ChrisWeigant.com

How Trump Could Win It All

[ Posted Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 – 18:02 UTC ]

That's a fairly depressing headline to wind up 2015, I fully realize. However, I've been noticing that Democrats -- all the way up to and including Hillary Clinton herself -- seem to be awfully complacent about the possible outcomes of next year's presidential race. This could be dangerous, because nothing in politics is ever written in stone, and this election cycle has been more unpredictable than most already. While most people inside the Beltway are slowly wrapping their minds around the concept that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination, the conventional wisdom is that if the race boils down to Trump versus Clinton, the foregone conclusion will be Hillary handily defeating The Donald in the general election.

Me? I'm not so sure about that. Maybe it's because not much surprises me anymore in the political arena, or maybe it's because Washington conventional wisdom has been so spectacularly wrong about the GOP race so far. Which leads me to end 2015 on a very cautionary note -- because it is not impossible that Donald Trump becomes America's next president.

Now, I'm hedging my predictions with that "not impossible," which is a pretty low bar for these sorts of things. I still do believe that Clinton versus Trump means the most likely outcome -- by far -- is that we all get to see the first woman sworn in as president, a little over a year from now. The odds are overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor, at least if the election were held next week. But, of course, it's not going to be held next week, as we've got a little more than ten months to go before we all get to vote in the general election. Ten months is an eternity in politics. Anything could happen, to put it another way.

It's even premature to consider the matchup between Trump and Clinton, I should also mention. Donald Trump might eventually implode, and Bernie Sanders could surprise the political establishment by beating Hillary Clinton (it happened before with that black guy with the funny name, if you'll recall). But at this point, Trump-versus-Clinton does look like the most probable outcome, so that's what I'm going to focus on for today.

As I see things, there are four major events which could derail Clinton's chances of ever occupying the Oval Office. The timing of these events might matter, but almost all of them could pop up at any time during the campaign. The classic example is an "October surprise" -- something that occurs so close to the actual election that it is first and foremost on the minds of voters when they cast their ballots. So while timing may play a major factor in how damaging each of these scenarios could be, if any of them do happen Hillary Clinton will have that much harder a job convincing the voters to support her in November.

Clinton leads Trump in most early head-to-head polling, but polling this early isn't exactly carved in stone. Although pundits scoff at the overall level of support Trump may now have, the early polling shows that if Trump becomes the nominee, most Republican voters will wind up supporting him. The alternative, to them, is unthinkable (Hillary Clinton is flat-out hated by a certain portion of the electorate). At worst, they may stay home, but they may hold their nose and vote against Clinton (rather than "for Trump") in the end. Clinton holds a lead in head-to-head polling, but it is by no means an insurmountable lead, this early. A swing of five or six percent might put Trump on top -- meaning it could be a closer race than predicted.

Working from the assumption that Clinton and Trump will be the nominees of the two major parties, here are the four things which could spur just such a swing from independent voters. In other (and scarier) words, these are the things I think could hurt Clinton's chances so badly that we wind up with President Trump. In no particular order, and without even attempting to assign any sort of probability of any of these happening, here are the problems Clinton could face.

 

F.B.I. investigation concludes

This is the Holy Grail for many Republicans. Many have already convinced themselves that this is why Hillary Clinton is unelectable, in fact. At some point next year, the F.B.I. could announce the conclusion of their investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server. President Obama's Justice Department has been incredibly harsh on some people for classified information leaks, and if such leaks are identified by the F.B.I., Obama will be under enormous pressure to do something about it.

It will depend on how bad the investigation's conclusions are, and it will depend on when the investigation wraps up. If this news breaks in the next few months, it could even influence whether Clinton beats Sanders for the nomination. If it comes out over the summer, Republicans will be talking about nothing else during their convention. If it comes out in October, the damage may be impossible for Hillary to overcome.

Of course, the conclusions of the investigation may be a whole lot more benign than most Republicans are now fervently hoping for. Clinton hasn't been adversely affected politically by the whole Benghazi thing (outside of a group of voters who are never going to vote for her in any case), so this could be another tempest in a teapot that fires up the right wing but doesn't matter much to independent voters.

 

Economic downturn

This one would likely have to happen pretty soon to have any real effect on the election (unless it was a collapse on the order of the Great Recession). We've been in a very slow and very long recovery since Obama's first year in office. Jobs have been created and the economy is now doing so well the Fed is raising interest rates again. But because it has been such a long recovery, some economists are starting to wonder when the business cycle will shift again, turning the economy downwards.

I'm a firm believer that the economic cycle is not much connected to politics. It's largely independent of actual policies from Washington. Oh sure, some political tweaking of the economy has direct effects, and some long-range policies can serve to set the stage for a collapse (the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for instance). But in general, the economic boom-and-bust cycle isn't all that connected to politics.

If the economy does go south in a major way next year (with enough time for voters to react to it), then what might happen is that historical norms take over and the party that's held the White House for two terms fails to win a third term. This has only happened once since the 1950s, in fact, when George H.W. Bush won a third Republican term in 1988. Barack Obama beat his own historical odds when he got re-elected, because no president had won re-election with the economy in such bad shape (people were predicting Obama's loss purely on the unemployment rates, at the time). If the economy has problems next year, independent voters may be looking for a change in November. Which would be bad news for Hillary.

 

Health problem

Hillary Clinton is one of the oldest candidates for president America has ever had. She had a health problem just as she was ending her stint at the State Department. It is impossible to predict if such an event could happen again to her, but campaigning for president is a very stressful endeavor. Viable presidential candidates have been taken out of the running previously in American politics solely for health problems (or even the perception of health problems by the public), so this could be disastrous if it happens during a public event.

