Hispanics disapprove of Biden, but so do a lot of other people

The New Neo Posted on by

A recent poll and breakdown (it’s hard to get the spacing right on the blog, so these may be a bit hard to read – follow the link if you want to see the original charts):

1a. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president? COMBINED WITH: (If approve/disapprove q1) Do you strongly or somewhat approve/disapprove?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve strongly 17% 2% 47% 9% 15% 19% 23% 10%
Approve smwht 18 2 32 20 16 20 22 14
Disapprove smwht 11 6 10 14 11 10 8 8
Disapprove strongly 46 88 2 48 50 43 40 62
DK/NA 8 2 8 9 8 9 6 6

– AGE IN YRS
– 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Approve strongly 4% 11% 23% 32% 12% 17% 15% 37% 10%
Approve smwht 23 21 15 13 17 17 17 27 16
Disapprove smwht 22 12 4 3 9 7 8 16 16
Disapprove strongly 39 49 52 48 56 53 54 12 43
DK/NA 12 7 6 4 6 5 6 9 15

4. If the election were today, would you want to see the Republican Party or the Democratic Party win control of the United States House of Representatives?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Republican Party 47% 93% 3% 46% 50% 43% 41% 63%
Democratic Party 42 4 93 37 37 46 54 28
DK/NA 12 3 4 16 13 11 5 10

AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Republican Party 38% 47% 55% 50% 56% 54% 55% 8% 46%
Democratic Party 41 40 39 47 34 39 37 75 34
DK/NA 20 14 7 3 10 7 8 17 21

Hipanics are still the biggest surprise with 10% strong approval of Biden, 16% approve somewhat and 16% disapprove somewhat, and 43% disapprove strongly. That’s far more disapproval than blacks and not far behind whites in disapproval (total of strongly and somewhat disapprove among whites is 62%; total of strongly and somewhat disapprove among Hispanics is 59%). However, there’s a higher “don’t know or no answer” rate among Hispanics, 15% versus 6% for whites.

Only 28% of black respondents are in the strongly or somewhat disapprove of Biden category, but that’s pretty high for a group that usually is extremely pro-Democrat. However, support for the Democratic Party among black respondents is still quite strong, at 75% vs. 8% for the Republican Party. Old habits die hard. But the “don’t know or no answer” category for that question about the parties drew 17% of the poll’s black respondents. I don’t know whether that represents doubtful searching or disinterest among that group.

Both Democrats and Republicans (93% for each) seem quite happy with their own parties – at least, in terms of wanting them to win control of the House in 2022. It’s Independents who tell the tale – perhaps – because they would prefer Republicans to Democrats 46% to 37%.

And who are those 4% of self-identified Republicans who like Biden, 2% strongly and 2% somewhat? Not even most of the pundit NeverTrumpers would go that far.

Yes, polls all most be taken with a huge grain of salt. But I do think they reflect trends, and this poll was no outlier. Of course, the results of the election will depend on what happens between now and November (or earlier for absentee voters), as well as whether significant fraud occurs.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Here’s how the Ukraine war is going these days. See also this.

(2) Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager testifies in the Sussman trial:

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified Friday that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton approved the dissemination of materials alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the media, despite campaign officials not being “totally confident” in the legitimacy of the data.

They will just say they thought it was possibly true and also newsworthy. In addition, even if they knew it was false, I’m not aware that that would constitute a crime, although it’s reprehensible.

(3) Were you wondering what’s going on right now with the Webb telescope? I was. Here’s the answer. And July should be an important month for the Webb.

(4) I guess math is hard, especially for government agencies.

(5) It seems more likely than not that Oz will be the GOP candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, although it will take some time for the results to become official. I certainly hope the GOP ends up winning this seat whoever runs. Although I have no idea what will eventually happen in November, I think that Oz will have three advantages: his Democratic opponent is way to the left in a state that is rather purple; he has Trump’s endorsement (a double-edged sword, but mostly good); and the public is generally fed up with the Democrats this year. His minuses are that conservatives find him too moderate, and this is PA and there could be cheating by Democrats in the big cities.

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue covers

The New Neo Posted on by

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue never had much to do with sports, unless sex is a sport. Which I suppose it is for some people. But it used to feature conventional models of the “beautiful face and very trim figure” type, preferably airbrushed.

I have no problem with that. Models are models, and they’re there to be eye candy and to display the clothing to advantage.

But now various woke messages have taken over – not entirely, but certainly quite often – and the current swimsuit issue features some interesting cover choices (for what I assume are copyright reasons, I’m having some trouble transferring the photos, so I’ll just link them).

