Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[lilpixieofterror]

Again - I know of no "wave" phenomenon that is measured against the mean. If you can think of one, I'm all ears...

Elections have numbers and it isn’t too difficult to look at the numbers and see who won, what party they were, and if the election is above or below historic averages. While you’re playing your usual games, it isn’t difficult to figure out what the meaning of ‘blue wave’ is. The talking heads were trying to turn the election to a ‘resist Trump’ sort of election where massive democrat victories was to send a sign to Trump he was next in 2020. The ‘making waves’ idiom comes to mind here. So was the status que majorly disturbed or did we see a pretty typical midterm election?

[Sparko]

come on guys! Let JimL bask in thinking a blue tsunami washed over the country. What's the harm? Don't ruin his delusion. He probably subscribes to the https://www.hillarybeattrump.org/ website anyway.

[carpedm9587]

Elections have numbers and it isn’t too difficult to look at the numbers and see who won, what party they were, and if the election is above or below historic averages. While you’re playing your usual games, it isn’t difficult to figure out what the meaning of ‘blue wave’ is. The talking heads were trying to turn the election to a ‘resist Trump’ sort of election where massive democrat victories was to send a sign to Trump he was next in 2020. The ‘making waves’ idiom comes to mind here. So was the status que majorly disturbed or did we see a pretty typical midterm election?

We saw an midterm election with massive turnout (close to record setting), and a significant swing to the left across the board. Some were slightly above average, some slightly below, some significantly above. And we saw all of that in the face of the significant gerrymandering of Operation Red Map. All in all, what we had was a modest blue wave - less than hoped for, more than average, with some significant specific shifts that bode very well for 2020 (e.g., the three states that Trump won by less than 100,000 votes to put him over the electoral top in 2016 all elected Democratic governors, lieutenant governors, and U.S. senators). And both Colorado and Arizona has shifted significantly to the left as well. Trump could win every state he won in 2016, but without these states he doesn't have a prayer.

[lilpixieofterror]

We saw an midterm election with massive turnout (close to record setting), and a significant swing to the left across the board. Some were slightly above average, some slightly below, some significantly above. And we saw all of that in the face of the significant gerrymandering of Operation Red Map. All in all, what we had was a modest blue wave - less than hoped for, more than average, with some significant specific shifts that bode very well for 2020 (e.g., the three states that Trump won by less than 100,000 votes to put him over the electoral top in 2016 all elected Democratic governors, lieutenant governors, and U.S. senators). And both Colorado and Arizona has shifted significantly to the left as well. Trump could win every state he won in 2016, but without these states he doesn't have a prayer.

As Rogue has pointed out, it was around the average and electing a democrat doesn’t mean they will vote for a democrat president. I voted for a democrat governor, does that therefore mean I’ll vote for a democrat president in 2020? Likewise, the Democrats barely won in Arizona and the Republican competition wasn’t really a major Trump supporter anyway.

[carpedm9587]

As Rogue has pointed out, it was around the average and electing a democrat doesn’t mean they will vote for a democrat president. I voted for a democrat governor, does that therefore mean I’ll vote for a democrat president in 2020? Likewise, the Democrats barely won in Arizona and the Republican competition wasn’t really a major Trump supporter anyway.

I don't believe I said "necessarily" anywhere. I said the signs were encouraging. There is clearly a shift to the left in three states that (barely) gave Trump the election in 2016. So the signs are encouraging - especially when you also factor in the state house/senate shifts.

As for Rogue's numbers, I think I have noted several times, and used data as well, that the shift in the house was slightly or moderately above averages - depending on which numbers you were using. Coupled with all of the other shifts (governors, lt. governors, state senates, state AGs, state houses, etc.), the wave was at or slightly above what polls were predicting before the election. They were not to the level of the "hype" from some on the left.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't believe I said "necessarily" anywhere. I said the signs were encouraging. There is clearly a shift to the left in three states that (barely) gave Trump the election in 2016. So the signs are encouraging - especially when you also factor in the state house/senate shifts.

As for Rogue's numbers, I think I have noted several times, and used data as well, that the shift in the house was slightly or moderately above averages - depending on which numbers you were using. Coupled with all of the other shifts (governors, lt. governors, state senates, state AGs, state houses, etc.), the wave was at or slightly above what polls were predicting before the election. They were not to the level of the "hype" from some on the left.

And again, just because a Democrat wins in a governor election doesn’t mean a democrat will win the presidency in 2020. A Democrat won in Kansas and Arizona, does this mean the 2020 democrat presidential candidate will win these two states in 2020?

[Mountain Man]

It's over. The White House has agreed to reinstate Acosta's press pass, CNN has agreed to drop the lawsuit.

Buuuuut.... (you knew there was a "but", didn't you?)

"The White House reserves the right to revoke Acosta’s pass if he violates White House decorum in the future."

In other words, Acosta is going to find himself out on his butt again if he's not the most well-behaved journalist in Washington DC. Remember, Jim, only one question, and no interruptions or follow-ups! You're not there to debate the President.

[carpedm9587]

And again, just because a Democrat wins in a governor election doesn’t mean a democrat will win the presidency in 2020.

I didn't say it did. I said the signs are "hopeful."

A Democrat won in Kansas and Arizona, does this mean the 2020 democrat presidential candidate will win these two states in 2020?

At no point have I ever said "will." I said the signs are positive and encouraging. Arizona I think is more likely than Kansas - but it all depends on the candidates.


You seem to be adding a lot more "certainty" to my posts than I am putting there...

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't say it did. I said the signs are "hopeful."



At no point have I ever said "will." I said the signs are positive and encouraging. Arizona I think is more likely than Kansas - but it all depends on the candidates.


You seem to be adding a lot more "certainty" to my posts than I am putting there...