If Hillary Clinton collapsed at the podium -- on camera -- while giving a speech in mid-October, Donald Trump will certainly not be shy about ripping into Clinton for her "weakness" (as he would surely put it). A perceived health problem might just hand the election to Trump, although with this one the timing might be key. Clinton's campaign hasn't really been adversely affected by what happened three years ago, so it's impossible to say how this could affect her overall chances. But if it did happen, the closer it happened to the election, the worse it would be for her.

 

Terrorist attack

The timing, in this case, would matter greatly. The last news of terrorist attacks gave Donald Trump his biggest boost in the polls yet. Of course, those polls were only conducted among Republican voters, but even so Republicans usually have a natural advantage over Democrats in the foreign policy field (and even more so on the "keep us safe" issue). If a terrorist attack on the lines of the San Bernardino shooting happened next October, Hillary could see any lead she had over Trump disappear virtually overnight in the panic which would ensue.

Of course, all of these scenarios are wild cards to some extent or another. Nobody can predict what sort of effect any of them would have on the presidential race. Sometimes candidates react to crises in ways that come back to bite them. It's certainly possible that Trump could react to one of these events in a way that disqualifies him for office among a large swath of voters.

Even having said all of that, I still urge caution for Democrats who may be in the mood to lift a triumphant glass of champagne at year's end, toasting the prospects of running against Donald Trump. Yes, the man's a clown. Yes, he'd likely be the easiest candidate for any Democratic nominee to beat. Yes, he says things which large groups of voters are offended by. But all of that in no way guarantees a victory for the Democrats. Hillary Clinton may get her fondest wish and the Republicans may nominate Donald Trump. But it is not outside the bounds of possibility that something happens on the way to the election that allows Trump to become our next president. Stranger things have indeed happened in politics. I'm not saying toasting Trump-as-nominee isn't appropriate, mind you (since I do think he'd be the easiest Republican to beat), but I do think toasting the inevitability of "President Hillary Clinton" is a wee bit premature, that's all.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

94 Comments on “How Trump Could Win It All”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    There will be at least one more new column this week, but due to circumstances beyond my control (no really!) I can't promise which day it'll run on.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think the toughest candidate to beat would be rubio. he's handsome, charismatic, a fast talker, latino, floridian, moderate on immigration, well-versed in gutter politics and well-liked by the establishment (i.e. money).

    JL

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that said, trump could win even without any of those doomsday scenarios. it doesn't really matter that he's a clown or has no substance. being serious and substantive don't carry much weight with U.S. voters.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I.was going to comment on this column, but it got knocked out of my head when I saw Obama on Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee. Very funny, and be sure to look for the bumper sticker on the rear of the ''63 Corvette.

  5. [5] 
    Hope wrote:

    I do not understand the liberal mindset. You worry about Trump becoming President, but seem to be elated by the "loser" we are incumbered with presently. Obama has been a disaster! Trump has been very successful in business and is not a mainstream politician. It would seem that he is ideal for the job. He speaks his mind. It is VERY refreshing to hear someone speak without need for political correctness.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    That was funny. I especially liked the part at the end when Obama was trying to drive out of the WH and failed at the attempt.

    Seinfeld said, " You didn't sell it!"

    Hilarious and absolutely spot on! In more ways than one ...

    Couldn't see the bumper sticker due to poor quality video ...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a fairly depressing headline to wind up 2015, I fully realize. However, I've been noticing that Democrats -- all the way up to and including Hillary Clinton herself -- seem to be awfully complacent about the possible outcomes of next year's presidential race. This could be dangerous, because nothing in politics is ever written in stone, and this election cycle has been more unpredictable than most already.

    Someone has been making that EXACT point all year.. :D

    At worst, they may stay home, but they may hold their nose and vote against Clinton (rather than "for Trump") in the end. Clinton holds a lead in head-to-head polling, but it is by no means an insurmountable lead, this early. A swing of five or six percent might put Trump on top -- meaning it could be a closer race than predicted.

    Especially since the polling itself has been proven to be bias...

    Michale
    689

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, he says things which large groups of voters are offended by.

    Let's be fair..

    Trump says things that a large group of DEMOCRAT voters are offended by...

    But those voters aren't going to vote for a Republican anyways and are in the bag for Hillary...

    So what does it matter??

    Michale
    690

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    but I do think toasting the inevitability of "President Hillary Clinton" is a wee bit premature, that's all.

    Exactly.. Because we know how well "inevitable" worked out for Hillary the last time, eh?? :D

    And the one big caveat that bears repeating...

    The entirety of the Left Wingery has been WRONG about Trump at EVERY TURN...

    What makes the Left Wingery think they will be right about Trump THIS time??

    "You were wrong then."
    "Yes, I was wrong."
    "But you're right now."
    "No, I could be wrong again..."

    -OUTBREAK

    :D

    Michale
    691

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    it doesn't really matter that he's a clown or has no substance. being serious and substantive don't carry much weight with U.S. voters.

    it doesn't really matter that, in the opinion of some people, he's a clown or has no substance.

    There... Fixed it for you.. :D

    being serious and substantive don't carry much weight with U.S. voters.

    Yea.. We elected Obama after all... :D

    Michale
    692

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially since the polling itself has been proven to be bias...

    What I mean by that is it's been well documented that a lot of people who SAY they won't vote for Trump would likely vote for Trump....

    If you apply this fact to the General Election, it's easy to see how Trump could demolish Clinton...

    Assuming Clinton survives to the General...

    Michale
    693

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the flip side, I could see very easily where Hillary would arrange a heart attack for Bubba..

    Bill would be dead and out of the picture. Hillary would have her revenge for all the torment Bill put her thru *AND* ride a wave of sympathy into the White House.. A two fer!!!

    A very plausible scenario..

    Billy better watch hisself.. :D

    Michale
    694

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Let's be fair..

    Trump says things that a large group of DEMOCRAT voters are offended by...

    i'm quite sure a large number of NPA's and even a fair chunk of republicans are offended and think he's a clown too. that's part of trump's appeal to the tea party base, he says what's on his mind no matter how offensive or outlandish it is. more than anything else, non-rich republicans are sick and tired of being lied to by party elites, so they'd rather choose someone who insults you to your face.