First we have Elon Musk’s mom (hey, this is my second Musk post of the day) – who has been a model for much of her life and is now 74. She says:

“My first reaction was, I could never dream up something like that because why would anyone have a 74-year-old on their cover, especially in a swimsuit,” Musk joked with PEOPLE of her covergirl moment. “I do think it’s going to make women feel more comfortable in their seventies when they swim, as well as women in their twenties and thirties.”

I respectfully submit that magazine covers haven’t traditionally been designed to “make women feel more comfortable,” and if that is the point of this one I’ll have to point out that Maye Musk does not have the typical body of a 74-year-old woman. Her face – which does look fairly age-appropriate – has got those great bones, and her body doesn’t seem to have been visited all that much by gravity or by adipose tissue. To start out as a model means you start out with an advantage anyway, and I’m not knocking Maye Musk. More power to her. But her cover is not really going to make most 74-year-old women (or even 24-year-old women) feel better about themselves.

You can find all of the covers here. Two of the women, Kim Kardashian and singer Ciara (I’ve never heard of the latter before, but I don’t really have my finger on the pulse of popular culture), are more conventionally young (or youngish; Kardashian is 41, but has apparently been helped along body- and face-wise by medical science) and more conventionally pretty and fit. However, both are rather unusually callipygian, which I suppose is A Thing these days.

Which brings us to plus-size model Yumi Nu, who I suppose also fits the “POC” bill by being half-Japanese. You can find her photo at that link, too. I’ve seen outraged discussions of it around the internet, and it’s certainly true that most people don’t consider plus-size models to be eye candy – although there is a small contingent of men who find them especially attractive. This particular woman seems to have aroused additional ire by supposedly not being pretty enough in the face, but to me her face looks pretty enough, and I believe that if it had been transposed to a more conventional model’s body no one would have any special complaints about her.

I’m not a man and I’m not the target audience for all of this, but as a woman I have to say this about the swimsuits chosen for Maye Musk and for Yumi Nu: ugh, in different ways. Musk has a sleek and sophisticated vibe and her swimsuit is at variance with that instead of highlighting it. The ruffles are too sweet and girlish and the color is unflattering to her (and would be to most people). As for poor Yumi, that swimsuit does her no favors at all. It would be exceptionally difficult to wear well even for the slimmest and most model-ish of models, with all the cutouts and the boob-flattening top.

What were the people who chose these swimsuits (I assume it’s not the models themselves) thinking? I could dress those women better.

At least all of this is a respite from politics. Except that it’s not, because the choice of an older woman and a plumper woman for swimsuit covers is all about politics these days.

Elon Musk is in their sights

The New Neo Posted on by

Elon Musk is now a threat rather than a Green hero. He thinks for himself and has a lot of money, and is attempting to gain more power over leftist instrument Twitter and end its bias. Therefore he is now a target of the left.

Here’s Glenn Reynolds’ take on it:

After Twitter censorship reached the point of ridiculousness, he responded by setting out to buy it. Now as a result of that effort, it turns out that Twitter is, well, kind of a sham. About half of President Biden’s followers turn out to be fake. (So do nearly a quarter of Musk’s.) Much of America’s journalistic and political agenda appears to be directed by bots.

And fools. Powerful ones, with an agenda – and I’m not talking about Musk.

The next step, of course, is the time-honored one of accusing Musk of sexual harassment (they’ve already done racism, because he was born in South Africa, although he was only seventeen when he left). They’ll investigate and investigate and investigate, and they’ll also accuse and accuse, working under Beria’s old mantra, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

For example:

Business Insider, a far-left rag, published a thinly sourced hit piece accusing Musk of exposing himself to and propositioning a flight attendant. According to the report, she was paid a $250,000 severance after filing a complaint with SpaceX…

As per usual with these types of media-led accusations, the documents in question are not shared in the story. The actual source is a single, anonymous “friend” of the woman who was supposedly paid off over the alleged incident. That makes it impossible to ascertain the veracity of the report. Are there missing details? What do the documents actually say? Was the account disputed or admitted to by Musk? What evidence was provided that the encounter happened as described in the story?

The allegations are six years old and were apparently kept under wraps by an NDA until this point.

Well, they weren’t considered useful or helpful till this point.

Now a university in England has rejected the sonnet as too white and Western

The New Neo Posted on by

First they came for the statues. Now they’ve come for the sonnets:

The University of Salford, a public university in Greater Manchester, England, removed sonnets and other “pre-established literary forms” from a creative writing course assessment, The Telegraph reported.

