Pages

Advertising

Saturday News: "In a World on Fire, Stop Burning Things"; Biden Warns Xi; "Is Russia losing?"; "The Putin-Fox feedback loop"; "Virginia police officer pleads guilty to Jan. 6 charge"

Saturday, March 19, 2022

by Lowell 

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Saturday, March 19. NOTE: We're still messing around with the migration of www.bluevirginia.us to a new server, so...hopefully things will be back to normal sometime today. For now, I'm posting this here.
Posted by Lowell at 7:13 AM

2022 Virginia General Assembly “Batting Averages”…Presented with the Usual Slew of Caveats

Friday, March 18, 2022

I've been unable to post at the www.bluevirginia.us site (WordPress) most of today (3/18/22), as the site is being migrated to a new - and hopefully better - server (don't ask! LOL), so I'm posting this here at the old bluevablog.blogspot.com site for now. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that...haha.  Anyway, VPAP is out with its annual legislators' "batting averages," as you can see in the following screenshots. But first, see here for all the usual caveats:

  • These numbers can be *highly* misleading if you look at them the wrong way, or as in the case of VPAP, they can be misleading if you fail to present the numbers with explanation, important context, etc. as VPAP indeed fails to do. 
  • Also, as Cindy Cunningham explained back in 2019, “There are many, many ways that a legislator might end up with a low ‘batting average’ on the VPAP scorecard. The legislator might, in fact, put in lots of ill-conceived bills–ideas that haven’t really been thought through very well, poorly designed plays.” 
  • Or, “a legislator might also end up with a low score by putting in lots of controversial or partisan bills.” 
  • “On the flip side, a sure way to get a high score is to put in a lot of relatively sleepy little bills–clean up some badly-worded or vague section of the code, solve some minor local problem, be the patron of one of the many, many bills that are voted through unanimously – ‘in the uncontested block.'”
  • “Lastly, a legislator may get a high score for having a good sense of what can or cannot pass, for working hard with stakeholders and other legislators before and during the process to tweak the language so that it will have as little opposition as possible, for being willing to amend on the fly as needed. Think of this as playing good, smart, fundamentally sound baseball.” 
  • “But just like a win-loss record is a poor measure of how your pitcher did, and how ‘advanced sabermetrics’ are far more revealing, this VPAP ‘batting average’ is a poor metric for how our legislators did.”
  • Also worth looking at, along with the % of patroned bills passed, is how many bills each legislator put in, and how many total bills passed. Thus, clearly having a 100% batting average is not nearly the same thing if you patroned one or two bills that passed versus, let’s say, 40-50 bills, of which perhaps half or two-thirds passed. And again, one really needs to look at how complex, “significant,” etc. each bill is, as well as how much time/effort was required of the patron to get it passed, how much help they had in doing so, etc.
  • Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that different members of the General Assembly have different roles. Thus, someone in leadership might spend a big chunk of their time…well, leading! As opposed, that is, to worrying as much about their own bills. Or maybe they try to do both. But regardless, the point is, again we’re somewhat comparing apples/oranges/bananas here.
  • With all those caveats, there’s an argument that, perhaps, “batting averages” and statistics like the following aren’t even worth presenting. Or maybe they’re worse than nothing, as they could be misleading? I’d argue that, yes, that’s all true, if you just take the “batting averages” alone, and don’t do some serious “advanced sabermetrics,” as Cindy notes. In short, I’d use the following numbers to *start* a conversation, most definitely not to *end* it. With that…here are the numbers, with a few things that jumped out at me (above each graphic)…
Overall, in the 2022 General Assembly, 40% of introduced bills ended up passing - down from 57% last year and 45% in 2020. By party, Republicans passed 42% of their introduced bills, while Democrats passed 39%. Men passed 43% of their introduced bills, while women passed 35% of theirs. And those with the most seniority (16+ years) passed a whopping 52% of their introduced bills, while those with just 0-4 years in office passed just 26% (!) of their introduced bills (*huge* difference there). Finally, note the contrast from last year, when Democrats had a "trifecta" (control of the House of Delegates, State Senate and governorship), and when the highest legislative batting averages skewed heavily "blue," with the lowest - including Amanda Chase, Kirk Cox, Glenn Davis, etc. at zero - skewing heavily "red." This time around, with divided government, it's more of a mixed bag...