    JL

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm quite sure a large number of NPA's and even a fair chunk of republicans are offended and think he's a clown too.

    Fair enough.. I stand corrected...

    that's part of trump's appeal to the tea party base, he says what's on his mind no matter how offensive or outlandish it is. more than anything else, non-rich republicans are sick and tired of being lied to by party elites, so they'd rather choose someone who insults you to your face.

    You mean insults the Rich Party Elites to their face, right??

    And, don't YOU find that refreshing???

    I mean, put a '-D' after Trump.. Wouldn't you find it desirable and "refreshing" if Trump told off Rahm and all the other Professional Left Wingery??

    Wouldn't YOU throw your support behind someone like that???

    Michale
    695

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-5

    It's a very brief glimpse..."my other car is a 5 ton bullet proof limousine."

    I pretty sure it's only in one shot, bit of a continuity gaffe. :-)

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I like the premise and development of this column, but I think the assumption that Trump is the most likely nominee is a bit unwarranted. I know the polls are putting him on top, but scientific polls have never had a stellar record this early in the season. On top of that, this season is unusual, with an very large field and no clear presumptive heir to the nomination. Estimate error inflates with large fields.

    Going into the first primaries, markets and bookies are, historically, better indicators than polls. Plus, markets give an explicit estimate of actual odds of winning, which polls don't, they just confidence intervals. Betfair puts Rubio in the top spot, with a 35% chance of securing the nomination. Cruz and Trump are for all practical purposes tied for second, 25% and 23% respectively. Bush is given a 10% shot, Christie 6%. None of the other contenders can clear 1%.

    If you assume that a third party candidate has essentially no chance of winning the Presidency, than you can do some interesting math with the above probabilities . The Betfair markets estimate the chance of a generic Democrat or Republican winning the White house at 60% or 40%, respectively. If you convert percentage odds to decimals, and multiply the prob. winning the nomination of a each candidate by the generic odds for a generic Republican (.4), you get an implied estimate of each candidate winning both the nomination and the general election = odds of becoming the next prez.

    Results:

    Rubio 14%
    Cruz 10%
    Trump 9%
    Bush 4%
    Christie 2%

    Total =39%

    Betfair also runs a specific market where punters directly bet on which candidate will occupy the White House.

    Market odds of winning the presidency:

    Rubio 14%
    Cruz 9%
    Trump 10%
    Bush 4%
    Chrisie 3%

    Total 40%

    There is remarkable consistency between the two tables. This implies that the Betfair market "believes" that while some of the Republican candidates have a better chance of securing the nomination than others, no Republican candidate will perform much better or much worse than any other Republican candidate in the general election.

    All the above sits pretty well with my own political instincts. Trump is a bit of a long shot, but it's a real shot.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    About the 4 Clinton scenarios:

    I rate the first as highly, and Trump shares essentially the same scenario, but different legal scandals from his convoluted past.

    Economic downturn is most likely Clinton's greatest fear, unless it's driven by the real estate market, in which case it could be an asset.

    Trump got a good bill of health, but his long term doc gave no specifics. My eyes tell me he is an aging male fat ass. If I were to put him on a treadmill I'd want a crash cart on hand. Statistically speaking women live longer than men. The fact that Hillary has survived living with Bill all these years argues for a strong constitution (you can work with that phrasing Michael.

    Terrorist Attack is an other big worry for Clinton. On the other hand, the idea of Trump's hand on the "football" might "GoldCrater" him after a really serious attack demanding a serious military response.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I am curious...

    How accurate was BetFair in the 2010 Shellacking and 2014 Nuclear Shellacking??

    Michale
    696

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I rate the first as highly, and Trump shares essentially the same scenario, but different legal scandals from his convoluted past.

    If such scandals existed, they would have been brought out LONG ago by Establishment Republicans...

    Michale
    697

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    You mean insults the Rich Party Elites to their face, right??

    Trump insults 'the intellectuals' to their face. The people who support him know that he isn't accepted by the establishment, and they lump the traditional Republicans and everybody else into the 'them' they are rebelling against.

    Chris Ladd (GOPLifer) has it right - poor white Republicans only have one thing going for them, the privilege their race gives them, and they are trying to protect this privilege, even to their own detriment (e.g. abolishing Kynect, what a well aimed shot in the foot that one is).

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump got a good bill of health, but his long term doc gave no specifics. My eyes tell me he is an aging male fat ass. If I were to put him on a treadmill I'd want a crash cart on hand.,/I>

    How much of that is based on your general dislike of Trump?? :D

    Statistically speaking women live longer than men. The fact that Hillary has survived living with Bill all these years argues for a strong constitution (you can work with that phrasing Michael.

    Your assessment doesn't take into account Hillary's past health issues..

    Terrorist Attack is an other big worry for Clinton. On the other hand, the idea of Trump's hand on the "football" might "GoldCrater" him after a really serious attack demanding a serious military response.

    Generally speaking, the American people favor Republicans when it comes to terrorism and military matters..

    A large terrorist attack is a very real possibility and, depending on the magnitude, it will likely sink ANY Dem candidacy...

    We all know what happens when Hillary gets that 0300 phone call... She takes the phone off the hook...

    Michale
    698

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, the idea of Trump's hand on the "football" might "GoldCrater" him after a really serious attack demanding a serious military response.

    "Mr President! We've reached a diplomatic solution!!"
    "It's too late, General. The missiles are flying. Hallelujah..."