…A University of Salford slideshow shared with staff stated that teachers have “simplified the assessment offering choice to write thematically rather than to fit into pre-established literary forms…which tend to the products of white western culture,” according to documents cited by The Telegraph.

The slideshow affirmed the change as an example of best practice in “decolonising the curriculum.”

So here’s my offering:

My grief is deep, as deep as oceans vast
But virtue has its own reward, and so
I’ll give up sonnet-writing, and the past
Can sink beneath the waves of gloom so low.
Old Shakespeare, with his bootless bootless cries
No doubt was white and certainly supreme
Let’s stamp him out, and “colonization” dies.
We’ll show fidelity to the new meme.
Oh Wordsworth, even more forlorn are we.
Bereft of your old counsel, now we stand
On a much less wise and quite unpleasant lea
Without the comfort of tradition’s hand.
The poems they write today are stupid shite
And sonnets are too challenging to write.

In researching this post, I came across this sonnet by Wordsworth. I’d never seen it before:

Scorn not the Sonnet; Critic, you have frowned,
Mindless of its just honours; with this key
Shakespeare unlocked his heart; the melody
Of this small lute gave ease to Petrarch’s wound;
A thousand times this pipe did Tasso sound;
With it Camöens soothed an exile’s grief;
The Sonnet glittered a gay myrtle leaf
Amid the cypress with which Dante crowned
His visionary brow: a glow-worm lamp,
It cheered mild Spenser, called from Faery-land
To struggle through dark ways; and, when a damp
Fell round the path of Milton, in his hand
The Thing became a trumpet; whence he blew
Soul-animating strains—alas, too few!

[NOTE: I’ve written posts about the sonnet before. I recommend this one.]

If the Palestinians say it, they print it

The New Neo Posted on by

Who is “they”? Why the MSM, of course. For as long as I’ve been blogging (and before), this has been the way it’s been.

The latest involves the death of an Al Jazeera journalist:

McKernan then uncritically repeats Al Jazeera’s unsubstantiated allegation that Israel “deliberately killed” the journalist, whilst omitting that the outlet is well known as a “mouthpiece for the Qatari monarchy” and a “purveyor of Islamist extremism” whose claims can’t be accepted at face value. A couple paragraphs down, McKernan uncritically quotes a ‘journalist’ from Al-Quds Network suggesting that the killing was an Israeli “assassination”, without reminding readers that Al-Quds is associated with Hamas.

Later, McKernan writes that Israel’s foreign minister, Yair Lapid, said Israel had “offered the Palestinians a joint pathological investigation”, but fails to note that Palestinians reportedly rejected the offer…

Further, today Palestinian officials made it clear that they wouldn’t be handing over the bullet that killed Abu Akleh, the key piece of evidence that could have shown who killed her.

McKernan then attempts to frame Abu Akleh’s killing in the context of what she suggests is an Israeli pattern of targeting journalists…

That the Guardian, a leftist newspaper. But there’s also the AP:

CAMERA’s Israel office yesterday prompted correction of Associated Press captions which stated as fact the unverified claim that Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh “was shot dead by Israeli forces.” There is no substantiation of this allegation, with the Palestinian side having blocked the necessary ballistic analysis to match the fired bullet to the weapons used by the Israeli troops.

The captions were corrected, but only at CAMERA’s urging. This sort of thing has been going on for many many decades, despite CAMERA’s dogged work fighting it. In this manner, the press has done remarkable damage to the truth, to Israel, and to the world. To continue to report Palestinian propaganda without plenty of caveats is to continue to be complicit.

About the possibility of moving to Substack

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter Tom Grey has a suggestion for me: that I move to Substack. It’s not the first time someone has made that suggestion, either.

A week or so ago I went to Substack and began to read up on what it might involve – accent on the word “began.” There’s a massive amount of information there and elsewhere attempting to explain the process and the pros and cons, and I find it’s a lot to digest. I’ve been writing a blog for over seventeen years (!) now, first on Blogger and then on WordPress, and I know the ropes here. I’m not a big one for change, being rather a creature of habit – although if a change really has advantages I’ll do it.

The problem is figuring out whether it really does have advantages for me. Would it increase traffic in any substantial way? Should I offer some posts that are only available to paid subscribers? Would I have to move my old content over there? Would I really get more readers, or would I have to enter the social media fray as well to do that? And after all, I earn some money here, and perhaps I should just step up my pleas for donations if I want to earn more.