Worth noting: six of the top ten "batting averages" are Republicans, with Sen. Janet Howell and Del. Clint Jenkins the leading Democrats at 3/3 (100%) and 1/1 (100%), respectively - although both had very few introduced bills - and Sen. Todd Pillion and Del. Barry Knight the leading Republicans at 11/11 (100%) and 6/6 (100%). (Also with high "batting averages" - House Majority Leader Terry Kilgore at 21/26 (81%), Republican Del. Tommy Wright at 8/10 (80%), Democratic Del. Rip Sullivan at 11/14 (79%), Democratic Sen. Monty Mason at 18/23 (78%), etc.










The lowest "batting averages" were a mix of Democrats and some really far-right Republicans. For instance, far-right Delegates Marie March and Dave LaRock only saw 5% and 6%, respectively, of their introduced bills pass. Also-far-right Del. Tim Anderson and Sen. Amanda Chase actually passed NONE of their introduced bills, which is even worse considering that they both introduced a lot of bills (23 each). Also at 0% were Delegates Michelle Maldonado (0/5) and Candi King (0/6), although neither introduced many bills. Also under 10% were hard-right Del. Nick Freitas (at just 4/43, or 9%), Democratic freshman Del. Nadarius Clark (9%), Democratic Del. Wendy Gooditis (9%), Democratic Del. Kelly Fowler (5%), Democratic Del. Kaye Kory (5%), and Democratic Del. Alfonso Lopez (3%). Again, consider all the caveats noted at the top of this piece as you evaluate these "batting averages." Finally, note that for whatever reasons, three delegates (Democrats Ken Plum and Lamont Bagby; Republican Speaker Todd Gilbert)  introduced no bills at all.




Posted by Lowell at 6:28 PM

Donald Trump Says No Leader Should "question another man's religion," Yet He's Done So Many Times

Thursday, February 18, 2016

by Lowell

Donald Trump today: "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith."

Donald Trump previously:

2/12/16: TRUMP: 'How can Ted Cruz be an evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?'
12/14/15: Donald Trump Questions Ted Cruz's Evangelical Faith
9/18/15: Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim (many examples, going back years, such as suggesting in 2011 that Barack Obama's birth certificate might say he's a Muslim)
9/18/15: Donald Trump fails to correct man calling Obama a Muslim and 'not even American' – video
9/27/12: Donald Trump tweet -- "Does Madonna know something we all don't about Barack? At a concert she said 'we have a black Muslim in the White House.'"

P.S. It's worth noting that "JEB" Bush, who the corporate media likes to claim is some sort of moderate, the sane one in the wacko 2016 GOP presidential field, answered "no" to the question of whether Trump's a Christian a few weeks ago.
Posted by Lowell at 4:07 PM

To the Republicans: We Won’t Stand for Your Stealing What We Won Fair and Square

by Andy Schmookler

Note: This piece will be running in newspapers in my conservative congressional district (VA-06).

In 2012, Americans engaged in the constitutional process for deciding who would get the powers of the presidency.

In that election - and the one in 2008 - millions of us Americans won an important right: to have our guy name the person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court if any were to open up. We won it fair and square.

We can talk about the president’s constitutional responsibilities and privileges, but ultimately this is about the rights of us American citizens who participate in the American electoral process.

For a great many people – on both left and right – the president’s role in naming judges is a major reason we care who gets elected to the Oval Office. Understanding the importance of the Supreme Court, we work hard within our constitutional system of elections to see that – for the following four years – it will be our candidate who gets to shape that Court if the opportunity arises.

We won in 2012, and now that opportunity has arisen.

You Republicans have had a stroke of bad luck. One of your guys on the Court has died at a time that one of our guys is president. Now, you're going to lose some power. Tough luck, but that’s how our constitution set up the rules of the game.

Read more »
Posted by Lowell at 10:26 AM

Thursday News: Trump Appealing to "Voters' Primal Fears"; MSNBC Disgraces Itself; 2016 Campaigns Set to Rev Up in Virginia

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Thursday, February 18. Also check out the spot-on political cartoon by the always-superb Tom Toles and the word clouds by CNU's Wason Center from their just-released poll of Virginia voters.
Posted by Lowell at 6:27 AM

Terry McAuliffe Signs "Governors Accord for a New Energy Future," But Does It Mean Anything?