    -THE DEAD ZONE

    :D

    Michale
    699

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Trump is elected he will choose many of the same basic people to his cabinet as Obama and others have done and will have to deal with the same basic Big Money Congress.
    If Hillary is elected she will choose many of the same basic people to her cabinet and will have to deal with the same basic Big Money Congress.
    If Bernie is elected he will choose many of the same basic people for his cabinet because he will have to deal with the same basic Big Money Congress.
    Yet all we hear about is the presidential election and Trump, Trump, Trump.
    Let's try to stop paying attention to Trump and make 2016 about changing the Big Money Congress. For those of you that missed, disregarded or forgot about my previous post- find out how at the Voucher Vendetta website that you can find in the video mentioned below.
    It would have been better to start this months ago, but there is still time for this to be effective in 2016. Don't know who said this but: "The best time to plant an oak tree is fifty years ago- the next best time is today."
    That being said, people do pay attention when you talk about Trump. So maybe the following YouTube video could get their attention and lead them to participating in Voucher Vendetta. Or maybe they will just find it entertaining to watch me make a fool of myself.
    "I am Trumpface" (Ironman song parody)
    https://youtu.be/FbyLCLcVbQI
    For those of you that saw my previous video, this one has more visual action and this time instead of the music overpowering the vocals, you can hear the lyrics because the vocals overpower the music
    in an excruciating fashion.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris Ladd (GOPLifer) has it right - poor white Republicans only have one thing going for them, the privilege their race gives them, and they are trying to protect this privilege, even to their own detriment (e.g. abolishing Kynect, what a well aimed shot in the foot that one is).

    Always about race with you people, ain't it?? :^/

    I won't ask you for any facts to prove your assertion, as I know you don't have any.. All you have is "code words" and "dog whistles"...

    "Sorry I'm late..."
    "Well, good morning, Danny. I know you don't have a good excuse, so I won't force you to come up with a bad one."
    "Thank you, sir."

    -A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale
    700 WOOT!!!!!

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, if you REALLY want to discuss racial privilege, let's talk about how black Americans can tear down and destroy and attack and assault and be excused and applauded by the Left Wingery???

    THAT's privilege....

    Michale
    701

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    How accurate was BetFair in the 2010 Shellacking and 2014 Nuclear Shellacking??

    "Although American regulators killed Intrade, the British online prediction market Betfair still operates. It gave 89 percent odds that Republicans would win the Senate [in 2014]." (source: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2014-12-02/bets-better-polls-predicting-election-outcomes)

    The betting markets are pretty accurate close to the event. But we are 11 months out - nothing is accurate at this distance. For example, are you willing to believe odds for the January 2017 Superbowl right now?

    I think the real issue, and this is one that the 538 guys must be worrying about for their models, is the decreasing accuracy of polling. The Brits basically led the pollsters up the garden path this year, and personally, if asked who I'd vote for, I'd definitely say 'Donald All The Way'. I'm not very reliable for any polls when people interrupt me without my permission, and I suspect a growing contingent of people feel the same way as I do.

    On a similar note, I've noticed that the number of unsolicited 6pm calls has been going up again. Anybody else having this problem?

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Always about race with you people, ain't it??

    If by 'you people' you mean Republican precinct committeemen, then you tell me:

    http://goplifer.com/2015/12/27/sympathy-for-the-blue-eyed-devil/

    But Chris Ladd also talks about other issues, so, no, not even for Republican precinct committeemen is it always about race.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hell, these days one doesn't even have to BE black to be dietified by the Left Wingery..

    All one has to do is say, "I self-identify as black" and 'viola...

    Instant black person and instant worship from the Left Wingery...

    Amazing... Simply amazing...

    Michale
    702

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    You make me laugh Michale. On one side you complain that there is a race fixation, but at the same time you revel in the little guy vs. the Elites meme.

    When you are part of the underdog group, the subject is germane (us vs. the bad Elites).

    When you are part of the privileged, you want to everybody stop talking about the subject (race).

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If by 'you people' you mean Republican precinct committeemen, then you tell me:

    By "you people" I mean those people who use race as an excuse for everything...

    Institutionalized racism is dead in this country.

    It died the day we elected a black POTUS..

    Michale
    703

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You make me laugh Michale.

    I'll be here all week.. Be sure and tip your waitresses.. :D

    On one side you complain that there is a race fixation, but at the same time you revel in the little guy vs. the Elites meme.

    The latter has nothing to do with the former other than proving my point..

    EVERYTHING from the Left Wingery is about race..

    When you are part of the underdog group, the subject is germane (us vs. the bad Elites).

    You mean when a group plays the victim and whines and cries about "Life ain't fair!!!"

    When you are part of the privileged, you want to everybody stop talking about the subject (race).

    And, once again, you prove my point..

    There is no "white privilege"... There is no institutionalized racism...

    If you disagree, fine..

    Bring some FACTS to the discussion....

    Not "code words".. Not "dog whistles"...

    FACTS... Provable, substantiated FACTS..

    You got any??

    Didna think so...

    Michale
    704

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be here all week.. Be sure and tip your waitresses.. :D

    But I'll be on vacation next week...

    Michale
    705

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Institutionalized racism is dead in this country. It died the day we elected a black POTUS.

    Then 'us vs. the Elites' should have died when Harry Truman was elected in 1948. Or Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Although American regulators killed Intrade, the British online prediction market Betfair still operates. It gave 89 percent odds that Republicans would win the Senate [in 2014]."

    But did it predict the Nuclear Shellacking??

    Also, how did it do in 2010...

    You see where I am going with this?? :D

    Michale
    706

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then 'us vs. the Elites'

    And there you go changing the subject..

    We're not talking about class warfare or "us vs them"...

    We're talking about institutionalize racism..

    DO you have any facts???

    Michale
    707

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a similar note, I've noticed that the number of unsolicited 6pm calls has been going up again. Anybody else having this problem?

    I hear hundreds of thousands of people have been getting TrainWreckCare Robo Calls between 0300 and 0400....

    Fun....

    We ignore any calls that don't come from a recognized number..

