Republican primary vote. He has done this primarily by tapping into anti GOPe anger, an anger which does not much exist outside of the GOP base. He has unbelievably high unfavorable ratings for a potential nominee.

The fact that he excites people here who have wanted more bluster from the nominees in the past is no indication on how he will do in the general election, particularly once the MSM starts using the oppo ammunition that Rodham will feed them.

[Theo]

NK @12:43--

I agree.

[NK]

say anything to win? yet Trump supporters bitch and moan when Cruz (or a proxy) does it to him. Strange.

[Porchlight]

"Sucks for you, but it was your choice. Why should I have to pay to incarcerate or rehabilitate you instead of your family or some charity?"

Iggy, I apologize if I was unclear. I was just giving my own example to counter your assertion that legalization wouldn't result in higher usage. I think it's beyond obvious that it would. Is usage up, down, or the same in Colorado post-legalization? Obviously, it's up.

That said, gummint is going to end up paying for this stuff, so it has to be factored in, even if in theory it shouldn't.

[squaredance]

CIM is still a world class music school for a classical performance major. Depends on what you want want to do. Students have to look after their own interests and instrument, and understand what sort of career they want (a solo career, and Orchestra chair, teaching, etc.) and do the proper research. CIM is more of a conservatory environment, and this is substantial different one than found at a college or university. Standards are generally extremely high, but there has been some slight weakening across the board in most US Conservatories, but they are still pretty high. Conservatories are really for musicians who can expect to have real careers as performers.

A real, professionally oriented degree program at the top Conservatories--or institution like them as there are a few universities that do have them--is extremely demanding. It is not like the average "music" degree from a regular college, and not for the fainted hearted, and most decidedly not for anyone who does not have first rate talent and many disciplined years with and instrument. In most cases, you have to be approved year to year to return, generally by audition. People do get bumped.

There used to be visiting audition requirements to most top schools (even after a regional audition where the judges come to a regional center to hear the audition). I do not know if this is the case today. Students who really can make the grade should visit the school and talk to faculty in their disciple. The best schools will accommodate this, even encourage it.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--That said, gummint is going to end up paying for this stuff, so it has to be factored in, even if in theory it shouldn't.--

Paying for what?
Is crime up in Colorado from more pot use?
If law enforcement isn't dealing with pot users are net costs up or down?

[derwill]

NK--Trump shut down Hillary's foray into "you're a sexist pig" with ONE TWEET. The MSM then spent a whole week talking about Bill as a sexual predator and Hillary's enabling of him by trashing the lives of his victims. I have to admit it amazed me as I watched it happen in real time, but we can't deny that it did happen.

Trump hasn't revealed his Hillary trigger yet (he told Maureen Dowd he has one, but he's waiting). When he does the MSM will have hysterics over it, thereby doing exactly what he knows they will do--endless screeching stories on it, thereby imbedding it in the public consciousness. The all he's got to do use it in his tweets and speeches, over and over, and let confirmation bias do it's work.