And you seem to be ‘hopeful’ based upon unproved assumptions. You seem to not also address the elephant in the room. Democrats and Republicans seem to be in a bit of a battle with each other about the direction of their respective parties.

[carpedm9587]

And you seem to be ‘hopeful’ based upon unproved assumptions.

I'm hopeful because there is a significant shift to the left. I am hopeful because Trump is losing ground in key states. I am hopeful because the data is showing that people's lives in the "Trump" areas are actually NOT improving overall, so there is hope they will see this by 2020. And I am hopeful because, in general, elections tend to swing collectively in the same direction. So the shift of governorships and other state positions to the left suggests there is a stronger move towards voting to the left. We see that dynamic in most elections. Red states tend to vote red - blue states tend to vote blue, and swing states tend to head in one direction or the other collectively.

You seem to not also address the elephant in the room. Democrats and Republicans seem to be in a bit of a battle with each other about the direction of their respective parties.

Not only with each other (which has always been true) but also internally. I have no idea how that is an "elephant in the room" nor how it in anyway alters anything I've said. The signs right now are hopeful. The signs since 2016 were good for a Democrat resurgence in 2018, and it happened. The signs now are good for continued resurgence in 2020.

[NorrinRadd]

It's over. The White House has agreed to reinstate Acosta's press pass, CNN has agreed to drop the lawsuit.

Buuuuut.... (you knew there was a "but", didn't you?)

"The White House reserves the right to revoke Acosta’s pass if he violates White House decorum in the future."

In other words, Acosta is going to find himself out on his butt again if he's not the most well-behaved journalist in Washington DC. Remember, Jim, only one question, and no interruptions or follow-ups! You're not there to debate the President.

I like the fact that they've put in place rules so as to satisfy the "due process" requirement.

I'd prefer that offenders be "escorted" to a 6'x6' room with a bucket in the corner and kept there for 12 hours.

[Tassman]

In other words, Acosta is going to find himself out on his butt again if he's not the most well-behaved journalist in Washington DC. Remember, Jim, only one question, and no interruptions or follow-ups! You're not there to debate the President.

Acosta is NOT going to find himself out on his butt again, the WH has realised it went too far. The Acosta and CNN's legal battle with Trump was part of a fight about the First Amendment as the court recognized. But this will not be the last time that Trump attempts to exert significant control over the press, albeit not to the extent of the Acosta debacle. Trump resists being questioned and having to account for his decisions...this is a major concern in a democratic nation like the USA. This is what one expects from a dictatorship

[Mountain Man]

The Acosta and CNN's legal battle with Trump was part of a fight about the First Amendment as the court recognized.

That's the exact opposite of what the judge said, you ignoramus.

" U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly ... made clear that the ruling was not based on whether the White House violated Acosta’s First Amendment rights. "
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...pass-restored/

The sticking point was about due process, and now that the White House has drafted rules of decorum, Acosta will be forced to keep his nose clean. If the President ever calls on him again, he'll get one question, no follow-ups unless allowed by the President, and interrupting other reporters and hogging the mic is explicitly forbidden.

"Failure to abide by any of [the] rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...use-reporters/

That's your due process right there, so, yes, Acosta had better behave himself or he'll be out on his butt again.

You still think CNN won?

[Roy]

Again - I know of no "wave" phenomenon that is measured against the mean. If you can think of one, I'm all ears...

Amplitude? Though that's not measured against the mean you mean.

[Cow Poke]

That's the exact opposite of what the judge said, you ignoramus.

" U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly ... made clear that the ruling was not based on whether the White House violated Acosta’s First Amendment rights. "
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...pass-restored/

The sticking point was about due process, and now that the White House has drafted rules of decorum, Acosta will be forced to keep his nose clean. If the President ever calls on him again, he'll get one question, no follow-ups unless allowed by the President, and interrupting other reporters and hogging the mic is explicitly forbidden.

"Failure to abide by any of [the] rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...use-reporters/

That's your due process right there, so, yes, Acosta had better behave himself or he'll be out on his butt again.

You still think CNN won?

Here's a pretty good assessment of the situation...

Acosta decision could make it easier for White House to kick reporters out


The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly in Cable News Network v. Donald J. Trump ordering the White House to restore the press pass of reporter Jim Acosta has been hailed as a victory not only for CNN but for the entire press and the cause of journalism. But the end result of Kelly's ruling, and of the CNN lawsuit, might not be happy for reporters and the news organizations that employ them.

The transcript of the Nov. 16 court session in which Kelly delivered his oral ruling was released in group of court papers on Monday. Kelly declared that the White House could not eject Acosta without first providing him due process — specifically, notice of the revocation of his press pass, a chance for Acosta to respond, and a written decision.

In short, the judge said to the White House: You can't throw out a reporter without going through a process. But if you go through a process — which you, the White House, can design — then you can throw the reporter out. In the end, it could be that Kelly's ruling will make it easier for the White House to oust reporters in the future — and to make the decision stick.

Throughout the court session, Kelly referred to the only real precedent in the Acosta matter, a 1977 case from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called Sherrill v. Knight. In that case, the court ruled that the White House — specifically the Secret Service — could not deny a press pass to a "bona fide journalist" without due process. The court defined due process as "procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial, [and] the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence, and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass."

In court, Kelly told lawyers for CNN and the government that he would use Sherrill as a guide in the Acosta matter. In his view, the due process arrangement outlined in Sherrill should apply to the Trump White House's treatment of Acosta or any other White House reporter. "The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons, and a written decision," Kelly said.

The judge's clear implication was that if the White House takes those actions, if it jumps through those hoops in the future, it can expel a reporter without raising due process concerns.

The whole case was not about first amendment rights, but about due process -- and Trump gets to establish the process.