    Michale
    708

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale, if you are claiming that there is no racism in this country, and that the hangover from the more pronounced racism from the past has gone (wrt incomes, wealth, access to education, etc.), you are delusional.

    Look at the stats from the census bureau, the mortality rates (until recently when poor white men have started killing themselves in unprecedented and worrying numbers) or any other human index scale and you will see for yourself.

    Can you look at raw data that doesn't pass your bias filter?

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crime in Los Angeles rose in all categories in 2015, LAPD says
    http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-crime-stats-20151230-story.html

    The Ferguson Effect hits the West Coast...

    Michale
    709

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Institutionalized racism is dead in this country.

    It died the day we elected a black POTUS..

    not the case, either statistically or experientially. arrests, convictions, sentences, children tried as adults, voting 'irregularities,' employment, customer service - even something as simple as hailing a cab - are all stacked against people of color, even when adjusting for all potentially confounding variables.

    it can reasonably be argued that steps in the right direction have been made and are not always given due credit. however, all available evidence discredits the idea that systemic racism in our society somehow magically disappeared when a man who happened to be black was elected president.

    JL

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    not the case, either statistically or experientially. arrests, convictions, sentences, children tried as adults, voting 'irregularities,' employment, customer service - even something as simple as hailing a cab - are all stacked against people of color, even when adjusting for all potentially confounding variables.

    Fine... If it's so prevalent finding FACTS should be easy...

    however, all available evidence discredits the idea that systemic racism in our society somehow magically disappeared when a man who happened to be black was elected president.

    And that evidence would be......???????

    I have been asking this exact same question for almost 7 years now..

    To date, NO ONE has come up with any FACTS...

    Oh sure, there are "code words" and innuendo and conjecture and supposition....

    Facts???

    NONE to be found...

    Michale
    710

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, the only "FACT" ya'all have is that a person is black...

    THAT seems to be all that is needed to "prove" racism...

    One of our fellow Weigantian's even said as much...

    A black person is involved so it MUST be racism..

    That's the Party line around here... Literally...

    Michale
    713

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Take your "hailing a cab" example..

    You have a white guy and a black guy..

    The cabbie picks up the white guy..

    In the eyes of the Left Wingery, that "PROVES" racism...

    The black guy was overlooked so it "MUST" be racism... Even though there are literally HUNDREDS of other possibilities, it HAS to be racism...

    Those are the ONLY kinds of "facts" the Left Wingery has...

    Innuendo, supposition, conjecture and "code words"..

    Not a concrete fact in the bunch...

    Michale
    714

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have been asking this exact same question for almost 7 years now..

    To date, NO ONE has come up with any FACTS...

    that's also incorrect. many commentators over the years have provided facts from various sources, which you've summarily ignored and forgotten.

    here's one of MANY examples:

    http://tinyurl.com/ocvz66n

    JL

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What gives you the authority to make the assertion that non-whites do not still suffer racial discrimination, institutional or otherwise?

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It may be time to get off of the right-wing/left-wing merry-go-round and set your sights on a more enlightening way to look at a political spectrum ... the up-wing/down-wing continuum.

    You should try it out next year, I think you'll like it! I know I will ...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    here's one of MANY examples:

    http://tinyurl.com/ocvz66n

    That's not evidence of racism...

    That's evidence of sentencing...

    Michale
    716

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    What gives you the authority to make the assertion that non-whites do not still suffer racial discrimination, institutional or otherwise?

    We're discussing institutionalized racism, not "otherwise"...

    Of course there is racism in the world.. Just like there is hate and bigotry in the world..

    But the ONLY form of institutionalized racism that exists in the US in the here and now is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION..

    So, if ya'all wanna condemn institutionalized racism, condemn that.. THAT is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of institutionalized racism...

    But ya'all won't, will ya... Because THAT racism serves the Leftist OH I AM A VICTIM, PITY ME agenda..

    Michale
    717

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    It may be time to get off of the right-wing/left-wing merry-go-round and set your sights on a more enlightening way to look at a political spectrum ... the up-wing/down-wing continuum.

    Does that mean ya'all will stop blaming everything on the Right Wing???

    :D

    Somehow, I doubt it.. :D

    Michale
    718

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But the ONLY form of institutionalized racism that exists in the US in the here and now is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION..

    You think that institutional racism can only exist in the form of legislation?

    I see that what we have here is a failure to understand what institutional racism is and how ubiquitous, yet concealed, it can be within society.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Somehow, I doubt it.. :D

    I think you should throw caution to the wind and try it, anyway. :)

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think that institutional racism can only exist in the form of legislation?

    No, I think the only institutionalized racism that DOES exist in the United States is Affirmative Action..

    But I am always open to FACTS that prove me wrong..

    But ONLY facts...

    Michale
    719

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you should throw caution to the wind and try it, anyway. :)

    Fair enough.. I'll quit blaming the Democrats for things if ya'all quit blaming the Republicans for things..

    We'll see how well that works.. :D

    Michale
    720

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS[4]: Thanks for the heads up on Obama and Seinfeld - hilarious!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    here's one of MANY examples:

    http://tinyurl.com/ocvz66n

    That's not evidence of racism...

    That's evidence of sentencing...

    I know your argument. Blacks are more heavily sentenced than whites so it MUST be institutionalized racism..

    But you fail to consider ANY other possibility..

    It's like the hailing a cab example..

    There are HUNDREDS of reasons why the black guy didn't get picked up.. There are HUNDREDS of reasons why sentencing stats are the way they are...

    So, your sentencing example is ONLY proof of sentencing... It's your ASSUMPTION that the sentencing is because of racism...

    ANY other possibility is ignored in favor of the desired conclusion..

    It's not fact based conclusions...

    It's conclusion based facts...

    Michale
    721

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to ask yourself ONE question..

    If institutionalized racism is driving those stats...

    WHY HASN'T OBAMA DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!??

    I mean, Obama is ready to mint millions and millions of fresh new Democrat voters...