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

by Lowell

I received the following statement by Environment Virginia earlier today, pertaining to yesterday's announcement of the "Governors Accord for a New Energy Future." Among others, you'll note that Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a signatory. The question in my mind, which I'll discuss after the Environment Virginia press release, is whether this announcement actually, you know, means anything.
Governors' Clean Energy Accord announced yesterday
Richmond, VA -- A bipartisan group of 17 governors announced a new initiative yesterday to commit states across the country to advancing clean energy, encouraging clean transportation, and modernizing energy infrastructure. The Governors Accord for a New Energy Future follows a Supreme Court ruling last week to temporarily block the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the U.S. strategy to tackle global warming that encourages states to develop clean, renewable energy. The states signed onto the accord are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Sarah Bucci, Environment Virginia's State Director, issued this statement:

“The announcement of the Governors' Accord for a New Energy Future shows Virginia is on the path to become a clean energy leader. These states have leading the way on clean energy and clean cars, and this announcement shows Virginia's commitment. While the court may have temporarily blocked the Clean Power Plan, it can’t block progress toward wind and solar energy, affordable electric vehicles, and a more modern and efficient electric grid. Kudos to Governor McAuliffe for pledging to forge a path forward for climate progress and clean air.”
Sounds good, but what does this accord commit the governors to do, exactly? As far as I can tell, not much. From reading through the document, although it claims that the signatories "embrace a shared vision" of great things like expanding clean energy sources, there's also a bunch of less-than-great (or even bad) things in here, such as:

  • no words like "commit," "pledge," or "required to do this;"
  • talk about upgrading power grids and other features of a top-down, centralized energy system, but no mention whatsoever of distributed power (e.g., rooftop solar, microgrids, battery storage);
  • zero mention of a major driver behind the need for a clean energy transition -- namely, climate disruption;
  • inclusion of the seriously problematic fossil fuel, natural gas (much of it "fracked," which leads to a wide variety of environmental problems, including leakage of the potent greenhouse gas, methane), as a "clean transportation option;"
  • no specific mention of supporting the Clean Power Plan (CPP);
  • included on the list of governors are at least two - Rick Snyder of Michigan and Brian Sandoval of Nevada - who have been abysmal when it comes to clean energy (e.g, Nevada just basically killed rooftop solar power in that state; Snyder just suspended CPP compliance in Michigan)
I'd further point out that, here in Virginia, the General Assembly is dominated by anti-environment, bought-and-paid-for fossil fuel politicians. As for Gov. McAuliffe, while he has certainly been friendly towards clean energy, he also has continued to push in the 180-degrees wrong direction with regard to offshore oil drilling and new natural gas infrastructure, both of which are big mistakes. Given all that, I'm not exactly holding my breath for any positive serious action from our political "leaders" on kickstarting a clean energy economy here in Virginia.

To end this downer of a post on a bit more positive note: as a pro-clean-energy friend of mine put it, at least this accord - albeit vague and nonbinding - represents some sort of benchmark by which to judge the governors who signed on. Also, to the extent that this moves the conversation more towards a focus on the optimal ways to move towards a clean energy economy, not WHETHER to move towards a clean energy economy, that's a good thing. Anyway, we'll see.
Posted by Lowell at 4:30 PM

New PPP Virginia Poll: Clinton 56%-Sanders 34%; Clinton Holds 58-Point Lead Among African Americans

by Lowell

Yesterday, a new CNU poll of Virginia had Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders for the March 1 primary by 12 points (52%-40%). Today, a new poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows Clinton with an even larger, 22-point lead (56%-34%). That includes a 58-point lead (74%-16%) for Clinton among African Americans in Virginia. The bottom line is that, with 13 days to go until Virginia's presidential primary, Clinton's southern "firewall" certainly appears to be holding, at least in this state.

How's the "firewall" looking in other, early March primary states? According to PPP: Clinton is "leading the way in 10 of 12, with double digit leads in 9 of them. Bernie Sanders has an overwhelming lead in his home state of Vermont and also leads in Massachusetts. The race is close in Oklahoma where Clinton is ahead by just 2 points, but she has double digit leads in the other 9 states that will have primaries that week." What's the reason for Clinton's huge lead? Very simple: "She leads by anywhere from 40-62 points among black voters in the nine of these states that have more black voters than the national average. Her support ranges from 63-74% with black voters in those states, while Sanders gets 12-23%."