Would such a move affect the ability of commenters to post long responses? Would I still be able to post little snippets of posts – such as the popular Open Threads, for example – although I guess I could keep the blog as well and post that sort of thing here. But would the different platforms be confusing for readers?

It’s a bit like the idea of writing a book, which I’ve had for some time. Or even compiling a book from old posts. I freely admit to a combination of laziness and exhaustion. I like to follow the events of the day, add some bigger picture posts, respond to comments, and then go about my other “real life” business. To add a book to that seems to be an easy thing to postpone. It’s a funny thing to accuse myself of laziness when I already write six days a week and spend many many hours at it, so maybe “laziness” isn’t quite the right word. Maybe it’s “inertia.”

So, what do you think? I won’t necessarily do what the majority decrees, but I’m interested in your opinions.

At the moment I only go to Substack if I see an interesting link to something there, or to check the offerings of Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald. But I never just browse there – do you? Do you discover new writers there regularly?

The GOP gets a break in the New York redistricting fight

The New Neo Posted on by

Democrats in New York are outraged because their efforts to gerrymander themselves between three and four extra Democratic seats in the House of Representatives have backfired. But back in 2014, NY state had actually amended the NY state constitution and banned partisan gerrymandering:

New Yorkers recognized these harms and, in 2014, voted to enshrine in the New York Constitution an explicit prohibition against partisan gerrymandering, which banned maps drawn, “for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.”…

When the U.S. Supreme Court recklessly declared that federal courts could not address cases about partisan gerrymandering, state-level efforts to outlaw partisan gerrymandering became more important than ever.

I’m not sure how that amendment came about, although I’ve researched it a bit. I would imagine there’s quite a story there, though, because the Democrats have controlled NY state for a long time and I don’t know why they would relinquish their ability to gerrymander. Here’s a little bit about the history:

In 2014, voters in New York State voted yes on Proposition 1, a constitutional amendment to implement historic changes with the intent to achieve a fair and readily transparent process by which to redraw the lines of state legislative and congressional districts. The redistricting process occurs every ten years, informed by data obtained by the Census. The goals of this proposal were to reform the redistricting process to introduce greater independence, and guarantee the application of substantive criteria that protect minority voting rights, communities of interest, and rational line-drawing…

One of these important reforms was the creation of the Independent Redistricting Commission. The purpose of creating the Commission is to make the process independent from the legislature in favor of an equally bipartisan body. For the first time, both the majority and minority parties in the legislature will have an equal role in the process of drawing lines.

At any rate, recent developments have led to the following

But all the braggadocio was for naught when a New York State trial judge, then Appellate Division panel, then the Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) threw out the Democrat maps as an unconstitutional political gerrymander. The Court of Appeals confirmed the trial judge’s decision to appoint a Special Master to propose a map. The Special Master has circulated his preliminary map, and like a tiger caught by the toe, Democrats are hollering.

The new map – which hasn’t been finalized yet as the law of the land – has these possible consequences:

The proposed maps, drawn by Jonathan R. Cervas, the court-appointed special master, would unwind changes that Democrats had hoped to use to unseat Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Staten Island Republican; flip other Republican-held swing districts; and secure their own tenuous seats in the Hudson Valley region.

The new lines even cast the future of several long-tenured, powerful Democratic incumbents in doubt, forcing several to potentially run against one another.

Did the Democrats think that the judiciary would side with them despite the 2014 amendment? Probably. But apparently they thought wrong.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) In yesterday’s primaries on the GOP side, we had the defeat of NC member of Congress Madison Cawthorn. I hadn’t been following his trajectory closely, but let’s just say he had major issues. The link provides further details. Because the district he is coming from is red, his ouster probably won’t affect the House balance of power.

(2) Speaking of yesterday’s primaries, the fight between GOP Senate candidates Mehmet Oz and David McCormick in Pennsylvania is too close to call. This was the contest in which celebrity Oz was backed by Trump, angering a lot of people on the right who don’t trust Oz and who prefer McCormick. The race is so close that a mandatory recount may be triggered. Whoever wins, I hope he’s strong enough to beat the very “progressive” Democrat John Fetterman, who’s got his own problems of the health variety.

(3) The new official “disinformation” board is no more. Pity. Boy, that must have polled poorly. Then again, media and social media have been serving the same twisted function for quite some time.

(4) The US is in the hypersonic weapons game.

(5) To ask this question is to answer it: “The alleged supermarket killer is self-described as authoritarian left — so why isn’t this being reported?”