    If the institutionalized racism is so blatant, so prevalent, so FACT BASED in our society...

    WHY does the first black POTUS allow it to continue??

    The answer is simple...

    It's NOT blatant, it's NOT prevalent, it's NOT fact based...

    Those stats are open to many MANY different interpretations...

    If they weren't, then Obama would have done something about it..

    QED

    Michale
    722

  56. [56] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-17

    Short answer, I didn't follow Betfair back then, and I'm unaware of any archives of their old market payouts.

    They did rather famously predict all 50 states right in the 2004 presidential elections.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-most-accurate-electio_b_140181.html

    Intrade (now deceased) did very well back in 2008 and 2012.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the report you cite came from the UN...

    The UN that routinely accuses Israel of war crimes, genocide and having overdue library books... The UN that institutionalized child rape... The UN that sent "peacekeepers" down to Africa but ended up supplying BOTH sides with arms..

    The UN??? Really????

    You would have had better luck with me by citing a HuffPoop report... :D

    Michale
    716

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Short answer, I didn't follow Betfair back then, and I'm unaware of any archives of their old market payouts.

    I would be more inclined to trust their results if the accurately predicted things in favor of Republicans that actually came to pass...

    Because, from all the available evidence to date, it sounds like nothing more than a Left Wing cheering section that fails to take into account ANY of the factors that play against the Left...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    2015: A year of campus hysteria
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2015-a-year-of-campus-hysteria/article/2579184

    The Hysterical Left is aptly named...

    Michale
    724

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    D.C. sees 54% increase in homicides
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/dc-sees-54-increase-in-homicides/

    More Ferguson Effect stats....

    Michale
    725

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the report you cite came from the UN...

    The UN that routinely accuses Israel of war crimes, genocide and having overdue library books... The UN that institutionalized child rape... The UN that sent "peacekeepers" down to Africa but ended up supplying BOTH sides with arms..

    The UN??? Really????

    You would have had better luck with me by citing a HuffPoop report...

    Put another way...

    If the UN issued a report that the sky was blue and water was wet, I would want substantiation from independent sources.... :D

    Michale
    726

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    No.. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury...
    ... about his sex life, in a civil case, for which no criminal charges were filed. tomayto, tomahto.

    No... Clinton was lying about his sexual harassment...

    Something I would THINK that the Left Wingery would have some issues with...

    Of course, Bill has that all powerful '-D' after his name, so.....

    Michale
    727

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwwwwwwwwwwww

    "Confidants say that, although he still supports Obama, Soros has been disappointed by him, both politically and personally," the article said. "When Soros wanted to meet with Obama in Washington to discuss global economic problems, Obama’s staff failed to respond."

    "Eventually, they arranged not a White House interview but, rather, a low-profile, private meeting in New York, when the President was in town for other business. Soros found this back-door treatment confounding," the article said.

    A Soros confident told The New Yorker: "They pissed on him... He didn’t want a f-cking thing! He didn’t want a state dinner, or a White House party—he just wanted to be taken seriously.”
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/264542-liberal-billionaire-soros-told-clinton-ally-he-regrets-backing-obama

    Poo' lil Soros got his widdle feelings hoit...

    Cry me a river....

    Michale
    728

  64. [64] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -58

    Your democratic cheering section comment suggests you don't understand how these markets work. Betfair doesn't set the odds, the odds are determined by a " backer" who says an event will occur, and a layer who says it won't. For every cheer their is an opposing jeer. All preconceived notions lie with the betters, this is about as neutral as you can get. The serous players play both sides of both issues. They buy low and sell high, they even arbitrage between slight variations across different betting shops. Betfair is not the only game in town - just a big marketplace and easy to access from the good ol' USA.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I'll just have ta take yer word for it.. :D

    I guess we'll know how accurate BF is about Trump after the Primary... And how accurate they are about Hillary in November..

    Taking into account ALL the real possibilities, it's simply inconceivable that Hillary is such a slam dunk...

    But, as I said.. We'll see.... :D

    Michale
    733

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ad hominem against the UN may work if their facts were in any way suspect, but at least in this case there's no ambiguity. if it were only sentencing rate, only arrest rate, only execution rate, only rate of juveniles tried as adults, only this or that solitary statistic, then healthy skepticism would be warranted. but it's extremely unlikely that every single one of those statistics would all be so dramatically skewed at the same time in the same direction, unless there were a common cause. experiments controlling for potential alternate causes have still yielded similar results. for whatever reason, the justice system as a whole tends to discriminate against people of color. that's as close to factual as science allows.

    JL

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    ad hominem against the UN may work if their facts were in any way suspect,

    OR if their BS is in keeping with a specific agenda.. :D

    but at least in this case there's no ambiguity.

    The ambiguity is not in the facts..

    The ambiguity is in the conclusion...

    It's been my experience that crime drives incarceration stats..

    for whatever reason, the justice system as a whole tends to discriminate against people of color. that's as close to factual as science allows.

    Then why aren't there any UNEQUIVOCAL *FACTS* to support that..

    If it is so prevalent as you say, then one wouldn't have to extrapolate or rely on "code words" or the like??

    but it's extremely unlikely that every single one of those statistics would all be so dramatically skewed at the same time in the same direction, unless there were a common cause.

    Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

    There could be a MULTITUDE of causes, of which racism is only ONE of the possible conclusions..

    500 years ago it was "extremely unlikely" that all the science that said the earth was flat was wrong..

    Today, we know better...

    Until unequivocally and incontestable FACTS come along that PROVE racism is the root cause, it's all just ideologically based conjecture..

    I mean, if you are going to accuse an entire institution or organization of racism, doesn't it make sense to be ABSOLUTELY and 1000% sure???

    Isn't it better that 100 racist institutions go free rather than a SINGLE innocent institution be unfairly branded???

    Michale
    735

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    ad hominem against the UN

    'Sides...