Of course, Sanders is trying hard to catch up among African Americans, but the problem for him is that time is rapidly running out.  Starting on February 27, with the South Carolina Democratic primary, there will be a deluge of primaries, caucuses, and delegates up for grabs. As Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook pointed out a few days ago, "the 28 states that vote (or caucus) in March will award 56% of the delegates needed to win...In total, 1,875 delegates will be awarded in the first 15 days of March, including nearly 900 on Super Tuesday alone." So, basically, as impressive as Bernie Sanders' campaign has been, if he doesn't catch up in the next few weeks -- and particularly he needs to make major inroads among African Americans and Latinos -- the nomination could be all but over by the end of March. I'm certainly not saying he can't catch up, but no doubt he's got his work cut out for him. Stay tuned...
Posted by Lowell at 11:22 AM

Wednesday News: Republicans "playing with fire" on SCOTUS; "Kaine's in vice presidential beauty pageant"

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, February 17. Also, check out President Obama's press conference yesterday in California following an ASEAN summit.
Posted by Lowell at 6:44 AM

Three More Post-Scalia Thoughts

Tuesday, February 16, 2016


by Andy Schmookler
1. WHAT KIND OF MAN WAS ANTONIN SCALIA?
It is important to me to be fair, to give credit where credit is due. Denying someone’s virtues just because they hold beliefs different from mine is something I strive not to do. So it is in that context that I find myself wondering about my judgment of the late Antonin Scalia.
I have believed, and I have written, that Scalia was a hypocrite and a fraud. He claimed to be an “originalist” in his approach to the Constitution, but what I thought I saw was a man determined to advance a corporatist and conservative agenda—using an originalist approach when that served his agenda, and ignoring it when it didn’t.
How does a genuine originalist find in the Constitution the idea that corporations are persons—an idea on which the terrible Citizens United  decision was premised? And in Heller – the decision in which Scalia and his conservative allies found the Second Amendment to confer onto individuals a right to firearms altogether unrelated to any “regulated militia” (which our founders, for some reason, wasted words mentioning in the amendment). And so this supposed originalist came up with an interpretation beloved on the right but which had been deemed “a fraud” by the Republican-appointed former Chief Justice, Warren Berger.
Yet here we have Scalia’s colleagues paying tribute to the departed, including the liberal-leaning Justice Breyer describing Scalia as a man of “integrity,” and Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying that he was altogether shaped by “an unyielding commitment to the Constitution of the United States and to the highest ethical and moral standards.”
His colleagues knew him far better than I. They should know more deeply than I what a “commitment to the Constitution of the United States” would look like.
So what kind of man was Scalia? Have I been guilty of being unfair to a man of principle? Or are his colleagues exemplifying how people prettify the picture of the person who just died? Or what?
Read more »
Posted by Lowell at 8:06 PM

Video: VA Del. Mark Sickles Speaks Out Emotionally, Powerfully Against Anti-LGBT Bigotry Bill; Right-Wing Republican Defends It

by Lowell

The following is an emotional, powerful speech by openly gay Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax) against far-right-wing Del. Todd Gilbert's appalling HB 773, the Orwellian-named "Government Nondiscrimination Act." In fact, as Del. Sickles correctly explains, this bill isn't about "nondiscrimation," but "it IS a discrimination bill...that is going to hurt our state."

Del. Sickles then proceeds to cite example after example of major corporations, law firms, etc, etc. who sponsor the Equality Virginia annual dinner, and more broadly who support full equality for all their employees.

What's amazing is that anyone could actually defend the bigoted garbage in Gilbert's bill, let alone after an extraordinary speech like Sickles', but that's exactly what Gilbert attempts to do, whining about how bullies like him are actually the ones "constantly under attack," that it's not about "equality" but about "people of faith [being] driven out of this discourse...made to cower...to be in fear of speaking their minds...of living up to their deeply-held religious beliefs."

Of course, that's utterly unAmerican crap; in this country, fortunately, we are NOT a theocracy, but a democracy with the rule of law, where ALL men (and women) are created equal, and where EVERY citizen must be treated equally under the law, as spelled out in our constitution. What about any of this is difficult for bigots like Todd Gilbert to understand? Got me, but thankfully public opinion has dramatically shifted against the Gilberts of the world, and it's not going back to the dark ages anytime soon.

P.S. In addition to Del. Sickles' superb speech, check out the stirring words by Delegates Vivian Watts and Alfonso Lopez. As for Del. "Sideshow Bob" Marshall (R), I'd strongly recommend you just ignore him; it's not worth 5 minutes of your life to listen to this guy.
Posted by Lowell at 5:11 PM
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)