    It ain't ad hominem if it's true!! :D

    Michale
    736

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's been my experience that crime drives incarceration stats..

    michale, it's been your pattern to demand "FACTS," then completely ignore or try to discredit facts when they're presented. you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    it is a FACT that the national institute on drug abuse found a higher rate of drug abuse and drug dealing among white students than black students, even when accounting for differences in population. blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests. you're not allowed to just ignore that, or claim it's somehow invalid or non-factual. for whatever reason, the system is racially skewed. that's not opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.

    It ain't ad hominem if it's true

    also incorrect. you can make a true statement about the UN and its faults, but the faults in the organization don't render facts less factual. counter-example: i can truly say that dick cheney's support for torturing terror suspects is horrific and awful and overruled by the SCOTUS, but does that by necessity mean that those tactics were ineffective?

    JL

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's been my experience that crime drives incarceration stats..

    michale, it's been your pattern to demand "FACTS," then completely ignore or try to discredit facts when they're presented. you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    it is a FACT that the national institute on drug abuse found a higher rate of drug abuse and drug dealing among white students than black students, even when accounting for differences in population. blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests. you're not allowed to just ignore that, or claim it's somehow invalid or non-factual. for whatever reason, the system is racially skewed. that's not opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.

    JL

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It ain't ad hominem if it's true

    incorrect. you can make a true statement about the UN and its faults, but the faults in the organization don't render facts less factual. counter-example: i can truly say that dick cheney's support for torturing terror suspects is horrific and awful and overruled by the SCOTUS, but does that by necessity mean that those tactics were ineffective?

    JL

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's been my experience that crime drives incarceration stats..

    michale, it's been your pattern to demand "FACTS," then completely ignore or try to discredit facts when they're presented. you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    JL

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it is a FACT that the national institute on drug abuse found a higher rate of drug abuse and drug dealing among white students than black students, even when accounting for differences in population. blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests.

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests. if crime was what drove stats, then the arrest rates would match the crime rates.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    michale, it's been your pattern to demand "FACTS," then completely ignore or try to discredit facts when they're presented. you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    I acknowledge that you come with facts.. I have acknowledged that EVERY time we have this discussion..

    I am calling into question your CONCLUSION based on those facts...

    Michale
    738

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests. if crime was what drove stats, then the arrest rates would match the crime rates.

    I would need to know the context before I can give possible causes..

    I grant you, racism IS one of the possible causes..

    Do you concede that racism is not the *ONLY* possible cause???

    All that FACT shows is that drug dealers who are black are arrested more...

    I don't contest that fact....

    I contest your conclusion that it proves institutionalized racism...

    Michale
    739

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's like Global Warming and gun control....

    It's agenda-driven where only ONE set of facts are adhered to, ONE conclusion and ONE conclusion ONLY is considered and ANYTHING that doesn't toe the agenda-driven line is ignored...

    You MIGHT be right.. Those facts MIGHT mean there is institutionalized racism among us..

    But you also MIGHT be wrong..

    And THAT's the point you don't allow for...

    Like I said above... If you are going to accuse a group, an institution or an organization of racism..

    Doesn't it behoove you to have ironclad, unequivocal and incontestable FACTS to support the accusation?? At the very least, make "ALLEGED" part and parcel to every accusation..

    Michale
    740

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    blacks account for 16% of drug dealers and 64% of arrests. if crime was what drove stats, then the arrest rates would match the crime rates.

    Location, Location, Location

    One possible explanation is that black drug dealers operate in high crime areas that already have the attention of police...

    You see my point??

    All other possibilities are ignored in favor of the ONE explanation that suits the political agenda...

    Michale
    741

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    "And that's why it had to be, poison, right, Commander? 'Cause Lord knows, if you put a man with a serious coronary condition back on duty with a clean bill of health, and that man died from a heart related incident, you'd have a lot to answer for, wouldn't you, doctor?"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale
    743

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The latest polls show Bernie crushing Trump. Even moreso than HRC.

    His favorability/unfavorability ratings are the highest of any candidate.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/poll-against-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-would-get-schlonged-20151223

    -David

    #feelthebern

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie has to crush Hillary before he can crush Trump..

    And I really hope he can do the former...

    It will make the latter much more fun.. :D

    Michale
    745

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    One possible explanation is that black drug dealers operate in high crime areas that already have the attention of police...

    You see my point??

    All other possibilities are ignored in favor of the ONE explanation that suits the political agenda...

    on the contrary, other possibilities aren't ignored, they're controlled and accounted for by research. do black people only drive on the "high crime" parts of the New Jersey Turnpike? for any one part of the system, there are plenty of alternate theories that taken in a vacuum might explain the discrepancy, but none of these explanations account for the rest of the pattern of disproportionate number AND severity of suspicion, investigation, arrests, indictments, charges, trials conducted, verdicts rendered and sentences imposed. there may be many additional factors that play a part, but the only statistically significant commonality between all phases is that the group addressed more frequently and more severely through all phases are people of color.

    the system is skewed, and there is no other viable explanation.

    JL

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    do black people only drive on the "high crime" parts of the New Jersey Turnpike?

    What's the turnpike have to do with anything??

    but the only statistically significant commonality between all phases is that the group addressed more frequently and more severely through all phases are people of color.

    So (heh :D) in other words...

    It's the color of their skin... Not the content of their character...

    That about right??

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    the system is skewed, and there is no other viable explanation.

    There is no other ACCEPTABLE explanation...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Consider this..

    13 percent of the US population is black..

    However, black people commit 52% of the murders..

    If one were to compile all violent crime statistics, apply that to the percentage of blacks within the population and use your methodology, one would have to conclude that black people are disproportionately inclined to commit violent crimes..

    Of course, when one looks at the data logically and objectively, they would realize that there is likely a multitude of factors that are at work and that race, while obviously a fact, is not truly a factor..

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    13 percent of the US population is black..

    However, black people commit 52% of the murders...

    that's a misuse of the facts. murder is a classification of homicide, and your use of that classification is based on a biased cross-section of the data, which ignores the methods by which those statistics were obtained.

    prosecutors are significantly more likely to upgrade homicides with similar details to murder status when the defendant is black, even more likely if the defendant is black and the victim is white. juries are more likely to convict black people when the facts of a case are similar, and judges more likely to impose harsher sentences.

    overall, the data suggest that blacks and whites are equally likely to COMMIT violent crimes, but unequally likely to be CONVICTED of violent crimes.

    the simplest explanation is that race IS a factor. There are indeed multiple factors, but for some reason they all seem to skew in the same direction. If you'd like to propose a more elegant explanation, feel free, but your current explanation doesn't hold water.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's a misuse of the facts.

    Based on what?? That it counters yer argument?? :D

    murder is a classification of homicide, and your use of that classification is based on a biased cross-section of the data, which ignores the methods by which those statistics were obtained.

    How does the classification interfere with the interpretation of the stats?

    How is the cross section biased??

    prosecutors are significantly more likely to upgrade homicides with similar details to murder status when the defendant is black, even more likely if the defendant is black and the victim is white.

    If you have prosecutors that will testify to this, then I'll acknowledge it as fact..

    But without such direct evidence, it's nothing but conjecture..

    the simplest explanation is that race IS a factor.

    No.. The most attractive explanation is that race is a factor..

    If you'd like to propose a more elegant explanation, feel free, but your current explanation doesn't hold water.

    I can't prove a negative.. The claim is that race is a factor.. That has NEVER been proven..

    But, let's say for the sake of the argument that, even though we're not positive that race is a factor, let's take steps to change the statistics so that they are more politically correct..

    What do you propose??

    Letting guilty black defendants go free??

    Making white defendants automatically guilty based on their race??

    What's your solution??

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have prosecutors that will testify to this, then I'll acknowledge it as fact..

    I'll even make it easier for you..

    Can you give me specific cases where black people were treated differently by the criminal justice system SOLELY because of their race?

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you have prosecutors that will testify to this, then I'll acknowledge it as fact..

    i'm sure most prosecutors don't do it intentionally, perhaps not even knowingly. it's a fact because it's statistically true, not because of any particular individuals consciously discriminating.

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Can you give me specific cases where black people were treated differently by the criminal justice system SOLELY because of their race?

    that's a ridiculous standard of proof because no prosecutor would admit to doing something like that, even if it were intentional. since doing so is illegal, it would require someone in the criminal justice system to admit to a crime themselves, effectively ending their careers and livelihoods. we know it happens because it's statistically true, and your requirement of personal verification is both unnecessary and impossible.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm sure most prosecutors don't do it intentionally, perhaps not even knowingly. it's a fact because it's statistically true, not because of any particular individuals consciously discriminating.

    So, it's like a micro-aggression.. :D

    we know it happens because it's statistically true, and your requirement of personal verification is both unnecessary and impossible.

    No, you THINK it happens because SOME statistics indicate that it might happen..

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/02/myth-of-the-cop-killing-epidemic/

    A good article how "it HAS to be!!!" is not borne out by reality and the facts...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, you THINK it happens because SOME statistics indicate that it might happen..

    statistics indicate that a higher percentage of people of color are arrested for and convicted of crimes than commit crimes, that they are prosecuted and indicted for more severe crimes for the same actions, that they are on average given significantly harsher sentences for the same crimes, that juveniles are significantly more likely to be tried as adults, and that the pattern is consistent across different locations.

    now it's POSSIBLE that each of these statistical patterns has an explanation other than the system discriminating against people of color. however, no other explanation or combination of explanations is as simple, as plausible, or as consistent with personal accounts. a close friend of mine from college, nicest man in the universe, was arrested once on some ridiculous charge that there's no way in hell he would ever do. my former principal's husband, a high level professional, was arrested for jumping a subway turnstile even though the booth attendant had directed him to do so due to it being broken. these are two of many such accounts that one never, ever hears from white people.

    JL

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    now it's POSSIBLE that each of these statistical patterns has an explanation other than the system discriminating against people of color.

    And that's all I am saying..

    It's like when you quoted cop killings of black people a while ago..

    While the stats appear to be damning, the fact is that 99.99% of those killings were justified. But you said something along the lines of "taken as a whole, the stats show a damning picture.."

    That's likely the case here.. Each and every incident likely has a logical and NON-racist explanation... But, taken as a whole it DOES *appear* (emphasis on APPEAR) to paint a damning racist picture...

    I would wager that if you take a black person and a white person with EXACTLY the same parameters who commit the EXACT same crime in the EXACT same way then they both would be treated in the EXACT same manner by the criminal justice system...

    Unless there is direct and incontrovertible facts that dispute this, THAT is my position..

    I have seen the justice system from the inside.. I know it has it's issues.. But racism is not one of them..

    Having said that, let me ask you again..

    Assuming you are right and I am wrong, what is your solution??

    Do we ignore the facts and establish a "quota" for arrests??

    "Sorry, Richey.. But we have our quota of black people arrested for the month. We have to cut him loose.."
    "But, Lou!! This guy just walked in to a Starbucks and gunned down 20 people!!"
    "Sorry, kid. The law says we can't arrest more than 50 black people a month. Cut 'im loose and pin the crime on a white guy. We're WAY below our quota for white guys!!"

    Maybe an Affirmative Action program for the courts...

    "Bailiff, is today we do black defendants or hispanic defendants??"
    -Judge

    Assuming there IS an institutionalized racism problem, let's fix it.

    What's the fix???

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's the fix???

    How do you change what's in peoples' hearts, Michale?

    In other words, this is not an easy problem to fix. Your country has come a very long way on this issue with a very long way yet to go.

Comments for this article are closed.